TM Connect


Use "My TM" for log in & register.

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Tag Archives | Sean Hannity

And Republicans Wonder Why Turnout is Down

By on 06 February 2012

This cannot end well for him, particularly doing this claiming to be a Christian. And it might not end well for the rest of us either. Barack Obama has gone to war with Christians’ consciences and he is perverting God’s word in the process to get his way on public policy. – The Perversion of the Words of Our Lord Jesus Christ by the Sinner Barack H. Obama, by Erick Erickson

Erick Erickson reveals one of the fundamental problems with Republicanism today. It’s not conservative at all anymore.

In a rambling, self-importantly arrogant post, Erickson pontificates on what he thinks he knows about being a Christian through a literal analysis of the Bible. Then he stands in judgment over Pres. Obama.

The self-righteous never see irony coming.

There is nothing Christian in Erickson’s harangue against Pres. Obama. There is also nothing conservative about it.

Conservatism has a measure of grounding when you listen to analysis of it from people who don’t wrap their religion through their conservative ideology.

A religious conservative can be against abortion. But an ideological conservative, while being against abortion and not wanting to fund it, cannot simultaneously take a person’s liberty away by forcing pregnancy on a woman when natural law protects her right to personal autonomy.

The very notion of conservatism is rooted in personal liberty. Whether religious conservatives like it or not, to be true to conservatism, they must honor that liberty. Today, they do not.

Any conservative with intellectual or political integrity would understand that conservatism of any depth must be rooted in the fundamental idea that interrupting the freedoms of any person through the intrusion of government, whether federal or state, is abridging a person’s autonomy in a manner that is the anti-thesis of conservatism.

Religious conservatism or fundamentalist-based Republicanism is actually a self-righteous marketing attempt to make people like Erickson and his ilk think they are on higher ground and have the ultimate interpretation of right and wrong. You hear it through Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and the rest of the self-righteous radio crowd.

It’s the blatant hypocrisy to claim to be a conservative, but think religious dogma should hold more sway than an individual who’s privacy and personal freedoms are innate to being a person in the first place.

Conservatism without religion can make sense.

Add religion, however, and conservatism becomes authoritarian in nature, relegating women to non-persons, second class citizens and slaves, because the state or federal government, through religious dictates, is now in charge.

Conservatism’s very nature is about doing less, leaving the individual alone to prosper and live without interference, which certainly should include women.

However, since Ronald Reagan invited the “Moral Majority,” which was neither moral or a majority then or now as it exists in other forms, conservatism was bastardized into something that now includes a campaign to take over the domain of a woman’s very body through means of the state or federal government.

Erick Erickson sees no problem with this, because he’s a religious conservative, not a conservative.

You can be religious and you can be a conservative, but once you put the two together in an ideological philosophy you lose the moorings of anything that has integral grounding in what conservatism actually means.

Not even Ron Paul passes this test as a Libertarian. He’s said before that he’s against abortion, because it’s violent, which is perfectly acceptable, but that he’d allow the states to decide the law governing abortions. This fails the basic autonomy test and the very notion of liberty that’s in Libertarianism, which he proved in an interview with Piers Morgan.

The biggest impediment to curtailing abortions is the refusal of religious conservatives and fundamentalist Republicans to accept the primary component to being a person, which is the body that houses the soul, assuming it exists, is something over which no other, certainly no politician, clergy or the state, has control.

This is about personal autonomy and living freely without any dependencies, the first component of personhood. It’s not abortion, but includes it, because religious fundamentalists are using political means to wage a war against the very notion of women’s individual freedom.

If people believing in true liberty don’t start taking religious conservatives on, whatever party they are in, over their fundamentalism, women’s autonomy won’t be sacrosanct one day.

This includes taking on people like Pres. Obama when he decides that a safe pharmaceutical like Plan B can be used as a stick to the contraceptive carrot that came afterward, because women’s individual freedoms remain a bargaining chip for politicians and their supporters.

The ultimate example of this was seen through the Susan G. Komen fiasco this past week, when Komen decided to make ideology more important than the health of women, especially poor women, who have been a political football since the Hyde Amendment. Yes, Pres. Obama used poor women as a football too, and he did it through the religious conservative playbook that created Hyde in the first place.

This column has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 34 }

Gingrich Soars on Wings of Obama Fluffing Media*

By on 20 January 2012

*See note below

“The liberal media,” she added, “and some of that GOP holier-than-thou machine overplayed their hand this time. … I call them ‘dumb arses,’” she said. … “Their target in this case, Newt,” Palin added, “is now going to soar even more because we know the game now and we just won’t put up with it. – Daily Caller

The headline I offer above won’t be used by the insider press, because they’re not that honest or blunt. However, the Obama fluffing media is the foundation for what may manifest on Saturday, which is a Newt Gingrich win in South Carolina. Politico represents the kinder, gentler argument:

By twice castigating one of the right’s perennial boogeymen — the press — Gingrich made a gut-level connection with conservatives who think they get a raw deal from the news media. – Politico

Sarah Palin whipping up anti-establishment conservatives is a perfect play when the American media is woven into the narrative. It comes at a time in an election year that is already shaping up to be advantage Pres. Obama in the media, though not for the same reasons as it was in 2008, which is proven in my book The Hillary Effect.

But Palin calling Brian Ross part of the liberal media reveals she’s just not all that astute as an analyst, nor is her audience; though details and facts aren’t the point. Ross was part of the ABC crew who trumpeted Monica Lewinsky and the blue dress, complete with composite picture that included candidate Hillary, when Clinton’s campaign released the documents of when she was first lady. All Ross and ABC wanted was coverage, which they got, as they did yesterday with Marianne Gingrich.

John King had to ask the question, though you can disagree it had to come at the top of the debate, however, making King the subject is a distraction. It’s not for the right and conservatives. So Gingrich teeing off on King, who did not flinch, with a bank shot to the entire media, is not only what Newt does, but taps into the foundation of anger that’s been festering among the Republican based since 2008. As you saw in the hall, it’s a winner, but for a good reason.

That’s because in 2008 conservatives and Republicans watched candidate Obama get glowing press and very little of the scrutiny, with their anticipation it will happen again justified. On Morning Joe, Ms. Brzezinski plays the role of spokeswoman for the White House, though that’s nothing compared to what we’ll see on Fox News Channel once a nominee is selected by the GOP. However, if past is prologue, Fox’s partisanship will not be repeated elsewhere.

Even Joe Scarborough talked about conservatives being sick of being “marginalized.” It’s not a ludicrous statement when you consider Fox News Channel’s prowess, but also Scarborough’s own network, which rarely offers criticism of Pres. Obama, even when earned.

You can see that policy best represented by Chris Matthews calling Andrew Sullivan a “genius” for writing his Newsweek piece this week, calling Obama’s critics “dumb.” It’s echoed by Ed Schultz and all the way through primetime. It doesn’t bother Matthews or his bosses that Sullivan has been disgraced through his harangues against Sarah Palin, his ridiculous intelligence and race ramblings, both of which have the virtue of being totally fact free.

In a year when Republicans are serving up no one who can beat Pres. Obama, conservatives are standing up to say they at least want someone to state their case and communicate to America that they’re mad as hell at the media playing defense for Pres. Obama. The target of that ire is not only Barack Obama, but a media who fell in love with this brilliant political athlete who naively believed he alone could change the American world of politics and suckered the entire American media, minus yours truly and a few others, that he could make it happen.

It’s not entirely Pres. Obama’s fault to believe this nonsense since he came into Washington with the American press at his feet.

TM NOTE: The title of this piece was chosen to make a point. That the media choosing sides ends up impacting our politics in a way that benefits no one, especially when it elevates the likes of Newt Gingrich. As we begin another election cycle, it’s important to stress what happened previously, because as we saw last night, the pro Obama media bias from 2008 is very fresh in the minds of conservatives.

Read full story · Comments { 48 }

Romney is the Republican Party’s Own Creation

By on 11 January 2012

Many conservative activists, while not especially enthusiastic about Romney or his establishment backers, are appalled by the odd turn of campaign rhetoric in the closing days of New Hampshire, with Newt Gingrich and Jon Huntsman taking aim at Romney’s record running the private equity firm Bain Capital. These people, who include radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, are apoplectic that anti-Romney Republicans are making common cause with anti-business Democrats. – Mitt Romney vs. the dead-enders


Watching Sean Hannity last night when Rick Perry stated that venture capitalism was good, but “vulture capitalism” was something else entirely, was a moment I will never forget.

It was followed up Frank Luntz saying they all will remember this moment, this week nine months from now, because this was when it all went wrong.

There are other possibilities.

Perhaps the over $7 million dollars, Karl Rove’s figures, of ads ready to air in South Carolina, will help one of the other candidates wrestle the nomination from Mitt Romney’s grip. Maybe the notion that no Republican has won both Iowa and New Hampshire then gone on to win the nomination will sustain them as an omen that Romney can’t possibly be the first.

Perhaps the faith leaders meeting before South Carolina will come up with a consensus candidate, with the news it’s not Newt inspiring him to get behind Rick Santorum.

Movement conservatives are flailing. Michelle Malkin had this to say about Romney sitting next to John McCain: “When they’re together, they look like they’re holding each other (and the rest of us) hostage.”

Erick Erickson isn’t quite sure what to do, with Dana Loesch sounding similarly confused.

All Sean Hannity could do was sputter when Rick Perry started channeling Democratic talking points against Romney. It doesn’t help that Perry and even Gingrich’s message on Romney where Bain is concerned is running head on into the House Republicans’ dogma.

However, there is another possibility, however outlandish to posit. Perhaps all this gnashing of conservative principles in the open and ugly hashing out between the candidates and conservative activists will end up inoculating Mitt Romney, because his story will be reeled out and talked to death so that by the time Democrats rev it up to full ugliness in the fall everyone will not only be numb to it, but turned off because they’ve heard it all before.

Looking at Mitt Romney last night and hearing his perfectly canned and immaculately intoned speech, I don’t get the sense he is someone who is going to be defeated, certainly not by the current crowd of lackluster conservative performers.

As much as I disagree with their entire philosophy, there is also something that seems very healthy about what we’re watching. No one is holding back, as the most robotic candidate and perfectly cast person for the role of Republican nominee just keeps on winning and attracting begrudging supporters, which has stopped no one from escalating the rhetoric. In fact, the more Romney looks like the nominee the more shrill conservatives get.

We have never witnessed from Republicans such an open airing of discontent, though the Tea Party rise before 2010 foreshadowed something was coming when the GOP establishment was fully engaged in picking a presidential nominee.

There is an element of dynamic creative destruction going on, the political edition, as right wing conservatives start attacking venture capitalism and trumpeting some middle way with workers in mind, a weirdly born notion of conservative populism, while the fat cats take their comeuppance and are forced to digest that the days of how they rose won’t cut it with conservative activists and it’s time to shift, though no one is sure where this is all leading.

Republicans are going through their own Occupy moment and it’s from within.

Ron Paul is a part of all this too, but at the center of the combustion is Willard Mitt Romney, the man who is the epitome of everything representing Republicanism and the embodiment of what Rush Limbaugh has been telling his listeners for over 20 years they could have and be too if only they vote Republican.

Republicans have created this vulture capitalist monster, Mitt Romney, a part of the sickness deep within our economy, and they either make peace with him in order to win or churn this conflict through to a conclusion that just might bring about a transformative moment. A moment that began percolating when Ron Paul and the Tea Party started to gain traction during the Bush-Cheney administration and ended up turning state houses over to the right in record numbers in 2010.

Now that money as speech has been unleashed against Newt through the Citizens United decision, the possibility of a new Republican 21st century reformer against “crony capitalism” and hidden money has the possibility of rising, though it’s unlikely to be today.

Ron Paul certainly sees that, which is why he likely won’t choose to leave the Republican Party and will bequeath what he’s begun to his son, now in the Senate, because not even he is convinced the revolution he wants to lead can succeed now. Or maybe not?

It’s been a crazy circus, with mediocre candidates and acting out on all levels for Republicans for months, a year before it has begun to wind down and resolve. However, the audiences for the debates have been large, while the country watches politics as a modern soap opera, the most addictive form of entertainment to ever come out of Hollywood.

Meanwhile, on the Democratic side there is lethargy, deep discontent and uncertainty about what the party even stands for anymore. There is none of the open, honest and potentially renovating energy we’re seeing on the Republican side.

I’m not sure crazy and mediocre equals vibrant, so there’s a long way to go for Republicans, but it has been an open process, the polar opposite of what we’ve seen from Democrats who are obviously afraid to challenge what’s been put in place, revealing an undeserved reverence for power that seems quaint.

The status quo, which is seen in Barack Obama as Romney’s bookend, is not going to cut it it for much longer. At least conservatives are attacking their establishment, while Democrats continue to be largely satisfied with the corporate and Wall Street status quo machine. This might hold them together long enough to reelect Barack Obama, which could finally bring about what needs to happen on the left. A come to Jesus moment about the fights that need to be made so that the party that F.D.R. and L.B.J. helped build in the hearts and minds of Americans doesn’t go up in a puff of personality.

Unlike on the Democratic side, where the same old canned political rah-rah will rise up, just like the establishment is doing on the Republican side for Romney, there is something strangely alive and even exciting happening inside the conservative movement. Even with the mixture of amateurs, crackpots and committed “dead-enders,” the transparency of the fight for ideas is laudable, even if you disagree with what they’re saying and proposing for this country, which I do, while on the Democratic side it looks dry and dead and resigned.

The best thing that could happen to conservatism is Romney winning the nomination but losing to Obama.

If Pres. Obama does win reelection, still likely, I’m not sure the Democratic Party will survive as it has been conceived, because no one will be able to say what it actually means to be a Democrat because Barack Obama doesn’t seem to know himself. The best thing for progressivism could be for Obama to lose, the bookend to Romney not prevailing. Then perhaps Democratic activists can say he lost because the establishment lost their way on policy by allowing someone to rise up and lead them who didn’t make the case or the fight for Democratic ideas, preferring conservatism and compromise as the guide, which is why so many people are leaving the Democratic Party.

I guess what I’m ultimately saying is that the winner of the November elections could really end up being the long-term loser on principle, because the activists in whatever party that wins will have to start all over again, mounting a challenge to the establishment of their party in order to represent anything worth following in an era where Americans don’t trust Republicans or Democrats anymore.

A political renaissance is at hand and November won’t bring the end of anything or a final win for either lumbering, aging and stifling political party. They’ve both lost the privilege of having our loyalty and nothing can change that fact right now.

Read full story · Comments { 28 }

Desperation Inside the 99%

By on 07 December 2011

A woman in the border city of Laredo, Texas who was angry because she had been denied food stamps killed herself and shot and critically wounded her two children late on Monday, authorities said on Tuesday. – Reuters

Yesterday on Sean Hannity’s radio show, he made a startling statement about the poor that revealed the right wing’s economic philosophy today: Even the poor live well in America. Hannity went on from there to talk about the poor having microwaves, air conditioning and on and on. Few people are more clueless.

It’s why I offer Newt Gingrich’s rip off of Reagan’s “Morning in America” campaign ad, which is the perfect example of the right’s disconnect with the 99%.

It is a rare day when Al Sharpton emerges as the voice of sagacity, but when Newt Gingrich has the microphone, all things are possible. – Kathleen Parker

I sure did call Pres. Obama’s speech yesterday, but at least he gives great lip service to what’s going on with the 99%.

If Pres. Obama’s leadership resembled his speech in Osawatomie, Kansas in any way at all he wouldn’t be at 41% approval in the polls.

The anger and desperation some people inside the 99% feel today has been witnessed in Occupy Wall Street in many cities. People not in this position often do not understand or even empathize with people’s deep frustration today, which can lead to desperate acts.

It’s part of the divide in this country and why many Americans looking at Democrats and Republicans don’t feel compelled to support either, but also are not enthused about 2012. People are asking, Does it really matter to Americans who is elected from the big two parties?

Both big parties have proven they don’t understand what’s going on outside their own entitled, corporate and Wall Street backed bubbles. It makes people even more desperate in the current economic times.

This post has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

Pelosi’s People Scramble on Gingrich ‘early Christmas gift’

By on 06 December 2011

“I want to thank Speaker Pelosi for what I regard an early Christmas gift,” Gingrich told reporters. “If she is suggesting that she is going to use material that she developed while she was on the ethics committee, then that is a fundamental violation of the rules of the House and I hope that members would immediately file charges against her the second she does it.” – ABC News

Checking in on Sean Hannity’s radio show yesterday, which I do only when absolutely necessary, because he’s no Rush Limbaugh, the glee over Pelosi’s “thousand pages of the stuff” comments was palpable.

Brian Beutler had reported a story quoting Rep. Nancy Pelosi who was teasing that she was holding the goods on Newt Gingrich until “the time is right.” It went like this:

Pelosi didn’t go into detail about Gingrich’s past transgressions, but she tipped her hand. “One of these days we’ll have a conversation about Newt Gingrich,” Pelosi said. “I know a lot about him. I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff.”

Pressed for more detail she wouldn’t go further.

“Not right here,” Pelosi joked. “When the time’s right.”

Which is to say that if Gingrich somehow clinches the nomination, there’s one hell of an oppo dump coming.

Mrs. Pelosi is smart enough to know that if she talks about serving on the investigative committee that looked into Newt Gingrich that she was teasing of dropping a dime on him.

Now ABC News has clarifying comments from Pelosi’s people, which attempt to blame the messenger.

But this afternoon, Pelosi’s spokesman, Drew Hammill, suggested that her comments have been misconstrued beyond the leader’s intent.

“Leader Pelosi was clearly referring to the extensive amount of information that is in the public record, including the comprehensive committee report with which the public may not be fully aware,” Hammill wrote in a statement.

Katrina Newton gave the same statement to TPM:

“Leader Pelosi was clearly referring to the extensive amount of information that is in the public record, including the comprehensive committee report with which the public may not be fully aware,” Pelosi spokesperson Karina Newton said.

There is no “clearly” or “misconstrue” about it. If Pelosi was going to share items in the public record she could easily have made that clear. It’s not like she couldn’t have covered herself by saying something deliciously pointed like, Newt Gingrich’s career stumbles and opportunism is a gold mine that Democrats will excavate when ready. However, she just couldn’t help herself.

Mrs. Pelosi walked too far out on a political limb allowing Mr. Gingrich, of all people, to saw it off.

Read full story · Comments { 13 }

Roger Ailes’ FNC Retooling Catches Romney Off Guard

By on 05 December 2011

Spotting the reporter, Mr. Romney’s aides sprang into action, asking where he worked and what he was doing there, and then insisting that he not physically approach Mr. Romney before or after he was questioned on television by the attorneys general and Mr. Huckabee. [...] Mr. Gingrich, coming out of the studio after a tough round of questioning from the attorneys general, had an opposite reaction. – Behind the Scenes at a Forum for Republican Candidates

No one in the political media is quicker to assess a problem and faster at shifting when they do than Roger Ailes. When the Tea Party reigned, it was Sarah Palin leading the Fox stars, along with Glenn Beck. But once the wind changed, so did Mr. Ailes, not missing a beat. Bret Baier is the latest example of what happens when Republican candidates walk into an interview expecting the usual FNC Sean Hannity softballs.

Burned by wacky Glenn Beck, with Sarah Palin’s popularity having plummeted, as has her relevancy to the right, Roger Ailes is once again proving why he beats CNN.

As for MSNBC, they’re not even in the game. While Ailes was rebranding, MSNBC was having an identity crisis and trying to suck up to the White House by making Cenk Yugur an offer he had to refuse, replacing him with Al Sharpton, flipping Lawrence O’Donnell with Ed Schultz, because they let Keith Olbermann get away. Even their star, Rachel Maddow, took a ratings hit because of MSNBC’s identity crisis.

Over at Fox, Ailes was doing the unexpected by going back to the roots of traditional journalism, even if most everything else on FNC is anything but unbiased.

So, since the moves by Ailes, the “Fox News Primary,” with Republican presidential candidates competing for the FNC audience, is running into some surprises. Everyone knows FNC has a right wing tilt, but the New York Times‘ Jeff Zeleny on the “Fox News Sunday” panel is one example that reveals something that would never have happened this time last year.

Mr. Ailes is not afraid to do whatever is necessary to help the Republican brand, which means keeping FNC on top, keep his audience, perhaps grow it, even if it throws some of his own off stride. As you’ll see below, Ailes’ new mission revealed Mitt Romney and his team once again running from reporters.

The Fox News Candidate Is … Fox News

…When six GOP primary contenders descended on Fox News’ midtown headquarters for a “candidates forum” with a trio of red state attorneys general on Saturday night, the candidates probably expected tough questions about their positions. But they certainly didn’t expect to find a New York Times reporter roaming backstage.

Fox’s decision to allow Times scribe Jim Rutenberg into the building to confront the candidates in person threw campaign aides off guard, especially in the Romney camp, which went into “defensive mode immediately, insisting that the reporter stay far away,” as Rutenberg later wrote.

But the decision was just the latest example of what Fox head Roger Ailes recently called a “course correction” in an interview with Howard Kurtz of Newsweek. The Romney team’s debate-night tussle was the second embarrassing episode suffered by the candidate at the hands of Fox News in a week, after Bret Baier conducted a hard-hitting interview with Romney on November 29 that made news for several days. (After the contentious interview, Baier told Bill O’Reilly that Romney privately called his questions “overly aggressive” and “uncalled for.”) The network has also taken on the other GOP primary contenders. In July, Chris Wallace pointedly asked Michele Bachmann, “Are you a flake?” And in November, Fox gave a platform to Herman Cain accuser Sharon Bialek and her attorney Gloria Allred.

With both Republican and Democratic parties seen as the problem, Ailes obviously sees an opening to cast them as the public sees them, with FNC’s history of being pro-Republican as a foundation so that his network now appears truly “fair and balanced” as he invites the traditional media “enemy” into his camp.

It’s a brilliant marketing strategy as we look to 2012. Especially since MSNBC being wrapped around the White House’s little finger from the beginning to the end of primetime has sidelined them permanently as a player. It leaves a lot of open space for viewers to roam, which Ailes knows would be to CNN.

Why bother? Partly as a preemptive measure against CNN. While CNN has slipped again to third place in the cable ratings race, Fox recognizes that the network still poses the biggest threat if it gets its act together. During the 2008 election, Anderson Cooper and Wolf Blitzer surged to the top of the ratings for their respective time slots and CNN scored wins on big news events. Since then, CNN has flailed and ratings have dived. But CNN’s brand remains powerful at big newsmaking moments — and presidential elections are about as big as they get. Which partly explains why Fox wants to distance itself from the overt championing of tea-party politics that defined its post-2008 coverage of Obama. Dominating as much of the election as possible means appealing to viewers beyond the conservative base and being perceived as a credible news outfit. That means pushing the network’s journalists, as when Fox allowed Kurtz to shadow Baier, Wallace, and senior Washington producer Marty Ryan before the September debate in Orlando.

Now if Ailes could only do something about Sean Hannity, clearly the worst host anywhere on the dial. But I guess he’s got to keep someone on FNC like him, considering the far right prefers their politics spoon-fed.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

BARNES & NOBLE Chooses THE HILLARY EFFECT in ‘NOOK First’ Featured Authors Campaign

By on 14 November 2011

It’s incredibly exciting to announce that The Hillary Effect has been selected as one of two non-fiction e-books in the Barnes and Noble “NOOK First” featured authors campaign, just launched.

Being selected as part of this “NOOK First” Barnes and Noble project was an incredible honor and opportunity. Now you know why we waited until this week to publish.

This is a tremendously exciting moment for the entire team that made this happen, beginning with Thomas Ellison and Hutch Morton of Premier Digital Publishing.

What a stunning send off they’ve given my e-book.

So, Barnes and Noble is the only place you can buy The Hillary Effect until December 15th.

Pop the champagne! …just don’t spill it on your NOOK.

NOTE: Aps for your pc, MAC and iPad are available for free at Barnes and Noble.

Read full story · Comments { 38 }

Update on the The Hillary Effect

By on 08 November 2011

Today’s not going to be the day we publish, but I promise we’ll have a big send off for the publication next week! It will be worth the wait.

Some book PR to give you a little more on what it’s all about.


Spanning nearly two decades of American politics, The Hillary Effect is the provocative and insightful story of the first viable female presidential candidate in history to win a primary and do so in spite of her campaign team’s mistakes. And the galvanizing impact that her loss represented for both women and men, in and out of Washington. It revolves around media coverage that treated her differently as first lady, senator and then presidential candidate – not only because she was a woman, but because she was Hillary Clinton.

Candidly written by veteran political analyst, Taylor Marsh, it is the view from a recovering partisan, someone who the Washington Post called a “die hard Clintonite” in their profile of her in 2008.

The Hillary Effect began when Hillary, as first lady, dared to challenge China’s treatment of women. A countless number of women have and will benefit from her presidential loss, the most famous being Sarah Palin (the Tea Party queen of 2010 and first female on a national Republican presidential ticket), who weaves throughout this story as the anti-Hillary. The Hillary Effect also sees Michele Bachman as a player, as the first Republican female to win a straw poll, primary or caucus.

The male leads in this stunning tale are Bill Clinton and President Barack Obama (someone who turned out to be very different from candidate Obama), with David Plouffe and Mark Penn making appearances. The story includes a host of media personalities and their outlets, but also new media and progressive voices, and famous names like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Sally Quinn, the late Tim Russert, Richard Wolffe, Laura Ingraham, Liz Cheney, Peggy Noonan, Maureen Dowd, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and even Bill O’Reilly, who offered Hillary the best interview she would do during the 2008 season.

All of this is seen through the economic and political crises of today, health care, women’s individual freedoms being challenged by the right, Afghanistan, women’s rise around the world, the debt ceiling debate, tax cuts for the wealthy, Occupy Wall Street and an American public disenchanted with Republicans and Democrats, just as the race for 2012 revs up.


Read full story · Comments are closed

Popcorn for Breakfast: The Herman Cain Blame Game Brawl

By on 03 November 2011

**UPDATED**

The Cain campaign seems stuck on stupid, should never have engaged in the blame game when everyone was defending him, and now is not only going to further harm his own credibility, but will potentially hurt the credibility of a lot of other good people when the women start speaking. And they will start speaking. – The Herman Cain Campaign Is Stuck on Stupid, by Erick Erickson

In the throes of a meltdown, Herman Cain decided he had to blame someone. What’s classic about this is that Republicans like Cain and his supporters don’t get that who leaked the story isn’t the primary concern of a sexual harassment charge. It’s whether the man is guilty of harassing women, something only someone on the right could miss.

So, Rick Perry, come on down.

Cain Says Perry Camp Behind Sex Harassment Leak

Curt Anderson phoned me to say “I never heard about this story until I read about it in Politico. I have nothing but good things to say about Herman Cain. I’m not going to bad-mouth Herman Cain to anyone, on or off the record. I think he is a guy of great leadership and integrity.”

Perry spokesman Ray Sullivan said it was “patently untrue” that the Perry campaign had any role in placing the sexual harassment story with Politico.

But just in case Perry didn’t leak the story, Cain’s team has a back-up:

PICKET: Source – Rahm Emanuel involved in Cain sexual harassment accuser attacks

According to a source who is friends with the Cain campaign, not only is the Rick Perry campaign involved but also the Mayor of Chicago and former Obama White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is likely involved with the sexual harassment accuser attacks. A friend of the Cain campaign believes a National Restaurant Association (NRA) employee out of the Chicago office leaked the story to the Perry campaign via information and influence from Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s office.

Sean Hannity played the tape, which came from WTOK, of a consultant who says he saw one of the offending incidents.

Oklahoma Consultant Claims He Witnessed Cain Harassment

Wilson said for legal reasons, he can not discuss details of the incident. “But if she comes out and talks about it, like I said, it’ll probably be the end of his campaign.” The consultant said Cain is digging himself a deeper hole by challenging the woman. He also believes it has put the Restaurant Association in a position where it will have to release the woman from her confidentialilty agreement. “If she talks about it, I think it’ll be the end of his campaign.”

Then there is a third woman who the AP is reporting has come forward to allege she was also harassed by Herman Cain. No news yet on whether Herman Cain is going to blame Rick Perry for her story.

…and then something weird allegedly happened in Iowa with Herman Cain. You figure that one out and tell me if a new name will surface in the Herman Cain blame game, Mike Huckabee.

Meanwhile, very few right-wing or Tea Party types seem to care if Herman Cain is a dog. Someone who rarely travels with his wife, who has enjoyed anonymity until recently, is charming and handsome, but who is being accused of preying on women for his own personal amusement.

Read full story · Comments { 20 }

About the Book Cover

By on 25 October 2011

The party’s over.
The view from a recovering partisan.

My e-book is scheduled to be published two weeks from today, November 8th. It will be available on Amazon, to download on Kindle, or on Barnes and Noble, as well as your iPad. It’s a busy, exciting time in my world.

Since I announced my book two weeks ago, I’ve had a lot of feedback on the cover. Continue Reading →

Read full story · Comments { 28 }

Eric Holder on a Spit

By on 12 October 2011

Listening to Sean Hannity briefly today, because I can only take this cretin in short stints, he had Rep. Issa on for an interview over the “Fast and Furious” imbroglio that is lighting up the right. Between the two of them they flayed A.G. Holder until only bones were left, symbolically speaking, of course.

Whether this is felonious stupidity or managerial malpractice, it was hardly anything nefarious from what I can tell from the reporting. However, it hardly matters at this rate.

Earth to the Administration: Right wing radio is eating Holder alive.

It makes me wonder if they realize what they’ve got on their hands. Are they going to mount an aggressive push back on this or are you going to serve up Holder for turkey dinner (to take a question spincitysd asked in his “In the News” diary that starts with quite an article)? But spincitysd had an even better question: Sweet Baby Jesus On A Pogo Stick, is there any adult supervision going on at Holder’s romper room?

Good question.

Anyone know a good crisis manager? Calling Eli Gold.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Taylor Marsh Authors The Hillary Effect – Politics, Sexism and the Destiny of Loss

By on 11 October 2011

Due out in November. Available on Amazon.com, on your Kindle, Barnes & Noble, Nook, and iPad.

Spanning nearly two decades of American politics, The Hillary Effect is the provocative and insightful story of the first viable female presidential candidate in history to win a primary and do so in spite of her campaign team’s mistakes. And the galvanizing impact that her loss represented for both women and men, in and out of Washington. It revolves around media coverage that treated her differently as first lady, senator and then presidential candidate – not only because she was a woman, but because she was Hillary Clinton.

Candidly written by veteran political analyst, Taylor Marsh, it is the view from a recovering partisan, someone who the Washington Post called a “die hard Clintonite” in their profile of her in 2008.
The Hillary Effect began when Hillary, as first lady, dared to challenge China’s treatment of women. A countless number of women have and will benefit from her presidential loss, the most famous being Sarah Palin (the Tea Party queen of 2010 and first female on a national Republican presidential ticket), who weaves throughout this story as the anti-Hillary. The Hillary Effect also sees Michele Bachman as a player, as the first Republican female to win a straw poll, primary or caucus.

The male leads in this stunning tale are Bill Clinton and President Barack Obama (someone who turned out to be very different from candidate Obama), with David Plouffe and Mark Penn making appearances. The story includes a host of media personalities and their outlets, but also new media and progressive voices, and famous names like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Sally Quinn, the late Tim Russert, Richard Wolffe, Laura Ingraham, Liz Cheney, Peggy Noonan, Maureen Dowd, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and even Bill O’Reilly, who offered Hillary the best interview she would do during the 2008 season.

All of this is seen through the economic and political crises of today, health care, women’s individual freedoms being challenged by the right, Afghanistan, women’s rise around the world, the debt ceiling debate, tax cuts for the wealthy, Occupy Wall Street and an American public disenchanted with Republicans and Democrats, just as the race for 2012 revs up.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

House Republicans Remove Any Doubt They’re Sane

By on 19 July 2011

Cut, cap and… baloney passed. Shocker, the Tea Party crazies are running the congressional asylum. Passing anything that has no chance of getting through the Senate, let alone a veto by Pres. Obama, is such a waste of energy. Watching some of Cantor’s bloviating on the House floor makes me wonder what’s wrong with some people in Virginia.

Of note, Reps. Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul voted no, because as presidential candidates to be taken seriously when eying the general election audience they can’t flaunt lunacy.

Of course, some Democrats voted for it too, but mainly to keep a primary challenge away, which anyone can appreciate, with Jim Cooper doing so as well even though he’s in a very blue district.

But it’s quite interesting how the House Democratic Caucus dealt with the event this morning. They sent out the above audio excerpt of Pres. Ronald Reagan’s 1987 radio address.

“Congress consistently brings the Government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility. This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the Federal deficit would soar. The United States has a special responsibility to itself and the world to meet its obligations. It means we have a well-earned reputation for reliability and credibility – two things that set us apart from much of the world.”

These words are lost on sober politicians. They’d call Reagan a RINO. …or worse. Hell, he’d get a primary challenge.

The same people who invoke Reagan over and over again have no clue of his history of raising taxes 11 times during his presidency. This includes Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the other wingnut bloviators.

As for what Bruce Bartlett, a former Reagan man, thinks of the amateurism of the Tea Party balanced budget amendment. He calls it a “phony.”

Where have all the serious conservatives gone?

As for serious Democrats, after what the Gang of 7 served up, we’ll see if the Progressive Caucus budges on entitlements. The pressure will be intense, because House members sent a letter to Speaker Boehner saying they want to take a vote on it, including Jim Cooper. From The Hill:

“We applaud this effort and ask that you provide the opportunity to vote on this proposal as part of any request for an increase in the debt ceiling before the Aug. 2 debt ceiling deadline,” Wolf and Cooper wrote.

Cooper has been involved in New Democrat discussions over the debt limit in recent days. Members of the business-friendly coalition, which comprises 43 Democrats, talked about the Gang of Six proposal at a meeting Tuesday, and its leadership, led by chairman Rep. Joe Crowley (N.Y.), released a statement supporting a “grand bargain” on deficit reduction and the debt limit. Cooper is also a member of the more conservative Blue Dog coalition.

Oh, make it stop.

The Gang of 7 proposal punts on details about Social Security and the hurt is in those details:

The plan would be held at the Senate desk until a Social Security fix is found, and if that fix does not get the 60 votes required, the rest of the deficit plan is voided. The reform must ensure 75 years of solvency for Social Security, according to the Gang of Six, but how to achieve that is left up to the Finance Committee. If Finance cannot agree, a group of 10 senators — five from each party — can bring a reform bill to the floor.

… Chained CPI would cause Social Security benefits and tax deductions to be lowered, the use of which has been loudly opposed by seniors’ lobbying groups. To address senior concerns, the plan exempts Supplemental Security Income from the shift for five years and provides a minimum benefit equal to 125 percent of the poverty line for five years.

Social Security is solvent for 25 years now and lowering COLA is insane. What are these Democrats thinking? They need to find a better way to “strengthen” Social Security.

What we need is a straight up, 11th hour debt ceiling increase if need be, nothing more and that’s what I’m hoping for, which as a last resort could still be the devious McConnell plan. Visualize it, people.

Read full story · Comments { 13 }

Scrutiny on Bachmann Isn’t What Obama Faced

By on 28 June 2011

Politico has a piece today on Bachmann’s thin legislative record. Fair enough to cover, but let’s not pretend such things weren’t overlooked for the boys.

When George W. Bush ran for president, not only was his abysmal business record shrugged off, but the traditional press didn’t pay any attention at all regarding Bush’s very iffy National Guard record, not to mention the fact that his presidential candidacy was predicated on his father. When John Kerry was attacked by the “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth,” Fox News channel not only encouraged Sean Hannity to broadcast lies about Sen. Kerry’s hero war record, but traditional, new media and cable outlets let the Right get away with swiftboating him by allowing the false equivalency of Jerome Corsi to be taken seriously. Ronald Reagan likely had Alzheimer’s before his second term, but nobody blew the whistle on the Gipper, while letting him off the hook for Iran-Contra, because the bond the people had with him after the assassination attempt was real. Now, I realize these issues aren’t of the same variety, but scrutiny is scrutiny and when it’s not, it’s not.

The opener from the Politico piece:

Rep. Michele Bachmann is surging in the GOP presidential polls and barnstorming Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, but as she sprints toward the front of the Republican pack, there’s a major hole in her political résumé: legislation.

Now in her third House term, Bachmann has never had a bill or resolution she’s sponsored signed into law, and she’s never wielded a committee gavel, either at the full or subcommittee level. Bachmann’s amendments and bills have rarely been considered by any committee, even with the House under GOP control. In a chamber that rewards substantive policy work and insider maneuvering, Bachmann has shunned the inside game, choosing to be more of a bomb thrower than a legislator.

Candidate Barack Obama had the thinnest of records out of Illinois, but that didn’t bother anyone when I was writing about Obama’s flyover of the first debate in Carson City, NV, or when he came to the health care forum in Las Vegas saying he’d have a plan in 3 months, totally whiffing the moment. Voting “present” in the Illinois state senate innumerable times didn’t bother the breathless cable yakkers either. Women found out just how committed Pres. Obama was to our freedoms in the Affordability Care Act, as well as his decision on abortion recently in his decision to sell out D.C. women.

But then again, considering the lousy Democratic leadership record Pres. Obama has had in his first term, making private insurance deals, big Pharma compacts, channeling Bush on war and plotting assassinations around the globe, not to mention endless parroting of the Republican economic message, perhaps Politico is correct. Records do matter.

Let’s just not pretend this isn’t a double standard if Michele Bachmann is judged less than a man who’s done absolutely nothing worthy of note before running for president.

Unless, that is, one anti-war speech convinced you that candidate Obama was a progressive fighter, which in that case your hopeless to begin with.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Joe Biden Won the Afghanistan Debate

By on 23 June 2011

official photo by Pete Souza

It’s all about Pakistan now.

Pres. Obama felt compelled to tell the whole history of why we’re in Afghanistan in a bloated, if shorter than usual address to the nation, but this is where he should have started:

By the time I took office, the war in Afghanistan had entered its seventh year. But al Qaeda’s leaders had escaped into Pakistan and were plotting new attacks, while the Taliban had regrouped and gone on the offensive. Without a new strategy and decisive action, our military commanders warned that we could face a resurgent al Qaeda and a Taliban taking over large parts of Afghanistan.

First, as much as I disliked Pres. Obama’s speech last night, it doesn’t come close to the despicable spectacle on Fox News channel when Sean Hannity interviewed Sen. John McCain. McCain’s performance was foreshadowed by Bill O’Reilly, when he said Petraeus should basically get whatever he wants, proving it was the Roger Ailes talking point edict of the night. Using General Petraeus to attempt to undermine Pres. Obama showed political cowardice, with Sen. McCain’s opportunism made worse by the anti-constitutional notion that the military is the conductor of U.S. foreign policy and military actions, instead of the President.

Gates even felt compelled to say he supported Pres. Obama’s decision, which clearly was a reaction to the political posturing promoted by Ailes and his minions on Fox.

Steve Clemons hit this note before the speech:

Second, Barack Obama cannot appear to be a tool of the US military or General Petraeus, who has emerged as the stamp of approval or disapproval for some — like John McCain — of what the President decides. This is not healthy for the country. The military executes the President’s strategy, but some in the Pentagon have crossed lines they shouldn’t. Obama needs to show he is in control.

But Pres. Obama should have saved us all the time and simply said, I’m the guy who got bin Laden, so I don’t intend to take crap from anyone.

[...] But, in part because of our military effort, we have reason to believe that progress can be made.

The goal that we seek is achievable, and can be expressed simply: no safe-haven from which al Qaeda or its affiliates can launch attacks against our homeland, or our allies. We will not try to make Afghanistan a perfect place. We will not police its streets or patrol its mountains indefinitely. That is the responsibility of the Afghan government, which must step up its ability to protect its people; and move from an economy shaped by war to one that can sustain a lasting peace. What we can do, and will do, is build a partnership with the Afghan people that endures – one that ensures that we will be able to continue targeting terrorists and supporting a sovereign Afghan government.

Some would have America retreat from our responsibility as an anchor of global security, and embrace an isolation that ignores the very real threats that we face. [...]

The content of Pres. Obama’s speech last night couldn’t have been much worse when he cravenly invoked isolationism, daring to suggest this notion even with there absolutely no evidence that anyone is seriously considering such a position, particularly in his own party, which is where this is directed.

This is Barack Obama at his worst, with his ego showing through because of what’s happening in Congress surrounding Libya, where the President is clearly wrong.

Hearing Obama talk about “progress” and America being “an anchor to global security” was utilizing words of war used by any president stuck in a situation of his own making, while trying to fool his audience it’s what we do. It doesn’t have to be and it no longer can be, especially in a country like Afghanistan that is sucking us dry.

From Spencer Ackerman, in a piece that is really important to read:

The biggest news out of President Obama’s Afghanistan speech isn’t the 10,000 troops he’s withdrawing this year. It’s what Obama will — and won’t — do with the forces he’s leaving behind. Namely: the president won’t send the remainder of the surge troops into eastern Afghanistan, which has become the country’s most buck-wild region.

It’s part of a new attempt to put the uniformed military on a much tighter leash than it had in Afghanistan or Iraq. Welcome a new phase of the war, micromanaged from the White House, and heavy on the killer robots.

Here’s what the war’s going to look like instead from July 2011 to 2014, when the Afghans are supposed to take over combat: drones, drones, training Afghans, commando raids, and drones. The military build on its momentum in the southern provinces of Helmand and Kandahar, Obama aides say. But outside of that, this is going to be a counterterrorism strategy — with a lot of troops.

It’s important here to mention David Petraeus moving to Panetta’s renewed C.I.A., where he’ll play an intense leadership role in what Spencer writes about above. The Wall Street Journal has a piece about the hearing on the C.I.A.’s wider role, which was so effective in the bin Laden kill.

The big problem with the import of Pres. Obama’s message is the political foundation, culminating right before the election.

It’s simply no way to run a foreign policy, but that’s what our politics pushes, so politicians like ambitious presidents seeking a second term don’t get caught on the losing side of wars.

As for V.P. Joe Biden, he never wanted the Afghanistan surge, Libya or Iraq, and always thought Pakistan was the ballgame in this region (read his guest post on the subject from 2007). He won’t get the credit, but his message finally got through.

Sen. McCain couldn’t resist a jab at V.P. Biden when talking to Hannity, complete with that pinched little grin McCain plasters on his mug when he’s on camera and knows he’s been beaten.

The House should not let Pres. Obama’s timid withdrawal plans stop them from challenging him, just as they continue to do on Libya.

Of course, we all know what happens when courage is shown in the House. The Senate responds with silence.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Forging a Bond, Feeling Your Economic Pain

By on 17 June 2011

Something rather amazing happened this week and it’s the emergence of Michele Bachmann as a serious candidate for president. John H. Hinderaker over at Powerline knows her and didn’t want her to run, but has been awakened, “Suddenly, Bachmann doesn’t look like a fringe candidate anymore.” More:

That Barack Obama is without a clue when it comes to the economy is no revelation, but that he lacks empathy–traditionally a Democratic refrain–is a bold and interesting twist. The fact is that Obama does often seem to be weirdly detached from the problems he ostensibly is trying to solve. Perhaps that is just his style… It is no surprise that Bachmann’s enemies continually underestimate her, but I am beginning to think that her friends have underestimated her, too. (emphasis added)

Another person who hasn’t been sure about her is Karl Rove, though he ran her first campaign, he was unconvinced a few weeks ago when talking to Bill O’Reilly.

Mrs. Bachmann is touching on a real problem for Pres. Obama, which is he just doesn’t connect emotionally and it is his style, but it manifests in the feeling that he doesn’t seem to get what’s going on with people. His recent interview with Ann Curry I highlighted that sounded like he wanted a second term for the sake of it is another part of this problem.

Tangential to this challenge is Bill Daley, who is not connecting with business leaders either, which has been rougher to do than anticipated. The Obama camp does the optics, but they’re struggling on connectivity, because people now have seen and heard the pitch before and received insignificant follow through.

Now comes this from the LA Times (emphasis added):

But her decision to address Obama’s purported lack of empathy is notable—largely because Bachmann emerged into public notoriety as a vanguard of the slash-and-burn “tea party” movement, which largely took a mistrustful view of government in any context. Moreover, the term “empathy” is one that has long been derided by conservatives.

It’s a sign that she, along with Mitt Romney and her other rivals for the GOP nomination, view the economy, and especially the unemployment rate, as the incumbent’s biggest weakness, and that forging a connection with voters unhappy with the country’s direction will be the key to victory.

Going against your type is the strongest counterweight to reveal depth of purpose, if not character. This is the most interesting move from Bachmann, revealing her camp not only gets it’s the economy that is the Right’s best weapon, but that the human element of tapping into the emotions driving how people feel about the economy is something she and her team gets, too.

There are a lot of women out there in Republican primary land who are sick to death of the men running their party. The boys’ club better take Hinderaker’s advice to start paying attention.

It’s early, but so far Michele Bachmann is emerging as no joke, which could translate into real currency if she starts amassing a serious following. She’s already proved she can raise money.

Read full story · Comments { 16 }

Polls Show People are Smarter than Eric Cantor, Reince Priebus, Sean Hannity Combined

By on 08 June 2011

According to a survey of 500 New York City registered voters conducted by New York 1 and Marist College, only 30 percent say Weiner should resign. 51 percent of respondents said he should stay in his position and 18 percent said they were not sure. “It’s worth keeping in mind that New York is overwhelmingly Democratic. Partisanship can run high in this town. Moral outrage, maybe less so,” said ABC News pollster Gary Langer of Langer Research Associates. – Anthony Weiner: Poll Finds Majority of New York Voters Think He Should Not Resign

Whenever Republicans are calling for a strong Democrat to resign over a sex scandal, that’s the moment people should wake up and smell the heaping pile of hypocrisy.

Another poll shows it much closer than ABC, with many women undecided.

Donald Trump called Rep. Weiner a “psycho” and a “bad guy.” Well, he should know; this from a guy who’s had three wives, bankruptcies and all sorts of other weirdness in his life.

Of course Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor both want Weiner to resign. Sean Hannity is playing it for all it’s worth, though he’s never very worried when toe-sucking Dick Morris opines on his shows. Bill O’Reilly’s isn’t either and he’s been sued for sexual harassment.

However, nothing was more delightful than seeing Mr. Hannity try to label Meagan Broussard a “victim,” which brought an eye roll, as she scoffed at the notion. Hannity also attempted to portray her as a “26 year-old girl,” with the interview falling apart as he tried to feed her talking points that she wouldn’t accept.

Wall Street wanted Eliot Spitzer to resign and he too had made powerful enemies.

Now the Right is fundraising on Weinergate. Are you getting it yet? It’s just too bad Democrats won’t turn it around and do the same on Ensign and Vitter.

Ed Schultz was embarrassed when his own (silly) instant phone poll illustrated that over 70% of his own viewers say Weiner shouldn’t resign. (I don’t watch his show, but caught the end before another.)

Rachel Maddow went through the long list of Republican scoundrels last night.

If the late Sen. Ted Kennedy can redeem himself to such glory there is no reason whatsoever why Rep. Anthony Weiner can’t continue driving his adversaries crazy in Congress.

There lies the reason Republicans are demanding he go.

Few are as good on camera making the Democratic case than Rep. Anthony Weiner.

But since Republicans are so self-righteous; Democrats filled with self-loathing, who knows how this will end?

“I think he’s one of the most effective, decent congressman out there,” said Brooklyn native Richard Elliott. Weiner’s behavior was “stupid,” Elliott said, but not something to resign over. He also said, “I find it ridiculous that that would be the news” when so much else is going on in the world. – Democratic leaders ostracize Weiner

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

Ed Schultz Apologizes

By on 26 May 2011

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Schultz is on voluntary unpaid absence for the coming week, with MSNBC issuing a statement late yesterday about Ed Schultz’s embarrassing public belch.

The comments over at Ed’s MSNBC page are wholly supportive of the blue collar talk radio hero, whose passions drive his programs, with quite a few of the monitored comments culled out.

Schultz was wrong and what he said was incredibly insulting.

Rush Limbaugh accused Pres. Bill Clinton of being a drug trafficker, while “Reverend” Jerry Falwell suggested Clinton might be a murderer, even as Sean Hannity postulated that Vince Foster might have been murdered and questioned Hillary Rodham Clinton’s possible involvement of a cover-up. Hannity dragged this lie back out during the ’08 primary season.

But if you want to know why Mitch Daniels listened to the women in his family and chose not to run for president, this whole sorry spectacle reveals a primary reason.

It makes you wonder if Sarah Palin, whose run-ins with the media have comprised her entire national rise, can toughen up enough to take what would come if she says yes to running in 2012.

Read full story · Comments { 15 }

Ed Schultz Calls Laura Ingraham a ‘Right Wing Slut’

By on 25 May 2011

**UPDATED**

“And what do the Republicans thinking about?” Schultz said. “They’re not thinking about their next-door neighbor. They’re just thinking about how much this is going to cost. President Obama is going to be visiting Joplin, Mo., on Sunday but you know what they’re talking about, like this right-wing slut, what’s her name?, Laura Ingraham? Yeah, she’s a talk slut. You see, she was, back in the day, praising President Reagan when he was drinking a beer overseas. But now that Obama’s doing it, they’re working him over.” – Daily Caller

Appalling.

Ed Schultz gives blue collar and union a bad name. My husband had two words for Schultz: “low class.”

It didn’t happen on MSNBC, but Schultz should not only apologize on his radio show, but on his TV show as well.

I have no idea what it is about MSNBC that pushes it toward hiring misogynistic cretins or at the very least, disrespectful Neanderthals, see David Shuster, even Chris Matthews (Keith Olbermann too). What makes MSNBC believe that demeaning women in politics isn’t an ethics issue?

It’s the 21st century, so this type of crap shouldn’t be condoned anywhere, no matter the party. It no longer passes as boys will be boys, not even on a radio show that tilts to truckers or low info listeners.

Rush Limbaugh has been getting away with his misogyny for years because Republicans don’t care what their people call women or how they treat them verbally. The low class mini me versions of Rush, people like Sean Hannity and Mark Levin, are even worse. I’ve been writing about Limbaugh for years, whether it’s “feminizas, “nags” or “reporterettes,” all the GOP does is shrug and turn the other way.

Political talk radio like what Limbaugh and Shultz, even Ms. Ingraham, do is on the decline. This is just part of the reason why.

UPDATE: MSNBC has suspended Schultz without pay.

STATEMENT FROM MSNBC REGARDING ED SCHULTZ:

MSNBC management met with Ed Schultz this afternoon and accepted his offer to take one week of unpaid leave for the remarks he made yesterday on his radio program. Ed will address these remarks on his show tonight, and immediately following begin his leave. Remarks of this nature are unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

Read full story · Comments { 10 }

Donald Trump and ‘The Blacks’

By on 14 April 2011

**UPDATED AFTER HANNITY INTERVIEW**

“…I do worry… I have a lot of respect for Paul Ryan. I do worry that he’s a little bit far out in front… And I will tell you, me, I’m protecting, I don’t care what plan the Republicans put–I’m protecting the seniors. ..” – Donald Trump, with Sean Hannity on Fox News Channel (more below)

Contrary to other reports, Mr. Trump denies he will announce whether he will run for president on the last installment of “The Apprentice.”

The masquerading cub reporters over at World Net Daily blasted the “exclusive” that he would do just that, but Trump batted it down when speaking with Fred Dicker, whom you might remember when Carl Paladino threatened to “take you out, buddy.”

You just gotta love New York politics.

Fred Dicker got some juice copy and a terrific interview with Trump, who is making the pre-party to the un-announcement a lot of fun, though I sure hope he stays around for a debate or two. I’d love to see him come waltzing into the Reagan Library for a GOP debate.

As I’ve said before, it’s clear that Donald Trump can dish it out, but I’m just not convinced he’ll want to be on the receiving end of private detectives, media and all hell breaking loose as everyone starts picking through his business, his finances and his personal life. I just don’t see that happening.

–updated– On the other hand, I watched Sean Hannity’s interview with Donald Trump tonight. It was his most fascinating to date, especially on China, one of his signature issues, which he segued into the jobs angle. Trump also addressed the scrutiny issue a bit saying, “If I run I will have to disclose my finances and my finances are phenomenal, much better than anyone knows. …I actually look forward to that.”

But Mr. Trump actually had Sean Hannity sputtering until he had to completely shut up when the question of Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget came up. It was classic politician, but delivered in a matter of fact manner that revealed he’s not only unafraid of conservative blowhard gasbaggery on the budget, but he’s got his eye on the people who can make his candidacy a serious shot, should he decide to get in. He even said “the numbers aren’t as bad as you’re thinking,” talking about the deficit.

“…I do worry… I have a lot of respect for Paul Ryan. I do worry that he’s a little bit far out in front, because the Democrats are going to take that Medicare word, that little called Medicare, which to a lot of people means senior citizens, and they’re going to take that word and they’re going to say senior-senior-senior… And the Republicans have to be careful not to fall into a Democratic trap. … And I will tell you, me, I’m protecting, I don’t care what plan the Republicans put–I’m protecting the seniors. The seniors are in a certain way the heart of this country. I’m protecting the seniors. … I think the Republicans are too far out ahead. … This debate is supposed to be led by our President. You have to be very careful that the Republicans don’t go too far out in front. Because they’re going to lose a big election coming in 2012 if that happens.”

At this point Sean Hannity’s head exploded, because Mr. Trump is exactly correct and everything he was saying stood against the Fox man’s talking points. It was a beautiful thing just to see that and is one reason Donald Trump’s media blitz is so delicious to watch. He just doesn’t give a flying fig what these cartoon conservatives think or whether they like him or not.

When Hannity asked if Trump would deal with entitlements he put the Republicans in their place, with an answer that was pitch perfect. Well, almost.

“I always said the worst president was Jimmy Carter. Guess what? Jimmy Carter goes to second place. Barack Obama has been the worst president ever. In the history of this country, Barack Obama is number one.” – Donald Trump

Oh, and he wants to “increase the military” budget. Non-starter. He also gave Reagan credit for the hostage crisis return, completely ignoring history and that it was the late Warren Christopher. Tune in to Hannity tomorrow for the birther edition.

Mediaite has the video.

From the New York Observer:

The show’s host, Fred Dicker — who is also the New York Post’s state editor, read a recent poll showing Obama’s sky-high support among African-Americans.

Trump said the numbers were troubling and pointed to Hillary Clinton as proof that he probably won’t get the kind of support among African-Americans that he deserves.

“I tell it like it is,” Trump said. “[Y]ou’ll hear a political reporter go on and say it had nothing to do with race. But how come she had such a tiny piece of the vote? And you know, it’s a very sad thing.

“I have a great relationship with the blacks. I’ve always had a great relationship with the blacks. But unfortunately, it seems that, you know, the numbers you cite are very, very frightening numbers.”

Dicker said, somewhat rhetorically, that votes should always be based on merit, not on race.

“If that were the case, why did Hillary Clinton do so poorly?” Turmp [sic] asked.

“The blacks” sounds as clueless as when you hear someone say “the gays.”

As you also might expect, there’s plenty of birther stuff in the interview too, with the Dicker-Trump interview audio supplied by the Observer.

Read full story · Comments { 40 }