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 | Supreme Court

Al Sharpton Schools Morning Joe

By on 07 February 2012

The Catholic League, according to CBS, is “poised to go to war with Obama over mandatory birth control payments.” A better stenographer the Catholic League could not have than CBS, with the threat meant to put a political scare into Obama. But this isn’t 1980 and the Catholic League is facing a new generation in a new century where the vast majority of women rely on birth control, regardless of faith, with the economy of birth control very real. If you can’t afford $600/month, you play Russian roulette with your life and your future.

From Marjorie Clifton of GoVote over at Huffington Post:

According to the Centers for Disease Control, 79.5% of people aged 18 to 24 have had sexual intercourse, and, of those, 2.2% become pregnant. While Catholic authorities would say that unmarried young adults should not be sexually active to begin with, this position ignores reality and serves only to isolate young people — dismissing the issue as someone else’s problem.

But Catholic students are no different from the broader population. In 2009, the Boston College Undergraduate Government held a vote on whether the university should offer more sexual health services, including STI testing, condoms, and prescription birth control. The vote saw a record turnout, and an overwhelming 89% of students supported making these services available. The truth is in these numbers.

Al Sharpton won the round yesterday morning in a walk, which also revealed the tired arguments of the elite media, though they represent, as CBS did parroting exactly what the Catholic League wanted, conventional wisdom of a certain set. But the culture war today is about how modern women, who aren’t marrying like generations before, control their lives, their fate and plan their future. It cannot be done without birth control.

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


Al Sharpton’s smackdown of the out of touch hosts begins at around 2:30 in the video above, but what’s particularly revealing is the reading of a Peggy Noonan op-ed by Ms. Brzezinski.

“It’s a fight the President can’t win. President Obama just might have lost the election,” opines Peggy Noonan, complete with tired “sleeping giant” awakening cries.

That is religious conservatism on parade, not to be confused with political conservatism, as I wrote about yesterday, by none other than Ronald Reagan’s speechwriter. Noonan represents that moment in time where religious intrusion into the modern political fabric began its crescendo after the era of individual freedom broke out in the 1960s.

The bookend to Noonan is E.J. Dionne representing religious conservatism on the Democratic Party side of things. Part of that group is also Sen. Casey, someone willing to continue the tradition of making a woman’s body subject to government intervention, whether state or federal.

What’s been the problem with women’s autonomy and economic issues like birth control, is Democratic Party leaders have continually ceded ground to religious conservatives and fundamentalist Republicans, because they were afraid to fight on the terms that impact women. Birth control is an economic issue, as can be abortion. But make no mistake about it, when religious conservatives in both parties talk about birth control, they see abortion.

Women, especially poor women, have been made to take a rumble seat on the side car of our national discussion on individual freedoms, because the discussion is forever wound up in abortion rights. Any woman in the throes of such a personal crisis, which I talk about personally in my book through the chapter “Is Freedom Just for Men?”, is thinking about one life she’s trying to save and that’s her own.

Sebelius in USA Today:

Of the 28 states that currently require contraception to be covered by insurance, eight have no religious exemption at all. [...] It’s important to note that our rule has no effect on the longstanding conscience clause protections for providers, which allow a Catholic doctor, for example, to refuse to write a prescription for contraception. Nor does it affect an individual woman’s freedom to decide not to use birth control. And the president and this administration continue to support existing conscience protections. – Secy. Kathleen Sebelius

It’s the most important conversation on women’s health to be launched in recent memory and if the American people are made to engage in it in a substantive way, which remains to be seen, something fundamentally will have been done by Pres. Obama’s decision on contraceptive coverage.

Joe Scarborough and others have said or suggested Pres. Obama’s will backtrack on his decision.

It will be catastrophic for American women and send a dangerous message on privacy if he proves them right. Because this isn’t just about contraception to religious conservatives. It’s about Griswold and the idea that women should enjoy the same privacy and freedoms as men, which no state or federal law or agency, religious institution or employer should have the right to abridge.

Read full story · Comments { 14 }

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 }

Who Are We Today?

By on 30 January 2012

What Secy. Panetta described on 60 Minutes as Obama administration policy is nothing close to what candidate Obama said he’d be as president.

But I wonder how many people watching Secy. Leon Panetta found anything at all wrong with what he’s saying in the video above.

Whatever Barack Obama once stood for as a constitutional lawyer no longer exists in his presidency.

That Democrats continue making excuses for him and sounding like neoconservatives when they do says all you need to know about the Democratic Party in the Obama era.

Read full story · Comments { 19 }

Why Does the Catholic Church Enjoy IRS Protection?

By on 30 January 2012

The answer is simple. Because no Republican or Democratic politician has the courage to challenge any church today. E.J. Dionne reveals why:

That is why it is so remarkable that he utterly botched the admittedly difficult question of how contraceptive services should be treated under the new health care law.

His administration mishandled this decision not once but twice. In the process, Obama threw his progressive Catholic allies under the bus and strengthened the hand of those inside the Church who had originally sought to derail the health care law.

… Speaking as a Catholic, I wish the Church would be more open on the contraception question. But speaking as an American liberal who believes that religious pluralism imposes certain obligations on government, I think the Church’s leaders had a right to ask for broader relief from a contraception mandate that would require it to act against its own teachings. The administration should have done more to balance the competing liberty interests here.

What Mr. Dionne reveals is that “Catholic allies” are more important than the integrity of protecting the individual person against the institution. The female individual having no lobbying crew or elite to protect her, for which she relies on the government, because only at the highest levels can a woman’s individual civil rights be secured. “Competing liberty interests” doesn’t address the lack of power an individual person has against institutions, seen in this debate by the Catholic Church who wants to deny reproductive health care to women, which hits rural and poor women directly.

Contrary to the fantasy that the Obama administration waging “an attack on their religious freedom,” an argument Russ Douthat makes today in the New York Times, what Pres. Obama has decided gives power to the individual over institutions.

Nothing is in higher keeping with the founders’ principles. It also is what Republicans and other conservatives, including Democrats, tout all the time, except where women are concerned. Then all of a sudden freedom it is just for men.

One woman’s privacy is more important than any religious institution’s prerogatives.

This highlights the biggest scourge in our politics and that is allowing religion and faith to have entrance into the debate in the first place. Thanks to Ronald Reagan and the “Moral Majority,” which was neither then or now, a religious litmus test has entered our political and policy landscape.

In thousands of parishes this weekend, Catholic priests read a version of the following letter to their congregation denouncing this decision as an attack on their religious freedom. Each bishop personally sent the letter out, and so there were some local variations. Here’s the one read in the Phoenix Archdiocese. Here’s another from the Bishop of Trenton. What follows is from the Bishop of Marquette… – Business Insider

I’m a rebel Episcopalian that now relies on daily meditation as my spiritual bedrock. I won’t take a back seat to any fundamentalist or evangelical or Catholic on spirituality. However, any person’s preferences in private should have no sway in public policy matters.

Since the Catholic Church is clearly encouraging it’s parishioners to wage a political campaign against this decision there should be substantive questions raised as to why this religious organization deserves protected status under the IRS code.

From Catholic News in November 2011:

“The law says that organizations exempt from federal income tax under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, which includes charities and churches, may not participate or intervene in any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office,” the Internal Revenue Service says on its website.

That means no endorsements, checklists, guides promoting one candidate over another or sample ballots by tax-exempt parishes and organizations or their publications.

But it does not prevent religious leaders or members of other tax-exempt organizations from speaking out on the issues, organizing voter registration drives or nonpartisan educational forums or publishing candidates’ responses to a questionnaire as long as the questions cover a broad range of issues and do not reflect any bias.

As you’ll see from the letter below, provided by Business Insider, there is nothing nonpartisan about it.

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:

I write to you concerning an alarming and serious matter that negatively impacts the Church in the United States directly, and that strikes at the fundamental right to religious liberty for all citizens of any faith. The federal government, which claims to be “of, by, and for the people,” has just been dealt a heavy blow to almost a quarter of those people — the Catholic population — and to the millions more who are served by the Catholic faithful.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced last week that almost all employers, including Catholic employers, will be forced to offer their employees’ health coverage that includes sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception. Almost all health insurers will be forced to include those “services” in the health policies they write. And almost all individuals will be forced to buy that coverage as a part of their policies.

In so ruling, the Obama Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our Nation’s first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty. And as a result, unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled to either violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so). The Obama Administration’s sole concession was to give our institutions one year to comply.

We cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law. People of faith cannot be made second class citizens. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom. Our parents and grandparents did not come to these shores to help build America’s cities and towns, its infrastructure and institutions, its enterprise and culture, only to have their posterity stripped of their God given rights. In generations past, the Church has always been able to count on the faithful to stand up and protect her sacred rights and duties. I hope and trust she can count on this generation of Catholics to do the same. Our children and grandchildren deserve nothing less.

And therefore, I would ask of you two things. First, as a community of faith we must commit ourselves to prayer and fasting that wisdom and justice may prevail, and religious liberty may be restored. Without God, we can do nothing; with God, nothing is impossible. Second, I would also recommend visiting www.usccb.org/conscience,to learn more about this severe assault on religious liberty, and how to contact Congress in support of legislation that would reverse the Obama Administration’s decision.

Sincerely yours in Christ,
Alexander K. Sample
Most Reverend Alexander K. Sample
Bishop of Marquette

This article has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 19 }

Sheldon Adelson Couldn’t Buy Newt Florida

By on 30 January 2012

If you wanted to know the state of Newt Gingrich’s campaign right now all you had to do was watch Fred Thompson on Meet the Press on Sunday. With his hair slicked back and wisps of uncut frizz flipping out in the back, Thompson delivered his lines haltingly and with his head bowed, while focusing downward as he talked. I won’t get into the fantasy Thompson floated that if Republicans had held out during the government shutdown in the mid-90s they’d have… er, won. It was a tour de force whine from camp Gingrich about how big bad Mitt had played too dirty. Hypocrisy unlimited, the bellyaching stems from the reality that Newt can’t match Mitt’s money, because if he could he’d be doing the same thing. Anybody doubt that fact?

Favorite recent headline: Newt May Be Mad and Mental Enough to Fight On Long After Florida, an article by John Heilimann.

Here’s an excerpt:

In a weekend of trailing the former speaker to a series of events along the I-4 corridor, there was just no escaping that a campaign that was flying high (and even into outer space) ten days ago has now come crashing back to earth. At what was billed as a Hispanic town hall meeting at another church yesterday in Orlando, Gingrich was greeted by row after row of empty pews and maybe 40 voters in attendance. For a full hour after the scheduled starting time, Gingrich and his wife, Callista, sat outside, cloistered in his campaign bus — possibly sulking, possibly fuming at his campaign’s horrid advance work, and surely praying that a few more souls would show up. When Gingrich finally entered the building, it was announced that the event was a town hall no more; the candidate would speak briefly, then take pictures with the scant few who’d turned up. And “briefly” was an understatement: Standing behind a Lucite lectern, Gingrich talked for a bare eight minutes and eleven seconds, looking deflated and exhausted. By no small margin, it was the worst and saddest campaign event that I have witnessed in this presidential cycle.

Now all the talk in the political world is about how badly Newt Gingrich could get beat tomorrow, with everyone anticipating a large margin win by Mitt Romney.

A lot of Republicans are hoping for it and an end to the savage bloodletting, as well as the debates. Sen. John McCain said on Meet the Press Sunday that they’ve got to end. Chris Wallace said the debates were “ridiculous,” “insane,” and “stupid” recently on a radio show. The next one is at the end of February, which will be a very long month for Newt Gingrich.

Sheldon Adelson bought Newt Gingrich South Carolina. What he’s gotten for his money is another story. It’s about Israel and Iran, but having a candidate in the race that can define the debate rightward where the Middle East is concerned.

RT @RyanLizza: Newt warning Iranians could easily blow up Jacksonville with nuclear weapon (via boat).

I retweeted the above to make the point. You may remember Gingrich saying the Palestinian people were “invented.”

We should all be thankful Mitt Romney’s rich, organized and that his campaign is not going to take their foot off Gingrich’s throat again.

“It not about winning here anymore,” one Romney staffer told BuzzFeed. “It’s about destroying Gingrich — and it’s working.” – Zeke Miller, BuzzFeed

There’s no comfort when you look at Mitt Romney where the Middle East is concerned either. To say foreign policy isn’t his forte is an understatement. So with neoconservatives and John Bolton in the background, with Newt in cahoots with Adelson, it’s all very weirdly counterproductive for Israel and for the U.S. on the right.

Mr. Adelson and his wife were evidently cynical enough to believe that American Jews living in Florida would buy Newt’s message. It doesn’t look like it’s selling. The question is whether Adelson will keep the money flowing if Gingrich loses big in Florida, because where this race heads next depends on it.

Read full story · Comments { 13 }

Hillary Clinton has Attended Last SOTU as Obama’s SoS

By on 26 January 2012

“I think after 20 years — and it will be 20 years — of being on the high wire of American politics and all of the challenges that come with that, it would be probably a good idea to just find out how tired I am.” – Secy. Hillary Clinton

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton meets with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg at the U.S. Department of State in Washington, D.C., on January 25, 2012. State Department photo/ Public Domain

I tweeted about this likelihood on Tuesday. She’ll no doubt work up until the very last second on her very last day, for which Pres. Obama is no doubt grateful, as are we all.

We can only imagine that it’s “a little odd for me to be totally out of an election season,” as she also admits she “didn’t watch any of those debates.”

After she leaves State, Hillary Clinton will be able to rest, write, and then assess other options. This includes, come 2014, coming to grips on whether she’s ready to walk away from another run for the White House and possibly being the first female president of the United States.

There will be a different breed bidding for the Democratic presidential spot in 2016. However, no one in politics would be more prepared. She would, however, have to defend her continued militaristic foundation, whether it’s Libya or her continued belief in the war in Afghanistan. Her close relationship to the Pentagon and the U.S. defense industry would also be at issue. Mrs. Clinton’s closeness to Israel’s leaders and the trust built between them, would, however, hold great possibilities. Her involvement during the Libya bombing proved unparalleled, as she worked to convince Arab leaders to come on board. It would be a serious campaign, not a walk in the park, at least with progressive primary voters, though there would also be great emotions on the left to making a Democratic female a seminal part of American history.

Mrs. Clinton has also said time and again she will not run for president again.

TM NOTE: An international women’s foundation, raising money from all sides, like her husband’s CGI, and impacting women’s lives in countries around the world, is one very good bet, which I’d put money on myself.

Taylor Marsh is the author of The Hillary Effect, which traces the history of the near twenty years of press coverage and political events that followed Hillary Clinton into the 2008 presidential race and helped make her candidacy as impossible as it was part of her destiny.

Read full story · Comments { 15 }

Sissy Farenthold Speaks Truth to Power on What We Must Do to Save America

By on 21 January 2012

Art offers his perspective as a movement progressive activist.

“I am working for the time when unqualified blacks, browns and women join the unqualified men in running our government.” – Sissy Farenthold

Sissy Speaks Truth!

This week, as President of Meyerland Area Democrats, I was able to get a progressive legend to come and speak. Her name is Sissy Farenthold.

See, Sissy was the first woman elected to the Texas House, back in 1968. She took out a good ole boy and won the House seat in South Texas. Farenthold became a household name as the “den mother” of reformers in the Texas House, her courage to take on the corruption there made her a national hero. Her actions directly led to the toppling of most the corrupt figures in the legislature in what became the Sharpstown Stock Scandal.

Then in 1972 she did the unthinkable again: she ran for governor. It was a media sensation and a explosive firestorm: a liberal woman running in her own right against the conservative Democratic Party machine. Sissy’s run empowered a new generation of progressives in the state, and even by losing she scored a win. She peeled off votes from the embattled incumbent Governor Preston Smith and long groomed LBJ/ Connally protégé Lt. Governor Ben Barnes. Thus, banker Dolph Briscoe wound getting the most votes and went into a runoff with Sissy! He won the runoff and political history was made. Farenthold’s run had cost two Texas incumbents the governorship.

That same year of 1972 more history was made: she was nominated at the Democratic Nation Convention for Vice President. She is the first woman to have had such real consideration and it almost happened, but alas she got second place in the voting. She went on to run in 1974 again for governor, lost, then established many organization such as the National Women’s Political Caucus.

Although Sissy only served two terms in the Texas legislature (1968-1972) she made a massive impact on her state and the national scene. Without Sissy you do not get Ann Richards or Hillary Clinton.

At our meeting she discussed the need for all of us to start being more vocal about the plight of the people in this nation. She is a major supporter of Occupy Wall St., was in New York when it started, and yes, talked to the protestors there and here in Houston holding rallies. She warned that this election will be very difficult for Obama because of how terrible the economy is and the growing masses of poverty.

Sissy expressed outrage of the lack of a real women’s movement against the barbaric new anti-abortion and anti-voting laws . She urged the women in the crowd that the time has come to stand up and be counted. Sissy expressed that Occupy shows the way for women to start fighting the male dominated system in Washington for their economic needs.

Sissy urged that change won’t come via the crew in DC. Or at the state capitol. It would come through raising our voices and pushing hard against the corrupting forces in this nation.

You see Sissy gets that standing up can have a positive effect. She stood up to the graft in the Texas House and unleashed the toppling of many good ole boys there. In 1969 she stood up to the national Democratic Party by being the lone vote against a resolution praising LBJ’s Vietnam leadership. Someone had to say no to that war despite LBJ being the leader of her own party. We must have her kind of courage going forward.

You could say Sissy has been a Occupier for a very long time. She is a maverick, a rebel and a real progressive who fights for her values and will not be silenced by the establishment. The answer to our political problems I think is more Sissy Farentholds. It will take that to end the power of the oligarchy and moneyed interests we are living under.

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

Our Womb is Finally Equal (at least for now)

By on 20 January 2012

Most healthcare plans will be required to cover birth control without charging co-pays or deductibles starting Aug. 1, the Obama administration announced Friday. The final regulation retains the approach federal health officials proposed last summer, despite the deluge of complaints from religious groups and congressional Republicans that has poured in since then. Churches, synagogues and other houses of worship are exempt from the requirement, but religious-affiliated hospitals and universities only get a one-year delay and must comply by Aug. 1, 2013. – The Hill

Viagra has been covered in health care policies for years. Now, the Obama administration has instructed the Department of Health and Human Services that universal contraceptive coverage will now be part of every employers health care plan. An exception will be made for religious zealots, represented by Rick Santorum and the anti birth control contingent on the religious right, which lives in both political parties.

Pres. Obama’s Affordable Care Act is not a great bill, so don’t get me started. However, there are really important parts of it worth praising. What the right likes to call Obamacare covers preventive health services for free for women, with the definition of what that means a step by step process. The announcement today on contraceptive coverage is one of those steps.

As a reminder, here’s part of what was announced in August 2011:

Today’s announcement builds on that progress by making sure women have access to a full range of recommended preventive services without cost sharing, including:

  • well-woman visits;
  • screening for gestational diabetes;
  • human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing for women 30 years and older;
  • sexually-transmitted infection counseling;
  • human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening and counseling;
  • FDA-approved contraception methods and contraceptive counseling;
  • breastfeeding support, supplies, and counseling; and
  • domestic violence screening and counseling.

I’m all for applauding this action, but as a liberal, I find the notion of universal birth control a public health issue, for which there should be no religious exception for institutions. That should be a personal choice issue, not an institutional one. I also believe that universal health care is a right, not a privilege. Unfortunately, if you’re poor it’s the latter.

For the bots ready to blow, this isn’t about Pres. Obama, because any Democratic president would be offering this very thing, with the religious exception, because that’s what the big two parties are all about, the larger public and good of the poor always secondary. So, excuse me if I find any applause as silly as cheering for the Lily Ledbetter Act, which is the bare minimum women of all political parties should expect from our politicians in the second decade of the 21st century.

But for some reason women in this country are always satisfied with less, putting political allegiances above issues of equality that should bring all women together. Partisanship separates us from accomplishing the biggest goals, which include bringing poor women into the fold, which can only happen through universal health care.

To drive home the point of just how backward our country remains, read Sarah Posner on the challenges already moving against the Obama administration’s sanity:

UPDATE: The Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty, which, as I reported in my long religious freedom piece, represents both a Catholic college and an evangelical university in challenging the rule, has issued a statement (tellingly calling the rule an “abortion drug mandate”) claiming that the rule will not withstand constitutional scrutiny. As other observers have noted, opponents of the contraception mandate have claimed that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in EEOC v. Hosanna-Tabor, which recognized a “ministerial exception” that prevents churches from being by “ministerial” employees under federal employment discrimination laws. The Beckett Fund makes this argument in its statement, but legal observers have noted the narrow holding in that case. The opponents of the Obama administration decision like the Beckett Fund does in its statement, will attempt to make the Hosanna-Tabor into a broad statement against government interference in church affairs in an attempt to bolster their claims against the contraception mandate.

Release the lawyers and let them fight it out.

We’re allowing serious encroachment into freedoms won through Griswold and Roe v. Wade already, something I write about at length in my book, in the chapter “Is Freedom Just for Men?” People on both sides are afraid of the outcome. It’s time Americans see in the light of day what’s happening in secret across this country, which amped up after Democrats blew the 2010 midterm elections, releasing an assault on unions, the middle class, as well as a war on women from the right.

This issue is one reason I find Ron Paul’s squeals of liberty absurd, even hypocritical. He makes a mockery of his Libertarian stance when he puts himself on the side of the freedom is just for men crowd. He said in the debate that abortion is violent and he’s against violence. I guess he never considers the violence that hits a woman who is hit with an unwanted pregnancy she can’t handle. Has he never seen a poor woman in the throes of this type of destruction? Can he not imagine her anguish? Unfortunately, very few politicians can today, because we have a dearth of truly inspiring and compassionate leaders.

Women’s individual freedom is actually a conservative notion. Don’t tread on me and individual rights, which are heralded as sacrosanct on the right by conservatives, stop when it comes to a woman’s own freedoms for them, but as we saw in the health care debate, for Democrats, too. Why people don’t see this hypocrisy for what it is astounds me.

Music provided by the great chirp Etta James who passed away today.

Read full story · Comments { 18 }

Capitalism Out of the Closet

By on 13 January 2012

**UPDATED**

Would we be any worse off with Stephen Colbert as president? I doubt it.

Politifact has watched the video “(repeatedly!)” and has a moment to moment tick tock rundown. They’ll get to analyzing it later. John Hinderaker takes out after Rick Perry, Think Progress and others. [update]…and now Glen Kessler has bestowed on “King of Bain” the dreaded 4 Pinocchios. The CNN Money article below dissects “When Romney Came to Town.”

To be clear, none of this is to suggest that Romney and Bain didn’t make some very real mistakes, or that they shouldn’t be criticized for situations in which they profited from financial engineering rather than from company growth. But the Winning Our Future PAC goes beyond that, intentionally obscuring the record in a way that makes such honest discussions more difficult. And for that, Winning Our Future deserves some scorn of its own. – CNN Money

What it doesn’t say is that even though the film casts Mitt Romney as the evil capitalist Ken doll, let’s not pretend this guy is standing alone in these practices. If we come out of this believing Romney’s the only bad guy, while Democrats smack their chops with glee that they now have him right where they want him, America deserves to go keep fumbling along financially, because long-term, slow pain with no solutions may be the only thing that will one day wake people up.

It’s a mistake to see the 28-minute video above and think this is just about Mitt Romney. He rightly earns the role of diabolical villain in the video, but what he represents is why Occupy Wall Street rose up in the first place. Romney’s a master at playing the Wall Street system, which even the film above stipulates is facilitated by investment bankers who helped Mitt Romney and others like him work the current system that collapsed in 2008, caused the current unemployment rate, but also the hollowing out of the American middle class that started a long time ago.

There’s a reason Rudy Giuliana went off on Newt Gingrich and it’s because this video exposes the entire American financial wagon train that is the foundational tenet of the Republican Party. It also strips bare the primal scream of Rush Limbaugh and his right-wing rabble who lie to Americans every day saying they, too, have a chance to be Mitt Romney.

It would be laughable if it wasn’t so dangerous, because some people are so desperate today they’ll buy anything if it has even half a chance of getting them out of the financial hole they’re in. Rush Limbaugh is actually just as guilty as Mitt Romney.

It’s all lies and our entire political system is bankrolled by it, with the person who can best hawk the marketing of the American Corporation picked and put in charge. However, it’s not this person, the president, who actually is in charge of anything. It’s the wise men of Wall Street (women are never let near the controls for long) who hold the power and they’re tucked inside and rarely seen.

The Mitt Romneys in our business and investment class can no longer be bothered with creating, building or envisioning anything any longer. It’s been this way since the ’80s and before. That people are suddenly shocked and shrieking that the middle class is losing it’s core, seen through the job loss and devastation in this video shows how lost we are, how morally bankrupt our society has become. There’s a whole other class below the middle class that’s been growing for years, including under Pres. Obama, who he hasn’t addressed once, except to announce he’s pulling their heating oil subsidies. The poor now has company, but don’t think anyone, least of all the Mitt Romneys, intend to do anything about it.

Mitt Romney didn’t begin the gutting of our manufacturing sector or the gambling with investors money. If he wasn’t running for president we wouldn’t be having this conversation and had he not gone after Newt Gingrich none of this would have surfaced until Obama reelect got him as an opponent and started unloading and unpacking Mitt Romney’s very successful business career, which even an Obama adviser, Steve Rattner, said this week was exemplary.

“Fair is fair. … But I think these attacks are unfair. I think Mitt Romney, not only had a very successful career throughout business, but Bain Capital is a terrific, first class firm. Managing money mostly for foundations, for endowments, for pension funds on behalf of exactly the people Rick Perry thinks he’s trying to harm, and they had a great record with 80 or 90 investments, all of which made a lot of money for their investors… and he did it in a perfectly honorably, appropriate way. … – Steve Rattner, on “Morning Joe”

Mr. Rattner was Pres. Obama Administration’s Car Czar and Counselor to the Secretary of the Treasury, and is a good Democrat. Are you seeing it clearly yet?

Can Mitt Romney survive this video and the 30-second spots that come from it? The states coming up in the primaries have been hard hit by a bad economy. However, Romney’s bankrolled to the teeth and the pressure’s on to quiet things down, so I’m guessing he can. The other side of this pile on is that at some point people are going to look at it and ask “Is Mitt Romney really the cause of all that ails us?”

What do people think will happen if a different Republican is nominated or if Pres. Obama stays in office? What huge difference will it make?

The caterwauling over Mitt Romney tapping the core of American capitalism for his own benefit is rooted in partisanship and doesn’t address the wider reality, which is that there are hundreds of Mitt Romneys in this country, many of whom got the Bush tax cut extensions, which Pres. Obama gladly gave and never really mounted a nationwide fight against. If you truly understand the calamity facing our middle class there is no way morally or in good conscience you could possibly back down from this fight, turning it into a war if you have to. Yes, a class war, but when Democrats hail compromise and gut Dodd-Frank or go along to keep things moving how innocent are they for watching what’s developed under their own backers and bundlers?

Using Steve Rattner’s defense of Mr. Romney and Bain Capital as an example, what are Democratic venture capitalists and heads of holding companies and investment bankers supposed to do in the shadow of this damning video that reveals the sausage making that is our economic system? As Rattner reveals, Democrats in his class can feel his pain and you can bet they’re just glad it’s Romney and not them.

That Wall Street Democrats are fleeing Obama’s side because of hurt feelings and would certainly find common cause in the onslaught that would be unleashed on Mitt Romney if he’s the nominee, who is one of their own, is another interesting tidbit of this tale. Sympathy vote, anyone? More likely, they’ll send cash.

If Occupy stays relevant, the entire American Corporation class will have to go underground, because Mitt Romney may be the star of the film, but they’re mirror images of this man and his methods and we’ve heard a lot about who’s been hurt lately, but now it’s in a film reel.

But where are the African Americans, Latinos and people of color? Evidently, they don’t get touched by the American Corporation class, besides, it’s white working class Mitt Romney will need to beat Obama, so let’s stay focused, people.

The whole event is obscene and the rot of our political class exposed.

What’s ironic is that this devastating video and the launch of it into the Republican primary season was made possible by conservative David Bossie, the president of the pro-Gingrich Super PAC. Bossie is the man who produced “The Hillary Movie” that culminated in the Supreme Court decision on Citizens United and the current flood of money we’re now seeing drown our democracy and put Mitt Romney and the entire Republican Party on DEFCON 1. Karma’s a bitch and she’s got one hell of a sense of humor.

That Obama reelect will trumpet the video and all of its parts in the general election season, freaking out their own Democratic version of the Mitt Romney class, is wrought with irony.

What we need is a different kind of conservation about the country we are going to be in the 21st century and that’s not coming from any direction or either political party. The only thing that matters to the partisans is putting their sock puppet in power, while the money men just keep on funneling the system to the top.

It no longer matters who ends up in the White House and Congress anymore, because the Mitt Romneys of this country are the ones really in charge and they won’t allow anyone else in, buying politicians and the presidency.

We the people are simply being held hostages by a monetary and political system that is out of control and which can’t be fixed, because the concentrated power is locked down and loaded for anyone who tries.

Read full story · Comments { 21 }

Super PAC Power

By on 12 January 2012


From Politico comes the story of the Super PAC billionaires:

Adelson, a Las Vegas casino mogul, has written a $5 million check — and has considered giving much more — to a so-called super PAC backing Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign.

Huntsman, Sr., who made his fortune at the helm of an eponymous chemical and manufacturing company, reportedly has invested millions in a super PAC supporting the presidential bid of his son, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, Jr.

And Friess, a Wyoming mutual fund master, acknowledged to POLITICO that he is a major financial backer of a super PAC supporting Rick Santorum called the Red, White and Blue Fund and is preparing to give more, but declined to say how much he has given or plans to give.

Oddly, Rick Santorum, the guy who tied Romney in Iowa, then blew his advantage in New Hampshire, doesn’t have a Super PAC, even though he’s the most logical conservative candidate alternative to Mitt.

It reveals the emotional connections and the nonsensical strategy in play.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

If Romney Wins Iowa It’s Huge

By on 03 January 2012

UPDATE 1.4.12 (12:01): Rick Perry gives 1st concession speech of life. Not assessing gravity of back surgery & trying to run for presidency looms large.

UPDATE (10:54 pm): NBC News Predicts Ron Paul places 3rd.  Romney team can exhale. Republican establishment & Iowa state boosterism, inspired by threats of extinction, kept Paul from winning. Santorum no Huckabee, because he’s Santorum. But with 110,000 reportedly the total turnout, Republican Establishment has to be shell shocked. They’ll all be counting Chris Christies in their sleep.  As for Obama, he addressed caucus goers, too. However, with Paul’s anti-war support, you’ve got to wonder what a progressive challenger taking the debate to Pres. Obama on his Bush-esque foreign policy might have done.

It’s a big if.

Rick Santorum is now in the center ring, with Ron Paul, well, the Establishment doesn’t like Mr. Paul.

But anyone talking down what it would mean for Romney if he wins Iowa is simply wrong. It would be a campaign coup of their dreams.

Of course, you won’t hear this on MSNBC, with Chris Matthews and Lawrence O’Donnell tag teaming Romney’s team on Super PAC ads, Al Sharpton joining in, clearly showing the same old bias of this cable network. Thank the gods Rachel Maddow was playing referee, though she was outnumbered and couldn’t manage to keep the whole segment from turning into a farce.

Of course, that’s not to say Romney’s victory doesn’t begin with the Supreme Court’s decision on Citizens United, which many of Mitt Romney’s biggest supporters backed enthusiastically.

However, when you’re going to have an interview with a senior Romney adviser Ben Ginsburg, who should be asked about Super Pacs because he was involved in pushing the case that made Super PACS come alive, you could at least do it fairly or at least one at a time, with a panel that isn’t loaded 4 to 1 against conservatives.

Newt Gingrich wouldn’t be squealing if he had a Super PAC, something all good conservative Republicans are never found without at election season. But hearing Chris Matthews now carry his water is an obvious set up, because if you don’t think Democrats would rather run against Gingrich than Romney you haven’t been paying attention.

MSNBC’s amateur hour election coverage isn’t going to cut it.

As an aside, Keith Olbermann’s “Countdown” will reportedly not be on CurrentTV tonight, which was tweeted by Brian Seltzer. He’s been AWOL the whole Iowa run-up.

People also want to forget that back in the fall Mitt Romney was seen as not being able to compete in Iowa, not having a prayer. However, running a stealth campaign, his team quietly got his 2004 team up and going and plodded a plan to make some sort of showing.

There’s no love for Mitt Romney anywhere, with whatever excitement there is seemingly on the side of Rick Santorum, according to reports on the ground, which is all I’ve got to go on from the Beltway. We’ll see if they’re right or if the media blows it again.

Just one week ago the big momentum was with Ron Paul. But then the Establishment Republican class started floating to the Iowa GOP and every media source that would suck it up that this would mean the end of their status. Suddenly state boosterism exploded and Mitt Romney started rising, as Paul was getting hit on Iran.

Will pragmatism win the caucus day?

If Mitt Romney wins tonight, that will be one reason why. But it will take a big turn out.

UPDATE 7: 110,000 reportedly the total turnout. Republican Establishment has to be shell shocked. They’ll all be counting Chris Christies in their sleep.

UPDATE 6: Romney takes tiny lead for 1st time: 23.1%, Santorum 22.9%, Paul 22.9% via AP at 9:31 p.m. ET. 25.8% precincts in, via Politico.

UPDATE 5: Santorum 24.1%, Romney 23.9%, Paul 21.9% via AP at 10:03 p.m. ET. 45.5% precincts in.

UPDATE 4: Mitt’s problem? Ron Paul, Iowa, Santorum and Ann Romney trending on Twitter but he isn’t.

UPDATE 3: C-SPAN live streaming selective Iowa caucus counting.

UPDATE 2: CNN final entrance poll results: 24% Paul; 23% Romney; 19% Santorum; 13% Gingrich.

UPDATE: Robert Reich on Twitter: Waiting for the results the #iacaucus is like waiting at the airport for someone you don’t know, don’t care about, and believe is deranged.

Read full story · Comments { 23 }

Newt and Callista, A Nightmare to Consider

By on 22 December 2011

What primarily stands between us and misrule, however, is the Constitution, buttressed by an independent judiciary. …He is the first presidential candidate to propose a thorough assault on the rule of law. – George Will



Newt Gingrich’s latest political tactic: whining.

The bookend is a new ad buy from Citizens United, run by David Bosie and Newt Gingrich, showing an old clip of he and Callista touting Ronald Reagan. Burns & Haberman broke the story this morning. It’s obviously a hail Mary attempt a Christmastime to make Iowans feel warm and fuzzy.

But is there anything more hilarious than Mr. Gingrich going after Mitt Romney for negative advertising by a SuperPAC that favors him?

Meanwhile, the Concord Monitor endorsed Jon Huntsman today, while saying this about Newt (they weren’t crazy about Romney either):

With Gingrich, voters would get an unpredictable, unprincipled nominee and, should he be elected, a white-knuckle four years of an imperial presidency.

Newt has always been the biggest bomb thrower in politics, having established that practice as his primary weapon back in the ’90s, right up until the moment in Iowa when he didn’t have the money to answer back.

We’re hip deep in irony, folks. A man who’s threatening to send the marshal to arrest judges is bellyaching about SuperPAC money when it was the conservative Supreme Court of John Roberts who delivered the Citizens United verdict that made what’s happening to Gingrich in Iowa possible.

I mean, really, Newt.

Add it to Gingrich’s serial hypocrisy list, which is now too long to see the end.

George Will has never been so entertaining, even if some of his reasoning is down right zany, which is seen in bold below.

…Gingrich’s epiphany about judicial tyranny occurred in 2002, when a circuit court ruled unconstitutional the Pledge of Allegiance phrase declaring America a nation “under God.” Gingrich likened this to the 1857 Dred Scott decision that led to 625,000 Civil War dead. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned the circuit court’s “under God” nonsense.

Gingrich’s unsurprising descent into sinister radicalism — intimidation of courts — is redundant evidence that he is not merely the least conservative candidate, he is thoroughly anti-conservative. He disdains the central conservative virtue, prudence, and exemplifies progressivism’s defining attribute — impatience with impediments to the political branches’ wielding of untrammeled power. He exalts the will of the majority of the moment, at least as he, tribune of the vox populi, interprets it.

Atop the Republican ticket, Gingrich would guarantee Barack Obama’s reelection, would probably doom Republicans’ hopes of capturing the Senate and might cost them control of the House. If so, Gingrich would at last have achieved something — wreckage, but something — proportional to his swollen sense of himself.

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

Obama ‘Detached’, Emperor Newt Collapses, and Fun with Fallon

By on 18 December 2011

SNL was at its best last night, under the helm of host Jimmy Fallon. I’m a big fan, but last night was a primetime worthy performance. Michael Bublé has some chops, what a chirp. The Today Show skit above is now one of my faves. It was a stitch!

In the news, Vaclav Havel passes. The Times report puts “writer” first, which as a writer myself, reminds me of the power a select few people of the written word possess. That the best writers have at their soul something that drives all of us to impact our corner of the world. What Mr. Hamel was above to do is the stuff of true historic greatness.

Vaclav Havel, the writer and dissident whose eloquent dissections of Communist rule helped to destroy it in revolutions that brought down the Berlin Wall and swept Havel himself into power, died on Sunday. He was 75.

It says something about America that Mr. Havel is not being celebrated as Christopher Hitchens was upon his death.

On the payroll tax cut extension:

The White House would not discuss the “sausage-making” of the payroll tax deal. But a former Obama administration official who has knowledge of how negotiations with the Hill work, said, “We’d use Reid as a primary negotiator in the end game.” …

“The White House gives him a lot of latitude on what the end game should look like,” the official said.

[...] A GOP Senate aide familiar with the payroll tax extension talks said the president “could not have been more separated from the talks.” “He was the most detached person from this process of any of the major players,” the aide said.

“Detached” is reminiscent of George H. W. Bush, with Barack Obama having the same removed relationship with the American people as Bush 41.

Oh, and what would Christmas be without another Republican sex scandal?

But the most noteworthy political report is compliments of Newt Gingrich, who channeled is inner un-American dictator yesterday with reporters.

Newt Gingrich says as president he would ignore Supreme Court decisions that conflicted with his powers as commander in chief, and he would press for impeaching judges or even abolishing certain courts if he disagreed with their rulings.

“I’m fed up with elitist judges” who seek to impose their “radically un-American” views, Gingrich said Saturday in a conference call with reporters.

It was never whether Gingrich would say something incendiary or stupid, encapsulating his unpresidential persona, it was about when.

Now you know why I never bought into his presidential contest, even as some progressives, including big new media sites, started believing in the notion. This terrific graphic from TPM says it all.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Newt Gingrich Pummeled, but did Romney Surprise Some Iowans?

By on 16 December 2011

The polling data I’ve seen over the past two or three days suggests that Newt Gingrich’s momentum has stopped — and has probably reversed itself. The most troubling numbers for Mr. Gingrich are in Iowa, where three recent polls show that his lead — which had been in double-digits just a week ago — has all but evaporated. – Nate Silver


Last night’s Iowa debate will not help Mr. Gingrich reverse his slide. But that’s not the only thing that developed over the evening. TIME magazine’s “person of the year,” the protester, even showed up.

Bret Baier showed his bias by grilling Ron Paul on Iran over and over again, then turning it over to Rick Santorum to continue, because Iran is one of his stronger issues. Paul didn’t flinch, though he won’t win any friends from this crowd, however, he did get a nod from Charles Krauthammer who said he was “wacky and occasionally very impressive.”

Chris Wallace took out after Mitt Romney, his antipathy obvious for Romney, doing his best to ruffle him, to no avail.

But it’s hard to come to any conclusion other than Newt Gingrich took what could be fatal blows at last night’s Fox News Channel debate, even considering he had some rousing applause lines, one of which was on judges. Problem is, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Alberto Gonzales slammed him on those views, which he released in a position paper.

Mukasey and Alberto Gonzales, in exclusive interviews with Fox News’ Megyn Kelly, said they are particularly alarmed by provisions such as allowing Congress to subpoena judges after controversial rulings to “explain their constitutional reasoning” to the politicians who passed the laws. – EXCLUSIVE: Former Bush Attorneys General Call Gingrich Position on Courts ‘Dangerous’

After Mr. Gingrich’s devastating debate start, much of it delivered by Michele Bachmann, she came back at the end and lowered the boom on Mr. Newt’s patronizing condescension, as he questioned her on her facts. “I am a serious candidate for president,” was a freezing moment for Gingrich that reminded anyone watching about his juggling wives and horrific history with females. But her Freddie Mac attack was brutal. From CBS News:

Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann blasted the former House speaker, reminding the debate audience in Sioux City, Iowa that “the speaker had his hand out” and “cashed paychecks” from Freddie Mac to the tune of at least $1.6 million.

“That’s absolutely wrong,” she said, “we can’t have as our nominee… someone who continues to stand for Freddie Mac,” which guarantees mortgages made by banks.

Bachmann clearly got under Gingrich’s skin. The former speaker said Bachmann’s claims were “factually not true,” adding that he “never lobbied in any circumstance” for the firm.

Bachmann responded that “you don’t need to be within the technical definition of being a lobbyist to be influence peddling… to get [lawmakers] to do your bidding.”

Somewhere in smoke-filled rooms, the GOP Establishment is holding their breath and waiting for the polling after this brawl.

Rick Perry actually came to life, using the line “I hope I’m the Tim Tebow of the Iowa caucuses,” but also delivering cogent thought. Maybe there’s a sympathy vote there or perhaps a Christian conservative hunk vote.

Rick Santorum was strong, with Mike Murphy tweeting that if he had the money he’d be in different shape in Iowa. But he doesn’t, so he isn’t.

As for Jon Huntsman, he’s reasonable and obviously smart, but his delivery doesn’t match the moment in Iowa, because he can’t deliver red meat applause lines often enough. Perhaps it will work for New Hampshire.

It depends on whether Mitt Romney rises in the eyes of Iowans, with this debate also helping him in New Hampshire. That’s not to say he’ll win Iowa, which would be a true upset. But Romney was as solid as he’s been at any time, while also delivering some red meat anti-Obama lines. His colleagues on the stage with him also let him skate, as Newt was in the bull’s eye. It was a gift for him that could help.

Conclusion is that it doesn’t seem to me that Ron Paul will rise after the debate, because he will not be able to convert enough new supporters. It will be a generous Christmas gift if Newt Gingrich doesn’t take a hit and continue to sink. The big question is will Romney’s very strong performance bolster his position in Iowa, but also in New Hampshire, maybe even make him rise a bit in the eyes of primary voters? It just might. It depends on whether his answer on gay marriage, with Santorum playing clean up, which Chris Wallace obviously served up to hurt Romney, is more important than Newt’s bad night and serial hypocrisy, or Ron Paul’s “wacky” words on Iran.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

On Debate Day, Newt Lands $20 Million from Vegas Mogul

By on 15 December 2011

graphic via Huffington Post

Republican nomination for $20 million, please.

Who’s getting creamed in the ad wars in Iowa and seeing his polls numbers slide? Answer, of course is Newt Gingrich, who is about to get some much needed financial assistance.

Casino magnate Sheldon Adelson is planning to direct $20 million to an outside group backing Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign, multiple sources told POLITICO — the first answer to urgent pleas from allies to the former speaker’s longtime billionaire supporters. – Politico

The debate tonight comes with a lot of noise. Sean Hannity was hawking it like it was the last round-up. It is big night, with Newt bleeding support after a barrage of incoming and he’ll likely be the target tonight, too. Could also be the night that Republicans finally acknowledge that Ron Paul actually matters in Iowa.

It’s the last debate before the Iowa caucuses, which could mean a lot if Newt can pull off a win, which I still don’t think he can do. Or if you’re listening to Rush Limbaugh, Hannity and Chris Wallace, will mean nothing if Ron Paul wins in Iowa.

The GOP Establishment is freaked over Newt, but no one is excited about Ron Paul getting momentum either. Today on right-wing radio Karl Rove called Paul an “isolationist.”

Why is it that anyone who doesn’t like going to war where we don’t absolutely have to is considered an “isolationist” by Republicans and their neoconservative wing?

On a day when everyone is hailing an “end” to the Iraq war, while we have a compound that is over 104 acres, not to mention plenty of support staff and contractors still involved in that country, I’d say our political leaders, especially Republicans, could use a large dose of whatever makes Ron Paul’s foreign policy come out on the sane side of things (though the same cannot be said for other parts of his political philosophy).

Jon Huntsman talks the perfect language on foreign policy, but he’s not on the radar in Iowa, while hoping for an upset in New Hampshire.[This sentence has been updated, because I mistakenly wrote that Mr. Huntsman wouldn’t be in Iowa.}

From my side of the political fence we call it realism.

Let the last rumble of 2011 begin.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Supreme Court Sets Unprecedented 5 1/2-Hour Hearing for Health Care

By on 14 November 2011

Only the oral arguments on campaign finance rivals what will take place on the Affordability Care Act, but according to the Times, that was only 4 hours.

From the New York Times:

Setting the stage for a historic constitutional confrontation over federal power, the Supreme Court on Monday granted three separate cases on the constitutionality of the new federal health care law, and set aside 5 1/2 hours for oral argument, to be held in March. The Court, however, did not grant all of the issues raised and it chose issues to review only from three of the five separate appeals before it. It is unclear, at this point, whether all of the cases will be heard on a single day.

The Court will hold two hours of argument on the constitutionality of the requirement that virtually every American obtain health insurance by 2014, 90 minutes on whether some or all of the overall law must fail if the mandate is struck down, one hour on whether the Anti-Injunction Act bars some or all of the challenges to the insurance mandate, and one hour on the constitutionality of the expansion of the Medicaid program for the poor and disabled. The Court chose those issues from appeals by the federal government, by 26 states, and by a business trade group. It opted not to review the challenges to new health care coverage requirements for public and private employers. It left untouched petitions by a conservative advocacy group, the Thomas More Law Center, and three of its members, and by Liberty University and two of its employees.

Final ruling from SCOTUS will be in June 2012, at the height of the presidential election season.

Federal powers vs. state power is getting it’s day in court, at least where health care is concerned, which will lay down law that a lot of people who follow, study and analyze American politics care a lot about.

Politically speaking, this decision has the potential to fuel a lot of emotion going into the November 2012 elections. If the mandate stands, the reaction could be potent, but also what happens to the law if it doesn’t.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Herman Cain is ‘Bad-mouthing the Two Complainants’

By on 01 November 2011

“It is just frustrating that Herman Cain is going around bad-mouthing the two complainants, and my client is blocked by a confidentiality agreement,” Bennett said. “The National Restaurant Association ought to release them and allow them to respond.” – Lawyer: Cain accuser wants to tell her side of story

Herman Cain’s troubles just got worse.

One of the women wants to come forward, but while her attorney reviews the file, she can’t, because of the confidentiality agreement.

If she is released from the confidentiality ban, “then it is whole new ballgame,” Bennett said.

It certainly would be, because then Herman Cain wouldn’t be able to go on every cable and national news network to proclaim there wasn’t sexual harassment.

“If there hadn’t been [sexual harassment] claims, there wouldn’t have been a settlement,” Bennett said.

Why aren’t conservative women demanding more answers?

Why is Laura Ingraham, who used to clerk for Clarence Thomas, standing in front of Herman Cain?

What’s more important, Herman Cain or hearing what the woman who accused him has to say?

If the woman’s lawyer cannot find a way through the confidentiality agreement, Herman Cain should ask the Restaurant Assoc. to release her from it.

Read full story · Comments { 24 }

Romney’s Top Legal Adviser: Women ‘Aren’t Discriminated Against Anymore’

By on 17 October 2011

Mitt Romney Monday continues.

Pres. Obama and the Democrats split the women’s vote in the 2010 midterms. Romney and the Republicans seem to be determined to turn that around for them.

According to Lloyd Grove of the Daily Beast, Robert Bork is one of Mitt Romney’s newest legal advisers.

How about the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment? Does he still think it shouldn’t apply to women?

“Yeah,” he answers. “I think I feel justified by the fact ever since then, the Equal Protection Clause kept expanding in ways that cannot be justified historically, grammatically, or any other way. Women are a majority of the population now—a majority in university classrooms and a majority in all kinds of contexts. It seems to me silly to say, ‘Gee, they’re discriminated against and we need to do something about it.’ They aren’t discriminated against anymore.”

Good to know.


Read full story · Comments { 3 }

The Sunday Early Bird News Round-Up

By on 02 October 2011

Good morning and welcome to Sunday.

On this day in history, October 2, 1967 my favorite Supreme Court justice, Thurgood Marshall, was sworn in to sit on the nation’s highest Court.

Some interesting news and tid-bits from around the net:

~Congress has suspended aid to the Palestinian Authority as punishment for their UN bid. Apparently Bibi Netanyahu asked them not to do this because he knows that it could jeopardize the security cooperation between the PA security forces and Israel and lead to more violence.

~Wall Street is pointing their big guns at Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren.

~Justice Clarence Thomas’ financial disclosure oversight needs to be investigated.

~The targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki has generated some debate (also see here, here and here) about the legality of targeting known/suspected terrorists who are American citizens abroad. Among politicians, libertarian Republican candidate Ron Paul is the only one willing to raise the legality issue. Clearly he hates America.

~The administration is pushing back against the criticism of the legality of targeted assassinations by leaking information to the Washington Post explaining why such assassinations are legal based on an internal review the administration did. The rationale given by a slew of anonymous officials is eerily similar to those given by the Bush administration for various constitutionally questionable actions. Basically, we are at war everywhere against anyone deemed a threat so in the name of security, we can do whatever we want.

~Fox News still thinks President Obama is very weak on terror.

~Newt Gingrich thinks that the repeal of DADT demonstrates President Obama’s anti-military prejudice. Newt who?

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton discussing Egypt the other day with Al-Hayat TV:

~Since when did public protests where people exercise their First Amendment rights become such an annoyance to everyone in this great land of ours? The mainstream media has largely been criticizing if not outright mocking the Occupy Wall Street protests and Mayor Bloomberg really feels bad for Wall Street and says “we’ll see if the city will allow Occupy Wall St. to continue.” What?

~You would think the police might be a little more sympathetic to the Occupy Wall St. protesters.

~I’m a big Barbara Ehrenreich fan and so I was glad to see her commentary in the WaPo where she calls out the media and other elites for turning America’s millionaires and billionaires into victims of class warfare.

~Is Iran really an existential threat to Israel and the U.S.? This particular CIA veteran and counter-terrorism expert says no.

~Anti-gay marriage organizations are targeting lawmakers up for re-election in NY who support gay marriage by implying that such support was what sank Democrat Dave Weprin’s campaign in the NY-9 special election.

~Bank of America still sucks. The law Congress passed to limit unfair practices regarding bank/credit card fees is useless b/c the banks just add new fees/charges onto other services. It never ends.

~Our great ally Bahrain has sentenced 20 medical professionals to 15 year jail sentences for providing first aid to wounded protesters. Of course, that’s not the reason Bahrain gave, but that’s essentially what happened. Congress is currently approving the sale of $53 million worth of weapons to our great ally.

~Congratulations America, research shows that when compared to all the other Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) member nations, we come in dead last when it comes to worker protections.

~Montana Governor Schweizer is moving to enact single-payer health coverage in his state. Good on him.

~The Palestinians are waging a full frontal diplomatic assault on Mideast Quartet head Tony Blair. There have been revelations in British newspapers and television about possible financial conflicts of interest related to his diplomatic work in the Middle East which make the Quartet look even worse than it already does.

~The California Attorney General has reportedly rejected the massive foreclosure fraud settlement that would essentially reward the big banks/mortgage companies for wrongdoing leading to the collapse of the real estate market. The Obama administration has been leaning hard on states to support the settlement.

~Here is a video and transcript of President Obama’s speech before Human Rights Campaign last night.

~Justice Scalia continues to demonstrate that judicial ethics isn’t his strong suit. Church and State? What’s that?

~Speaking of the Supreme Court, their new session begins Monday and the issues on their plate for this term will have significant impact on issues including privacy rights, the health care law, affirmative action, the rights of gay adoptive parents and the limits (or not) of federal power.

~Congress has slashed the State Department budget because, you know, who needs diplomacy?

~Obama approved a controversial weapons sale to Israel and people still are running around claiming he’s anti-Israel.

~Chelsea Clinton on her father’s announcement that he would run for President 20 years ago.

The End.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Liberally Independent: Affordable Care Act, Supreme Court, 2012 and people who need health care now

By on 30 September 2011

Joyce L. Arnold: Liberal, lesbian, Independent, equality activist, writer.

An interesting piece from Scott Lemieux, at American Prospect: Will the Supreme Court rule on the Affordable Care Act during the height of the 2012 election campaign?:

Earlier this week, the Obama administration decided not to ask the whole 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to hear a constitutional challenge to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), shortening the timetable for the various cases against the ACA reaching the Supreme Court and, according to some, setting the Court to rule smack-dab in the middle of election season. Earlier this year, a three-judge panel from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled the law’s “individual mandate”—the provision requiring people to pay a tax if they do not purchase insurance—unconstitutional.

Lemieux raises the possibility that SOTUS might decide not to decide … that is, they could choose not to consider the question of whether or not to uphold ACA. The Fourth Circuit “did not rule explicitly on whether the legislation was constitutional.” Rather, both cases decided by the Fourth were “dismissed for a lack of jurisdiction.”

Under Article III of the Constitution, the power of the federal courts derives from their ability to decide ‘cases and controversies.’ Since its inception, the Supreme Court has read this to mean that federal courts cannot decide constitutional cases in the abstract. You can’t sue the government because you happen not to like something it does; the party bringing the suit must have ‘standing’—that is, some direct stake in the application of the law. The Fourth Circuit essentially held that there was nothing for them to adjudicate.

Under Article III of the Constitution, the power of the federal courts derives from their ability to decide ‘cases and controversies.’ Since its inception, the Supreme Court has read this to mean that federal courts cannot decide constitutional cases in the abstract. You can’t sue the government because you happen not to like something it does; the party bringing the suit must have ‘standing’—that is, some direct stake in the application of the law. The Fourth Circuit essentially held that there was nothing for them to adjudicate.

Lemieux advises caution regarding the possibility SOTU will take the “standing” route, though doesn’t rule it out.

… as the Atlantic’s Andrew Cohen speculates, ‘Justice Anthony Kennedy or Chief Justice John Roberts [may] see in the jurisdictional issues a way out, a compromise, that would both dispose of the pending cases and help protect the Court from the inevitable political criticism it will receive no matter how it rules on the merits.’ …

Liberals who see a jurisdictional dodge as a potentially attractive escape may also want to be careful what they wish for. Any reprieve would be temporary. Once the law fully goes into effect in 2014, standing requirements will not provide much of a barrier … even to skeptical judges. If Obama is re-elected, the chances of getting a favorable ruling can’t be worse and may be better; if Mitt Romney or Rick Perry gets to select a replacement for the ailing Ruth Bader Ginsburg, on the other hand, the chances that the Affordable Care Act would survive a Supreme Court review drop precipitously.

Meanwhile, back in the world of millions of un- and underinsured, health care continues to be treated as a product, a commodity. And looking at the three branches of government, there doesn’t seem to be any hope of that changing.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }