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 | swiftboating

Susan G. Komen Puts Romney’s ‘Not Concerned About the Poor’ In Perfect Context

By on 02 February 2012

The decision, made in December, caused an uproar inside Komen. Three sources told me that the organization’s top public health official, Mollie Williams, resigned in protest immediately following the Komen board’s decision to cut off Planned Parenthood. ..Three sources told me the organization’s top public health official, Mollie Williams, resigned in protest immediately following the Komen board’s decision to cut off Planned Parenthood. – Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic

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

Warning if you watch the video above, you’ll need a seat belt to escape the spinning by Nancy Brinker, founder of Komen, who has disgraced herself through her decision to take a McCarthyite House investigation as gospel.

The Democrats and progressive advocates of Planned Parenthood act as if they’ve never heard of Sun Tsu. But every battle is won before it’s waged. That’s how this entire conversation moved right to the point where Komen feels it has cover to adopt ideology over public health priorities.

One question that remains worth asking, even if I’m the only one asking it, is why was there no outlet or relationship to tap for those inside Komen to reach out to progressive allies to prepare or fight off the defunding of Planned Parenthood? How could Cecile Richards and Planned Parenthood be caught so totally flat-footed on a decision that impacted the organization so profoundly? Is it possible Richards knew it was coming and decided taking the battle on after it was decided was the only option she had? If that’s remotely possible, the left is worse than even I imagined.

But if ever two events represented the right’s relationship today with the 99% they are the dueling events of Nancy Brinker of Komen and Mitt Romney for the 1%.

Mitt Romney talked about not being concerned about the very poor, because they have a safety net.

Brinker and Susan G. Komen damaging one of those safety nets for poor women by pulling funding for Planned Parenthood reveals what a Mitt Romney presidency might mean.

Meanwhile, Mayor Michael Bloomberg gave $250,000, which goes on top of the money so many are donating to Planned Parenthood since Komen flipped wingnut.

The primary function of Planned Parenthood is reproductive health care, which lives well beyond abortion, with the funds received by Susan G. Komen kept separate from abortion services, which is a fraction of what it does. Now, Megan McArdle is talking about the funds being fungible:

It is, as Josh Barro noted, absurd to pretend that abortion is somehow incidental to Planned Parenthood’s services, and since money is fungible, giving them money is probably helping to fund abortion provision.

Why is it absurd? McArdle’s lazy analysis of “probably helping to fund abortion” flippantly ignores the impact when a woman is denied any reproductive treatment she cannot afford.

The upper crust analyst class is a scourge.

It also doesn’t begin to deal with the investigative yarn being used by Komen to ostracize Planned Parenthood, which is the primary goal of the right, no matter who gets hurt. That the biggest anti Planned Parenthood contingent also absurdly believes abortion is linked to breast cancer proves how far out on the limb these people will go.

Democrats and progressives are outwitted and outgunned in this department, because they simply won’t wage the fight, always careful to appear moderate while clinging to the coveted centrism above principle or any philosophical foundation.

I’ve made it perfectly clear that I believe this event was allowed to happen through negligence and careless naivete of Cecile Richards and Planned Parenthood, but also their progressive and Democratic allies. They should have seen this coming, because it’s been in the works for years.

What could they have done? State unflinchingly and unapologetically that the rights of women where our own bodies are concerned are nothing less than a basic human right. That means you fight equally on every front and don’t apologize.

However, Democrats and progressives have not only not been diligent, but they’ve become increasingly and embarrassingly meek to the point of weakness in standing on a line and refusing to compromise on a woman’s basic human right to control her own body. That’s how the right carved out an investigative position over which to wage the Komen battle.

“Our donations are up 100 percent in the past two days. With all of the emotion around these issues — which we understand, we get emotional too, we do this every single day of our lives,” Brinker said, explaining that they do not make decisions to be popular, they make them to fight cancer. – Daily Caller

You don’t “fight cancer” by cutting out cervical screenings and mamograms to women who can’t afford them.

“I’m not concerned about the very poor” is the flag under which Susan G. Komen, Mitt Romney and their conservative apologists stand.

This never would have happened if the left was as strong in refusing to compromise on human rights issues of women’s individual freedoms. Compromising this fundamental purpose is how Planned Parenthood got in this position.

You can’t carve out portions of the women’s human rights philosophy because it makes you uncomfortable or you don’t have the spine to make the argument. Well, you can, but the result is that the right beats you and the least able to fend for themselves get crushed.

Read full story · Comments { 17 }

Jacksonville is Mittville

By on 26 January 2012


A Palestinian Republican? Check.

A question about the candidate’s wives, none of whom actually work, which is a much different circumstance than 99% of the families in this country.

The words “manufacturing” and “blue collar” weren’t uttered until Rick Santorum said them at the end of the debate.

Mitt Romney has a new debate coach and it showed. He had game. From the New York Times:

Mitt Romney, facing his greatest challenge of the campaign so far, relentlessly pressed Newt Gingrich on Thursday night in their final debate before the Florida primary, seeking to regain the offensive against an insurgent candidacy that is unexpectedly threatening to upend his once seemingly indomitable front-runner’s status.

On immigration, on personal finances and, even, on Mr. Gingrich’s proposal for lunar colonies, Mr. Romney gave Mr. Gingrich no quarter, adding prime-time voice to his campaign’s all-out assault on Mr. Gingrich that is now running morning, noon and night here.

The most important thing he did was prove to voters he could stand and fight, but also make the case for himself and defend his biography without sounding apologetic. There was more alpha aggressiveness to Romney. His answer on his wealth and Swiss bank account was the best possible. He does, however, need to work on his Romneycare answers, because Rick Santorum took him out on the mandate. The Jacksonville audience liked Romney and it was his best debate in weeks.

Newt Gingrich is over. As the video at the top teases, he intends to keep going and make Romney bleed, but it’s going to increase the attacks on him. Gingrich seems to have one tactic and that’s punch the media. But he just wasn’t in it at any time tonight.

Ron Paul provided the comic relief, but also clarity at times. He didn’t annoy Republicans because there were few foreign policy questions.

Rick Santorum had a stellar debate, but I can’t consider this guy seriously, because he’d lose 70% of the independent vote due to his belligerent intolerance. Without his backward bigotry, he’d likely be in this race in a serious way. His 93 year-old mother was a huge hit and offered a wonderful moment.

Oh, and Newt tried to pull his media attack stunt on CNN’s Blitzer and Wolf bit back.

This post has been edited.

Read full story · Comments { 16 }

Ryan Lizza and The Hillary Effect, Case Proved Beyond Any Doubt

By on 24 January 2012

The reason I wrote my book was to tell a piece of history. It was to set the record of events out for people to read and connect. The Hillary Effect gets another big boost from recent reporting that bolsters the case I make, which is backed up by the facts I offer.

Available in print at Amazon.com


A memo revealed by Ryan Lizza in “The Obama Memos”, printed in The New Yorker, proves a main thesis in my book and does so beyond any doubt whatsoever.

“Change we can believe in” and other Obama slogans were mythmaking of the first order, which I prove, with character assassination the only weapon they thought could work when Obama got up against it. Because it wasn’t as if Hillary had an affair with Monica, or was responsible for NAFTA (it was proven conclusively she was against it), and Obama and Clinton had the same votes in the Senate on foreign policy (minus the Iran vote he ducked).

The reality from Lizza’s important article:

Another hard-edged decision helped make him the Democratic Presidential nominee. In early October, 2007, David Axelrod and Obama’s other political consultants wrote the candidate a memo explaining how he could repair his floundering campaign against Hillary Clinton. They advised him to attack her personally, presenting a difficult choice for Obama. He had spent years building a reputation as a reformer who deplored the nasty side of politics, and now, he was told, he had to put that aside. Obama’s strategists wrote that all campaign communications, even the slogan—“Change We Can Believe In”—had to emphasize distinctions with Clinton on character rather than on policy. The slogan “was intended to frame the argument along the character fault line, and this is where we can and must win this fight,” the memo said. “Clinton can’t be trusted or believed when it comes to change,” because “she’s driven by political calculation not conviction, regularly backing away and shifting positions. . . . She embodies trench warfare vs. Republicans, and is consumed with beating them rather than unifying the country and building consensus to get things done. She prides herself on working the system, not changing it.” The “current goal,” the memo continued, was to define Obama as “the only authentic ‘remedy’ to what ails Washington and stands in the way of progress.”

Obama’s message promised voters, in what his aides called “the inspiration,” that “Barack Obama will end the divisive trench warfare that treats politics as a game and will lead Americans to come together to restore our common purpose.” Clinton was too polarizing to get anything done: “It may not be her fault, but Americans have deeply divided feelings about Hillary Clinton, threatening a Democratic victory in 2008 and insuring another four years of the bitter political battles that have plagued Washington for the last two decades and stymied progress.”

Neera Tanden was the policy director for Clinton’s campaign. When Clinton lost the Democratic race, Tanden became the director of domestic policy for Obama’s general-election campaign, and then a senior official working on health care in his Administration. She is now the president of the liberal Center for American Progress, perhaps the most important institution in Democratic politics. “It was a character attack,” Tanden said recently, speaking about the Obama campaign against Clinton. “I went over to Obama, I’m a big supporter of the President, but their campaign was entirely a character attack on Hillary as a liar and untrustworthy. It wasn’t an ‘issue contrast,’ it was entirely personal.” And, of course, it worked.

The entire traditional, elite and many new media outlets sucked up the Axelrod theory with a straw. Put more bluntly, they picked a side.

The result is the disillusionment you have among many American voters who trusted the marketing message of “change we can believe in,” but also trusted the press, which was in collusion for one candidate over another, a scourge that continues to run through our media, especially on cable, but also in new media, where if you don’t pick a side readers can’t figure out what you’re saying. That’s how used to the partisan pabulum people have become. The case I make in my book lays it out in detail.

The Obama memo details from David Axelrod emphasize what Neera Tanden is quoted saying. The only way Barack Obama could beat her was a character assault on Hillary Rodham Clinton, even if her character was really not the issue. The issue was Barack Obama not having what it took on his own.

It’s nothing new under the political stars, but it is emphatically evident it was far from the preening, above it all persona the Obama campaign pushed.

The critical component remains the media who laid the groundwork, which I prove conclusively in my book, which covers close to 20 years.

This illustrates the importance of reporters in outlets like The New Yorker to history, people who get access to historic information to which independent authors aren’t privy. It’s a lot harder for people like myself to get heard, because I’m outside the establishment, so nuggets like what Rizza offers are critical.

The New Yorker has done something very important, for which I’m grateful, because I wrote a fair, fact based, true account of the most important political contest in modern history, from a point of view that had not been heard before.

The relevancy of The Hillary Effect has never been more real and now has one more piece of historical testimony to add to its truths.

Read full story · Comments { 17 }

Gingrich Turns to Swift-boating

By on 09 January 2012

Maybe Obama reelect can finally get a day off, if for no other reason than to watch the coming onslaught. They’ve certainly done the job on Romney Republicans seemed too squeamish to do themselves, but which is now about to land hard on Mitt’s presidential campaign. Whatever vestige of Reagan’s 11th commandment was alive is now D.O.A. once “King of Bain” was born.

The debates grabbed the attention all weekend, but Tina Brown’s The Daily Beast broke the story on Friday, which the New York Times has now picked up:

Thanks to a $5 million donation from a wealthy casino owner, a group supporting Newt Gingrich plans to place advertisements in South Carolina this week attacking Mitt Romney as a predatory capitalist who destroyed jobs and communities, a full-scale Republican assault on Mr. Romney’s business background.

The advertisements, a counterpunch to a campaign waged against Mr. Gingrich by a group backing Mr. Romney, will be built on excerpts from a scathing movie about Bain Capital, the private equity firm Mr. Romney once ran. The movie, financed by a Republican operative opposed to Mr. Romney, includes emotional interviews with people who lost jobs at companies that Bain bought and later sold.

Nobody’s a better target for a swift-boating type of campaign than Mitt Romney, especially in the age of Occupy.

I know a lot about swift-boating strategy and the right’s utilization of the tactics, but they’ve never been turned back on one of their own. So, you’ll forgive me if I find something delicious in the devilishness of Newt Gingrich’s diabolical plan. Swift-boating takes scorched earth to a whole new level.

As a little history, John Kerry formed the Patriot Project after he lost the presidency to push back on swift-boating, and I was a member of the small team who worked to aid Democratic politicians, many of them veterans, being targeted by the right. One such person I helped was Rep. Joe Sestak, who called me personally and sent me a note for my work against Kurt Weldon, with Howie Klein calling my writing for Patriot Project “bareknuckle, steely-eyed analysis.” Another was the late Rep. John Murtha, also back in 2006, when I did an article of almost 4,000 words, “John Murtha: Anatomy of a Smear,” delineating the right’s smears against him and how they developed and expanded. Swift-boating is usually taking something laudable, like a veteran’s exemplary military service, then twisting it into something negative, even using it as a character assault.

Newt’s Super PAC Winning Our Future is about to give the “King of Bain” Mitt Romney a little of his own medicine. That Gingrich has David Bossie on his team, the king of “Hillary, the Movie” that launched Citizens United, is just perfect. Wayne Barrett runs down Gingrich’s swift-boat alliances today for the Daily Beast.

Citizens United, which also bought $250,000 in pro Gingrich ads in Iowa, shared the same fundraising website producer with the swift boat group. David Bossie, who runs the organization that won the Supreme Court case that opened the floodgates for the “independent” super PACs that buried Gingrich, placed a 30-second spot right before the Iowa caucus ostensibly promoting a 2009 movie that he and the Gingriches produced about Ronald Reagan. “It’s for movie sales,” a Bossie spokesman explained. – Wayne Barrett

However, what Newt Gingrich and his billionaire casino backer Sheldon Adelson, though Gingrich can’t be directly involved with the Super PAC, are doing is taking Mitt Romney’s vulture capitalism, painting it as evil and making Romney the face of it. What’s stunning is that Gingrich is calling out a fellow Republican for using capitalism, the foundation of Republicanism, and bending it to his will.

It’s the reason George Will blasted Gingrich earlier and why I wrote Newt had committed the worst offense of all: demonizing the tools of the trade of modern capitalism, which Republicans trumpet.

The tactics of Newt’s friends is something David Axelrod and the Obama team know all too well and is a strategy they’re going to unleash against Mitt Romney if he wins the nomination. Politico covered their plans in brief earlier.

Both Republicans and Democrats have no guiding vision and lifting dream to offer in 2012. It’s a race to the bottom between Mr. Cool and Mr. Ice, unless Gingrich can reverse Romney’s current trajectory. If the tactic wasn’t being utilized by Newt Gingrich it might work, but since it is and the target is the tools of capitalism the outcome is less sure.

In swift-boating, it’s more effective if the person utilizing this strategy and the tactics comes off cleaner than the person being hit.

Is this any way to pick a president?

Newt Gingrich is about to Occupy Mitt Romney’s presidential dreams.

Read full story · Comments { 26 }

Mitt, Newt, that Guy Ron Paul, and Democratic Trouble

By on 03 January 2012

UPDATED

via Emily Friedman, ABC

 

Before we get to Iowa, something that’s not getting covered deserves mention, because it ties into the opposite side of the political picture, telling a little bit about what’s going on inside the Democratic Party. It concerns the disengagement of an important group of Democratic Party members, which could impact the 2012 election very easily, especially with independents growing by huge numbers, because Pres. Obama will need every single vote he can get. All of this paints a portrait of political instability for everyone.

I hit quite a few nerves in the piece I wrote, “The Party’s Over,” on Sunday. In progressive quarters, it was retweeted by many, while I heard from quite a few prominent progressives. The response is representative of the issues I outlined, which Glenn Greenwald, Matt Stoller, as well as Cenk Uygur had addressed, though I also stressed the carving away of women’s freedoms by Pres. Obama, Democrats and congressional proressives. It was a reasoned article backed up by real events that matter to a lot of people, which is why it struck a chord.

Obama fans went ballistic, including on Twitter with one very prominent supporter choosing to fling silly lies about non-existent “puma’ nonsense, to the predictable race-baiting, this time about a “‘whitey’ tape”, though on this one he had absolutely no proof at all, just his say so, to outlandish charges about me allegedly sliming “the Kennedys.” The last one is hilarious considering I’ve done a one woman show on J.F.K., been informed my whole life by the Kennedy’s, which was such a foundational part of my life it makes a small section of my book. (My brother coming to Washington, D.C. and the trip we took to view the John F. Kennedy Eternal Flame brought us both full circle in a political relationship that began when I was a kid and he became my mentor.)

This same prominent Obama supporter also lied about my support for “conspiracy theories”, which I actually fought against. He is close enough to the White House team to get a picture taken with Pres. Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama at Christmastime, which is terrific for him. Mazeltov! But it proves the President’s inside supporters are so venomous as to use lies against a woman in independent new media, no matter that facts were given to support my case and why I no longer trust the Democratic Party or Pres. Obama on policy. At least when I make my case it is backed up by facts.

The same cannot be said for Mr. Obama’s supporters, whose negative vitriol has been a hallmark of their support for the President going back years, which I’ve experienced enough times to prove a pattern that clearly is meant to silence critics. However, when it goes to the lengths of lying and attacking my character, which Oliver Willis did in tweet after tweet yesterday, it says something very specific about Pres. Obama’s campaign outreach team. That Willis has been associated with Media Matters and knows exactly how political hit jobs work and are unleashed to hurt a critic’s credibility says the rest.

I was involved with Sen. John Kerry’s Patriot Project, after the swiftboating offensive he suffered, so I’ve done campaigns to push back on smear merchants, so Obama reelect better get comfy with the notion that I will not take these attacks lightly. I will fight back.

I will make no apologies for taking on our President on policy in the piece on Sunday. It gave me no joy to do so. But I have no intention of allowing his most ardent supporters, people like Oliver Willis, a person close enough to the White House to be rewarded with a Christmastime photo with the President and First Lady, to attempt to impugn my character through assassination methods, simply because I’m effective.

I have no idea why Obama reelect thinks it’s important to allow a main supporter to flame an independent, professional female new-media writer, but I’ll just chalk it up to being good at what I do. As fellow Missourian Harry Truman said, “I don’t give them Hell. I just tell the truth about them and they think it’s Hell.”

This singular, small event is just a tiny part of the foundation for the USA Today poll in early December about people being turned off by both big two parties, with the Democratic Party losing the most when it comes to affiliated voters, as the Republican polling favorite, Rasmussen, trumpets the fact [update].

A USA TODAY analysis of state voter registration statistics shows registered Democrats declined in 25 of the 28 states that register voters by party. Republicans dipped in 21 states, while independents increased in 18 states. The trend is acute in states that are key to next year’s presidential race. In the eight swing states that register voters by party, Democrats’ registration is down by 800,000 and Republicans’ by 350,000. Independents have gained 325,000.

Not shown in these numbers is the depressed turn out possibility, because some Democrats are disillusioned by the President, for good reasons. These have been outlined by people who likely voted for Pres. Obama in ’08, I happily did, but who simply do not trust him anymore, with many more where we came from.

Die hard Obama fans can think this isn’t a problem, but with party affiliation sagging they’re wrong, though the good news for them is Republicans are in much worse shape.

In Iowa, Dave Weigel reported that Romney got Occupied during the event pictured at the top yesterday. But otherwise, Mitt Romney is coming off like the happy warrior ready for a good caucus day. A stellar showing in Iowa by Romney, after a stealth campaign that was not believed possible this past fall.

Not so much Newt Gingrich, which Jonathan Martin explains, who has been whipsawing between blubbering and bemoaning negative attacks, which he helped birth back in the ’90s. According to multiple reports, Newt’s decided to go back to his relentlessly evil roots.

The last time Newt Gingrich targeted someone for take down it was Pres. Bill Clinton, the man he zeroed in on to impeach.

So right after Iowa, Mitt’s team is making sure to schedule some early face time in South Carolina, because his team knows what’s coming and they’re not going to be AWOL when it starts flying.

It’s personal now for Gingrich, which he revealed in a back and forth with Chris Matthews, and he plans on doing what hasn’t been done before and that’s take it to Romney. Newt’s mad enough at his humiliation in Iowa to do whatever it takes. It’s also about regaining his reputation, which has been destroyed by Romney’s Super PAC pals. After all, the Gingriches are used to a certain lifestyle and he can’t make the money to support that unless he does some damage control.

Perry’s been on resuscitation duty since his early debate disasters, because he doesn’t want to go back to Texas disgraced.

If Iowa’s turnout is as large as Republicans and reports in that state, including Gov. Branstad, have predicted, it means that in a historically lame Republican field people still came out in droves to vote. Part of that vote will be against the status quo, with independents and Democratic anti-war, anti-establishment voters weighing in.

The most interesting piece I read today came from BuzzFeed, Ben Smith’s new digs. Here’s a snippet:

“We’re doing what’s been done most of the time in history — we’re going to fight for our candidate to the very end,” said Jared Hendrix, Ron Paul’s North Dakota state director (and the only North Dakota State Director for any campaign) in an interview from Paul’s local headquarters in an old insurance office in downtown Bismarck. “For the last 30 years we haven’t had many contentious conventions but if you go back to 1976, Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan – there was a battle at the convention for delegates.”

Paul has, says his campaign chairman Jesse Benton, “offices, staff and strong organization” in ten caucus states besides Iowa: Colorado, Washington, Maine, Idaho, Minnesota, Nevada, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri and North Dakota. (Alaska and Hawaii are also a caucus states and prime Paul territory.)

Those states together will award 419 of the 2,286 delegates who will choose a nominee in Tampa in August. They operate under complex, individual rules that favor the prepared. In Idaho, for instance, voters will gather in 44 county caucuses, each of which delivers a vote weighted by its size. Those caucuses will conduct run-offs until there are only two candidates left, and if any candidate gets over 60% in a caucus, he gets 100% of its vote. Any candidate winning more than 50% of the state’s weighted vote wins all 32 of Idaho’s delegates — more than will be awarded to all the candidates in Iowa combined.

Occupy took us out of 2011, so we’ll have to see what 2012 brings. But if it’s an anti-status quo year, which is quite likely, we’re in for quite a roller coaster.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

From Self-Proclaimed Nominee to Loser

By on 30 December 2011

“I can’t do modern politics.” – Newt Gingrich (reported by Howard Fineman)

via Mark Halperin on Twitter


There’s the video of Newt’s moment, but when Mark Halperin floated the picture above on Twitter it captured to me the resignation that Mr. Gingrich knew he’d been defeated.

These candidates work hard and it’s a tough slog, so this is hard to see from anyone.

The difference is that Newt Gingrich has been bemoaning the negative attacks against him, which he helped inspire. Gingrich created the formula being used against him in Iowa in negative ads. A flashback from FAIR, who has Newt’s “words matter” GOPAC memo, from 1995, that laid it out (emphasis added):

Contrasting Words

Often we search hard for words to help us define our opponents. Sometimes we are hesitant to use contrast. Remember that creating a difference helps you. These are powerful words that can create a clear and easily understood contrast. Apply these to the opponent, their record, proposals and their party.

decay… failure (fail)… collapse(ing)… deeper… crisis… urgent(cy)… destructive… destroy… sick… pathetic… lie… liberal… they/them… unionized bureaucracy… “compassion” is not enough… betray… consequences… limit(s)… shallow… traitors… sensationalists…

endanger… coercion… hypocrisy… radical… threaten… devour… waste… corruption… incompetent… permissive attitudes… destructive… impose… self-serving… greed… ideological… insecure… anti-(issue): flag, family, child, jobs… pessimistic… excuses… intolerant…

stagnation… welfare… corrupt… selfish… insensitive… status quo… mandate(s)… taxes… spend(ing)… shame… disgrace… punish (poor…)… bizarre… cynicism… cheat… steal… abuse of power… machine… bosses… obsolete… criminal rights… red tape… patronage

From Susan Page to Politico, Hillary’s moment in New Hampshire is being invoked, only with a lot more compassion than she received.

As I recount as part of Hillary’s history in my new book, the vitriol that came her way was white hot, represented well by Bill Kristol on Fox News’ Special Report.

“And I don’t believe it was genuine. I think no Clinton cries without calculating first. This — and I think this was — if it was genuine, it was entirely solipsistic and narcissistic. It’s all about her.”

Newt Gingrich was in no shape to run in a modern presidential election. It’s a marathon war that withers the best of them. By any measure he was not fit enough, though if I’d made that observation out loud I would have been flamed for being too harsh, but I saw it from the start. Contrast Newt with Christie, who carries a lot more weight, but whose vital energy is off the charts; it’s age, for sure, but it’s also something else. Newt’s arrogance is what kept him afloat, as long as he wasn’t treated as one of the bunch. But the minute he started receiving the type of incoming he’d delivered to others he wilted, he whined, then he cried.

This is the man who impeached Pres. Bill Clinton, while he was having his own adulterous affair. Clinton paid for his reckless, philandering stupidity.

Newt’s finally paying for his hypocrisy through the very tactics he’s used to bring others down.

Michele Bachmann is getting her ass handed to her in Iowa, disgraced more than once just this week by fleeing staffers, but you don’t see her bellyaching. I detest her politics, but she’s one tough broad.

Now all that’s left to wonder is where Newt’s support will land next.

Iowa’s turning out to be as wild for Republicans as the rest of 2011. It’s sure to bring 2012 in with a blast.

Read full story · Comments { 23 }

Elizabeth Warren Takes on Karl Rove’s Attack Ads

By on 15 November 2011


The email sent out by Warren’s campaign (h/t DailyKos) directly mentions Rove and that they’re trying to raise $300,000 to hit back.

The ad below is from Rove’s American Crossroads, trying to make villains out of Occupy protesters. Because as we all know, Mr. Rove’s people are the 1%, not the 99% standing up to the jackals who brought our economy down and are being protected by Republicans and Democrats.

Back in the ’90s, when the campaign against the Clintons began, whenever Hillary would stand up for herself she’d get pilloried. When Sarah Palin first came on the scene she said Hillary standing up for herself was whining. Later Palin changed her tune, after she experienced what it was like. We now understand why no female candidate can allow her haters and detractors to have the first or last word. It’s another aspect of the Hillary Effect and what Hillary taught us over the last two decades. It’s what I write about in my new e-book, which is now available exclusively at Barnes and Noble as part of their new “NOOK First” Featured Authors Selection, one of only 4 e-books selected.

As an aside, the ad below is made possible through the Citizens United win in the Supreme Court. It’s important to note that this case was moored in Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. The outcome from the SCOTUS decision one of the reasons Karl Rove can dump millions of dollars from undisclosed donors into the Massachusetts Senate race to try to defeat Elizabeth Warren.

Read full story · Comments { 10 }

Nate Silver Plays Provacateur

By on 03 November 2011

Silver’s post, Is Obama Toast? Handicapping the 2012 Election, is unlikely to make many Democrats happy. Below are snippets, but read his full analysis.

A THREE-FACTOR MODEL

CASE STUDY NO. 1: ROMNEY AND STAGNANT ECONOMY
Obama approval rating in November 2011: 43%
G.D.P. growth in 2012: 0%
Probability of winning the popular vote: Romney: 83%, Obama: 17%

CASE STUDY NO. 2: ROMNEY AND IMPROVING ECONOMY
Obama approval rating in November 2011: 43%
G.D.P. growth in 2012: 4%
Probability of winning the popular vote: Romney: 40%, Obama: 60%

CASE STUDY NO. 3: PERRY AND IMPROVING ECONOMY
Obama approval rating in November 2011: 43%
G.D.P. growth in 2012: 4.0%
Probability of winning the popular vote: Perry: 17%, Obama: 83%

CASE STUDY NO. 4: PERRY AND STAGNANT ECONOMY
Obama approval rating in November 2011: 43%
G.D.P. growth in 2012: 0%
Probability of winning the popular vote: Perry: 59%, Obama: 41%

Jonathan Chait rebuts.

But I think that we have to be a little cautious about interpreting the importance of Obama’s mediocre approval ratings in the face of a polarized electorate and a still-discredited opposition party.

As for my analysis, it’s like trying to handicap whether Hillary Rodham Clinton will run for president in 2016. One year is a lifetime in politics, but three is an eternity. Remember in 2008, three years ago this week, when Barack Obama was elected and conservatism was pronounced D.O.A.? A time when Obama had the world and the press at his feet and Republicans, Independents, Democrats and progressives not just hoping, but believing he would deliver on change.

Anything can happen, with Obama very beatable, as long as Republicans don’t nominate a crazy person or an incompetent. However, considering what’s played out before the American public in the Republican debates, as well as the Cain catastrophe, the nomination process has helped Pres. Obama’s status immensely.

Back to Silver:

THE BOTTOM LINE

Average these four scenarios together and the probabilities come out to almost exactly 50-50. A month or two ago, when Perry and Romney appeared about equally likely to be the Republican nominee, it would therefore have been proper to think of the election as a toss-up.

With Perry having slumped in the polls, however, and Romney the more likely nominee, the odds tilt slightly toward Obama joining the list of one-termers. It is early, and almost no matter what, the election will be a losable one for Republicans. But Obama’s position is tenuous enough that it might not be a winnable one for him.

It’s why things like the Solyndra subpoena have the potential of tipping the scale, but only if it gains traction, which right now is a big if. But given the Republican Party’s ruthless tenaciousness, Democrats should never expect fairness.

Oh, if only Pres. Obama and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi would have treated the Bush-Cheney administration with such investigative fierceness.

The wild card in Silver’s equation isn’t Rick Perry or Newt Gingrich, whose due for his turn at the top, or even an independent candidate. It’s the American electorate.

Read full story · Comments { 13 }

House Dems Fail to Avert W.H. Subpoena of Solyndra Documents

By on 03 November 2011


The above segment is from September. It was the first clue that Solyndra wasn’t going away.

The fawning Jonathan Alter evidently doesn’t watch or pay attention to the Jon Stewart standard. Alter should have waited a couple of weeks. Always the first to trumpet scandals against the Clintons, unfortunately, Mr. Alter just couldn’t wait to write his piece.

Maybe after this latest news Alter will learn what I learned almost 20 years ago: That it doesn’t take a real scandal to be plagued with accusations, something the Obama administration is about to learn first hand.

Breaking news from Politico:

A House panel investigating Solyndra voted Thursday to subpoena internal White House documents on the failed California solar company.

The 14-9 vote, entirely along party lines, adds a legal sledgehammer to what already had been a hyperactive political clash on energy policy between both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

With a Republican majority in the House and a general election coming up, not to mention a need to change the subject from the GOP presidential circus, this is a brilliant move on the part of House Republicans.

It doesn’t have to be a real scandal or even worthy of investigation to become a problem for Pres. Obama.

The current public mood is ugly. Even if Republicans can’t get traction, it’s worth their trouble to try, because with Obama’s numbers moving up they’ve got nothing to lose. The approval numbers of Congress can hardly get any lower.

Read full story · Comments { 1 }

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 }

DeMint Advisers Deny Romney Endorsement Rumors

By on 17 October 2011

David Drucker’s report in Roll Call is meeting some very serious push back. From “Burns & Haberman,” over at Politico, this one from Alexander Burns:

“That story is a fabrication made up of anonymous sources that obviously have no clue what Senator DeMint is thinking,” spokesman Wesley Denton said. “He has said over and over again that he is not leaning toward any candidate yet and may end up not endorsing in the presidential race.”

Continue Reading
Matt Hoskins, who runs DeMint’s Senate Conservatives Fund, said DeMint is “looking to see who wins over the grassroots, and so far Governor Romney has not done that.”

“These operatives don’t know what they’re talking about. Senator DeMint is not leaning toward anyone at this point,” Hoskins said of the story this morning.

In another part of the Romney world, the Daily Beast is reporting an “exclusive,” saying they have emails proving an evangelical supporter of Rick Perry’s is sending out targeted anti Mormon Romney messages.

The Daily Beast has obtained a series of emails that show an influential evangelical activist with close ties to the Perry campaign stressing the political importance of “juxtaposing traditional Christianity to the false God of Mormonism,” and calling for a “clarion call to Evangelical pastors and pews” that will be “the key to the primary” for Perry.

The religious right loves to play the who-is-more-godly-than-me card. Unfortunately, all they usually do is prove they’re unworthy of the faith and the God they profess to worship.

The good news for Mitt Romney is that he’s obviously finally being accepted as the frontrunner, however fragile and precarious his position. Because all the political gun barrels are now clearly aimed at him.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

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 }

Emails from ‘Christian Conservatives’ Begin: ‘Mitt Romney Belongs to a Cult’

By on 10 October 2011

The “Values Voters” Summit hit Washington this weekend and the religious bigotry hit the fan along with it. Politico runs down the whole sorry faith competition that’s erupted inside the Republican right.

Texas evangelical leader Robert Jeffress, the megachurch pastor who introduced Rick Perry at the Values Voter Summit, said . . . he does not believe Mitt Romney is a Christian.

Jeffress described Romney’s Mormon faith as a “cult” and said evangelicals had only one real option in the 2012 primaries.

“That is a mainstream view, that Mormonism is a cult,” Jeffress told reporters here. “Every true, born-again follower of Christ ought to embrace a Christian over a non-Christian.”

Asked by Politico if he believed Romney is a Christian, Jeffress answered: “No.”

The Christian leader warned that in a general-election race between Romney and Obama, he believes many evangelicals will stay home and leave the GOP nominee without their votes.

Jeffress said that he himself would vote for Romney.

He also said that he had not spoken with Perry about his views on Romney’s faith and was “in no way speaking for him.”

What’s happening to Mitt Romney is reminiscent of what Barack Obama went through when rumors about his religion became fodder for email smear campaigns. Romney’s people are hitting back hard at Rick Perry, with a supporter of his, Robert Jeffress, starting the brawl. The difference is that Obama is not a Muslim, while Romney is a Mormon. What the hateful screeds have in common is exalting anyone’s religion over another in a political race that shouldn’t be about anyone’s personal religious faith.

It’s simply un-American to pit one religion against another in a quest for the presidency.

Taking off on what Robert Jeffress has said, emails about Mitt Romney’s religion have begun slamming my email inbox, the latest under the subject heading: Mormon Bishop’s Daughter Agrees With Jeffress, Mitt Romney Belongs To A Cult. It’s from a woman named Kay Bell who is pimping an alleged Mormon Bishop’s daughter, who evidently agrees with Jeffress.

Kay Bell, in her email, is trumpeting Tricia Erikison’s writing, which has at its heart a despicable premise: Can Mitt Romney Serve Two Masters? The Mormon Church Versus The Office Of The Presidency of the United States Of America.

Mormonism is a religion to which I became exposed when I met my husband, a recovering Mormon. As old timers around here know, I also had a head on collision with the tech team taking care of my site at the time when they took it upon themselves to alter links in a piece about Mormonism I did many years ago. Back in 2007, “Censored by Two Mormons” revealed the lengths two people of that faith would go when anyone writes about the intricacies of it.

Personally, I cannot relate at all to Mormonism. But I have the same problem with Catholicism that depends on a pope to connect with God, not to mention the misogyny embedded in this faith. However, I wouldn’t genuflect to my husband either, which is what Southern Baptists believe, while other alleged Christian churches won’t acknowledge the civil rights of gays. The notion that only men are worthy to lead any church is something I reject out of hand, which is why I’m a rebel Episcopalian. What brought me to that religion was a female reverend who once guided it (All Saints Parish in Beverly Hills), my bond solidified when I met and heard speak Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, the first bishop ever of the Episcopal church, though now I make daily meditations my connection to our intelligent universe.

Religious zealots of any religion, especially the bigoted version from wherever it rises, have a lot in common, whether they’re Mormons, evangelical Christians or Muslims.

A candidate’s religion and his faith has no place in U.S. politics. But you can thank Ronald Reagan for giving “Christian conservatives” like Kay Bell power they haven’t earned and don’t deserve.

Below is a snippet of just one of the emails I have received. It’s despicable.

It also proves that Mitt Romney, if he’s going to win the Republican nomination, just may have to do his version of J.F.K.’s religion speech and reach out to the crazies in his party if he is to prevail.

According to the Random House dictionary, a cult is a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies; a group or false sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc; a religion or sect considered to be, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader; the members of such a religion or sect.

Let us break down each section of the definition of a cult, as it relates to the religion of Mormonism:
“A particular system of religious worship, exp. With reference to its rites and ceremonies;”:
Mitt Romney has participated in the secret Mormon Temple ceremonies throughout most of his life. In these ceremonies, he has

• made physical signs of slashing his throat by placing his right thumb to his left ear, dragging it around his neck to the right ear, symbolic of “suffering his life to death” if he reveals the secret blood oaths, covenants and rites he agreed to therewith.
• made physical signs of holding his right hand up, clasping a symbolic knife and taking the knife down to the left of his abdomen, violently pulling the knife to the top of his right shoulder, then holding the knife out to his right side, turning his hand downward allowing it to fall to the ground, then holding both of his arms out to the sides and bending his body forward symbolic of his guts spilling on to the ground if he revealed the secret blood oaths, covenants and rites he agreed to therewith.

There were many more frightening secret handshakes and blood oaths taken by Mitt and his wife, Ann. To see the full authentic version of the secret temple ceremonies they attended, participated in and made blood oaths in agreement to, you may go here: http://packham.n4m.org/endow84.htm. It is also important to note that these ceremonies have been changed several times due to their exposure on the internet. Mitt Romney started going through and participating in these ceremonies at the very young age of 19 as he embarked on his two year mission for the Mormon Church.

“a group or false sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc; a religion or sect considered to be, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader”
• The Mormon Church has experienced a steady succession of charismatic leader “prophets”, starting with the founder of the Mormon Church, Joseph Smith. Joseph, as the founder of this massive religion could not seem to muster even one truthful outcome of his prophecies. The second prophet of the Mormon Church, Brigham, Young, suffered the same plight. Please go here for proof of the false prophecies of the founders of the Mormon Church: http://www.irr.org/mit/wdist/false-prophecies.html.
• These same founders practiced polygamy under this Mormon principal.
• The Mormon Church to this day has a “prophet” at the head of the church. The leaders of the church are the Prophet and his two counselors, the 12 apostles and the council of the 70’s.
“the members of such a religion or sect”
• Mitt Romney is a member of such a religion or sect.

The most outrageous fact the media is not bringing to the American people is the reality that Mitt Romney truly believes that when he dies, if he has kept his blood oaths and covenants to the Mormon Church, he will become a literal GOD in his next life. He also believes that he will be given his very own planet/kingdom in which he will call his wife, Ann, into by her secret name given to Mitt in the temple ceremony. On Mitt’s planet, he and Ann will have relations to populate it with spirit children.

Mitt Romney has sworn in the secret Mormon Temple Ceremonies to the Law of Consecration: “to consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on earth and for the establishment of Zion.”

This is extremely important because if Mitt Romney absolutely must obey the religion of Mormonism and the Prophets of the Mormon Church first, before his allegiance to our country. His very eternal exaltation to godhood depends on it.

Furthermore, the Mormon Church teaches that the Kingdom and Government of God will be enacted from the Garden of Eden, located in Jackson County Missouri. Mormon Prophet Bruce McConkie stated “During the millennium the church will have the rule and the government of the world given to it”.

I think we can all agree that it is important that the leader of the free world possesses the ability to discern fact from fiction. Otherwise, if he has lived a life of deception, we can conclude that he will continue to be deceived and that his judgment may be distorted. Because the wisdom, judgment and discernment of our President may be crucial to our survival, would it not be prudent to examine his fundamental foundation and beliefs? And if his beliefs are distorted, why would it not be critical to our existence to protect our country from being placed in the hands of such a person?

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

Friday Night Odds and Ends

By on 07 October 2011

“The protests that are trying to destroy the jobs of working people in this city aren’t productive,” Bloomberg said in his weekly radio appearance with John Gambling. Taking a swipe at “some of the labor unions participating,” Bloomberg added that “their salaries come from – are paid by – some of the people they’re trying to vilify.” – Mayor Bloomberg: Occupy Wall Street ‘Trying To Destroy the Jobs of Working People’

Why Occupy Wall Street? Watch the video above. I’d like to see Scott Brown do what Elizabeth Warren does in the video above, from DC Douglas.

Tech President reports from Wall Street and why some people just aren’t getting what’s going on.

In other news, Mitt Romney gave a foreign policy speech. Spencer Ackerman’s plea? Give me something to work with here, Mitt.

…and speaking of Mitt Romney, one of Perry’s backers calls Mormonism a “cult.”

Laura Rozen writes on McChrystal and what he has to say as we commemorate 10 years in Afghanistan: Ten years on, U.S. goals in Afghanistan only “fifty percent” met.

An “Ides of March” review from the New York Times. Another review mentions Jay Carson, someone I’ve met and spoken with on many occasions, but also adds color to the melding of reality and movie making:

As for the Morris handlers — Stephen Myers, played by Ryan Gosling; and Paul Zara, played by Philip Seymour Hoffman — it is impossible not to find traces of political strategist Jay Carson in their characters. A former campaign press secretary and adviser, Carson is CEO of the C40 Clinton Climate Initiative, which combines programs started by New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and former President Bill Clinton.

While on the campaign trail with Howard Dean and others, Carson was joined by Beau Willimon, a staff associate. Willimon later wrote a play on which The Ides of March is based, with substantial changes by Clooney; Willimon; and the other writer, Grant Heslov.

“Beau, George and Grant really get it,” Carson said recently. (more at the link)

And in case you missed it, essays on Bill Clinton’s presidency are now online in celebration of when he announced, 20 years ago last week. This video offers a flashback, too.

Jared Bernstein on the jobs report: “Shaky Stability.”

AP reports prostate cancer screenings for men are out.

Herman Cain catapults 20 points ahead of Mitt Romney in a new Zogby poll.

Happy Friday night!

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

They’re Playing the Race Card Again

By on 26 September 2011

Official White House Photo by Pete Souza

It was bound to happen.

It’s just sad coming from Melissa Harris-Perry. In a piece she did for The Nation recently, the purpose of which was to throw a lighted match into the Democratic base camp, she goes straight to the race card and doesn’t prove her case.

Black President, Double Standard: Why White Liberals Are Abandoning Obama

President Obama has experienced a swift and steep decline in support among white Americans—from 61 percent in 2009 to 33 percent now. I believe much of that decline can be attributed to their disappointment that choosing a black man for president did not prove to be salvific for them or the nation. His record is, at the very least, comparable to that of President Clinton, who was enthusiastically re-elected. The 2012 election is a test of whether Obama will be held to standards never before imposed on an incumbent. If he is, it may be possible to read that result as the triumph of a more subtle form of racism.

Pres. Clinton “enthusiastically” re-elected? Is she kidding? Between NAFTA and welfare reform, not to mention the debacle of DADT, not to mention the blow back from the failed raid in Somalia (aka Black Hawk Down), Clinton was creamed by so called “liberals” back in the ’90s for his policies. …and turn out in ’96 was abysmal.

I also don’t relate to Joan Walsh on the one point of agreement she admits to with Harris-Perry. That any disappointment, which I’ve always called uninformed voting, is due to the fact that “a black man for president did not prove to be salvific for them or the nation.” I didn’t expect Mr. Obama to be anything close to Martin Luther King, Jr. It never occurred to me. Nobody is King.

Barack Obama is a brilliant political performer, with no experience when he first ran for president, but a lot of savvy, who saw a perfect moment and took it. I voted for Barack Obama and Joe Biden because I knew they’d be better on foreign policy than McCain-Palin, not because Obama was black. Though it was a thrilling moment in American history to see Barack, Michelle and their children standing together when he won.

The other problem with Harris-Perry’s case is the lessening of enthusiasm that reaches across segments of the Democratic Party. From Joan’s piece:

As long as we’re looking at the president’s racial support, let’s look broadly. While white liberal support for Obama has almost certainly dropped, so has his support within every group. Why are Latinos abandoning Obama? Two thirds of Latinos voted for the president in 2008; the Gallup tracking poll showed Latino support dropping to 44% at the end of August, though it jumped up above 50 percent this week. Overall, the president is polling in the 40s among Latinos since the end of June. And while black support remains strong, it’s declined, too. Obama won 95 percent of black voters in 2008, and his approval rating hovered in the 90s for most of his first two years. This week, it’s at 82 percent, and it’s been steadily in the 80s since February. That’s still high, but it’s not the enthusiastic, near-unanimous support that elected him.

The president himself acknowledged the rising volume of African American discontent in his speech to the (increasingly critical) Congressional Black Caucus Saturday night.

But that’s not the worst of Ms. Harris-Perry’s argument.

If old-fashioned electoral racism is the absolute unwillingness to vote for a black candidate, then liberal electoral racism is the willingness to abandon a black candidate when he is just as competent as his white predecessors.

I’ll let David Sirota school Ms. Harris-Perry, because you’ve likely already read the pieces I wrote warning about Barack Obama’s policy prescriptions starting back in January 2007. A snippet of Sirota, with the original filled with embedded links and sources to prove the case he makes below.

This is a president who as a candidate railed on adventurist wars and promised to seek congressional authorization for new wars — and then turned around and initiated new adventurist wars without congressional authorization.

Obama is also a man who criticized Bush-era civil liberties policies as a candidate and then as president not only extended those policies — but, in many cases, actually made them worse. Among other things, he has pressed for longer Patriot Act extensions than congressional Republicans, added bipartisan legitimacy to warrantless wiretapping (which he explicitly promised to end) and claimed autocratic powers that even the extremist Bush administration never dared to claim (for example, the power to assassinate American citizens without charge).

And let’s not forget trade and healthcare. Candidate Obama promised to renegotiate NAFTA and reform the corresponding free-trade template that has cost Americans so many jobs. He also repeatedly pledged to champion a public option to compete with private health insurers and promised to push for legislation allowing Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices with pharmaceutical companies. Now, President Obama is pushing a new series of NAFTA-like deals in Panama, South Korea and Colombia. And, as we now know, he didn’t merely try but fail to pass a public option or the Medicare drug-negotiation provisions — he actively used his power to eliminate those provisions from the final healthcare bill.

Taken together, we see that Obama — as opposed to Clinton, who at least paid (often empty) rhetorical homage to liberalism — has proudly and publicly stomped on the very progressive promises that got him elected.

I also don’t remember Clinton ever touting Ronald Reagan as Barack Obama has done. Clinton also gave hell to Republicans regularly, on camera and with feeling. I don’t remember Clinton selling out women’s reproductive healthcare by codifying Hyde in legislation. Oh right, Hillary wouldn’t have let him.

But I’m not surprised to read a piece from a strong Obama supporter blaming white liberal disaffection with Pres. Obama on racism.

Read full story · Comments { 49 }

ISRAEL: Rick Perry’s ‘Appeasement’ Not Befitting An American President

By on 21 September 2011

“I think Governor Perry ought to really consider the real world implications of that for Israel. Because the security assistance that the United States provides the Palestinian Authority benefits Israel directly and Israelis are well aware of that,” Rice said. – UN Ambassador Susan Rice Fires Back at Mitt Romney and Rick Perry: Don’t ‘Play Politics’ with Diplomacy

The politics of Israel in our presidential election cycle has hit a new low thanks to Gov. Rick Perry.

As Pres. Obama proved today in his speech to UNGA (the United Nations General Assembly), he not only understands the politics of the Palestinian state issue, but respects and supports Israel’s deep security issues, which happen to turn as much on the territorial importance of any new sovereign state of Palestine as anything else.

Mr. Perry has every right to criticize Pres. Obama. He can bring out the big guns on domestic policy, as he’s done in the above Pawlenty-type over the top Hollywood ad. But standing with members of the Knesset, which Chuck Todd also mentioned today, to call the American President out on Israel using the shadow language of cowardice, which is only one step removed from a call of treason, is unbefitting anyone who wants to be president.

In fact, it’s Gov. Perry’s language that is dangerous, not Pres. Obama’s.

Standing with foreign nationals while criticizing the President on Middle East policy, also implying he’s selling Israel out, is not only wrong on the facts, but the timing considering what’s going on at UNGA is reckless.

Rick Perry represents the worst of right-wing politics. Using Israel to give a reach-around to the evangelical right-wing, including anti-Catholic Pastor John Hagee, part of the group Ronald Reagan allowed to begin to manipulate our politics through faith, is something the founders would have abhorred.

In the 21st century Perry’s foreign policy religiosity must be called out and rejected as a back-leaning strategy that won’t work in the modern world, something that is against America’s best interests.

Perhaps if Mr. Perry had any depth on foreign policy he’d know these things. But there is no evidence he does.

Looking to Mitt Romney, the besieged frontrunner who better go ugly against Perry pretty soon or kiss his chances goodbye, nobody on the Republican side who has a chance of winning the nomination, let alone the general election against Pres. Obama, has the depth of knowledge on foreign policy required for the current shifting times in the Middle East, let alone China’s rise.

When you play with fire in the Middle East people die. Someone get the message to the kindergartners running the Republican Tea Party.

What’s next for the Republican Tea Party, calling Pres. Obama an anti-Semite?

Read full story · Comments { 10 }

New York, Weprin, Obama & Israel

By on 12 September 2011

**UPDATED**

It’s no coincidence that the day before the special election in New York, with an upset in the making, there is an incendiary ad on the New York Times website hitting Obama on Israel. It links to the website “Not Pro Israel.”

A Times editorial on Palestinian statehood runs today:

A United Nations vote on Palestinian membership would be ruinous. Yet with little time left before the U.N. General Assembly meets, the United States, Israel and Europe have shown insufficient urgency or boldness in trying to find a compromise solution. The need for action is even more acute after alarming tensions flared in recent days between Israel and two critical regional players — Egypt and Turkey.

There is nothing more incendiary in American politics than the Who Is More Pro Israel? fight.

There is simply no evidence that Pres. Obama is less a friend of Israel than any other establishment politician or any Republican presidential candidate vying for his job.

But that didn’t keep New York Republicans from utilizing the kitchen sink strategy in tying Weprin to Obama, while on the weekend of the 10th year commemoration of 9/11 also invoking the Ground Zero mosque to try to score political points.

Needless to say, this foreshadows what I’ve warned about for 2012, which is the painting of Obama as anti-Israel, whether it’s true or not. It’s not.

UPDATE 2: Wanted to also put up the PPP poll for those who hadn’t seen it:

The issue of Israel does appear to be having a major impact on this race. A plurality of voters- 37%- said that Israel was ‘very important’ in determining their votes. Turner is winning those folks by an amazing 71-22 margin. With everyone who doesn’t say Israel is a very important issue for them Weprin actually leads 52-36. Turner is in fact winning the Jewish vote by a 56-39 margin, very unusual for a Republican candidate. This seems to be rooted in deep unhappiness with Obama on this issue- only 30% of voters overall approve of how he’s handling Israel to 54% who disapprove and with Jewish voters his approval on Israel is 22% with 68 of voters disapproving. That has a lot to do with why Turner’s in such a strong position.

UPDATE: Good post over at DK on this race:

It’s not necessarily over for Weprin, but if one-time Obama voters are now showing up to vote Republican, that’s a pretty brutal sign. Coming on top of Siena’s poll which also had Turner up by six, it’s hard to see much cause for optimism.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Perry’s Brand of Birtherism

By on 15 August 2011

Gov. Rick Perry said something that mimicked what Herman Cain said last week. Cain was defending himself against charges he doesn’t have foreign policy experience by questioning, “and he has?”, speaking of Pres. Obama. My response via Twitter went like this: Just saw Cain’s “He’s got foreign policy experience?” As commander in chief, Obama gave order SEAL Team 6 executed that killed OBL. You?

This is a direct attack on Pres. Obama as commander in chief utilizing the deadly virus of birtherism and division that Americans are sick to death of hearing from the Right.

Tea Party secessionist Rick Perry, a former military man, thinks this is what America wants to hear today:

“One of the reasons, one of the powerful reasons that I’m running for the presidency of the United States is to make sure that every young man and woman who puts on the uniform of this country respects highly the president of the United States.” – Gov. Rick Perry (Waterloo, Iowa)

You can win a wingnut primary battle through this sort of despicable dog whistle, but you’ll never win the general election on it. Mr. Perry’s brand of birtherism won’t hunt in 2012.

Some Republicans know this and are scared to death. And you know what, any Republican who wants to beat Obama should be.

“You don’t want these candidates moving so Right in the Republican primary that it becomes impossible for them to win the general election, because it will become a self-defeating message in the primary. People want to win. They don’t want somebody who goes so far to the extremes of either party that they lack a chance to carry a victory off in November.” – Karl Rove

Read full story · Comments { 10 }

Scorched Earth is Nothing New for Obama

By on 09 August 2011

It’s panic at 1600. The daily Gallup is depressing by itself, but amidst the economic carnage and America losing our AAA status under Obama’s watch, which will make for a snappy negative GOP ad, everyone is girding their loins for the battle.

But really, folks, have people forgotten Alice Palmer? Remember Obama hinting Hillary was “Bush-Cheney lite”? ..and who can forget that South Carolina memo? If it takes scorched earth that’s what Obama will deliver, because he’s done it many times before.

Did people really believe Obama could get by this time on hope and change, the sequel?

I can’t believe people are shocked by the latest news, which comes in a politically titillating article at Politico:

In a move that will make some Democrats shudder, Obama’s high command has even studied former President George W. Bush’s 2004 takedown of Sen. John Kerry, a senior campaign adviser told POLITICO, for clues on how a president with middling approval ratings can defeat a challenger.

“Unless things change and Obama can run on accomplishments, he will have to kill Romney,” said a prominent Democratic strategist aligned with the White House.

The onslaught would have two aspects. The first is personal: Obama’s reelection campaign will portray the public Romney as inauthentic, unprincipled and, in a word used repeatedly by Obama’s advisers in about a dozen interviews, “weird.”

[...] The second aspect of the campaign to define Romney is his record as CEO of Bain Capital, a venture capital firm that was responsible for both creating and eliminating jobs. Obama officials intend to frame Romney as the very picture of greed in the great recession — a sort of political Gordon Gekko.

I’ve always believed that Obama would have to go hard and go dirty, whether the GOP nominee is Mitt Romney or some other guy. Romney, however, is their worst nightmare, even give his innumerable flaws. The only difficulty for Obama would be if a woman rose to the top, which isn’t going to happen now that Rick Perry and his maleness is in the on-deck circle.

Let’s also not kid ourselves that Obama and Romney are all that different. Neither are ideologues. Both believe in nothing but their own fortunes and futures. Either would sell their soul to make a deal that makes them look good. And both are willing to do anything to get to live in the White House. They’re craven egotists who believe in their own persona and the preciousness of their own man self.

As an insider Dem told me months and months ago, Obama’s never run against a competent Republican, so Mitt Romney scares the crap out of them. But now that people have seen Barack Obama in action, revealing he isn’t all his marketing says he was (as I warned), well, they’re up against it now, because the old Axelrod-Plouffe bs won’t fly this time.

Besides the fact that the entire Politico piece is a gift to Mitt Romney and assumes he’s the nominee, let’s just accept that in 2012 these two unprincipled political chameleons, no insult meant to chameleons, are perfect for the times. Maybe we’ll all get lucky and they’ll tear themselves apart, making way for something novel in 2016: an independent progressive candidate who actually stands for something, but more importantly, is willing to go down fighting for it.

Read full story · Comments { 29 }

HIT PIECE: Michele Bachmann’s ‘Stress-Induced’ Headaches ‘Incapacitate’

By on 19 July 2011

Aw, come on, boys. If John F. Kennedy can do it on all the drugs he chugged, so can Michele Bachmann.

The Daily Caller headline is the tell:

Stress-related condition ‘incapacitates’ Bachmann; heavy pill use alleged.

It cannot possibly be a coincidence that with Rep. Michele Bachmann surging we now are privy to a potentially devastating report about the presidential candidate allegedly popping pills to alleviate pain.

Women have worked for over one hundred years to be taken seriously and considered as strong candidates for commander in chief. One has to wonder if this was leaked to make voters question her health, but also her strength. Headaches are not considered by most to be something serious, maybe even a frivolous complaint by someone with a weak constitution.

With such incredible details, it seems obvious Mrs. Bachmann has a very serious problem:

The Minnesota Republican frequently suffers from stress-induced medical episodes that she has characterized as severe headaches. These episodes, say witnesses, occur once a week on average and can “incapacitate” her for days at time. On at least three occasions, Bachmann has landed in the hospital as a result.
Ads by Google

“She has terrible migraine headaches. And they put her out of commission for a day or more at a time. They come out of nowhere, and they’re unpredictable,” says an adviser to Bachmann who was involved in her 2010 congressional campaign. “They level her. They put her down. It’s actually sad. It’s very painful.”

As someone who has worked tirelessly to cure myself of migraines, I find this report alarming.

There is something horribly wrong with a professional person who isn’t dealing with deeper issues that trigger a migraine. As the Daily Caller reports, she’s been hospitalized and had to recuperate at home, away from her job, because of them, after having been incapacitated by them. Being treated with medication is dealing with the symptoms and staving off the results of something in your life that precipitates the event.

You cannot get rid of any health issue without finding the root of the cause of your problem, whether it’s diet, lifestyle, maybe a spouse or even your job.

Now, I don’t pretend to know any specifics about Mrs. Bachmann’s debilitating pain issues, but as someone who once had to live with migraines from the time I was a kid, had to perform while throwing up off stage between numbers because of them, as well as having my long ago past riddled with 24-hour vomiting over 3 days before they broke, I sure as hell know the answer isn’t medication, which offers no definitive solution. Thankfully, I cured myself. Solving the riddle of pain means discovering what in your life is causing the stress that leads your brain to the pain seizures of migraines.

But if you don’t, can’t or won’t, pills it is. At least today there are new drugs that make the days of injections a memory.

Of particular concern to some around her is the significant amount of medication Bachmann takes to address her condition.

The former aide says Bachmann’s congressional staff is “constantly” in contact with her doctors to tweak the types and amounts of medicine she is taking. Marcus Bachmann helps her manage the episodes.

Sources who spoke to The Daily Caller said they did so because they are terrified about the impact the condition could have on Bachmann’s performance if she actually became president. They also worry that the issue could blow up in the general election campaign, giving President Obama an easy path to re-election.

The drugs that kept Pres. John F. Kennedy alive went well beyond migraine medications, as historian Robert Dalek wrote in “An Unfinished Life,” which was just one of the hundreds of sources I relied on for my one woman show on J.F.K.  If he had run for office today, let alone been president, there is no way he could have kept his double digit list of medications a secret. He had his women, his doctors and all the drugs that kept him alive:

  • Anesthetic procaine, for his Addison’s disease
  • Cytomel, for thyroid deficiency
  • Lomitil
  • Metamucil, now there’s a commercial for you
  • Paregoric
  • Phenobarbitol
  • Trasentine, to control his colitic diarrhea
  • Testosterone, to increase his energy and boost his weight after bouts of colitis
  • Penicillin, for urinary tract flare ups
  • Fluorinef, to increase his salt absorption due to Addison’s
  • Cortisone
  • Tuinal, for insomnia – a side effect of the cortisone
  • Antihistamines, for an array of allergies
  • Codeine
  • Steroids… Oh, and Vitamin C and calcium.

J.F.K. also had lots of doctors who gave him his “vigah,” including injections. They also led to rumors that Nixon tried to steal his medical records. He had an allergist; an endocrinologist for his Addison’s disease; a gastroenterologist for his colitis; a urologist, because he’d gotten a urinary tract infection from venereal disease; an orthopedist for his degenerative spine, but no one knew.

What this report is meant to conjure up is Rep. Bachmann’s physical frailty. It’s a political attack by “former aides” trying to take the bitch out.

There’s a reason Tim Pawlenty had a former aide of Bachmann do an op-ed hit piece in Iowa. A reason Rick Perry is being pimped by the conservative boys’ club. It’s not that he’s got anything Michele Bachmann hasn’t. He’s chock full of crazy, too. But at least he’s not a f*#!ing girl.

Read full story · Comments { 19 }