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

Let’s Play ‘Who’s More Pro-Israel?’

By on 03 July 2011



Let’s see, Gaza or gossip, which shall it be? For almost every news outlet this week it was the latter, while the former is where the action is. From James Zogby writing over at Huffington Post:

When it comes to issues involving Israel, politicians in Washington can become quite hysterical, making the dumbest remarks or doing the most illogical things. Evidence of such bizarre behavior abounds, and this week provided several examples.

Taking top prize would be newly-elected Republican Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois. Kirk wants the U.S. to use military assets to stop the humanitarian flotilla on its way to Gaza. He wrote that the United States should “make available all necessary special operations and naval support to the Israeli Navy to effectively disable flotilla vessels before they can pose a threat to Israeli coastal security or put Israeli lives at risk”.

[...] … All this might just be dismissed as “political pandering” or more “harmless hot air” from politicians who specialize in both. But it is dangerous and has consequences. In the first place, actions and statements like these send absolutely horrible messages overseas about the inability of American politics to deal fairly with any Middle East issue that involves Israel. And so these behaviors end up undercutting U.S. diplomacy. Secondly, these actions, and the bizarrely skewed, one-sided politics they reflect, tie the hands (or, at times, force the hands) of Administrations, negatively impacting the ability of policymakers to act. And finally, in the end, these comments and actions embolden hardliners in Israel and the Arab World, who both come to believe that there are no restraints on Israeli behavior and no way that Arab concerns will be heard or respected in U.S. policy debates.

However, it’s just not on the radar of the American media. Too dangerous. Controversial. Inflammatory. It makes network heads uncomfortable.

Instead it’s all about Who’s more pro Israel?, one of the most dangerous political games we play in this country. But at every presidential election, play it we do. Stacy has an “In the News” diary up about Sec. Clinton announcing administration talks with the Muslim Brotherhood, which on cue is freaking out the Right.

There’s nothing more serious than Middle East politics and it shouldn’t be treated as a political parlor game, but that’s exactly what Politico did this week. In a long, gossipy piece, Ben Smith traded on 2008 canard that Obama is an iffy friend of Israel by mining staunchly pro Clinton Jewish quarters to stir the currents of discontent. It’s a continuation of the conservative campaign to discredit Pres. Obama and portray him as soft on Israel, which is a falsehood, but some media outlets just can’t resist.

Smith has written about this before. Here’s an example of the well from which Smith drew his alleged proof:

“I’m hearing a tremendous amount of skittishness from pro-Israel voters who voted for Obama and now are questioning whether they did the right thing or not,” said Betsy Sheerr, the former head of an abortion-rights-supporting, pro-Israel PAC in Philadelphia, who said she continues to support Obama, with only mild reservations. “I’m hearing a lot of ‘Oh, if we’d only elected Hillary instead.’”

Even Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who spoke to POLITICO to combat the story line of Jewish defections, said she’d detected a level of anxiety in a recent visit to a senior center in her South Florida district.

[...] The qualms that many Jewish Democrats express about Obama date back to his emergence onto the national scene in 2007. Though he had warm relations with Chicago’s Jewish community, he had also been friends with leading Palestinian activists, unusual in the Democratic establishment. And though he seemed to be trying to take a conventionally pro-Israel stand, he was a novice at the complicated politics of the America-Israel relationship, and his sheer inexperience showed at times.

Why does being “friends with leading Palestinian activists” make Obama less pro-Israel?

It takes a friend to tell you the truth sometimes, with Obama’s stance on Israeli settlements something that most experts agree must be dealt with by PM Netanyahu, though on the denial goes.

All of this precipitated by anxieties from a very small but vocal minority, with all hell breaking loose again when Pres. Obama stated, then defended, that Israelis and Palestinians should begin with the 1967 borders, with land swaps.

Now it appears Obama’s supporters are readying to hit back at this continuing media meme. From Greg Sargent:

A group of well-known figures in the Jewish community has been in discussions with senior Obama adviser David Axelrod about how to respond to the criticism, which is expected to intensify as the campaign heats up. Among them: Alan Solow, the former head of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations; former Congressmen Mel Levine and Robert Wexler; and executive Penny Pritzker.

“We will have highly credible spokespeople and surrogates speak out in a general manner in support of what this administration has done, and articulate it in a way that we think will resonate with voters who care about this issue,” Solow said in an interview. “We will meet with supporters who have expressed concerns or want to be briefed on these issues on a one-on-one basis.”

“We got close to 80 percent of the vote among Jewish Americans in 2008, but we had to aggressively bat down efforts to divide the community and to inflame,” David Axelrod told me. “Plainly we have to be at least as assiduous about it this time. If we’re passive in response it would be a mistake.”

Politico’s Smith got in the usual comments, with divisions quickly revealed or satisfied when the name of Dennis Ross is invoked:

The qualms that many Jewish Democrats express about Obama date back to his emergence onto the national scene in 2007. Though he had warm relations with Chicago’s Jewish community, he had also been friends with leading Palestinian activists, unusual in the Democratic establishment. And though he seemed to be trying to take a conventionally pro-Israel stand, he was a novice at the complicated politics of the America-Israel relationship, and his sheer inexperience showed at times.

A Philadelphia Democrat and pro-Israel activist, Joe Wolfson, recalled a similar progression.

“What got me past Obama in the recent election was Dennis Ross — I heard him speak in Philadelphia and I had many of my concerns allayed,” Wolfson said. “Now, I think I’m like many pro-Israel Democrats now who are looking to see whether we can vote Republican.”

Pres. Obama has deep challenges for 2012, but “pro-Israel Democrats” voting Republican isn’t a main one.

Our media is incredibly juvenile when it comes to covering the Middle East. Intramural political gossip substituting for serious mining of the challenges in the region continue to be the norm.

James Zogby noted what’s said around here a lot.

And so, far from being harmless hysteria or just plain dumb, all this posturing can be damaging and dangerous. It is a good part of the reason why we are in the mess we are in the Middle East and why a just resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict appears to be so intractable.

Every time the media chooses gossip over big stories like what’s happening surrounding the Gaza flotilla, solving problems in the Middle East gets a little further away, which doesn’t help anyone, especially Israel.

That President Barack Obama would have popularized the phrase “audacity of hope,” after which we named our boat, now seems a cruel hoax, particularly as many of us recalled the high hopes we had once harbored for Obama the candidate. Instead of an “audacity of hope,” Obama the president has often displayed a “paucity of courage.” – Ray McGovern

The politics of “Israel versus the Palestinians,” which is the way the U.S. media reports on this region, as well as how our politicians play it, puts Pres. Obama in an untenable position.

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

Jill Abramson Named First Female Executive Editor of New York Times in 160-year History

By on 02 June 2011

Ms. Abramson said that as a born-and-raised New Yorker, she considered being named editor of The Times to be like “ascending to Valhalla.” “In my house growing up, The Times substituted for religion,” she said. “If The Times said it, it was the absolute truth.” – Abramson to Replace Keller as The Times’s Executive Editor

Unfortunately for Ms. Abramson, the New York Times is no longer associated with the “absolute truth.” That image collapsed almost 20 years ago when Jeff Gerth conjured up the Whitewater scandal in 1992, using subterfuge and misinformation to arm the Right against a man who hadn’t even been elected to the presidency yet.

This tradition continued during the Bush-Cheney era, when the Times was culpable for their part in the worst reportage in the history of journalism which was led by Judy Miller and her infamous aluminum tubes.

On Oct. 3, The Times ran yet another piece revising its prewar coverage of Iraq’s mass-destructive capabilities. Following the lead of The Washington Post—which had broken the same news 14 months earlier—The Times meticulously demonstrated how the Bush administration had tilted evidence so that captured aluminum tubes, meant as Iraqi artillery rocket parts, could be passed off as nuclear centrifuge components. And if The Times was more than a year late reacting to The Post, it was more than two years late reacting to itself. Far down, the Oct. 3 piece offered an implicit confession of institutional and reportorial failure: “[O]n Sept. 8 [2002], the lead article on Page 1 of The New York Times gave the first detailed account of the aluminum tubes. The article cited unidentified senior administration officials who insisted that the dimensions, specifications and numbers of tubes sought showed that they were intended for a nuclear weapons program …. The article gave no hint of a debate over the tubes.” (source)

But the Times did print Joseph Wilson’s op-ed, someone I’ve had the pleasure to meet and interview, so perhaps Ms. Abramson will reignite this energy back into the New York Times, instead of what the paper long ago became, just another traditional news organization losing ground to new media.

The most representative tweet of what the New York Times has been reduced to today came from David Weigel: BREAKING: Jill Abramson to become first female NYT editor to have her content aggregated by HuffPo. #ikidbecauseilove

The appointment of Ms. Abramson is still important, however, because too few women hold posts in the lofty editorial arena. Not even the Times lowered prestige can change that fact or that her appointment makes history. That we’re into the 21st century before something like this happened is quite an indictment of the print press and traditional journalism.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Well, That Settled It.

By on 28 April 2011



It was the second time in one day Pres. Obama directed comments towards Donald Trump, the first when he referenced “carnival barkers.” Then from the pool report last night, from a fundraiser benefiting the Obama Victory Fund, a joint account of the DNC and the reelection campaign, Obama opened his remarks with this:

“[...] But it was also a serious day because part of what happened this morning was me trying to remind the press and trying to remind both parties that what we do in politics is not a reality show. It’s serious.” … – Pres. Obama

As you can see from the graphic above, not only does WND put a question mark at the end of “born in the USA,” but birth certificate is in quotation marks.

“The news media and the political establishment were quick to rush to judgment regarding Obama’s eligibility in 2008, without any basis. It would be a big mistake for everyone to jump to a conclusion now based on the release of this document, which raises as many questions as it answers,” Farah added. – Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND

You can’t appease crazy.

Meanwhile, in New Hampshire, where Mitt Romney is clocking Pres. Obama in polls that mean nothing today, Donald Trump continued his self-congratulation tour.

Yet throughout the day on his inaugural trip to New Hampshire — this election cycle, at least — Mr. Trump proceeded to keep talking about the subject. He mentioned it in private conversations during a stop at the Roundabout Diner. He raised it during a private Republican fund-raising luncheon. And he asked an audience at a factory whether they heard the news.

“Oh by the way, I don’t know if you heard? Did you hear?” Mr. Trump asked employees of Wilcox Industries, a defense manufacturing firm here. “I am so proud of myself. I got this guy to release his birth certificate. I’m really, really happy.”

This would be a good time for Sarah Palin to announce an exploratory committee. Jerry Springer always had dueling battles on his stage, so it’s fitting that Republicans should too.

Blame Hawaii.

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

White House Releases Obama’s Long Form Birth Certificate

By on 27 April 2011

Yo birthers, you asked for it and now you’ve got it. Donald Trump’s statement to follow, no doubt. Want to bet that it won’t appease the Tea Party rabble?

From the White House:

In 2008, in response to media inquiries, the President’s campaign requested his birth certificate from the state of Hawaii. The state sent the campaign the President’s birth certificate, the same legal documentation provided to all Hawaiians as proof of birth in state, and the campaign immediately posted it on the internet. That birth certificate can be seen here (PDF).

When any citizen born in Hawaii requests their birth certificate, they receive exactly what the President received. In fact, the document posted on the campaign website is what Hawaiians use to get a driver’s license from the state and the document recognized by the Federal Government and the courts for all legal purposes. That’s because it is the birth certificate. This is not and should not be an open question.

The President believed the distraction over his birth certificate wasn’t good for the country. It may have been good politics and good TV, but it was bad for the American people and distracting from the many challenges we face as a country. Therefore, the President directed his counsel to review the legal authority for seeking access to the long form certificate and to request on that basis that the Hawaii State Department of Health make an exception to release a copy of his long form birth certificate. They granted that exception in part because of the tremendous volume of requests they had been getting. President Barack Obama’s long form birth certificate can be seen here (PDF):

This is going to just kill Jerome Corsi’s book sales.

Read full story · Comments { 45 }

Ryan Lizza: Obama is a ‘Consequentialist’

By on 26 April 2011

One reaction among liberals to the Bush years and to Iraq was to retreat from “idealism” toward “realism,” in which the United States would act cautiously and, above all, according to national interests rather than moral imperatives. The debate is rooted in the country’s early history. America, John Quincy Adams argued, “does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all,” but the “champion and vindicator only of her own. In 1966, Adams’s words were repeated by George Kennan, perhaps the most articulate realist of the twentieth century, in opposing the Vietnam War. …The use of force to stop human-rights abuses or to promote democracy, they argue, usually ends poorly.” – Ryan Lizza



Consequentialist? Say what?

Mike Allen led with Ryan Lizza’s story in the New Yorker yesterday in his Playbook, logging it under “West Wing Must Read.”

It requires hip-waders.

Philosophically speaking, Lizza contends that whether a decision by a president is moral or right depends on the consequences of that action, which he concludes makes Pres. Obama’s evolving doctrine “consequentialist.” By that theory isn’t every president’s doctrine consequentialist by nature?

Oy, some experts…

Read it anyway, at least then you’ll understand Libya.

If there is such a thing in foreign policy as a “consequentialist” doctrine, Harry Truman might agree, though his interpretation of Lizza’s theory would be far different from Obama’s, because Truman believed the buck stopped in the White House. John F. Kennedy, a president who doesn’t resemble our current one at all, wouldn’t agree at all with Lizza, because imagining Kennedy bombing Libya requires enormous feats of mental acrobatics, regardless of the consequences.

Libya is doing for Pres. Obama exactly what I warned would happen.

Interesting premise pulled out of thin air to try to unwind whatever it is Pres. Obama is attempting to do on foreign policy, which is hardly clear at this point. Unfortunately, Obama’s actions also reveal timidity to declare U.S. intent, because admitting an altered U.S. policy based on Lizza’s “consequentialist” theory would cause political havoc for Obama in 2012.

From Lizza’s article:

Nonetheless, Obama may be moving toward something resembling a doctrine. One of his advisers described the President’s actions in Libya as “leading from behind.” That’s not a slogan designed for signs at the 2012 Democratic Convention, but it does accurately describe the balance that Obama now seems to be finding. It’s a different definition of leadership than America is known for, and it comes from two unspoken beliefs: that the relative power of the U.S. is declining, as rivals like China rise, and that the U.S. is reviled in many parts of the world. Pursuing our interests and spreading our ideals thus requires stealth and modesty as well as military strength. “It’s so at odds with the John Wayne expectation for what America is in the world,” the adviser said. “But it’s necessary for shepherding us through this phase.” – The Consequentialist – How the Arab Spring remade Obama’s foreign policy.

Ah, China, but first America has to wean itself off of our Middle East obsession, which includes that we can create an outcome by anything we do. But the take away on this one is “leading from behind,” with the notion of a “humanitarian hawk” haunting U.S. foreign policy in a very real way, the latest in Libya, neoconservative unilateralism replaced with righteous certainty of America the savior in countries that are not of strategic interest, meanwhile we can do nothing in Bahrain, with sanctions on Syria coming in 3… 2… … .. 10… 9… 8… Oh, and just try to do anything in the Middle East by pissing off the Saudis.

David Drezner’s take:

On the structure – despite Lizza’s 9,000 words, and despite Obama’s stated intention to reorient American foreign policy to be less Middle East-focused, the essay…. is totally focused on the Middle East. I’m not saying that the Middle East is unimportant, but I’d have liked to have read something about how the Obama administration is dealing with the rest of the world. Indeed, Lizzaa notes that Obama visited South America during the opening days of the Libya operation precisely “to show that America has interests in the rest of the world.” Despite this effort, the thrust of the article demonstrates its futility during the start of a war. New military conflicts crowd out attention that should be paid to other arenas of foreign policy. It would have been nice to see how the administration’s strategy is playing/affecting the rest of the world.

The inside elite from Pontificate Hill, of which Ryan Lizza is certainly one on foreign policy, lays down that Obama is a consequentialist, which is really just shorthand for making stuff up as he goes along, moving from crisis to crisis with no guiding light, except outcome. Good God.

Brzezinski, too, has become disillusioned with the President. “I greatly admire his insights and understanding. I don’t think he really has a policy that’s implementing those insights and understandings. The rhetoric is always terribly imperative and categorical: ‘You must do this,’ ‘He must do that,’ ‘This is unacceptable.’ ” Brzezinski added, “He doesn’t strategize. He sermonizes.”

Then Mike Allen says Lizza’s is “West Wing Must Read,” which sends the message.

All it means to me is that if Lizza and Allen are correct we’re in bigger trouble than I thought we were and I didn’t think that was possible.

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

Screaming Drudge Headline of the Day

By on 25 April 2011



From the Wall Street Journal’s MarketWatch:

The International Monetary Fund has just dropped a bombshell, and nobody noticed.

For the first time, the international organization has set a date for the moment when the “Age of America” will end and the U.S. economy will be overtaken by that of China.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page’s Steve Moore critiques the president’s speeches attacking Republican budget plans. And it’s a lot closer than you may think.

According to the latest IMF official forecasts, China’s economy will surpass that of America in real terms in 2016 — just five years from now.

Put that in your calendar. [...]

Oh, and in case you didn’t know who’s to blame, this all just suddenly happened on the Democratic Party’s watch and Pres. Obama. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney raffling through the surplus Bill Clinton left them never happened.

Bonus Drudge belch:

…psst… Pres. Obama’s a secret Muslim. Pass it on. …

Read full story · Comments { 16 }

Birtherism, Donald Trump and DeNiro

By on 25 April 2011

“I think the Republicans are making a terrible mistake in making this a big issue. We have immigration, we have the deficit, we have the economy. Those are the things that the public cares about. . . . If the Republican party doesn’t start addressing that, they will lose and they deserve to.” – Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Fox News Channel

Say what you will about Rep. Michele Bachmann, and there is a lot to say, but if Sarah Palin knew how to thread the political needle as well as Bachmann she wouldn’t have been upstaged by Donald Trump, who is now marketing himself “From Donald to Ronald.”

Robert DeNiro is now in Donald Trump’s face, though it won’t make any difference with the people Trump is trying to court. In fact, if Hollywood weighs in against Trump it’s just as likely that birther fans will rally around Mr. Trump.

The whole birther phenomenon is not only about race, though it’s obviously part of it. It’s also rooted in xenophobia, the outsider invading America and ruining our way of life, which is also seen in “illegal alien” rants against Hispanics, though at least they are more likely to be Catholic or Christians rather than — gasp! — having remote contact with a mostly Muslim country. Barack Obama’s non-practicing Muslim father is where this is rooted, but also the exotic port of Indonesia where he and his mother moved when he was very young and where Pres. Obama once lived for a very brief time, with rumors of him practicing Islam proved false long ago.

But birther emails are flying again these days. Here’s just one I’ve gotten recently, which pretty much is the only argument birthers have for their conspiracy theories.

For those who don’t believe Obama, his administration or the officials in Hawaii this comes down to a very simple issue that no amount of verbal protests and name calling can dissipate… Why would anyone withhold an original birth certificate (long form) if by showing it they could make all this go away? Would you? I wouldn’t hesitate for a minute. That is what has become the issue, what motivates Obama to not take such a simple action. Is this just ego? – B. Kelly

NPR debunked the birther baloney again recently, but we all know these people won’t take NPR’s reporting, even if it comes from a Fox News Channel contributor.

MARA LIASSON: Here’s what the facts are. The former director of the Hawaii Department of Public Health says that she, along with the state official in charge of vital records, went and personally inspected Barack Obama’s original birth certificate. This is the long-form birth certificate sometimes described by Hawaiian officials as the record of live birth. It’s in a bound volume in the archives in Honolulu and the former director of public health says everything is in order.

Now, the shorter form, what’s known as the certificate of live birth, which is the computer-generated form that’s been printed on the Internet. This is the form that anyone born in Hawaii gets when they request their birth certificate, and it’s all they can get when they request it. That is also legitimate.

And FactCheck.org and Politifact and a number of independent fact checking groups have also pointed out that there are two contemporaneous birth announcements in newspapers, The Honolulu Advertiser and The Honolulu Star-Bulletin, announcing the birth of Barack Obama on August 4th, 1961.

Read full story · Comments { 43 }

Jerome Corsi Birther Book Now Confirmed

By on 28 March 2011



The swiftboating of Pres. Barack Obama is about to begin in earnest.

I wrote about Donald Trump becoming the Republican front man on birtherism for 2012 on Friday.

Trump is out doubling down on it today, including releasing his own birth certificate.

He off-handedly questioned President Obama’s birthplace last week – a comment that drew strong rebukes from some quarters – but now business mogul Donald Trump says he’s more concerned than ever that the president was, in fact, not born in the United States.

Trump – who, however improbably, claims to be considering a presidential bid – said Monday that since his first public statement on the issue last week, “a lot of facts are emerging” that are making him question more seriously where Obama was born. “I am really concerned,” Trump said during an appearance on Fox News. “You have no doctors, you have no nurses … that remember.”

“I brought it up just routinely, and all of the sudden a lot of facts are emerging, and I am starting to wonder myself whether he was born in this country,” he exclaimed.

But on Friday I also reported Sean Hannity teased a book by Jerome Corsi, due out in May, which is all about questioning Obama’s legitimacy as president. Today it’s confirmed.

Read full story · Comments { 30 }

Lewis Black Endorses Donald Trump

By on 26 March 2011

**UPDATED**


Lewis Black outdid himself this week.

Talk about getting roasted.

As for Donald Trump running for president in 2012, maybe. But he’s already staked out one role for himself and that’s front man for the birthers.


UPDATE: Trump’s front man status pushing the birther talking point for Republicans got another shot tonight when he pushed it again with Geraldo Rivera on Fox News channel.

Asked about his comments on The View over the phone, Trump said, once again, that “the fact is that we haven’t seen his birth certificate,” arguing that the short-form certificate the President showed was “some document” that didn’t confirm anything. “I always give my credentials,” he told Rivera, “I like to give credentials. I’m a really smart guy. I’ve always been a really smart guy,” noting that he had god to “one of the best” schools in the world, apropos of nothing. Given all these facts about how smart he was, he told Rivera an anecdote of his day at the office. “I asked to see my birth certificate,” he narrated, and within minutes, it magically appeared. [...] He also noted that some of his conservative friends had tried to swerve him away from the birther issue, to which he repeated replied, “why not?”


Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Republican Plan for 2012: Birtherism

By on 25 March 2011

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) has previously said that if she ran for president, the “first thing” she’d do at the first debate would be to present her birth certificate. Not that she would have much of a choice, if the state lawmaker she’s expected to hire to manage her operations in Iowa has his way. Bachmann, who has all-but announced she’s running, is reportedly planning to bring on Iowa state Sen. Kent Sorenson—the author of a recent birther bill—as her political director in the presidential bellwether state. – Mother Jones

It’s coming.

Sean Hannity teased the trailer today on his radio show.

One starting point is Donald Trump, who’s charge is to legitimize birtherism.

It’s not so much that Mr. Trump wants to run for president. It’s that Republicans need a front man willing to simply ask questions who hasn’t anything to risk. That’s Trump.

Today Sean Hannity started off by simply saying Trump was only asking questions and everyone is in an uproar. What’s wrong with asking questions? The next thing out of his mouth was how birtherism is a legitimate issue, because even the notorious Roger Stone says there is a “huge niche,” out there interested in the topic. (Roger Stone helped bring down Eliot Spitzer, the most effective sheriff of Wall Street we’ve ever had.) Trump’s case begins with mentioning the fact he has people from his past who remember him, but Barack Obama does not. What’s up with that?

Taking it to “The View,” Donald Trump mainstreamed it.

Yesterday Rush applauded Trump, saying he’s only giving Obama a chance to explain:

On Limbaugh’s show Thursday, the radio talker Limbaugh sided with Trump’s beating of the birth certificate drum. “You and I have known all along that we’re dealing with a man-child here who has, literally, no qualifications, no experience, and according to Donald Trump now, no birth certificate,” Limbaugh declared.

“Trump is performing a valuable service here. He is attempting to help Obama out of a jam. You can’t say Trump is a kook right-wing birther. Trump realized the problem that Obama faces here with credibility. He’s giving him a chance here to establish some credibility by producing the birth certificate,” Limbaugh added.

Performing a valuable service is exactly what Trump is doing for Republicans, for business, too, and being applauded by Rush isn’t by accident. Trump can afford to talk it up. He’s got nothing to lose.

Right-wing radio is where Republican campaigns start. I go way back with the medium, having studied it for 20 years. It’s where they get out the vote, create the narrative, start it rolling. It’s the connection to communities a.m. stations provide that Democrats have never understood.

There have been hints before, the many birther bills, including Rep. Bachmann’s first likely presidential hire, Iowa state Sen. Kent Sorenson, who offered one up in Bachmann’s home state of Iowa.

That’s nothing compared to what’s coming.

Today Sean Hannity mentioned Jerome Corsi, the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth troll who helped take down war hero John Kerry. Sean reported there will be a book out in May by Corsi on the subject of Pres. Obama and his birth certificate. I couldn’t verify Hannity’s claim, but he said he’s going to give Corsi a lot of leeway to air his case, because he’s only asking questions.

Being Friday on wingnut radio you never know about these things, but I’ve felt for quite some time that this birther issue was no mere flight of fanatical haters and racists, though there are plenty of both where Obama is concerned.

Republicans believe they can create enough doubt about Barack Obama to push an election towards their guy, Mitt Romney, who is not going to take no for an answer this time. He is going to be the nominee and he’s prepared for the long slog to make it happen, while others do the dirty work, as always happens in these things. Having warned about Romney since 2006, even as Obama looks unbeatable, there is no doubt there won’t be near the enthusiasm for his reelection, because people have soured on his betrayals of progressivism.

As I already wrote about, a Democratic insider said to me recently, if Romney makes it through the primaries he’s dangerous, because Barack Obama has never run against a competent Republican.

Rush Limbaugh said on his radio show today that whoever is willing to take it to Obama will win this thing and Republicans can’t be worried about charges of racism or anything else.

There is no one more dangerous than Jerome Corsi with a book of ferocious political fiction, with the entire right-wing audience hanging on every word, while someone like Donald Trump, though there will be many others, including Bachmann who will produce her birth certificate when she announces, who aren’t as interested in the presidency as much as their own power and the perks they’ll get for targeting the President. Taking one for the team to legitimize the question in the light of day like Trump did on ABC, the biggest barker could get a cabinet position, access or maybe the vice presidency.

All of these different birtherism mentions are not happening by accident. The playing field is wide and deep, with Republicans never shy about scorched earth. It’s what they do.

This also isn’t 2008 when people couldn’t wait to rush George W. Bush out of the White House, eager to usher in an era of a new kind of politics. Instead, Obama’s neutered the Democratic Party and rendered the progressive movement mute and irrelevant, because if anyone ever deserved a primary challenge on the issues alone, starting with civil liberties, it’s Barack Obama. Maybe instead of talking nonsense of impeachment Dennis Kucinich should stand up and challenge Obama on the grounds he’s sold Democrats out, because nothing could be truer.

Republicans are preparing for battle, not an election, a battle. It’s already begun against the unions, in McCarthyite actions, against Planned Parenthood, and it won’t stop there. Since Barack Obama won’t fight for the tenets of the Democratic Party the Republicans have decided to take them all down.

It’s also coming through the innocent questions of birtherism made by sly surrogates, helped along through the lies and treachery of people like Jerome Corsi, and I don’t think Barack Obama or his team are remotely prepared for it.


UPDATE: Jerome Corsi’s book now confirmed.

UPDATE 2: Compilation article cross-posted over at TheModerateVoice.

Read full story · Comments { 65 }

Mike Huckabee Smears Single Mothers

By on 04 March 2011

UPDATE FROM THE HUCKSTER, CUE IRONY ALERT: “I was asked about Oscar-winner Natalie Portman’s out-of-wedlock pregnancy. Natalie is an extraordinary actor, very deserving of her recent Oscar trophy and I am glad she will marry her baby’s father. However, contrary to what the Hollywood media reported, I did not “slam” or “attack” Natalie Portman, nor did I criticize the hardworking single mothers in our country.”

Nice try, Huck, slam and attack “hardworking” single mothers is is exactly what you did, though you thought because she’s a (gasp) Hollywood actress you’d get a pass.

____________________Original post below___________________

Are you hearing him now? Mike Huckabee’s maliciously venomous charm has been on parade all week on wingnut radio. He’s trying to sell books by talking to a crowd of people who tend to be allergic to facts, because they don’t get them very often from their hosts. They’re fed ideology instead, which Mr. Huckabee is absolutely thrilled to oblige.

But it’s all so “Murphy Brown” and a century ago. A continuation of the Bill O’Reilly theme targeting Jennifer Aniston when she said: “Women are realizing more and more that you don’t have to settle, they don’t have to fiddle with a man to have that child.”

So, after slamming Pres. Obama using lies and ridiculous charges of anti-Americanism, Mike Huckabee moves on to take on the culture wars. I know people are saying that Newt Gingrich has had a rough week, but it’s nothing compared to what a bad week Huckabee has had due to his own motor mouth. It makes Donald Trumps planned trip to Iowa sound like sanely plausible planning.

Quite a few male bloggers like David Weigel, along with the headline writers of Politico, as well as the “Morning Joe” team, came to Huckabee’s defense when he attacked Pres. Obama and said he grew up “in Kenya.” It was all a misunderstanding of a misstatement from a nice guy. Not to worry, Huckabee isn’t a birther, like that is the only issue in someone stating lies on wingnut radio. Then Huckabee doubled down on yet another right-wing radio talk show saying it was Obama’s “anti-American” attitude that were really troubling to him. Now, again on right-wing radio, Mike Huckabee decides to smear single mothers using Natalie Portman as the model of what’s wrong with women who get pregnant, but who aren’t married, never mind that she’s engaged to Benjamin Millepied.

However, let’s get something straight. That shouldn’t be an issue as long as Ms. Portman can care for her child. None of this is Mike Huckabee’s business.

The last thing women need is self-righteous politicians weighing in on what is and is not appropriate for someone’s life, by invading our privacy in matters that don’t concern them. It’s the 21st century and as long as a child is loved, nurtured and given the best home possible, whatever a woman chooses to do in a world where our options are only limited through our financial means, it’s not anyone’s concern.

Transcript from Media Matters:

HUCKABEE: You know Michael, one of the things that’s troubling is that people see a Natalie Portman or some other Hollywood starlet who boasts of, ‘Hey look, you know, we’re having children, we’re not married, but we’re having these children, and they’re doing just fine.’ But there aren’t really a lot of single moms out there who are making millions of dollars every year for being in a movie. And I think it gives a distorted image that yes, not everybody hires nannies, and caretakers, and nurses. Most single moms are very poor, uneducated, can’t get a job, and if it weren’t for government assistance, their kids would be starving to death and never have health care. And that’s the story that we’re not seeing, and it’s unfortunate that we glorify and glamorize the idea of out of children wedlock.

You know, right now, 75 percent of black kids in this country are born out of wedlock. 61 percent of Hispanic kids — across the board, 41 percent of all live births in America are out of wedlock births. And the cost of that is simply staggering.

As I wrote before, there are no accidents when wannabe presidential candidates go on wingnut radio and say inflammatory things. Now, maybe Huckabee isn’t running for president, so on a book tour he’s letting it all hang out to sucker in readers willing to buy his drivel in hard back. But what he is revealing is that he’s a moralizing, pious little pipsqueak of a man who would make the presidency smaller if he held the office.

With what’s unfolded this week and all the tape available Mike Huckabee is looking less like a potential presidential candidate than a huckster on the circuit.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Mike Huckabee Doubles Down with Obama ‘Anti-Americanism’

By on 03 March 2011

This is the type of thing you’d expect from Michele Bachmann, even Sarah Palin, that is until she distanced herself from this type of talk. But it’s no accident that Mr. Huckabee continues to fan the wingnut flames with ridiculous notions of Pres. Obama’s “anti-Americanism.” This is how the Right talks on right-wing radio. I started debating these nut jobs from coast to coast back in the late ’90s until I couldn’t take the vitriol and basic willful ignorance anymore.

From Right Wing Watch:

Fischer: Well Governor, what got lost in all the shuffle was the legitimate point that you were making which is that we may have a president who has some fundamentally anti-American ideas that may be rooted in a childhood where he had a father who was virulently anti-colonial, hated the British – might have something to do with the President returning the bust of Winston Churchill back to England. You know, I was struck by the fact that when he made his tour to Indonesia, he made a point of going to an Indonesian memorial that celebrated the victory of Indonesians over British troops – again, part of that anti-colonial thing. And so I’d like you to comment on that; you seem to think that there is some validity to the fact that there may be some fundamental anti-Americanism in this president.

Huckabee: Well, that’s exactly the point that I make in the book and I don’t know why these reporters – maybe they can’t read, I guess that’s part of it because it’s clearly spelled out and I’m quoting a British newspaper who really were expressing the outrage of the Brits over that bust being returned and the point was that they felt like that due to Obama’s father and grandfather it could be that his version and view of the Mau Mau Revolution was very different than most of the people who perhaps would grow up in the United States. And I have said many times, publicly, that I do think he has a different worldview and I think it is, in part, molded out of a very different experience. Most of us grew up going to Boy Scout meetings and, you know, our communities were filled with Rotary Clubs, not madrassas.

Translation: Barack Obama is not one of us.

Can’t wait until Mr. Huckabee appears on one of the Sunday shows and is asked about the claim that he believes Obama “may” have “some fundamental anti-Americanism” in him.

Mike Huckabee is like a two-faced teenage girl. He says one thing to legitimate news sources and acts out when he’s with his tribe. In case you don’t get it yet, Mr. Huckabee’s tribe is the crazy right wingers who live, breathe and rant on terrestrial radio. The same people he cannot get the nomination without.

I’m just wondering how long it will take before Sarah Palin comes out to try to trump him, maybe even surprising everyone by saying what Huckabee said is unfortunate and inappropriate. That’s the move, though it’s unclear she’s got it in her. With her polling slipping, the 2010 midterm star is losing her grip on the chance to snare Iowa and other states, as Huckabee rises, so chastising him might not help her with those extreme Republican primary voters, even as it moves her closer, though not into, the more reasonable column.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

First Amendment Protects Odious Speech Too

By on 02 March 2011

“Speech is powerful,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain.” But under the First Amendment, he went on, “we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker.” Instead, the national commitment to free speech, he said, requires protection of “even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.” – Justices Rule for Protesters at Military Funerals

Fundamentalist fanatics preening they speak for God are the embodiment of everything wrong with religion, proving that most proselytizers know less about being holy than your average five year-old.

“I very much appreciate the fact that I get to be the mouth of God in this matter,” she told reporters.

That’s Margie J. Phelps, daughter of church leader Fred Phelps and legal counsel for the group who won in the Supreme Court today. Her delusion is topped only by her profound arrogance that “the mouth of God” is remotely tied to anything as negative as causing more suffering to people who have lost a loved one. Fred Phelps and his people remain prime examples of un-Christian, inhumane behavior and the most reprehensible example of spirituality to ever get the megaphone of the First Amendment.

However, the Supreme Court got it right by protecting the speech of this despicable woman and the followers of this movement. In an 8-1 verdict, the court sent a powerful message, with Justice Alito dissenting, for which he should be ashamed.

At present, 44 states have laws creating buffer zones around funerals, which is the recourse and responsibility of legislatures to enact.

It’s comforting to know that the Supreme Court can at least get something as fundamental as protecting the First Amendment correct. After the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case you had to wonder.

Read full story · Comments { 10 }

Mike Huckabee’s Venomous Charm

By on 01 March 2011

There are no coincidences on right-wing radio.

When a potential Republican presidential candidate goes on right-wing radio and gets caught saying Pres. Barack Obama grew up “in Kenya” it isn’t by accident.

“One thing that I do know is his having grown up in Kenya, his view of the Brits, for example, very different than the average American … his perspective as growing up in Kenya with a Kenyan father and grandfather, their view of the Mau Mau Revolution in Kenya is very different than ours because he probably grew up hearing that the British are a bunch of imperialists who persecuted his grandfather.”

Whether Mr. Huckabee is a birther or not isn’t the issue and anyone covering for him, as Andy Barr of Politico does, and providing room for him to weasel out of this is falling for the charming Southern former Arkansas governor who knows he can get away with retracting a stupid statement, while simultaneously benefiting from ringing the bell.

David Weigel also pronounces Mike Huckabee isn’t a birther, which is exactly what Huck’s people are hoping will happen once the Baptist preacher smiles and nods in order to present himself as utterly harmless.

Mr. Huckabee is also not ill-informed, as Weigel also claims. He cleverly and purposefully said what he wanted in the company of a wingnut radio host who Huckabee knew had an audience that would appreciate it.

Mike Huckabee also knew he could walk it back later, because no one could possibly believe a preacher could be so hateful. There will always be outlets like Politico and writers like Weigel who give Huck the benefit of the doubt, even when undeserved.

The dangerous nature of Mike Huckabee is his apparent guilelessness. Just look at his face, that smile, and don’t forget he’s religiously pious. He would never impugn Pres. Obama’s legitimacy.

Yeah, and a three-limb amputee and war hero would never have to defend himself against political ads comparing him to Osama Bin Laden. Max Cleland lost his Senate seat over just such heinous un-American attacks. Sen. Saxby Chambliss to this day given a pass for the character assassination of religious leaders like Ralph Reed. They did the same to John Kerry whose Silver Star was earned in a harrowing moment of bravery.

What Mike Huckabee did was intended. He was also counting on people getting his back, which is exactly what happened.

That Mike Huckabee invoked the Clintons to skulk away and not take responsibility for his obvious smear against Pres. Obama puts the period on the whole event. A ready answer whipped out just like the whole thing was planned.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Sarah Palin’s First Ode to the Independent

By on 19 February 2011

Taking on birthers, then unions, Sarah Palin shoots for the… er… um… center? Just maybe, or perhaps she’s taking a stab at sounding reasonable to the Right and those fickle independents that put Tea Partiers in office last year and who will be so important in 2012. Because everything Sarah does right now is about repositioning herself to see if there’s a path to the presidency, beyond the Republican nomination that has always been the ceiling to her White House ambitions.

In the first verbal cue since taking on an establishment chief of staff hire, there’s some evidence that Michael Glassner may have gotten through to the formidable 2010 midterm rabble-rouser.

On those Republicans who keep bringing up Pres. Obama birth certificate to try to make it a legitimate issue, Palin took Karl Rove’s advice recently:

“It’s distracting. It gets annoying. Let’s stick with what really matters.” – Sarah Palin

How’s that for a stake into the heart of the birthers?

Sarah’s sensible. She’s really sensible.

On Facebook, Sarah Palin also weighs in on the union battle in Wisconsin. This is also being discussed in Ohio and New Jersey that you can bet a lot of other governors are watching closely. Palin’s opener is below:

The union-led school closures and demonstrations in Madison have left most ordinary Americans shaking their heads in disbelief. Months ago, I penned a message to my fellow union brothers and sisters when I found myself on the receiving end of union boss Richard Trumka’s wrath. Yesterday’s demonstrations reminded me of the full-page ads taken out against me when I put my foot down in dealing with union demands while I served as governor. My message then and now to good union brothers and sisters is that you have another option. You don’t have to kowtow to the union bosses who are not looking out for you, but instead are using you. You can join millions of other union members in a commonsense movement to help fight for the right causes in our great country – for budgets that share the burden in a truly fair way and for commonsense reforms that take power away from vested interests like union bosses and big business lobby groups, and put it back where it belongs – with “We the People.”

As a former union member, it’s incredibly odd to read Palin’s “commonsense reforms” lecture. Does Sarah not know that collective bargaining is the foundation of union effectiveness? She asks union members to concede their power, using an odd reason for doing so.

The agenda for too many union bosses is a big government agenda that only serves the union bosses themselves – not union members, not union families, and certainly not the larger community.

Sarah is a Tea Party member, so you’d think her “larger community” ode would be movement treason.

The current union battle in the states is something that’s been coming since the first U.S. company felt the sting of globalization; it just took a long time to reach the state and federal unionized workers. It is a fight for the relevancy of unions. Being part of the “so be it” club, Palin thinks drowning union jobs in the bath tub to kill government is a solution, even if it costs jobs that pay a decent wage with solid benefits.

But Sarah Palin also has absolutely no credibility to lecture union workers in Wisconsin give up their power. Mrs. Palin is part of the problem, because she joined Pres. Obama in supporting tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. So, laying guilt on unions by saying we’re “still struggling to get out of a deep recession and coping with high unemployment, record deficits, rapidly rising food prices, and a host of other economic problems” rings hallow.

This hypocrisy hasn’t stopped Republicans from weighing in on the voters versus the unions angle either, with John Fund the latest: Who’s in charge of our political system—voters or unions? Ah yes, because voters put in charge right-wingers last midterm, so union workers should give up their power. It’s the same nonsense Joe Klein wrote yesterday.

Unions are fighting for Americans to have better middle class wages and benefits, with organizing the only thing standing between union wages and the further downsizing of labor’s power for the sake of the corporation or the state, in the case of Wisconsin. Ultimately this a tax cutting issue, which is always tilted to the wealthy, not workers or the middle class.

Sarah Palin’s latest musings are the latest developments that reveal though she hasn’t completely made up her mind to run in ’12 she’s making the wide turn to a decision. Glassner has to have told her that if she wants to be a contender she’s got to get her polarizing numbers down and start sounding like an adult who simply shares carnival barker Glenn Beck’s channel, instead of residing in Beck’s World O Crazy alongside him.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

This Week in Crazy: Beck’s New Jew Woes, Graham Uses Our Troops’ Name to Cut SS, & More

By on 28 January 2011

TM NOTE: Texan4Hillary offers his perspective as a movement progressive activist.

This week in crazy is full of stuff.

As folks in the media look at Glenn Beck and his comments post Rep. Giffords, one popped up that is really nuts. Ok, say it with me: The Jews did NOT kill Jesus. Got it Beck? Here is what he said on air back in July that is now making the rounds:

This is kind of complex, because Jesus did identify with the victims. But Jesus wasn’t a victim, he was a conqueror. Jesus conquered death. He chose to give his life. Jesus didn’t come back from the dead and make the Jews pay for what they did. That would have been an abomination.

Oy vay.

Four-hundred rabbis, infuriated with Beck’s frequent use of the term “Nazi” and constant twisting of Holocaust survivor Soros’ experiences during the war, went right for the Right’s throat. They took out a ad in the Wall Street Journal blasting Fox News, Beck and Ailes for allowing such offensive crap to go on the air. See their awesome ad here.

Rush is blowing heavy as usual and his words sent one of his listeners to allegedly do something potentially criminal.

Last week, California State Sen. Leland Yee (D) called on right-wing hate radio host Rush Limbaugh to apologize for mocking Chinese President Hu Jintao and the Chinese language by speaking gibberish “ching chong chang” Chinese on his radio program. Yee, who is Chinese-American and chairs the state Senate Select Committee on Asian and Pacific Islander Affairs, said Limbaugh owes the Chinese-American community an apology for his “pointless and ugly offense.” Naturally, Limbaugh did not apologize, and instead railed against Yee the following day on his radio, calling him out repeatedly by name.

Yee’s call for civility did not sit well with one Limbaugh fan, who responded by sending several racist death threats to Yee’s office this week. “Rush Limbaugh will kick your chink ass and expose you for the fool you are,” the faxes read, threatening him with “death”...

Blood libel I say.

We get news that the GOP in the Senate has slotted newly elected Tea Party nut Senator Lee of Utah to sit on the Judiciary Committee. One problem: Senator Lee thinks that child labor laws, the FDA, FEMA, food stamps, Medicare and Medicaid are unconstitutional. He will be a real help in the days ahead.

In Colorado the newly elected Right wing state house is trying to kill free school breakfasts and lunches for kids. In committee they succeeded in killing the funding, but the Dem guv plans to fight against the move. Here is what one of the key GOP state senators had to say. The move would make poor kids pay 30 cents per meal and save 100,000 bucks since the federal government subsidizes most of it anyway. But no. Starve these kids we must! After all those poverty ridden shlubs do not work hard to feed their kids right?

Denver Post:

“As a family guy myself with children and grandchildren, I take a very strong responsibility to earn money to feed my own family,” said Sen. Kent Lambert, R-Colorado Springs, who voted against the request. He said charities could step up if some families have difficulty paying the fees.

“I think if that need is out there, there are charitable groups that are out there that go way, way beyond that to take care of families in need,” Lambert said. “Out here in El Paso County, for example, we have churches all over the place.”

Um, yeah buddy. One last one. Senator Graham of South Carolina has been inspired by the bravery of our troops dying every day overseas. So inspired is he that he is using their name to destroy Social Security.

Link here.

GRAHAM: I would give anything if the United States Congress for one month could act in accordance with the way our men and women are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. We know what to do on Social Security. I’ve put on the table adjusting the age from 67 to 69. …

…by introducing legislation soon that would adjust the age the way Reagan and O’Neill did — 67 to 69 — over decades and a reasonable means test on benefits as a down payment to getting our entitlement house in order. And they can run all the commercials they want. It does not matter…I know what I need to do to help my country. And these young men and women know what they need to do in Iraq to make us safe.

Why is Graham using the troops name to defend his proposal? Because progressives are running ads like this against him:

That’s your week in crazy.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Eric Cantor Wants to Start Over On Health Care

By on 24 January 2011

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

Rep. Cantor wouldn’t call the birthers and others questioning Obama’s citizenship as engaging in “crazy talk,” as David Gregory urged, but he did manage to laugh nervously like a little girl before replying. It’s really unseemly when a supposed “leader” won’t take to task his own lunatic fringe, because it makes him look weak and scared of them. But I guess since Rush Limbaugh is now leading the birther “crazy talk” Cantor can’t afford to take on the big man, because he can’t win.

The more Eric Cantor talks about health care the less sense he makes.

David Gregory easily took him down.

MR. GREGORY: All right, let, let’s, let’s move on to health care because House Republicans did repeal the president’s healthcare reform plan, but the real question is what Republicans are prepared to replace it with and whether you have a serious plan. Major Garrett in the National Journal reports this week the following about the speaker’s plan, Speaker Boehner: “The Boehner plan, according to the Congressional Budget Office, would add just three million Americans to the insurance rolls, leaving about 50 million still without coverage through 2019. CBO said that the proposal would reduce costs in the group-insurance market, which constitutes nearly 80 percent of private-sector premiums, by less than 3 percent. `If it’s all they do, it is not a serious effort,’ Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former CBO director and chief policy adviser for John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign, said of the Boehner alternative. `You can’t just do that.’”

The truth is, Republicans do not have a serious alternative to covering more Americans, do they?

REP. CANTOR: I disagree with that, obviously, David. First of all, you know, we believe you can do better in health care. I mean, we want to try and address the situation so more folks can have coverage, can, can have the kind of care that they want.

MR. GREGORY: But that’s not what the Boehner plan does.

REP. CANTOR: Well, the…

MR. GREGORY: It’s not more folks being covered.

REP. CANTOR: Well, the–if you recall last session, we Republicans were given one shot; we didn’t have any open debate for both sides at all on the healthcare bill the way it was jammed through. The Boehner plan is just a starting point. You know, what we said when we went and voted to repeal Obamacare last week in Congress, what we said is we want our committees to begin a process of deliberations from both sides, open, honest debates, so the people can understand everything that’s being discussed. And we’re going to focus on patient-controlled health care. We’re going to focus on, first and foremost, bringing down costs and adding to people’s choices and flexibility.

MR. GREGORY: But, Leader, you’re talking about bringing down costs. If you were serious about this, why not negotiate with Democrats in areas where you could deliver Republican votes? There are currently efficiencies in the Obama healthcare bill that deal with penalties for hospitals if there are recurrent infections. There are efficiencies that do address cost, and they certainly address getting more people covered than any Republican plan you’re suggesting.

REP. CANTOR: David, the problem is if we’re all really desirous of trying to deal with people who are in need and want to improve the healthcare future for this country, you, you can’t start with a Washington-controlled system. That’s the structure of Obamacare. It’s broad, sweeping federal mandates imposing the kind of health care that people should have instead of allowing people to choose for themselves and allow for the flexibility and choice. That’s why we’re going to have an open process, invite the other side in to have debates. We have committed, in the Pledge to America, that we are going to finally see the institution work. Speaker Boehner’s always said that, that we’re going to actually have committees do their work, we’re going to have work on the floor. We’re not going to see an instance where you’re going to jam through a healthcare bill the way that Speaker Pelosi did.

MR. GREGORY: Right. Although isn’t that what you just did on the repeal?

REP. CANTOR: We, we–no. We pledged…

MR. GREGORY: How is that different than what you say the Democrats did?

REP. CANTOR: Because it was, it was a page and a half bill, David. It was a page…

MR. GREGORY: Yeah. Seven hours of debates. So there wasn’t, wasn’t a lot of room for a lot of negotiation.

…and if you think this is bad you ought to hear Mr. Cantor on Social Security.

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

The Ailes Edict

By on 11 January 2011



Forgive me if I’m highly doubtful that Roger Ailes will change anything on Fox News Channel. But the interview with Russell Simmons sure is great PR and is getting a lot of attention.

Former Pres. Clinton spoke to the BBC saying politics shouldn’t “degenerate into demonisation” and that the rhetoric “falls on the unhinged and the hinged alike.” He certainly knows this first hand.

Less surprising was that Ailes used the platform to scoff at the notion that angry political commentary (including on his cable station) had anything to do with the shooting of Giffords and 19 others.

Ailse did concede that a bit of dialing back of the rhetoric might be in order. “I told all of our guys, shut up, tone it down, make your argument intellectually,” Ailes said. “You don’t have to do it with bombast. I hope the other side does that.”

It would sure help Mr. O’Reilly. I got worried for Bill-O Monday night, because at one point I thought his head was going to explode, he was that red, lips tight, his eyes beadier than usual. O’Reilly’s tirade over MSNBC’s coverage, which has been brilliant and unflinching from morning to night, of the AZ domestic terrorism tragedy and Giffords attempted assassination, has been bad for Fox. So much so that the Fox star went after them with a vengeance not seen in a very long time; he also had choice words for the New York Times and Paul Krugman.

I think Krugman and the Times hit a nerve. Why else bother?

In fact, the entire Left of this country coming out saying we’re mad as hell and we’re going to call the haters out has done the debate on speech in this country the justice it deserves.

Does anyone think there would be open debate if Democrats hadn’t taken this subject on by driving right into it?

It’s the very last thing the Right expected. They were blind-sided, caught flat-footed, left slack-jawed by the ferocity of progressive Democrats in this country turning the debate into them and saying they need to be held responsible for the vitriol that has gotten so bad in Arizona it’s deadly. The Right actually believed progressives were down and out after the midterm “shellacking” Pres. Obama took through Congress, when it wasn’t their fault in the first place.

PR ploy or not, Roger Ailes for Fox News felt compelled to say something because as much as the Right and the Tea Party activists squeal, the foundation of the argument being made against them about the vitriol in this country is solid, deep and comes with art, video tape and transcripts. If it wasn’t true the Right wouldn’t be yelling so loudly. Fox News wouldn’t be reacting defensively, with Bill O’Reilly, who I don’t even believe is part of the worst of what goes on, making a sad spectacle of himself last night. O’Reilly’s Mr. Wilson impersonation looked a lot like John McCain lately and it wasn’t pretty.

As for Fox’s Glenn Beck, his nonsensical signature ruminations have Ailes complaining on his way to the bank. It’s unlikely Beck’s unhinged warnings about Americans “losing our country” all because of Pres. Obama will change. He also won’t stop regurgitating his fantastic exaggerations about the end of America as we know it being close at hand, which is a constant fearmongering tactic of the Right, but Beck’s specialty. Loughner had no connection with Glenn Beck, but if they’d met is there any doubt they would have related?

What Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and his right-wing radio rabble all have in common is they inhabit the same vacuum of irresponsibility and don’t understand the reach of media and the combined impact of all the differing platforms offered in 21st century society. The bombardment isn’t making people smarter, because most fixate on the flashy, with the news & facts angle often missed, something Fox doesn’t even do (excepting Shep Smith and very few others); most people clinging to their favorite cable stars and their opinion shows.

It also used to be when someone said something stupid on the a.m. right-wing talk radio dial it was kept among the crazies. Now it’s blasted on Fox News Channel, too.

Now Sarah Palin can load up a crosshairs “target” graphic and name names of congresspeople while her sycophants cheer. Rep. Bachmann can encourage people to be “armed and dangerous.” Glenn Beck scares the living bejesus out of people who may not have a firm grip that what he’s talking about is fiction. Meanwhile, day in day out and through the night, Rush labels the President of the United States “Imam Obama,” floating the threat that a Muslim is in the White House, while his hack radio cronies regurgitate his talking point, all of which is broadcast or shared on Facebook, Twitter, emails, websites, chat room, comment sections and on and on.

It leaves the average listener of the Right’s fearmongering panic brigade paralyzed with fright.

The Left’s perceived crime is that they want to take care of you from birth to death, making sure you don’t end up on the streets or go nuts without care.

Which reminds me, next time the Right rails about cutting health care or mental health, remind them about all their calls and questions about why Jared Lee Loughner wasn’t taken care of and found unbalanced sooner. Why Gov. Brewer’s cuts backed the entire infrastructure of Arizona over a cliff so that the government couldn’t do its primary job, which is to take care of people and keep them safe. Basic government services the Right fights against every single day.

At the reading of the Constitution on the 112th Congress a crazy birther devotee screamed out during the “natural born citizen” clause, “Except Obama, except Obama, help us Jesus!” The woman didn’t squeal such an obscenity in the well of the House because she was a Lefty or because she had the facts.

If you don’t think it’s dangerous to our democratic republic for Americans to believe the President isn’t legitimate, then you don’t know the meaning of America.

There is only one group responsible for putting doubt in the public’s mind and de-legitimizing Barack Obama. The unhinged Right. This is the same crew that talks about patriotism, but then lies and smears Vietnam war heroes for political gain. They fuel public paranoia, which at a time of economic instability, is a toxic mixture, especially when these same people are suggesting to come “armed and dangerous” to political rallies, because the nation is at peril.

The constant drumbeat from the Right and Fox News, but particularly on right-wing radio, is to drive the narrative that there is a clear and present danger from any Democrat, progressive or liberal, which threatens the American way of life. This story has been told over and over again for a very long time and it’s driven by everything the Right says as its foundation.

I’m not crazy about the whole “No Labels” craze, but there’s a reason Mark McKinnon co-created the group and it’s not because he’s proud of what’s happening on the Right.

In today’s global media environment people armed with false information from media outlets and hosts who rev up the dangers of their fiction through fearmongering Armageddon for America language now reach many more people than ever before, but unfortunately these same people refuse to embrace the responsibility that comes with such a privilege.

Fox won’t change.

Media is driven by money, not conscience, which goes double on cable, especially when the media outlet is betting it all on making Democrats not just opponents but evil.

It comes from Roger Ailes’ basic template for Fox News Channel: right-wing radio and the hate, drama and language of battle that keeps it afloat.

Read full story · Comments { 42 }

Frolic Into Boehnerland

By on 07 January 2011

… The Democrats have plenty of creatures like Boehner. But in the new Speaker of the House, the Republicans own the perfect archetype — the quintessential example of the kind of glad-handing, double-talking, K Street toady who has dominated the politics of both parties for decades. In sports, we talk about athletes who are the “total package,” and that term comes close to describing Boehner’s talent for perpetuating our corrupt and debt-addled status quo: He’s a five-tool insider who can lie, cheat, steal, play golf, change his mind on command and do anything else his lobbyist buddies and campaign contributors require of him to get the job done. [...] – Matt Taibbi: The Crying Shame of John Boehner

Speaker Boehner’s speech upon being handed his giant gavel was pitch perfect politically. The tone was right, the sentiment softly spoken, with all the right notes hit. He referenced the economy, the “job-killing” Obamacare, and the debt. The stage was set for the new Congress.

Simultaneously, two ignorant Republican knuckleheads, Reps. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) and Mike Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), thought they could take their oath of office at a fundraiser via a TV screen. Geniuses these guys are not.

Then during the reading of the Constitution, a crazy birther’s head exploded while yelling “Except Obama, except Obama, help us Jesus!” when Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) read the clause in the Constitution talking about “natural born citizen”. The woman’s name is Theresa Cao who has a history of this sort of insanity.

To press the point, a gaggle of Tea Partiers decided to challenge Pres. Obama’s citizenship, presidency and very right to live in the White House, making a mockery of the entire Congress and just how serious everything is in this country right now. When Brian Williams of NBC News asked Speaker Boehner about the bill he basically said it wasn’t his job to make his members act like adults.

Given all this you’d think Democrats would have it easy making the case that Republicans are as bad as they sound.

Unfortunately, Republicans always beat Democrats on messaging, because as William F. Buckley said, the point of conservatism is to oppose, which makes for easier sound bites. They’re effective at it too.

So, even as Democrats laugh at the nonsensical gibberish coming out of Republicans right now, especially on the repeal of health care, they should take note. There is something deeply disturbing about the Gallup number of 46% that want Obamacare repealed (40% do not). These numbers should trouble the White House a great deal. The unpopularity of the health care bill coupled with a Republican drum beat over the next two years could be a powerful tool against the President.

The White House senses the same thing, which is why Stephanie Cutler laid out their case for keeping health care intact. The Right can’t repeal it, though I’m not really sure they believe they can or want to succeed in doing so. The cry against the Democratic plan is only good as long as it’s in play and the Right wants it in play for 2012.

As for Democrats, their problem is they still don’t have a sound bite that can beat “job killing.”

People digest politics in quick gulps, which Republicans get.

Democrats speak in long sentences. It keeps Democrats on the defensive long after the Republicans have gained the advantage.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

The Political Moment of the Year

By on 30 December 2010

If anyone had any doubts that 2010 was former Pres. Bill Clinton’s year, the moment he took over the White House press room proved the point conclusively.

…and Barack Obama, who never showed Bill Clinton the respect he deserved before becoming president, has a new appreciation for WJC, because former Pres. Clinton did things in 2010 that Pres. Obama couldn’t come close to achieving himself.

Now not only is Sect. Hillary Clinton the most admired woman in the country, but it was her husband who bailed out the Democratic Party’s failed image, because in 2010 Democrats lost their mojo, their heart and connection with middle class Americans, with the end of the year bringing real questions about just what the Democratic Party stands for today.

Unfortunately, Democrats no longer sounding like Democrats is a problem not even William Jefferson Clinton can solve, because the President and congressional progressives ceded way too much territory to the Right.

Pres. Obama remains the most admired man in the country, but this has as much to do with his true appeal as a great father and husband, as well as his general likability, than anything else. It’s not because people trust his leadership, though there’s still time for this to happen, something everyone should hope manifests, though the foreshadowing so far is that if it does it will come at the expense of Democratic Party principles.

As for what precipitated The Political Moment of the Year, there’s no doubt Bill Clinton is the ultimate deal maker, including some real stinkers when president, but when he finally compromises it’s always after he’s made the Right eat political dirt somewhere along the process. Even during his worst of times, while the Right was focused on kicking him out of office, he just kept working and ended up making fools of them when an election they thought was in their hands turned sour for them.

There were many moments in 2010 where former Pres. William Jefferson Clinton proved his prowess, power and popularity with the people. There was, however, never a doubt that he’d be vindicated from the mud slinging swiftboating he endured during the 2008 campaign season, when progressives and Democrats, as well as media personalities, levied unspeakable charges of racism at a man who’d worked his whole life for people of all colors.

In 2010, the Comeback Kid not only did it again, but when he took the White House podium at the end of the year presser, he made everyone miss what Bill Clinton signified for Democrats. He’s a winner. That’s what he always represented to Democrats who endured the hold your nose ’80s, of which I was one. Clinton embodies the tenacious, never give in without making the other guy hurt first, mentality that makes bad deals you have to do go down easier when you know the other guy has had to at least pay a price.

I truly doubt if Pres. Obama will ever bother to learn this lesson.

William Jefferson Clinton is a flawed, supremely human man whose spirit is indomitable. We were reminded of that once again this year, while also being gifted with performances revealing why he always comes out ahead in the end.

So as 2010 closes all’s mended, as Sect. Hillary Clinton very likely prepares to make her exit from State in the near future, with things having come full circle. …and no matter what she says if she wants it, 2016 awaits. If she doesn’t, onward to her international foundation for women, knowing that regardless of the naysayers, in the first two years of Obama’s presidency, the Clintons made a difference and proved their power is transcendent.

Read full story · Comments { 37 }