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 | Tea Party

Pres. Obama Already has Your Vote and He Knows It

This article was first published for U.S. News & World Report, under the title “Time for a Tea Party of the Left”.

President Obama takes his base for granted on issues like the Bush tax cuts, Plan B, and the economy

Here we are at the beginning of Pres. Obama’s reelection and what do we find? The Bush tax cuts that, back in 2008, candidate Obama pledged he’d fight to repeal, but which as president he extended. Considering not extending them began as his base position, three years into his first term it’s not too much to ask how Democrats allowed themselves to get twisted into this policy pretzel.

That’s exactly where Obama’s got his Democratic and progressive base, which has absolutely no resemblance to the Tea Party, who began challenging the Republican establishment back during George W. Bush’s term. The efforts finally ended up making history in 2010, with state legislatures across the country went Republican. It started an assault on the middle class, unions, as well as a war on women’s freedoms that ended up turning Wisconsin and Ohio upside down, but boy did it change the debate.

Now Newt Gingrich, once a speaker of the House, is running on an anti-establishment, anti-Washington platform spouting Tea Party populism as the new change message. In South Carolina, Newt sang the Tea Party’s tune and the right wing base rewarded him with a win, leaving the establishment mouths agape.

Where’s the Democratic version of the Tea Party? You’d think after Obama’s anti-progressive economics, foreign policy, and adoption of Bush antiterrorism policies (though to a more methodically lethal, anti-progressive effect), the Democratic base would have taken the Tea Party template and run with it by now.

Obama got away with the healthcare plan, which was bargained behind closed doors with private insurance and drug companies, manifesting a product that hasn’t kept costs down. He negotiated with himself, as he did on the stimulus, instead of using the majority he had in Congress to press the case for a public option that would have tackled healthcare costs, our biggest foe. It was never considered.

When Obama recently decided not to relax restrictions on the emergency contraceptive Plan B, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi gave him a pass, while the Colorado Democratic Rep. Diana DeGette, a member of the so called “Pro-Choice Caucus,” stated she was “disappointed.” There are never any repercussions for such decisions on the left, while repercussions have defined the Tea Party and its power on the right.

Understand that Plan B has nothing to do with abortion. It simply makes a female’s womb inhospitable for implantation and has been found absolutely safe by the F.D.A. However, as an ode to independents in an election season, Obama made a decision that any Republican would have made.

But not to worry, a carrot wasn’t far behind. The Department of Health and Human Services recently announced that universal contraceptive coverage will now be part of every employer healthcare plan, with religious-affiliated hospitals and institutions getting a one-year delay to comply. It could have been done earlier, but an election year is prime time.

During the debate around Bowles-Simpson, entitlement “reform” was broached first by Obama, with cost-of-living increases on Social Security being considered by the White House. That this would hit women hardest and put them in poverty was evidently missed by the administration. It was scuttled when all hell broke loose.

There wasn’t a woman in the room during the debt ceiling debate, a time when entitlement “reforms” were being considered. Pelosi was only added after women’s groups held a conference call and writers started complaining.

Obama also cut home heating assistance for the poor at a time when the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy are in place.

During Obama’s first term, he’s sucked on the straw of cutting the deficit, while ignoring Democratic economics. The bully pulpit for progressive economics wasn’t used until re-election season, when he took to the stage at Osawatamie, Kan., channeling the Occupy Wall Street message while launching his 2012 campaign.

There’s the latest action on the Keystone XL Pipeline, at least a short-term win, but it’s not like he came out with gusto against it. Obama said no for now then blamed the Republicans for not giving him enough time to consider the environmental impact. Activists from the grass roots to Robert Redford applauded. We don’t even know if it’s a definite decision.

The Democratic base has a passive-aggressive relationship with Obama that resembles a dysfunctional love affair. He has all the power and the base has absolutely none, unless you count the gay and lesbian contingent which was as good a model as the Tea Party on how to get it done. It’s not that progressives couldn’t have power; it’s that they refuse to wield any.

So they cannot pressure Obama at election time because he knows his Democratic base will be there. After all, they’re not the Tea Party. It doesn’t matter if they’re unhappy, all that matters is he’s got their vote and he knows it.

Read full story · Comments { 18 }

CNN: Romney ‘Shellacks’ Gingrich in Florida

Update: Introduced by Ann Romney, who is the best thing in the campaign, Mitt Romney finally decided to make a speech talking to the conservative base. It was exactly what he needed to do and it was good for him. Unfortunately, he couldn’t resist using the word “appease,” as well as a couple of other tone deaf words. Romney talked directly to the camera and made his first attempt to bring people on board. He also made the point to say that Republicans will be united in the fall.

Update 2: Newt Gingrich was the definition of a classless sore loser. He squealed against the establishment “in both parties.” Gingrich showed the depth and breadth of his grandiosity, especially after such a crushing defeat. It would have been surreal, but this man is bone-deep angry and he obviously intends to burn the Republican Party down around him if he doesn’t prevail.

Update 3: Ron Paul shows how it’s done, opening with a grace note to the winner Mitt Romney. He said he congratulated Romney, then told him he’d see him in the caucus states. The crowd around him is positively raucous. It’s impossible not to appreciate Ron Paul’s candidacy.

Update 4: Earlier in the evening Rick Santorum spoke from Nevada. He’s clearly running for the vice presidency.

_____original post below_____


“Mitt Romney is winning where the people live,” is how CNN’s John King described it.

Romney and Gingrich split the Tea Party 40% to 38% in Florida.

Gingrich won only by 3 points with evangelicals; among non-evangelicals Romney “shellacked,” John King’s words, Gingrich.

Gingrich is fleeing to Nevada.

They’ll meet Ron Paul in that state, with Jon Ralston saying he’s more organized than before, but where Mitt Romney has home court advantage, even if it is a caucus state.

The Republican Party in Nevada is, well… let’s just say weak.

Read full story · Comments { 17 }

Nancy Reagan Rejects Newt’s ‘Legitimate Heir’ Claim

…and so continues Newt Gingrich’s very bad day.

He can take heart on one thing. DNI James R. Clapper Jr. has added fuel to Gingrich’s Iranian rhetorical fire, which will make the Republicans day. From the Washington Post today:

U.S. intelligence agencies believe that Iran is prepared to launch terrorist attacks inside the United States in response to perceived threats from America and its allies, the U.S. spy chief said Tuesday.

Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. said in prepared testimony that an alleged Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington that was uncovered last year reflects an aggressive new willingness within the upper ranks of the Islamist republic to authorize attacks against the United States.

Maybe that will take the sting out of Mrs. Reagan’s slap.

Few reporters have better sources inside Reagan World than NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, who goes way back. With Mrs. Reagan still alive and undoubtedly very protective of the Reagan legacy as she sees it, there was little doubt that Newt’s claims wouldn’t go unchallenged.

From NBC’s First Read:

Calling himself “the legitimate heir to the Reagan movement,” Newt Gingrich recently cited a 1995 speech by Nancy Reagan in which the former First Lady said that her husband “passed on the torch” to him.

… But as NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reports, Gingrich appears to be taking that comment out of context.

Sources close to Nancy Reagan said the speech itself was written by the host at the Goldwater Organization – where Mrs. Reagan delivered the remarks – and that she was referring generally to Congress and not specifically to the former Speaker, Mitchell reported on her MSNBC program.

Mrs. Reagan isn’t going to let anyone use Ronnie’s legacy for their own aggrandizement, certainly not a political grifter like Newt, with his hangers-on like Sarah Palin.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

The Tea Party Slideth

Occupy is what’s in today.

The Tea Party has energy, but it’s power is long gone.

That’s why I love the “Take Down the Tea Party Ten” campaign, which I came across just today. It’s sponsored by Credo.

The first six lawmakers targeted by the group are Reps. Sean Duffy (R-Wis.), Steve King (R-Iowa), Allen West (R-Fla), Joe Walsh (R-Ill.), Frank Guinta (R-N.H.), and Chip Cravaack (R-Minn.). Four more will be chosen by CREDO’s members.

… “We’re taking the traditional super PAC model and turning it on its head — to put power back in the hands of the people, instead of consolidating it in the hands of corporate executives and the ultra-wealthy,” said Becky Bond, president of the CREDO super PAC. “Where Karl Rove and the Koch brothers can use shady money from a few hidden donors to fund a barrage of TV attack ads, this super PAC will empower local voters and our list of 2.5 million activists to build a grassroots campaign that is as hard hitting as it is progressive.

Laura Ingraham admitted on Sunday the Tea Party doesn’t even have that much power today.

[The Tea Party] don’t have the power that they thought they had, perhaps,” Ingraham said. “I mean, Romney is not a tea party candidate, and they’re talking about 27 percent of the Republican Party that still believe it’s tea party infused. The tea party, they have a lot of energy but you know … more of a moderate view of conservatism seems to get nominated every time. And that’s just a fact. The tea party doesn’t have the great strength that the old media believe.” – Laura Ingraham: ‘Tea party doesn’t have the great strength that the old media believe’

Maybe that means these “Tea Party 10″ can be taken out, because anyone who wants to weaken the definition of rape shouldn’t be in the U.S. Congress.

Can’t we all at least agree on that?

Speaking of Tea Party, have you noticed that Dana “drop trou” Loesch hasn’t been on CNN since she made the offensive remark? I’m sure we all eagerly await her return, but for now, Jenny Beth Martin, a Tea Party co-founder, is taking her place and doing a fine job, too.

Read full story · Comments { 36 }

Election Year January Snapshot: Romney Up in Florida, Advantage Pres. Obama

Gingrich is badly trailing Romney by 11 percentage points, garnering just 31 percent of likely Republican voters heading into Tuesday’s presidential primary, according to a Miami Herald/El Nuevo Herald/Tampa Bay Times poll released late Saturday night. – Poll: Romney holds big lead over Gingrich in Florida, via the Miami Herald

On ABC’s “This Week” with Jake Tapper today, Newt Gingrich trumpeted the endorsements of Herman Cain and Rick Perry, while parroting Rush Limbaugh and basking in the words of Sarah Palin. His harangue against Mitt Romney, who’s clearly gotten in his head, sounded desperate.

Jake Tapper even did Mitt Romney the favor of playing Romney’s Tom Brokaw ad on national TV. It’s the kind of free media you just can’t buy.

To Newt Gingrich and the right wing Republicans behind him, Pres. Obama and his reelection team simply want to say, thank you and keep it coming.

Things haven’t looked this good for the Democrats in a long time.

From the latest NBC/WSJ poll released on Friday, as we end the first month of 2012:

And for the first time in six months, more people approve of the job the president is doing (48 percent) than disapprove (46 percent).

“The psychology about the economic conditions has switched,” Hart said. “The old saying is a rising tide lifts all boats then clearly, this economic optimism has clearly lifted Obama’s ratings.”

As I’ve written for a very long time, including in my new book, Pres. Obama is beatable. However, it won’t be easy and can’t be done without a Republican Party unified behind one candidate.

Right now, there’s enough animosity being stoked by the Tea Party hard right that this may not be possible.

As I’ve written before, I’m not supporting any candidate for president. However, there are worse things than Pres. Obama being reelected and at the top of that list is Newt Gingrich.

Read full story · Comments { 17 }

Sarah Palin Isn’t Who She Used to Be



Sarah Palin rose to power in Alaska by taking on Republicans in her own state on ethics. It’s the very thing Tom Brokaw is talking about regarding Newt Gingrich in the Romney ad above, though Brokaw, and NBC are protesting, so I have no idea if the video will be available by the time you read this. The Romney hashtag for it is #Newtorious.

You don’t need partisan rhetoric or his scandals to fillet Newt Gingrich.

“They, thinking that by trotting out this old Gingrich divorce interview that’s old news — and it does feature a disgruntled ex, claiming that it would destroy his campaign — all this does, Sean, is incentivize conservatives and independents who are so sick of the politics of personal destruction because it’s played so selectively by the media…” – Sarah Palin: Newt Gingrich’s secret weapon

If Sarah Palin were backing Rick Santorum she’d have some credibility, but by defending Newt Gingrich she reveals the hypocrisy at her core.

Stop and print the section in bold above. Sarah Palin is correct on this one point. But hearing Palin whine about the “politics of personal destruction” when she’s a master of it is a bit much.

Sarah Palin’s shift to propping up an ethics-challenged hypocrite like Newt Gingrich directly relates to her ineffectiveness with the wider public and why she can’t wage a successful run for president. After amassing incredible power in 2010, which I chronicled fairly on this site, at the Huffington Post and in my book, she’s squandered it with anyone but her faithful.

Newt’s problem is that Independents won’t go near him.

One reason Romney has been outperforming Gingrich in hypothetical match-ups against President Obama is due to independents. Now, both main Republicans are at a disadvantage. [...] For his part, Gingrich runs solidly the other way among these middle-of-the-roaders, at 20 percent positive, 58 percent negative. Romney, whom moderates rated about evenly throughout the fall and into early January, are now about 2 to 1 negative: 27 percent hold favorable views, 52 percent negative ones. – Washington Post

There are a lot of things that can be said and argued about Mitt Romney, starting with his austerity message, which is a killer for our economy. He’s been an awful candidate so far and is as unlikable as any candidate in recent memory, Democratic or Republican. His wealth in an Occupy era makes him a perfect whipping boy for Pres. Obama and the Democrats. However, there is absolutely no evidence anywhere in his long business or political careers that points to ethics violations or that he was ineffective in his endeavors, both of which dog Newt Gingrich.

Sarah Palin has chosen to play defender of Newt Gingrich, the exact type of Republican she would have railed against once upon a time in Alaska, all so she can toot her Tea Party horn in the hopes of regaining relevancy and keeping the cash rolling in.

Hey, nothing wrong with that at all. Ann Coulter’s been doing successfully for years.

What’s convenient is the thousands of Palin fans who continue to help her, because she wouldn’t be newsworthy without them. She owes them everything, but she owes Newt, too.

Without Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin couldn’t stoke up the audience for her keynote CPAC speech next month.

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

Newt’s Rube

But this whole thing isn’t really about Newt Gingrich vs. Mitt Romney. It is about the GOP establishment vs. the Tea Party grassroots and independent Americans who are sick of the politics of personal destruction used now by both parties’ operatives with a complicit media egging it on. In fact, the establishment has been just as dismissive of Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. – Sarah Palin on Facebook

Let’s hope Republican primary voters actually listen to Sarah Palin. If she could push herself on to center stage it would be a whole new circus act.

Sarah Palin finding common cause with Newt Gingrich, a man who wouldn’t be giving her the time of day if conservative Republicans who actually served with Mr. Gingrich weren’t shunning him because they actually know what he’s like as a leader.

The Republican establishment is trying to get rid of Newt because they don’t want a Goldwater blowout in November, with their main concern the House, as well as Senate possibilities, because there are a lot of them who believe none of the current crop of candidates can beat Pres. Obama, which is understandable. A sitting president is tough to beat by a great candidate and these guys aren’t great.

If Mrs. Palin was making that point in this self-important Facebook rant, that there isn’t a candidate to beat Obama so Republicans need to open the primary back up, that would actually make sense. However, that’s not what she’s doing.

This is mostly about Sarah Palin finding a way to get into the action. Reading her Facebook post, half of it is a complete regurgitation of Rush Limbaugh’s talking points, with Palin providing spin that includes herself. If she becomes irrelevant she loses her Fox News Channel ticket and then what does she do?

What a script.

Mrs. Palin even adopted Newt Gingrich’s grandiose remembrances of history to make her point, which like Newt, revolves around her, written by her ego.

I am sadly too familiar with these tactics because they were used against the GOP ticket in 2008. The left seeks to single someone out and destroy his or her record and reputation and family using the media as a channel to dump handpicked and half-baked campaign opposition research on the public. The difference in 2008 was that I was largely unknown to the American public, so they had no way of differentiating between the lies and the truth. All of it came at them at once as “facts” about me. But Newt Gingrich is known to us – both the good and the bad.

Narcissus was modest compared to these two.

Sarah and Newt, bookends of Ego’s library.


Read full story · Comments { 46 }

U.S. News & World Report Op-Ed

Closeup photo of Taylor Marsh

President Obama takes his base for granted on issues like the Bush tax cuts, Plan B, and the economy - US News

It’s written by yours truly.

They chose the title.

Here’s a teaser, but it’s an exclusive for US News, so you’ll have to click the link above to get the rest. (I hope you do.)

Here we are at the beginning of Pres. Obama’s reelection and what do we find? The Bush tax cuts that, back in 2008, candidate Obama pledged he’d fight to repeal, but which as president he extended. Considering not extending them began as his base position, three years into his first term it’s not too much to ask how Democrats allowed themselves to get twisted into this policy pretzel.

That’s exactly where Obama’s got his Democratic and progressive base…

On a side note, it’s interesting to find myself with an op-ed in a property owned by Mort Zuckerman. They gave me free rein and it’s the exact piece I wanted to write, so I’ve got no complaints.

Share it, tweet it, just check it out. I’d like them to know people are reading it!

Read full story · Comments { 16 }

Newt’s Mistake: Pivoting to General Election Mode

There was no sports arena atmosphere. No applause. None of which benefited Newt Gingrich. …or Brian Williams, who made The Elite Media and the Professional Left antsy.

The video above was released as the debate began, driving home Mitt’s theme of the night.

“In the 15 years after he left the speakership, the speaker has been working as an influence peddler in Washington,” Romney said. “In those 15 years, I helped run the Olympics, helped start a … turnaround in Massachusetts.” – Burns & Haberman

Newt Gingrich decided to take Romney’s assault. He evidently thinks it’s presidential. But it’s political suicide against a man who’s loaded with cash and a campaign team that stretches to June, neither of which Gingrich has going for himself.

Someone told Newt Gingrich that to win the general election he needs people beyond right-wingers, so he didn’t respond all night. But you don’t let your opponent, someone you just put on his heels, kick your character to the curb.

“After 4 years he had to resign in disgrace” was said twice by Romney in response to the first question, then he called him an “influence peddler,” both having the virtue of being true.

“I didn’t have an office on K-street,” with follow-ups from Cayman cash Mitt that landed.

Memo to Newt: it’s not over yet and you need money beyond your Super PAC mom and dad, but you won’t get it if you’re not attacking, the tactic that got you into the lead and where your ego decided you’ve already won.

The “self-deportation” line from Romney brought out snickering. But as BuzzFeed tweeted, it’s a real thing, it just has “few takers.”

Something for Gingrich to ponder before Thursday’s CNN debate: when you’re not attacking, you’re losing, because without it people wonder why they like you.

Next event, Mitt Romney’s taxes tomorrow, but it’s also the State of the Union. No one will be distracted.

Maybe if Newt Gingrich actually wins this thing we’ll get to see the Republican hard right up close, allowing it to spin itself into oblivion and out of our national fabric.

It’s the up side of Newt.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Gringrich Taps the Wingnut Zeitgeist

So I’m happy to be in the tradition of Ronald Reagan as the outsider who scares the Republican establishment and frankly after the mess they’ve made of things maybe they should be shaken up pretty badly. And one of the things the Florida voters get to decide is do you want the establishment’s candidate, Governor Romney, or do you want somebody who stands for a conservative, populist approach that would profoundly change Washington. And that’s Newt Gingrich. – Meet the Press

Mitt has the same problem as he’s always had and it’s not Mormonism. It’s not even his money and it’s also not that he’s the personification of what the 99% is railing against. It’s reached a tipping point now, because he’s trailing Newt Gingrich in two recent polls.

In the conservative fight for the Republican nomination, no one cares that Romney’s part of the 1%. In fact, when Romney stands up proudly for his business success he gets wild applause.

Romney’s problem is that he’s shown no political instincts and has no gut feeling with people, as well as doesn’t know how or when to jab. What’s worse is that when he does throw a punch he never looks like there’s any fun behind his canned Ken doll smile.

Political animals like Newt Gingrich delight when they’re filleting their opponent and know when to go for the jugular, as he did with John King, and when to play with his opponent like a cat might do a mouse.

Mitt’s machine allowed him to get the better of Newt in Iowa, because they hit Newt when he was flat-footed and didn’t expect it. However, Romney couldn’t follow it up by tapping the mood of the right and grabbing the zeitgeist and riding it.

The Speaker has done just that, as his quote above from Meet the Press proves.

Newt Gingrich is the consummate insider. He represents the establishment. He made tens of millions using his insider status, lobbying made possible because of his access to the Washington elite. He represents everything that ails us as much as Mitt Romney. However, at a time when there is no one in the race who speaks to the wingnut base, The Speaker has craftily rebranded himself with the language of the angry right, revealing talent, reach and substance that Romney’s never shown. Gingrich now seems to be speaking for the angry right who’s been desperate to find a hero. People who’ve been looking for a standard bearer ever since Sarah Palin’s power went kaput.

There’s no evidence Romney has the political talent to attack Newt Gingrich without looking nasty and mean, but also awkward while doing it. But tonight that’s what he has to start doing, but without setting up Newt for the slam.

Newt Gingrich has tapped into the mood of the moment and is riding the emotions of voters to the top. It’s the most powerful and dangerous weapon to wield in politics, especially in a primary. If it continues not even the establishment will be able to stop him.

The wingnuts have found their spokesperson and he’s perfect for this mad, mad, mad, mad, mad political season.

Read full story · Comments { 13 }

Stephen Colbert, Ron Paul and Others Take on Republicans and Democrats


As much as our national media deserves criticism, a central focus in my book, some are at least offering alternative candidates airtime. Chuck Todd interviewed Rocky Anderson when he announced the formation of the Justice Party, Joe Scarborough invited Buddy Roemer on Morning Joe, with George Stephenopoulos the latest, though there are other examples as well. Our media is starting to at least acknowledge what’s going on outside the establishment bubble, which is important, because free media can at least get these candidates and the cause to challenge the status quo into the national conversation.

Stephen Colbert easily got as much time as Rick Perry on ABC’s “This Week,” now back with George Stephanopoulos at the helm. In the race against Romney, one of the most hilarious and effective counter intuitive punches was leveled by Colbert today through “Mitt the Ripper,” making a mockery of both sides where Mitt Romney is concerned. It had the added virtue and punch of representing what Ron Paul is doing, but also, if to a much lesser extent, Rocky Anderson and Gary Johnson.

Colbert satirizes the over the top tactics to make Mitt Romney the target of all that ails our country, our economy and the corporate tactics that are taking down the middle class. Colbert’s satirical attack on Romney also has the credibility of not only representing Newt Gingrich’s banchee Bain cry, but also partisan Democrats who have their heads in the sand about their own side’s culpability where crony capitalism is concerned, which I wrote about this past week.

From ABC:

Colbert’s super PAC, which was re-named The Definitely Not Coordinated With Stephen Colbert Super PAC after Colbert announced his exploratory committee, launched an ad in South Carolina this week labeling Mitt Romney a “serial killer.”

The Colbert super PAC ad is an obvious spoof of anti-Romney ads being run by the pro-Newt Gingrich super PAC in the Palmetto State. Gingrich has said any untrue statements should be removed from the ad, but, because the PAC does not coordinate with Gingrich, it has refused to re-edit the ads, which some say stretch the truth about Romney’s time at Bain Capital.

Colbert took a similar tone, saying he had “nothing to do” with the “serial killer” ads.

“I am not calling anyone a serial killer,” Colbert said. “That’s not my super PAC.”

On the other side, seriously challenging whether other conservative candidates are an alternative, there is Ron Paul. His anti-war, non-interventionist foreign policy is resonating with young people like no candidate in decades, which is wrapped in an economic message that’s simple and clear.

Paul’s candidacy has brought about a real battle inside progressive circles on the power and potential of Ron Paul’s influence in 2012, with a growing number of anti-war progressives willing to forgive clear issues Dr. Paul raises about his aversion to any safety net, his libertarian notions of freedom and liberty that don’t apply to women, as well as his states rights flippancy on civil rights. However, it’s close to inarguable that anyone who wants a real shift in the way we handle our foreign policy and economic policy, both of which are crippling what we can do here at home, has a real reason to consider voting for Ron Paul, since there will always be points of disagreements on any candidate chosen. The one thing you can say about Paul is that he’s the most philosophically consistent and transparent politician in the race today.

The pressing issues of 2012 include the erosion of civil liberties, which Pres. Obama and Democrats have approved, going along with Bush-Cheney neoconservatism terrorism polices, as well as the model of regime change. Economically, Obama, Democrats, Republicans and the majority of conservatives still approve of deep foreign intervention and a cascade of military involvement. Both parties evidently are convinced that America’s economic engine depends on defense expenditures, which is as frighting a thought as it is plausibly true. When it comes to priorities, neither Democrats or Republicans are offering an answer.

Robin Koerner wrote about the challenges in 2012 last summer on Huffington Post. Here’s an excerpt:

If you’ve read my other pieces, you already know who he is. But if not, you should also know that Ron Paul has voted to let states make their own laws on abortion, gay marriage etc. and to let individuals follow their own social conscience — even when he disagrees with them (as I disagree with him on some of these issues). In other words, he is consistent in his beliefs in civil liberty.

If you are a Democrat, and you sit tight and vote Democrat again “because you’ve always been a Democrat” or because you think that some group with which you identity will benefit more from Democrat programs than a Republican one, then that is up to you, and I wish you well. But don’t you dare pretend that you are motivated primarily by peace, civil rights or a government that treats people equally.

Obama fans and Democratic voters say in emails and tweets to me all the time that they’re “trapped” and have no choice but to vote for another Obama term. If you choose to vote for another 4 years of Democratic capitulation to conservatism, fiscal profligacy that benefits the 1%, and foreign policy intervention and militarism, that’s your choice. Go for it, just don’t say you have no choices.

Another issue is the American electorate is still comprised of a majority of people who are embarrassed about being associated with candidates who are outside the system. People want to be associated with the winner and outsiders like Ron Paul, Rocky Anderson, Gary Johnson or any other politician taking on the establishment can’t win, because the money is stacked against them. When the American electorate won’t step outside their self-imposed partisan boxes they construct a self-fulfilling prophecy.

A couple of emails from people on the subject, one on Rocky Anderson’s candidacy: “does Anderson/JUSTICE grab you?”

One person wrote the following, with an accompanying link that encourages Democrats to register Republican to support Ron Paul and send a message:

Interesting idea from “George Washington” blog: to get the issues of war, civil liberties at least debated, register Republican one time only, vote Ron Paul in Rep. Primary. Then figure out what to do in the general.. –link provided in email went to this text

Forget what you’ve been taught … the mainstream Democrats and mainstream Republicans are virtually identical on all core matters.
Obama, Gingrich, Romney and the whole sorry lot are for more war, for further crackdowns on our Constitutional liberties, and for giving the Federal Reserve all of the unchecked power that it wants.

Don’t fall for the old divide-and-conquer trick.

Whatever you may think of Ron Paul, he has consistently championed three core American for three decades. Paul has consistently argued for the following three positions which Americans overwhelmingly favor:

  • Stop the never-ending, open-ended, goalpost-moving wars
  • Restore our liberties, and stop the march towards martial law, indefinite detention idiocy, and the crack down on the Internet
  • Rein in or abolish the Federal Reserve
  • None of the other Republican (or Democratic) candidates support these positions, and the mainstream media has done everything it can to try to squelch debate on these issues.

Somewhere between Stephen Colbert calling Mitt Romney a “serial killer,” with the Democrats mimicking that cry without any hint of irony of their own crony capitalism, and Ron Paul’s power with many people, it’s clear no matter what the eventual outcome is in November that the 20th century paradigm of two party rule is being challenged in fundamental ways that could over time bring about its replacement.

Obama fans charge that this conversation is actually about trying to depress the vote, which couldn’t be further from the truth. Others posit that it’s about voting or starting a third party, which is part of the small thinking that permeates our political discourse, because choices outside the establishment parties exist today, with the options stronger and more viable than they’ve ever been.

The intent of this conversation is to inspire and empower people to think about their vote and what it means when they cast it for either Democrats or Republicans, considering what each represent. Both of these establishment parties are bought and paid for by corporations and Wall Street, as are their institutional backers. All part of the blind partisan pack who either squeal “Obama is a socialist” or contend Romney is a “serial killer” capitalist, while railing at Ron Paul as a wacko or worse to make you embarrassed about your vote, simply because Paul and others are outsiders taking on the status quo.

Consider being a change agent instead of a person captive to the marketing of change, which comes from both sides.

Americans for a Better Tomorrow Tomorrow, a Super PAC not associated with Stephen Colbert’s South Carolina presidential campaign, is not responsible for this message.


Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Throw the Book at Them


That wasn’t the theory being espoused by Tea Party wingnut Dana Loesch, who on her Thursday show embarrassed herself, Marines, not to mention CNN. From Politico’s Dylan Byers, who now has the job Ben Smith used to do:

“Now we have a bunch of progressives that are talking smack about our military because there were marines caught urinating on corpses, Taliban corpses,” Loesch said during her radio program on FM News Talk 97.1. “Can someone explain to me if there’s supposed to be a scandal that someone pees on the corpse of a Taliban fighter? Someone who, as part of an organization, murdered over 3,000 Americans? I’d drop trou and do it too. That’s me though. I want a million cool points for these guys. Is that harsh to say? Come on people, this is a war. What do people think this is?”

CNN must be so proud. They hired Loesch to do Tea Party “analysis” and she’s seen continually on that channel, giving a bad name to anyone who dissects the political battlefield.

In an interview with Chuck Todd on Friday, Gen. Barry McCaffrey said the four Marines who disgraced their uniform and this country were young kids.

If that’s the case, though it’s not been corroborated, you have to ask if recruiting standards, which were lowered in the last few years out of desperation, had anything to do with this incident.

It’s not Abu Ghraib, and these guys don’t represent Marines (my brother is one), but with Iraq torture as a backdrop it still says a lot.

Read full story · Comments { 10 }

Super PAC Power


From Politico comes the story of the Super PAC billionaires:

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

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

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

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

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

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

Romney is the Republican Party’s Own Creation

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


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

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

There are other possibilities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read full story · Comments { 28 }

Shameless Plugs, UK Guardian Edition for The Hillary Effect

Last week was busy for me. One interview I did was for the UK Guardian, which is up today:

Does the GOP have a woman problem?

They have a nice ending quote buy me, but also give a shout out on my book The Hillary Effect, complete with a purchase link, which is fantastic for us.

In case you missed it, last week Al Jazeera English gave the book some attention as well, which accompanied a quote I gave on Michele Bachmann’s exit from the GOP primary.

These interviews and links matter a lot to my work, book sales and my bottom line, because political writing is how I make a living. You can help by sharing these links and also clicking on them. It’s one way to support my work that makes a huge difference to me. Thanks!

Read full story · Comments { 10 }

Independents at Record Levels for Good Reason

The percentage of Americans identifying as political independents increased in 2011, as is common in a non-election year, although the 40% who did so is the highest Gallup has measured, by one percentage point. More Americans continue to identify as Democrats than as Republicans, 31% to 27%. – Gallup

It’s important to remember that Independents feel forced to vote Democratic or Republican, too.

It’s rather impressive to see the fall of big two party support. The good news for Democrats is that more Independents Americans [update: mistakenly typed "Independents" - apologies] identify as Democratic, 31% to 27%.

That fact upset Rush Limbaugh out of the gate today on his radio show, who doesn’t believe it’s so.

The good news for Republicans is today the big two political parties are more competitive.

I’ve gotten a few emails about the Justice Party, so here’s a link for those of you who are curious. You can fine their platform, as well as their efforts to be relevant, which begin with being on the ballot and that’s just for starters.

Considering neither Mr. Cool or Mr. Ice, who is now down to 33% in the latest Suffolk poll in New Hampshire (35% in PPP), inspire much enthusiasm, we just might be on the runway for a low turnout year in November if something doesn’t dramatically change.

I’m hoping things change, because people’s votes matter, especially when they decide they want to change a system that isn’t working for the middle class any longer, which begins with our two corporate, Wall Street political parties whose purpose revolves around servicing the elite and keeping them and their supporting groups employed.

As an aside, if Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Republican conservative primary voters end up defeating the juggernaut that is Mitt Romney, something I still don’t believe is possible. While I don’t agree with a single Republican policy, I will have a lot more respect for the right-wing, whose Tea Party faction was also able to hand Obama and the Democrats a historic defeat in the 2010 midterms. The result of which was unprecedented power turned back to the right in state legislatures across the country, which manifested an all out assault on unions, women’s freedoms and the middle class, as well as a hand in redistricting, which is no small matter.

The ire with which the right still remembers John McCain’s 2008 win is palpable when you listen to the right-wing and their barkers, led by Rush Limbaugh. Many have said they’d rather lose with a conservative than with Mitt Romney. Erick Erickson is as good a barometer as there is out there this year. He’s saying no to big government conservative Rick Santorum, pushing for Rick Perry first, then Newt, though he will back Romney if he must. That he’s backing Perry first reveals all you need to know about the right wing.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Newtmageddon Fizzle

UPDATE (11:01 p.m.): Mitt Romney stood with his hands in his pockets all night, because everyone on stage thinks Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment applies only to frontrunners. He wasn’t touched. Romney was so bored that at one point he decided to tear into Jon Huntsman on China, which led to Huntsman unleashing Mandarin non sequitars, according to Twitter translation (end snark). Truly stunning, but if you were watching football, be glad. ABC should lose their debate privileges if they keep sending out Diane Sawyer, who is so off her game in these settings as to look like she doesn’t have one at all. Oh, and for the record, the title of this post came before the debate even started and ended up being true. Karen Tumulty tweeted the ads in New Hampshire were tougher than the debate & I have no doubt she’s correct. See Ron Paul ad below. Meanwhile, Romney up in South Carolina.

—-original post below—



It’s Rick Santorum’s big…

Santorum—and anyone else in the field, or anyone who may still enter—deserves “an open field and a fair chance” to compete for the “big White House” that Lincoln occupied. All American history is saying, and all we are saying, is . . . give Rick a chance. – Bill Kristol

Oh, whatever.

Quite an ad from Ron Paul above, isn’t it?

Whether you’re watching the debate on ABC or just stopping by, hope you’re enjoying your Saturday night.

Read full story · Comments { 21 }

Squealing Partisans

It’s as if Democratic and Republican partisans think our country is made of feathers.

What’s most important has been left largely unexamined: if one of these candidates actually becomes president and advances his or her policies, what would be the consequences for the nation? – What If Obama Loses?

Every election season we hear about the dire consequences if one side or the other isn’t elected, but yet, we seem to muddle through. The problem is we never learn and keep voting for the same two parties, without a hint of irony that doing the same thing every election and expecting different results is the very definition of insanity.

The Democratic and Republican parties are bought and paid for and squealing partisans are their bankers.

For the first time, looking at all this as a recovering partisan, I finally know a bit about how and what independents must see and feel when looking at partisan squealers. So now when I read or hear the hair on fire protestations about the consequences of one side or the other getting “power,” I understand the disdain people feel for both political parties.

See Rick Santorum’s comment today about good economic news, when he said that it’s all about “optimism that Republicans will take the White House.” At least Mitt Romney acknowledged reality, which is that the economy is weak, but trends are in the right direction.

I was doing interviews all day yesterday, including for the UK Guardian, publicizing my book, but also because I was a go-to gal on Michele Bachmann getting out of the race. The Hillary Effect, got lots of attention and a nice mention on Al Jazeera today.

One interview reminded me again of the state of our political culture when a right wing amateur and wannabe radio host called me a liar several times after our interview had concluded. It was like the old days when I used to do radio “shoot outs” back during Pres. Bill Clinton’s 2nd term and into the Gore v. Bush contest. It’s also one reason I quit doing radio interviews.

It’s what happens on Twitter regularly, vitriol unleashed whenever anything revealing is written about Pres. Obama, but also in the comments around here. When squealing partisans don’t approve of what I write, their reactions are so extreme they target the messenger, moi, when I even dare to post a news item. It happened yet again last night on a post I did about Michael Hastings new book, because I found the interchange with the author on “Morning Joe” interesting. Obama supporters took aim at me, as usual, even invoking Hillary Clinton in the mother of all non sequitar burps, instead of taking issue with Hastings.

People can’t get their heads around the fact that this site is not about Democratic or progressive cheerleading anymore. Today’s economy and jobs report was written about fairly, as is the criticism aimed in Pres. Obama’s direction, but also at Republicans. Obama Fan Boyz and Girlz can’t seem to digest the concept of a liberal, that would be me, declaring my sympathies, while also being capable of delivering fair political analysis, including credit when Republicans or conservatives earn it. That’s the editorial policy around here, folks, which will send partisans scattering, but I’ve never written what’s popular so I don’t know why anyone is surprised.

I am still waiting for Obama Fan Man “solo,” who I mention because he is representative of a lot of the incoming I receive, to prove his (false) charge that I write “almost daily Obama is going to lose articles.” Tick, tock, Obama fan. The problem is I’ve never written an “Obama is going to lose article,” because there is absolutely no proof that he is. Like I wrote in my book, Pres. Obama is indeed beatable, but the current second tier class of Republican and conservative candidates, with their extreme positions on everything from war to civil liberties to immigration, aren’t going to be able to do it.

On their side, it’s just politicians squealing.

“And so I’m prepared if the NAACP invites me, I’ll go to their convention and talk about why the African American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps,” Gingrich said earlier today in Plymouth, N.H. – ABC News

“Are we saying everyone should have the right to marry? So anyone can marry anyone else?” Santorum asked, according to a video by NBC News. “So anybody can marry several people?” – LA Times

Rush Limbaugh sounded like a stuffed wart hog yesterday over an article from the American Enterprise attempting to make gullible Republicans start building bunkers for economic war. It all revolves around the smart move by Pres. Obama to make a recess appointment of Richard Cordray, and quit thinking Republicans intend to let him be president.

The explosion started with James Pethokoukis at AEI:

January Surprise: Is Obama preparing a trillion-dollar, mass refinancing of mortgages?

This could be just the beginning. If President Barack Obama’s legally dodgy appointment of Richard Cordray to head the consumer finance agency should stick, it may open the door to more such actions. Here’s Jaret Seiberg of the Washington Research Group:

To us, the most important takeaway from a recess appointment of Cordray is that the President could use this same maneuver to put a housing advocate in charge of FHFA.

And why is that important? The Federal Housing Finance Agency is the regulator and conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And the FHFA currently has an acting director, Edward DeMarco. If Obama replaces him with a “housing advocate” via the same recess appointment process, here’s what might happen next, according to Seiberg:

That could lead to a mass refinancing program for agency-backed mortgages that would go well beyond the existing HARP program. That could hurt agency MBS pricing and result in higher financing costs going forward. Yet it also could be a big boost for the economy and housing going into the election.

Indeed, my sources tell me the Obama administration has been eager to implement just such a plan, but needs to have its own man heading the FHFA to make it happen. The plan would be modeled after one originally devised by Columbia University economists Glenn Hubbard (a campaign adviser to Mitt Romney and AEI visiting scholar)

Reading the article and listening to Rush in between interviews, I couldn’t tell if they were freaked at Pres. Obama winning, telegraphing that Romney = Obama, or have just run out of things to catch people’s attention.

Meanwhile, the rest of us are simply sick of watching and playing our part in the United States two party soap opera that is getting us absolutely nowhere.

Last time I looked, the big banks were doing just fine and Wall Street is humming along.

The cause worth joining isn’t fighting over two corporate party heads who are a lot more worried about their own futures than ours. It’s refusing to play the rigged game or argue whether there’s much difference between them at all.

It all begins with getting money out of politics or at the very least, making the process transparent.

Read full story · Comments { 19 }

Look Out Mitt, Newtmaggedon Catching On

Love him or hate him, Erick Erickson has captured the Republican zeitgeist of the season.

As you wake up this morning, the tea party has failed because it has surrendered itself into the hands of Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich — all of whom would use government to suit allegedly conservative ends, which is not conservative in and of itself. But by God Mitt Romney may now get the political beating everyone has been expecting him to get. Newt Gingrich has nothing left to lose. He can go Newtlear against the guy he sees as having destroyed him. Newt Gingrich can unleash unmitigated hell against MItt Romney and just like the attacks on Newt were true, they’ll all be true about MItt Romney too.

His analysis that Rick Perry’s policy people were good, while Santorum’s retail politics didn’t prove squat, reveals how mediocre a political analyst he is, but he’s still got the beat of the right’s pulse. His point about “Newtlear,” which I call Newtmageddon, however, is important, because it’s not just about Gingrich versus Mitt. Faith leaders are on the warpath, too, joining the Rush Limbaugh crowd, trying to prevent another McCain type nomination; that he will endorse Romney today is the kiss of death to conservatives.

Jonathan Martin has an interesting report that’s representative of the battle gone wild on the right:

A group of movement conservatives has called an emergency meeting in Texas next weekend to find a “consensus” Republican presidential hopeful, POLITICO has learned.

“You and your spouse are cordially invited to a private meeting with national conservative leaders of faith at the ranch of Paul and Nancy Pressler near Brenham, Texas, with the purpose of attempting to unite and to come to a consensus on which Republican presidential candidate or candidates to support, or which not to support,” read an invitation that is making its way into in-boxes Wednesday morning.

Call it the Huckabee hangover.

After having their dream candidate in 2008, conservative faith leaders in 2012 are faced with several candidates representing their interests. Question is how to attempt to winnow a field of social conservative candidates and push politicians out who just won’t quit.

Even Rick Perry, who basically delivered a concession speech last night, is now headed back to New Hampshire now that Bachmann has bowed out. But Perry performing so poorly in Iowa, even after going full tilt on his religiosity, proves not even some Republicans get evangelical voters. From the Wall Street Journal in early December:

Mr. Perry is making an aggressive pitch to unify the evangelical bloc, pouring his sizable financial war chest into TV ads that declare he is “not ashamed” to be a Christian, that criticize gays serving openly in the military, and that vow to end President Obama’s “war on religion.”

[...] Yet the flaw in this strategy is assuming that cultural conservatives have somehow missed the past three years of economic turmoil and Obama overreach, and intend to vote a religious line. What it misses is that social conservatives have seen a lot since 2008, and that this time they see the stakes as too high to take another Mike Huckabee flyer. They aren’t likely to be unified this time around.

By most estimates, evangelicals make up between 50% and 60% of the conservative primary electorate. Yet a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll found that some 70% of likely caucus-goers list the economy as their top issue; 14% listed social issues. Or how about this: A recent Public Policy Polling survey found more voters (42%) had “major concerns” with a candidate who supported an individual health mandate than they did (34%) a candidate who had cheated on a spouse.

The knee jerk analysis on evangelical voters revolves around Mr. Romney’s Mormonism, which matters to some, but it’s hardly that simple. Nothing is today, with the Democratic and Republican parties hemorrhaging members and politics on the grass roots level fracturing all monoliths.

Ralph Reed, yes the former mastermind that was taken down by his Abramoff and Tom Delay connections, is back and CNN’s rehabilitating him. From Reed today:

Here’s how the evangelical vote broke down: 32% for Santorum, 18% for Ron Paul, 13% each for Romney, Gingrich and Rick Perry, 6% for Michele Bachmann and 1% for Jon Huntsman.

…So when commentators prognosticate about the “evangelical vote,” we might want to ask them, “which one?” For there are there are many evangelical votes, many candidates who win their support, and a multitude of motivations for their engagement…

Many social conservatives likely don’t believe a true conservative would ever be elected governor of Massachusetts.

It’s a good point and also why, regardless of the lack of enthusiasm for Mitt Romney among the right, he remains the candidate Obama reelect is targeting.

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

Michele Bachmann Suspends Campaign

Breaking on CNN.

From CNN, earlier this morning:

Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann is suspending her campaign, a GOP source familiar with her plans told CNN Senior Congressional Correspondent Dana Bash on Wednesday.

A Republican source familiar with Bachmann’s plans told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King earlier Wednesday Bachmann “will acknowledge the reality of Iowa’s vote” a at Wednesday morning press conference.

Michele Bachmann, the first female Republican candidate to win a straw poll, caucus or primary, has finished the race dead last.

Nobody will be asking for her endorsement.

Read full story · Comments { 4 }