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

Florida’s ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law, Trayvon Martin, and Concealed Carry

By on 20 March 2012


From an op-ed in the Orlando-Sentinel:

Prodded by their NRA masters, lawmakers waved off those predictions as exaggerations. Then they overwhelmingly passed a bill that took the “castle doctrine” to infinity and beyond. The “castle doctrine” used to mean you could use deadly force if someone attacked you in your home. “Stand your ground” not only absolved the homeowner of any obligation to retreat, it extended that concept outside the home.

[...] Gov. Jeb Bush couldn’t sign the bill fast enough.

Seven years later, those warnings so casually dismissed by Bush and the Legislature are taking shape.

In fact, the number of justifiable homicides has significantly increased since the law went into effect, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

From 2000 to 2005, an average of 13 killings by private citizens were deemed justified each year. Between 2006 and 2010 that average increased to 36 killings per year. The highest was in 2009 at 45.

We’re not members of the N.R.A., though my husband has been a gun expert for decades.

I encouraged my husband to get a concealed carry permit many years ago because of where his business took him, out into areas where police were nowhere in sight and he was virtually alone in the dead of night.

Reading the reports, it’s clear Zimmerman’s actions were premeditated. It’s also clear that Zimmerman went hunting even after being told not to pursue. There is no answer to date of what made Trayvon Martin look “real suspicious” to Zimmerman, except one thing, he was black, which is in the 911 tape clearly. That alone is worthy of invoking a hate crime allegation, yet Florida officials have dragged their feet.

Very late last night, because public anger had risen so high, the Justice Dept. announced a full investigation of the murder of Trayvon Martin.

That’s when Florida’s law enforcement, who’d been loping along on their “investigation,” decided to get involved. From the Miami Herald:

A grand jury will look into the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, Seminole County State Attorney Norm Wolfinger said Tuesday.

[...] Wolfinger’s statement followed a decision late Monday by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division and the FBI to investigate the killing of the Miami Gardens teenager by a neighborhood watch volunteer.

Reasonable people can disagree about concealed carry permits.

Reasonable people, however, should agree that a gun is the ultimate power against an unarmed person.

Trayvon Martin posed no imminent threat to Zimmerman.

Imminent threat is the issue when carrying a concealed weapon and you decide to draw it. You must have probable cause, as my husband reiterated to me when we were discussing this case, which was just one of the things the instructor covered in the mandated concealed carry class Mark took.

What proves further felonious intent of Zimmerman is his pursuit of Trayvon Martin even after the 911 operator told him to stand down.

All Mark could say is “that guy is toast.”

It’s telling it took Florida’s law enforcement this long to figure that out.

Video via Think Progress, the remarkable track by Jasiri X.

Read full story · Comments { 14 }

Washington Post: Grand Bargain on Entitlements ‘Still on the Table’

By on 19 March 2012

White House officials said this week that the offer is still on the table. – Obama’s evolution: Behind the failed ‘grand bargain’ on the debt

How quickly people forget.

A 2010 Gallup poll serves as a reality backdrop to this tale.



The report in the Washington Post over the weekend gives you an idea of the dynamics in the debt ceiling negotiations, as well as what could play out in Obama’s second term. It also illustrates the traditional media sympathies for a grand bargain on entitlements. This sentiment is woven throughout the report, but also across the cable infotainment shows.

While Republicans distract everyone with 19th century debates on women’s contraception, Democrats are once again being lulled into forgetting some of the things that caused Pres. Obama so much trouble in his first term.

That night, Obama prepared his party’s congressional leaders. He warned Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that he might return to the position under discussion the previous Sunday — that is, cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in exchange for just $800 billion in tax increases.

Would they support him?

The Democratic leaders “kind of gulped” when they heard the details, Daley recalled.

By this time, Obama had become the face of the bitter debt-ceiling talks and his poll numbers were dropping. His allies on Capitol Hill cringed at his predicament but also at what he was asking them to do.

Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, recalled that the president and his team felt the weight of the global economy “on our shoulders.”

“Is there political benefit to coming to a big budget deal with John Boehner? Sure,” Pfeiffer said. “But every other political and message imperative was thrown out the door to prevent a disaster and do the right thing for the country. That’s why we were willing to do things we wouldn’t normally do.”

Reluctantly, Reid and Pelosi agreed to do their best to support the plan.

I’ve argued from the start of this discussion that this is a seminal part of Pres. Obama’s willingness to choose conservatism and compromise, allowing Republicans to win arguments that are diametrically opposed to what the public wants. Even Tea Partiers want their entitlements.

This is also part of the problem with our politics, because Congress is nothing more than a rubber stamp for the chief executive, with members willing to sell out principle for a president, if he’s in their own party. It’s the best case for fewer Democrats and Republicans in Congress, allowing more Independents into the conversation in Congress.

But you have to wonder, now that entitlements are seen to be the biggest problem and impediment to our economic health across the political landscape, if an effective campaign can even be waged over the ridiculous notion that entitlements are a bigger problem than our Pentagon spending.

In his second term, Pres. Obama will be freer to get a grand bargain, which he and Democratic leaders clearly were ready to do in his first. Of course, if Republicans had their way cuts to entitlements would look even worse, opening the lesser of two evils argument that partisans invariably use, with this issue revealing why it works.

That’s the big two corporate parties, who differ in varying degrees on their notions of what should be done with entitlements, but who basically agree that this is the path to solving our fiscal challenges.

A second Obama term or a Mitt Romney first, entitlements are very likely “on the table.”

So, the Republican “war on women” has had a secondary affect. It’s taken Democratic eyes off of another fundamental tenet of progressive economic policy, making people forget why after Obama’s back room health care deals, there were other issues that had succeeded in dampening enthusiasm for Pres. Obama.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

John McCain: ‘Respect the Right for Women to Make Choices’

By on 19 March 2012

It’s so very basic, but yet it made news when Sen. John McCain said it on Sunday in his conversation with David Gregory.

“There’s a perception out there because of the way that this whole contraception issue played out.. We need to get off of that issue. In my view, I think we ought to respect the right of women to make choices in their lives and make that clear and to get back onto what the American people really care about — jobs and the economy.” – Sen. John McCain on “Meet the Press”

This is actually a conservative message.

It used to be that conservatives believed that neither state or federal government should be involved intimately in our lives. Today’s Republicans are now using government to interfere. That’s not a conservative principle or at least it wasn’t until today’s GOP.

This shift has made a mockery out of the meaning of conservatism.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Ron Paul’s Candidacy Now About His Son Rand

By on 14 March 2012


Ron Paul’s delegate hunt is dead.

It’s the story no one is talking about, while Paulbots continue to believe.

Now Paul doesn’t even have one single reporter covering his campaign.

Obviously, it’s not just the number of events that are keeping so many other outlets off Paul’s trail altogether. The candidate has just 47 delegates to date and not a single primary or caucus victory to his name. … – Politico

Friendly with Mitt Romney, Ron Paul could get one prize. Perhaps he could convince the Republican Party to spotlight his son in Tampa.

Legacy is the only thing Ron Paul’s got left.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Saturday Night at the Television Movies

By on 10 March 2012



The first time I saw the trailer and heard “American Woman” I felt like I should get ready to go on the air again, because I used it as my intro back when I was dabbling in radio. It’s the lead-in for HBO’s “Game Change”, whose roll out has mimicked a Hollywood theatrical production. The entire marketing and advertising of the HBO film has taken film television production advance to a new level.

The previews seen through all the different interviews, as well as the reviews, reveal Julianne Moore at the top of her game in a role that could be the dessert of her career to date. It’s any actor’s dream to have such a fascinating character to portray, especially a woman who caused such a political furor by coming on to the national political stage wholly unprepared and stirring up a whirlwind of drama with everything she says, does and wherever she goes.

The Hillary Effect and Clinton’s 18 million cracks paved the way for Palin mania. It’s why Sarah Palin is one of the characters in my book. There’s no way to write about ’08 and the Hillary Effect without including Sarah Palin.

Of course, unlike “Game Change”, written by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, which tore the skin off the bone of every female character portrayed in the book, I write about Palin’s rise and her own self-destruction while also giving her the credit she’s due for the rise of the Tea Party in 2010. No one can take that away from her. Back then and before her Loughner video response flame out there were a lot of establishment Republicans who thought she had an inside track to the nomination, people like Mark McKinnon and many others. But that was then.

HBO’s “Game Change” covers only the 60-day McCain – Palin saga, which is a very smart focus and one that lends itself well to great drama, especially as recounted by Halperin and Heilemann in their book.

There are going to be a lot of people DVRing or watching it tonight. After seeing the clips, as well as all the interviews. I’m looking forward to seeing Ed Harris as John McCain. In some of the clips his looks and persona are uncanny.

However, there’s a lot of talk about the element of the story where Nicole Wallace realizes how she feels about voting for Sarah Palin. Their relationship ended up unraveling, even if Wallace began by rooting for Palin when it all began.

SarahPAC has already put out its rebuttal through a video and Sarah Palin has been very vocal about the advance publicity. It’s obvious she’s freaked about it.

The lesson of Sarah Palin is that national politics is tough on amateurs, but if you’re willing to risk it anyway it can make you rich. But whether Sarah Palin can add something more than chatterbox fodder and a defense for what ails us by coming to the side of people like Rush Limbaugh remains to be seen.

That reality hovers over the film, because the ending of the McCain-Palin partnership was an epic flame out.

ps – Unrelated, we spring forward early Sunday a.m., don’t forget.

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

International Women’s Day, Rush Limbaugh and Bill Maher

By on 08 March 2012

**updated**


The 2012 theme of International Women’s Day is “Connecting Girls, Inspiring Futures.” But when you look at what’s been playing in politics the last week or so in the U.S., you’d be smart to add a subheading to the theme that warns girls and women to “always stand tall and be prepared to defend yourself.”

I’ve been writing about the politics of sex since 1996, my book on 20 years of history and the Hillary Effect part of this work, with a focus on media. Nothing illustrates the subject better than Rush Limbaugh deciding to target and intimidate Sandra Fluke, while partisans attempt to give him an out on the scandal by serving up Bill Maher.

No sooner had the clamor over Rush Limbaugh’s “slut” and “prostitute” smear of Sandra Fluke started than the partisan talking points began, starting with Limbaugh himself.

Bill Maher was brought up as an example of someone on the left who is equally guilty of sexism, with his donation of $1 million to the pro-Obama Super PAC Priorities USA Action providing a convenient connection to Pres. Obama. That gave the Limbaugh and others all they needed to dredge up something Maher said this time last year.

What did Maher get for his $1 million? Access to David Axelrod, which is fueling the right even more:

While slamming Mitt Romney for not standing up to the “strident voices” on his side, a top Obama advisor is planning to spend some quality time with one on his own, The Daily has learned. David Axelrod, President Obama’s senior campaign strategist, is scheduled to appear on Bill Maher’s late-night talk show within the next few weeks, according to Kelley Carville, an HBO spokesman. – Obama adviser slams Romney for Limbaugh while planning to go on Maher

Maher booking Axelrod puts a whole new meaning to Pres. Obama’s reversal to support Super PACS and what $1 million can buy, especially after Obama complained about PAC civility.

Bill Maher called Sarah Palin the “c” word in his stand-up act, you know, where people pay to come hear him push the envelope on politics, sex and anything else in the news, the hallmark of his cultural and political comedy. It wasn’t on public airwaves and Armed Forces Radio. Maher’s jokes often trend towards sexism when he’s covering a woman he dislikes or whose politics run astray of his and anyone taking in his shows knows it.

God forbid we should have a conversation focused on the subject at hand, the defamation of a female citizen speaking to Congress by Rush Limbaugh, before taking the issue wide to men in media and entertainment who use sexism in their work to describe and insult women as a path to making their point.

But after Limbaugh called Maher out, Sarah Palin decided to chime in. It was predictable and launched for maximum political affect. From Politico

“I think the definition of hypocrisy is for Rush Limbaugh to have been called out, forced to apologize and retract what it is that he said in exercising his First Amendment rights and never is that the same applied to the leftist radicals who say such horrible things about the handicapped, about women, about the defenseless,” Palin told CNN in an interview from Wasilla, Alaska.

“So I think that’s the definition of hypocrisy, and that’s my two cents for you,” she added.

At least Sarah Palin’s got the price right. Political partisanship of this type is only worth two cents. If you juxtapose this against HBO’s “Game Change” debut this Saturday, Sarah Palin offering cover for Rush Limbaugh reveals just how far she’s fallen.

Maher also called Michele Bachmann one of the “two bimbos” in the Republican race on his HBO “Real Time” show, if Palin would have run for president.

It’s sexist, but it, nor calling Palin the “c” word, had anything to do with Fluke being targeted or the policy she was discussing that revolved around the contraceptive mandate, which is crushing Republicans. That’s why Maher was brought up, to help cauterize the political pain and plummeting popularity the Republican war on women has caused the right by hoisting up a false equivalency.

A critical point in all this is that Rush Limbaugh and the medium he spawned has helped the Republican Party win elections. As George Will said on “This Week”, Republicans are also actually scared of Limbaugh. Mitt Romney certainly proved he is.

As for Maher, no one in the Democratic establishment is scared of him and nothing he can do would intimidate a congressional witness, because he doesn’t have Limbaugh’s clout. He’s a comedian, not a media representative of a political party.

Bill Maher has now defended Rush Limbaugh:

Hate to defend #RushLimbaugh but he apologized, liberals looking bad not accepting. Also hate intimidation by sponsor pullout

Of course he would, because he believes Limbaugh apologized. It’s immaterial to Maher that Limbaugh’s patter is regularly misogynistic, whether it’s “feminazi”, my favorite of his, or “reporterette”, even “info-babe”. Limbaugh just this week turned his sights on another professional woman, this time author Tracie McMillan, calling her an “authorette” and a “babe”.

That Maher hates a “sponsor pullout” campaign could be because it cuts too close to home for him, after he got fired from ABC over the comments he made after 9/11. But his defense at Limbaugh’s attack, “I don’t have sponsors. I’m on HBO” while true doesn’t make calling any woman the “c” word for shock value defensible.

To anyone who makes a living with words, especially extemporaneously, the thought of misspeaking and losing your livelihood because of it is understandably chilling. Maher’s felt that first hand. I’ve dabbled in radio, done theater, so I understand.

But it wasn’t just “slut” and “prostitute” that was the problem. Sexism can also be about power, using it to demean a woman who isn’t on equal footing of the person delivering it. It was Limbaugh using his power to intimidate and humiliate a private female citizen over a policy subject that is killing Republicans in hopes of discrediting what she was saying.

People quick to take up the Maher comparison, which set up Palin’s false equivalency defense for Rush, simply provided cover so he could get away with it.

Hey, but if you want to have a discussion on the similarities between Rush Limbaugh and Bill Maher on their sexist proclivities, separate from the Fluke intimidation incident, talking about both men’s delight in characterizing women sexually to demean them or imply it’s all they are, it’s a good topic for discussion.

Conflating Limbaugh with Maher, however, created a situation where the intimidation of a woman was lost in favor of partisan gamesmanship, adding another chapter to the Republican war on women.

It proved that even when a woman is targeted by one of the leaders of the Republican Party in media, fan politics kicks in and partisan blinders are donned at her expense. It’s all about having your side win, which undoubtedly brings in political performers like Sarah Palin to ratchet up the rhetoric a notch, distracting the discussion away from the initial offense by Limbaugh.

The good news in all this is that even though partisans tried to hijack the discussion, at least it rose to the top of media priorities and also hit the economics of Rush Limbaugh’s machine, something that Maher doesn’t come close to possessing.

Bill Maher’s right to be worried. Repercussions for a bad joke is nothing compared to the chilling affect political correctness has on comedy.

Or as Rush Limbaugh has said on his show, “civility is censorship.”

We’ll see how all this plays out when Maher headlines an Alabama Democratic fundraiser later in March, which was reported by the Daily Caller.

Denying Rush Limbaugh and Bill Maher their avenues of sexism would kill their personas. They’re simply not the men they are without it.

Both Limbaugh and Bill Maher have been put on the defensive, because sexism is losing it’s acceptance and now acts more like a boomerang. It’s much more successful when it’s prurient, like in porn, and in the 21st century it will become the only place it can survive in America.


Vintage ad graphic via BuzzFeed.

Read full story · Comments { 57 }

Kaptur Beats Kucinich, Will Face ‘Joe the Plumber’

By on 07 March 2012

**Correction Appended**

After Kaptur beat Kucinich, “Joe the Plumber” will now face the veteran Democrat in the fall. – Politico

The man Barack Obama made famous in 2008 (see the video above), who became the bane of John McCain’s existence, is now a serious candidate for Congress.

Joe Wurzelbacher, aka “Joe the Plumber” squeaked out a win, while “Mean Jean” Schmidt, the woman who dared to call Jack Murtha a “coward” on the House floor, lost. Good riddance to her.

Marcy Kaptur will be his opponent and as Dennis Kucinich can now attest, she’s as tough a campaigner as you’re going to find.

Rep. Marcy Kaptur, though I’ve never seen her on the ground, is one of the most potent political messengers I’ve ever seen on television. Her blue collar appeal and talent for talking issues, stripping them down so the stakes are understood, is remarkable.

However, Marcy Kaptur was a prime proponent and pusher of the Stupak Amendment, with her religiosity making her part of the anti-women’s freedom Democratic caucus.

Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), who is undecided on the health care vote, said she is urging Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to hold a separate vote reaffirming Rep. Bart Stupak’s (D-Mich.) strict language limiting abortion insurance coverage to help clear the way for passage of the reform package Sunday. – Roll Call

This race is going to make terrific cable fodder.

In other congressional race news, Chellie Pingree has taken a pass on running for the Senate, but will run for re-election in the House. Popular Independent former Gov. Angus King decided to run for Sen. Olympia Snowe’s seat, with the likelihood that he’ll caucus with Democrats one reason not to run. Why lose Pingree in the House when you can “win” with an Independent getting 2 for the price of 1?

CORRECTION: Marcy Kaptur beat Dennis Kucinich, Jean Schmidt lost to Cincinnati Mayoral candidate Brad Wenstrup. Joe Wurzelbacher came close to losing to Steve Kraus. Kaptur will now face Wurzelbacher. Title and edit done to reflect this.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Republicans on GOP Primary Battle, One Word Answers Begin with “Corrosive”

By on 05 March 2012

A new NBC/WSJ poll has all bad news for Republicans. They earned it.

Among the choices 70% of Republicans used to describe the presidential primary fight were: “unenthusiastic,” “discouraged,” “lesser of two evils,” “painful,” “disappointed,” “poor choices,” “concerned,” “underwhelmed,” “uninspiring” and “depressed.”

Four in 10 of all adults say the GOP nominating process has given them a less favorable impression of the Republican Party, versus just slightly more than one in 10 with a more favorable opinion.

Additionally, when asked to describe the GOP nominating battle in a word or phrase, nearly 70 percent of respondents – including six in 10 independents and even more than half of Republicans – answered with a negative comment.

This explains one reason why a few days ago George Will wrote a column saying that Republicans should concentrate on the House and Senate contests. Looking at the presidential race right now, and the chances of beating Pres. Obama, it’s no race, with few chances, at all.

“President Obama is probably in the best political shape he’s been in since his initial year as president,” says Hart, the Democratic pollster.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Pres. Obama Already has Your Vote and He Knows It

By on 02 February 2012

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

By on 31 January 2012

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

By on 31 January 2012

…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

By on 30 January 2012

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

By on 29 January 2012

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

By on 28 January 2012



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

By on 27 January 2012

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: Time for a Tea Party of the Left, by Taylor Marsh

By on 25 January 2012

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

By on 24 January 2012

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

By on 23 January 2012

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

By on 15 January 2012


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

By on 13 January 2012


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 }