Too Few Choices Series | TaylorMarsh.com

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Tag Archives | Too Few Choices Series

Political choices people don’t want to make

By Joyce Arnold on 10 February 2012

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

What this series has been about, in a broad, diverse and occasionally rambling sort of way: I think two parties = too few choices. I think the Two Party Front for the Oligarchy, the Duopoly, the Corporate Parties, whatever you want to call the Republican and Democratic parties, answer to the same Elites. I think the two parties represent different ideologies, but end up serving the same 1%. They need their differences to make the system work, to play us against each other, to keep the game going, to keep turning corporate chosen Wannabe’s into corporate approved Electeds. I think we need serious, systemic challenges and changes, which will require ef-forts from the Inside but also from the Outside – “third,” different, new, evolving “parties.” And movements, of the genuine grassroots variety.

I think if we keep doing things the same way, waiting until after the next election, keep accepting the choices handed to us from above, keep giving passes to whoever is failing to fulfill promises at any given moment in the perpetual election cycle, we’ll keep getting the same kind of Electeds.

I think there are no easy or quick answers.

I think the Occupy movement is one of the most hopeful things to happen in a long time. I don’t know if it will ultimately be successful, though I think it has a chance, over the long-haul. And I think the people doing the work are to be highly commended.

I think there are lots of people with helpful thoughts and ideas about all of this, but generally speaking, they have a hell of a time being heard and taken seriously. Occupiers are among them. Below are a few others who I read regularly. And by the way, reading posts and comments here at TM, I love hearing from others who think outside that damn Two Party Box. We don’t have to agree, arrive at the same place, arrive at the same place at the same time, or see eye to eye on much of anything, to have some thoughtful conversations.

Riverdaughter:

The term ‘pain of independence’ is what psychologists say people experience when they refuse to conform to peer pressure. …
We realize that we aren’t going to die of embarrassment or ridicule if we don’t go along with the crowd. …
The left blogosphere might want to think about that for awhile. If it thinks that nothing it does makes a difference to the powers that be, maybe it should try dissenting and allow the pain of independence work its magic. DON’T say you’re going to vote for the bastards even if they treat you like shit. And then mean it. They’re counting on you to go along with the crowd in order to alleviate that pain and fear. Peer pressure only works if you let it. …
People aren’t going to like you. … They’ll tell you that you will bring Armageddon down on everyone’s head if you let the Republicans win. …
They need you more than you need them. … If you refuse (their efforts), you monkeywrench their entire peer pressure apparatus and then they have to start paying attention to you and addressing your demands. …
…Think of it this way, dissenting is the best way to preserve our democracy.

Anglachel :

Decisions, Decisions
Poor Wall Street. They have such a hard choice this election year.
Should they vote for the candidate they own who occasionally makes tsk-tsk noises about them in speeches and only delivers 99% of what they want, but who makes them feel like they’ve done something morally daring, even hip, by voting for a black dude, or should they put their weight behind the candidate they own who loudly proclaims their greatness in speeches and will be even more obliging in policy, but who may wear goofy underdrawers?

lambert:

I can’t bear to write about SantorumRomneyGingrichPaulObama
Are any of them advocating criminal penalties for banksters guilty of accounting control fraud? No?

Ian Welsh:

2013 will be ugly. If Obama wins he will stop pandering to progressives and liberals. Since he never has to be reelected again, he will be even worse than he was 2009-2011. If you want anything from Obama, anything, get it before the election, do not believe promises, do not accept promises, accept cash only. If Romney or Gingrich wins, well, it’s not going to be any better.

We make choices about the kind of choices we have.

( Photo via ThinkProgress
Not Dumb Enough poster via OWS News )

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

“Is There a ‘Quick Fix’ for Partisanship?”

By Joyce Arnold on 03 February 2012

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

Independent Voting asks the question above, and talks about why, unsurprisingly, there are no “quick fix” reforms possible. From a recent emailing:

Outside-the-beltway reform activists believe that the difficult and long-term effort it takes to achieve these reforms is a good thing. In the process of winning them and using them, the American people will become more developed and politically sophisticated and take direct responsibility for our democracy.

I’ve included Independent Voting in earlier posts in this Two Parties = Too Few Choices series, in talking about the multiple efforts underway across the nation to challenge (my word) or reform the two party system. I thought it might be helpful to think again about some of those efforts, which can be overlooked at most any time, but all but lost during high profile presidential election times. This is simply one example of what is, in fact, happening. From Independent Voting’s About section:

We are a national strategy, communications, and organizing center working to connect and empower the 40% of Americans who identify themselves as independents. …
Our mission is to develop a movement of independent voters for progressive post-partisan reform of the Ameri-can political process.
We do not aspire to be another special interest. Independents seek instead to diminish the regressive influence of parties and partisanship by opening up the democratic process. Independents in the CUIP networks are creating new electoral coalitions such as the Black and Independent Alliance, supporting new models of nonpartisan governance and striving for the broadest forms of ‘bottom-up’ participation.

Another effort that’s received more attention is Americans Elect. Via Common Dreams, Joel Hirschhorn describes the overall two party situation in ways with which I can identify, and makes an argument for Americans Elect that makes some sense, even with my strong skepticism about the role the Board gives itself in the final determination of who the AE presidential and vice-presidential candidates are.

Why am I so sick of all the media attention to the Republican presidential primaries and all the blabbering about President Obama’s advantages and disadvantages for the coming election? I just cannot get excited. My answer may also be yours: No matter who wins, our nation loses. …
Considering the widespread and deserved disgust among Americans with both major parties, there is a decent chance that people like me will be strongly motivated to vote for the Americans Elect alternative ticket. It defi-nitely will be a vote against both major parties. If millions of Americans make this choice, then I will be over-joyed and so should you. Why? Because it may be the most important historic event that could motivate actions to get us genuine reforms of our political and government system. The Americans Elect ticket does not have to win, just show the Democrats and Republicans how much they are both being rejected.

Of course, you can say the same thing for “third party” efforts in general. The total number of votes cast for an “alternative ticket” will be interesting to know. Naturally the message isn’t as strong – because the challenge isn’t as great – if those votes are split in multiple ways. But none of these non-Two Party votes are “wasted,” not from my perspective. They are a challenge to the Two Party Front for the Oligarchy, and a rejection of the “wasted vote,” “you have no other choice,” “this is just the way things work” arguments that help perpetuate the system.

Phil Rockstroh, at OWS News, writes, “A Journey To The End Of Empire: It Is Always Darkest Right Before It Goes Completely Black.” It’s more philosophical than pragmatic, but his conclusions are quite practical in their implications.

‘That’s just the way it is’ might be one of the most soul-defying phrases in the human lexicon.
Contrast this with the OSW slogan, ‘The beginning is near.’

Bradley Maxwell, at Occupy the 99%, writes “Reform vs. Radicalism: More Damn Labels to Divide Us,” and includes talking about the way “1%” uses division to help prevent large enough numbers of people from coming together to challenge the status quo.

The powers we face, love for these conflicts, which divide us, to exist. And even if the 1% did not plant the seeds of division, they certainly water them. …
We will need to continue shaking off irrelevant theories and labels in order to become the true kind of movement we need to be. … So I say let the people do their ‘reform’ work, and let other people do their ‘radical’ work. …
We all have work to do, so stop making it so damn difficult for those you don’t agree with, to get their work done.

Going back to the top, I don’t think anyone who pays even cursory attention to politics would believe a “quick fix” is possible. On the other hand, there seem to be a large number of people who do believe any kind of “fix” is impossible. Somewhere between those two positions is the space to make serious challenges to “the way things are,” enough space so that even people with differing perspectives can get to work.

( Photo via ThinkProgress )

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

Reporters Without Borders lowers U.S. media ranking

By Joyce Arnold on 27 January 2012

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

‘Crackdown’ was the word of the year in 2011. Never has freedom of information been so closely associated with democracy. Never have journalists, through their reporting, vexed the enemies of freedom so much. Never have acts of censorship and physical attacks on journalists seemed so numerous. The equation is simple: the absence or suppression of civil liberties leads necessarily to the suppression of media freedom.

The above is a quote from “Crackdown on Media,” the “2011-2012 Press Freedom Index” released on Thursday by Reporters Without Borders. One of the things it points out is what Occupiers, and those following the OWS movement, including some reporting on it, have been saying for the last three months or so: police departments have been instructed to “crackdown” on media, mainstream and new, when covering the Occupy stories. It also points out that, like too few choices in political parties, there are, if not too few, then at least questions to be asked about the Fourth Estate.

From a pdf of the report:

The worldwide wave of protests in 2011 also swept through the New World. It dragged the United States (47th) and Chile (80th) down the index, costing them 27 and 47 places respectively. The crackdown on protest movements and the accompanying excesses took their toll on journalists. In the space of two months in the United States, more than 25 were subjected to arrests and beatings at the hands of police who were quick to issue indictments for inappropriate behaviour, public nuisance or even lack of accreditation.

This isn’t new information. But if you haven’t heard much, or anything, about it, it’s not a surprise. From a piece at HuffPo:

The treatment of journalists by police was well documented throughout 2011. Reporters were beaten, arrested and prevented from covering police action against Occupy protesters. Tensions heightened so much that the New York Police Department had to meet with journalists and remind its officers not to mistreat them.

At the same time journalists experienced everything from being blocked by police to being beaten and arrested, others in the media ignored or downplayed it, as they did the Occupy movement in general. Taken together, both say something rather significant about “freedom of the press.”

Some examples, the first from a mid-December piece at TruthOut:

Even after a solid two weeks of this Occupation, corporate media largely blacked it out. What coverage there was depicted protesters as drug-abusing hippies (the Fox News spin—Hannity, 10/10/11), or, in the ‘liberal’ version, as directionless naifs with no message (New York Times, 9/23/11).

Also see: Getting beyond the primary means for con-trol: Mass media propaganda at Intrepid Report.

NYPD Continues to Block Journalists from Covering Occupy Protests at Media Bistro.

Via TruthOut, in “Low Friends in High Places: Triad of Business, Cops and Politicians Attack Occupy,”

Playing supporting roles was a noisy media chorus repeatedly echoing pretexts of various municipal health, park and police regulations that were allegedly being violated.

A media related, January 18 story seems worth mentioning, just for a bit more context. From Public Policy Polling, the “3rd Annual TV News Trust Poll”:

… finds that Fox News tops the list for both the source Americans trust the most and the one they trust the least.

Obviously some trust it, some don’t, but Fox appears at the top of the list for both groups. I’m not sure that really tells us anything new, but it’s one indication of the 2012 condition of the Fourth Estate.

As does the fact that some members of the press who tried to cover OWS were blocked, arrested, and beaten, as the drop in ranking in the Press Freedom Index made clear. Other members of the press spin the whole OWS movement, basically, in the way governments – city and beyond – and corporate heads want them to do. It all leads me to wonder about the choices we have regarding the Fourth Estate. The Two Corporate Parties provide too few political choices, but the choices provided by much of the media, mainstream in particular, are equally questionable. And fairly often, it seems, complicit.

( Photo via ThinkProgress )

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

The System won’t change by waiting until after the next election

By Joyce Arnold on 20 January 2012

Joyce L. Arnold, Liberally Independent, Queer Talk, equality activist, writer.

All the arguing, sniping and even actual, respectful conversation about the big problems with our Two Partying System are not something new and unheard of. Well, “unheard of” does sort of fit, because the years, decades in fact, of analysis and conversations went largely “unheard.” The timing changes the conversation, of course – the specific Electeds, the current big issues, etc., naturally play a significant role. But the basic “we have a problem with our two party political / electoral process and system” … that’s not new.

What is new is that it’s now being heard more often, though even that isn’t unique to the moment. It comes periodically. And because it does, there are those who quickly say “I’ve heard it before” and dismiss it all as a “been there, done that” kind of thing.

But when the fundamental reasons for the ‘that,’ the actions taken, still exist, then obviously the problem remains. Since the Two Party Front for the Oligarchy structure continues to rule, it’s not exactly shocking that people who find it problematic keep pointing out the same concerns. That doesn’t make them less problematic. Rather, it points to the entrenched and well-funded nature of the problems. And for me, and many others, it brought us to the point of deciding the system isn’t “out of order” but “planned to order.” It’s designed to produce the results it does: one of two options, with enough “differences” to make sure voters can be played against each other, but ultimately, the Chief Elected knows who paid to get him (someday it will be “her”) in the Oval Office, as do the Congress Electeds.

Taylor has written about her “recovering partisan” journey, both in her posts here, and in her book, The Hillary Effect. Among other things, it’s a journey with which I think many can identify in some ways, and very possibly, many more will come to do so. It’s also, no doubt, a journey many will reject and condemn. Nothing new there, either, as I’m sure Taylor can attest.

But here’s the thing: the move, or in Taylor’s terms, the “recovery,” is about a process. It’s not, as some like to say, a matter of “ideology.” That’s a simplistic, and meant to be pejorative, label. I’ve had it applied to myself for a lot of years now, usually in some combination of “radical, liberal, activist, lesbian, feminist, socialist, un-American, un-Christian” terms. I probably forgot some, but you get the picture.

Now, as I also keep saying, I think there’s good and needed work to be done from within the Two Party system. And to a certain extent, there’s really no way to avoid doing some of that. For those who choose that “internal” path of change / reform, more power to you. I sincerely appreciate the efforts.

But for those who reach the point of “enough,” almost certainly after a long and trying process, we find ourselves in lots of good company, too.

For me, years ago, it was largely because of my “radical liberal lesbian activist” experiences – equality is rather radical, actually – that I finally came to the “enough” point. Being told, over and over, by Democratic Wannabe’s and Electeds, some version of: “I’d like to support you, but understand that ‘your issues’ are much too controversial for me to take on at this point. After this next election, maybe. Besides, the other party is much worse. So, thanks for dropping by. Be sure and donate, volunteer and vote for me. Then it would be best if you’d stay kind of quiet, because all that ‘lesbian, gay, bisexual, and my god even transgender’ talk is unsettling. You did know, right, that some of my best friends are gay? Okay, take care now, and God bless America!”

All that in mind, here’s something I came across that’s perhaps a bit sad, but it’s also encouraging. Check out Two-Party Tyranny, by Ben Petit. An excerpt:

Having reached the legal voting age, I will be eligible to vote in this year’s presidential election for the first time in my life. After ages of watching debates and giving my two cents on the issues to anyone who would listen, my years as a politically savvy adolescent have led up to the chance to contribute directly to the democratic process. Indeed, it should be an exciting occasion, but my enthusiasm is dampened by the knowledge that as long as America is caught in a cycle of two-party tyranny, my vote is essentially meaningless.
Every election cycle, voters are sent a clear message from the two major parties that if their views don’t fit into neat little ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ boxes, they aren’t worthy of representation. If you’re not one of us, they’re told, you’re nobody.
Were it merely a product of popular opinion, the two party system wouldn’t really be worth complaining about, but the fact is that the only reason the two parties consistently win is that they make the rules. …
Think of the potential, the talent and the leadership that we’re shutting out by putting up a ‘do not enter’ sign to anyone who doesn’t fit into a two-party pigeonhole.

And this excerpt, from Bruce Dixon, at Black Agenda Report, “How To Waste Your Vote In 2012”:

If we want our votes to have any meaning, it’s time to reject the fake choices between the two corporate parties. It’s time to wise up, to grow up and like adults, to take a view longer than dessert, or the next two or three elections.

The System won’t change by waiting until after the next election.

( Photo via ThinkProgress )

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

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

By Taylor Marsh on 15 January 2012

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

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 }

Independents at Record Levels for Good Reason

By Taylor Marsh on 09 January 2012

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 }

The Two Party Invitation: Who’s Accepting?

By Joyce Arnold on 06 January 2012

Joyce L. Arnold, Liberally Independent, Queer Talk, equality activist, writer.

The Two Parties Cordially, or Not, Invite You to Attend the 2012 Elections

RSVP only if you plan to vote in the one Duopoly approved manner. Republican Red or Democratic Blue attire required. For VIP tickets, well, if you have to ask, you aren’t eligible.

The Two Parties are not identical, of course. In fact, for the Duopoly to work, differences are necessary. You can’t play one side against the other – and directing and manipulating “your” voters in your chosen direction by pointing at the scary “other” is a Duopoly staple – if you admit that ultimately, the Electeds are largely all answering to the same Elites. Of course, some distinguishing party platform positions are accurate, occasionally even in practice. Plus, there really are those individuals, especially at local and state levels, who put policy before party.

But by and large, the Two Party Front for the Oligarchy knows where their allegiance lies and their bank accounts feed. Whether dressed in Republican red or Democratic blue, their invitation to the real party, the only one that ultimately counts, is for Insiders only. The rest of us, the very, very large 99%-like majority of us, never see those very special invitations.

And yet the invites to the non-VIP sections (sections plural, because clearly even the non-VIP’s are divided into upper, middle and lower levels) of the 2012 election party not only continue to go out, they continue to be accepted. And fought for, and over, and about. “It’s the only party in town,” we’re told, the only way not to “waste” your vote.

Even when the Two Parties are showing their weaknesses; even when the red and blue jackets are getting frayed around the sleeves and smudged around the collars, and actually don’t quite fit that well anymore, the invitations will still go out, as long as enough people keep accepting them.

Emma Goldman: “If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.”

Of course, given the new efforts at voter suppression, not to mention the history of what it’s taken to “win” the right to vote, clearly there are those in the Duopoly hierarchy who prefer that voting is, in fact, illegal – or least highly inconvenient – for some people. You know, those who don’t fit in the preferred demographics. I doubt, though, that keeping the number of voters down will do anything to stop the growing cost of campaigns. That financial game is all about the Insiders, not the voters.

By no means are my thoughts about all of this unique or original. One example, from Joel Hirschhorn at Intrepid Report:

The trick to maintaining the US delusional democracy is feeding the illusion for citizens that voting and elections really matter. But when both major parties are owned by rich and corporate elites it matters less than most people think whether Republicans or Democrats win and control Congress or the White House. Their seeming differences are a clever distraction that keeps fooling and manipulating Americans. With the help of the mainstream media, making entertainment out of political races, Americans are deceived into thinking that elections deserve their respect and participation.
As power shifts periodically from one party to the other partner of the two-party plutocracy, the illusion of meaningful change sustains the corrupt, dysfunctional political and government system and the economy rewarding the top one percent. Winning politicians are adept at lying convincingly, especially about change and reforms and, like well advertised products, Americans consume the lies.
The perennial problem is that despite what so many Americans view as failed presidencies and, even more clearly, failed Congresses, no Second American Revolution is produced that would return the government to we the people.
The biggest lie of all: Elections can fix the broken system.

Hirschhorn’s book, Delusional Democracy: Fixing the Republic Without Overthrowing the Government includes this:

A number of electoral reforms are necessary to rescue American democracy:
1. Expand the use of Clean Money, Clean Election programs.
2. Provide a None of the Above option on ballots.
3. Permit fusion candidates to promote third-party candidates.
4. Reform the Electoral College or its use by states.
5. Provide Instant Runoff Voting.
6. Pass the ‘Our Democracy, Our Airwaves’ federal law.
7. For primary elections, support an open or crossover primary that favors third-parties.
8. Make voting compulsory after other reforms.

Agree or disagree with some or all of these, Hirschhorn provides some ideas for conversations, and at this point, conversations among those acting from within and without the Duopoly are crucial. The Occupy / 99% movement is helping create similar space, when people choose to use it for such.

For me, I decided quite some time ago that accepting the Two Parties Only invitation didn’t work. I respect, greatly, those who keep offering critiques and working for change from within. They’re doing an essential job. So are those who decline the invitation, offering critiques and working to create and build other options.

( Photo via ThinkProgress )

Read full story · Comments { 10 }

Santorum Surge and Alan Colmes’ Callousness

By Taylor Marsh on 03 January 2012

At Santorum’s first stop, in Polk City, the coffee shop’s maximum occupancy was listed as 49, but at least 200 filled the room and 100 more spilled into the street. In the media throng were journalists from Japan, Russia, France, Britain, Italy and Australia. “They weren’t here last week,” a pleased Santorum told the crowd. Enjoy it, Senator. They won’t be here for long. – Dana Milbank

Alan Colmes is the dumbest Democratic pundit ever to be allowed in front of a camera. For this stupidity alone he should forfeit his seat at the next cool kids cable yakker dinner.

Mediaite captured video of the clash between Colmes and Rick Santorum, which revolved around the death of the Santorums’ prematurely born son. The story is now heating up the debate about Iowa. It will also become a standard caricature of the reaction of Democrats to deeply personal issues on life, which the right will use to bash Democrats, who will then be expected to disavow Colmes, and the beat goes on.

Colmes has apologized, but he’s been talking for a living for a very long time and as a veteran, this type of decision to weigh in on such a personal subject will follow him for a very long time.

This incident defines the ugliness of politics today and is just another reason people are walking away from both parties in droves, though since 2008 Democrats have been hemorrhaging more affiliated voters than Republicans.

Family values are the most important issue to Iowa Evangelicals, with Rick Santorum finally having his turn in the main ring of the Republican circus. It was also made possible by the right’s fear of Iran, which Ron Paul’s candidacy inflamed, and is the favorite foreign policy subject for Republicans in this election.

This is mainly because Pres. Obama has been revealed as a Republican hawk on foreign policy elements, channeling George W. Bush most of the time, leaving the right few lines of attack. If the 2012 election was about foreign policy, Pres. Obama would win in a walk.

It won’t be, which brings up another avenue for Rick Santorum to mine with conservative primary voters, who are desperately looking for someone other than Mitt Romney, while ignoring Ron Paul because being anti-war for the right is worse than a YouTube surfacing showing you beating your mother.

Rick Santorum has been active on poverty issues for most of his life and is the son of a coal miner who can talk about blue collar issues. He got his ass handed to him in his last election, losing by 18 points, but that was at a time when Republicans were out and Santorum’s extreme position on Terry Schiavo obviously didn’t sit well with Democratic Pennsylvania, nor does the reality that Rick Santorum is extreme in his social views, especially where individual rights and freedoms are concerned.

If Santorum could weld his “family values” platform with a blue collar pitch that weaves Christianity and charity with a middle class jobs priority pitch, he might have something, at least to give an honest run at Romney.

Newt Gingrich is about to revive his flame throwing routine, so it would be nice to have a positive candidate taking it to Romney where he’s weakest, but perceived strongest: on middle class and jobs, instead of his executive ownership and Wall Street protection racket platform.

There are whispers out of Iowa that this last event between Lowry and Colmes could give Santorum that last lift needed to land him in the winner’s circle.

However, none of the candidates are of the caliber of Pres. Obama, with Mitt Romney the only Republican who can come close to the campaign needed to take on Barack Obama, who is as formidable a politician as we’ve seen in the modern era, which is how he’s been able to fake Democrats and progressives out of their own party.

People ask all the time where have all the moderate Republicans gone?

They now comprise the bulk of the Democratic Party, with the most famous moderate Republican in America the President himself.

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

The 2012 games with the same Too Few Choices

By Joyce Arnold on 30 December 2011

Joyce L. Arnold, Liberally Independent, Queer Talk, equality activist, writer.

I realize this will sound quite negative to some, perhaps to many, but for me, it’s simply my liberally independent perspective: Whoever the Republicans end up with (and I still think it will be Romney, the desire to make Obama a one termer overcoming divisions in the Right), we end up with the same Two Parties = Too Few Choices options. And what can the two corporate party system produce but someone who is approved by that system? I don’t see a real “win” because whether Obama gets a second term (I think he will) or the Republican nominee wins, we’re still stuck in the same mess.

Not that there aren’t efforts being made to present something a bit different. Ron Paul is the obvious example, who, as The State Column put it, “Seeks to unite GOP, Democrats with anti-war policy.” Paul, as the article says, “has consistently called for less U.S. involvement in foreign countries.”

The Telegraph explains that Paul

stands to benefit from (Iowa) state rules dictating that everyone may vote in the party contest. ‘If you are not a Republican, you can register at the door,’ said David Fischer, Dr Paul’s Iowa co-chairman … .
Thousands of members of Barack Obama’s Democrats, disenchanted but with no contest of their own, are set to turn out at caucus sites on Tuesday to do just that.
Almost one in four caucus-goers is expected to be an independent or Democrat, according to a Public Policy Polling (PPP) survey.

Paul is clearly making efforts to present himself as an option for those on the Left and Right. The West Des Moines Patch, for example, has, “Ron Paul Tells Iowans He Can Bridge Occupy Movement and Tea Party.”

In the The Des Moines Register, self-described “progressives” Colleen Rowley and John Walsh write

Tactically it makes sense for anti-war activists to vote in the Republican caucuses/primaries for Paul. If he wins or does well in Iowa and New Hampshire, then the questions of war and peace will appear on the national scene. If Paul goes on to win his party’s nomination, these questions will finally make their appearance in the general election. …
Party identities run deep, but shouldn’t we, as moral human beings, rise above such loyalties to vote for an end to the killing done in our name and with our tax dollars? …
If ever there was a time for voters to consider an anti-establishment maverick like Paul, it’s now.

They do address areas of disagreement with Paul, like in “domestic social programs and free market econom-ics,” so this isn’t an across-the-board endorsement of Paul policies. But they argue he’s the “only … anti-war, anti-corruption, pro-Constitution, pro-civil liberties candidate for president in either party who stands squarely against expanding military empire and for democracy,” and should be supported.

So, there’s an argument for a different kind of choice within our Corporate Duopoly. I think it basically falls under the “lesser of two evils” category. To this point, it’s difficult for me to see very many options within the Two Party Front for the Oligarchy, especially at the national level, for anything but such choices.

So, What Will the Democratic Left Do in 2012?. From Lawrence Wittner, at TruthOut:

The Democratic Party’s left wing … faces some difficult choices in 2012, when it will be dealing with numerous election campaigns.
Many progressives feel a keen sense of disappointment with the Obama administration, which showed a remarkable willingness to capitulate to conservatives when the Democrats controlled Congress and even more craven behavior once the Republicans won back control of the House of Representatives. …
On the other hand, disappointment among progressive forces is a long-standing pattern, for, since World War II, they almost invariably have felt sold out by Democratic administrations. …

In spite of a history of “revolts” at such times – 1948 Progressive Party, 1968 backing of McCarthy and Robert Kennedy; 1980 backing of Ted Kennedy; 2000 backing of Nader, are examples provided – in 2012

… neither a Democratic primary challenge nor a serious third party challenge to Obama has yet arisen. …
Probably the most important reason for the quiescence of progressive activists is that the Republican Party has shifted so far to the right that they consider a Republican presidential victory simply unthinkable. They have concluded that there really is a difference between the leaders of the political parties-the difference between bad and worse.

Wittner concludes that it’s likely progressives will

provide at least token support for Obama’s re-election,” but that “most of the … effort … will probably go into taking back control of the House of Representatives, holding on to control of the Senate, challenging reactionary Republican governors, and supporting progressive ballot propositions.

A December 27 piece, possibly even more critical, is by Glenn Greenwald, in The Guardian:

Vote Obama – if you want a centrist Republican for US president
Because Barack Obama has adopted so many core Republican beliefs, the US opposition race is a shambles …
The Republican presidential primaries – shortly to determine who will be the finalist to face off, and likely lose, against Barack Obama next November – has been a particularly base spectacle. …
Incessant pleas to the party’s ostensibly more respectable conservatives to enter the race have been repeatedly rebuffed. Now, only Romney remains viable. Republican voters are thus slowly resigning themselves to march-ing behind a vacant, supremely malleable technocrat whom they plainly detest. …
Because Obama has governed as a centrist Republican, these GOP candidates are able to attack him as a leftist radical only by moving so far to the right in their rhetoric and policy prescriptions that they fall over the cliff of mainstream acceptability, or even basic sanity.

I come to the same conclusion, again: Two Parties = Too Few Choices.

( Photo via ThinkProgress )

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

AP Report: Occupy Declared ‘Sexy’

By Taylor Marsh on 25 December 2011

Eat your heart out, Tea Party Republicans.

Occupy just landed a most coveted endorsement, and it’s not just the Smithsonian and the New-York Historical Society.

When people consider a political movement “sexy” or “hip,” with more and more people wanting to be associated with it, as the AP reports, it’s a milestone. It’s the biggest present you can give an an uprising, to not only deem it worthy of recording and popular, but to have coverage that exalts instead of deride.

‘Occupy is sexy’
More than a half-dozen major museums and organizations from the Smithsonian Institution to the New-York Historical Society have been avidly collecting materials produced by the Occupy movement.
Staffers have been sent to occupied parks to rummage for buttons, signs, posters and documents. Websites and tweets have been archived for digital eternity. And museums have approached individual protesters directly to obtain posters and other ephemera. …
“Occupy is sexy,” said Ben Alexander, who is head of special collections and archives at Queens College in New York, which has been collecting Occupy materials. “It sounds hip. A lot of people want to be associated with it.”

Sure, the Tea Party is also part of history. However, they were never considered “hip” at the start and aren’t today. Ron Paul’s candidacy is an exception, but then he was the original Tea Party man, long before it was co-opted by the Koch Bros. and other GOP big money whales. One drawback remains that they stayed attached to a political party, which now seems almost outdated, old-fashion, even rigid. It’s a challenge to Paul if he wins Iowa, but then finds no outlet to win the GOP nomination.

Digital organizing done by Occupy has made the difference. So far, according to the AP, Robert W. Woodruff Library at Emory University has “harvested 5 million tweets from more than 600,000 unique Twitter users.”

First it was TIME magazine making the protester their “person of the year” for 2011. The digital age aiding the Arab Spring, then Occupy. Big new-media sites and traditional journo outfits forced online to stay relevant are helping spread protest news online, resulting in a contagion of information and energy exploding around our country and the world.

But what does Occupy say about America today?

Occupy has adamantly and openly been fighting against being associated with either political party. It’s one reason for its allure. The freedom and independence being demanded is refreshing.

We’re overdue for a political realignment, not just a political party shake-up inside the establishment, as the Tea Party continues to provide, though awkwardly. It must come from outside the big two corporate parties.

Fifty years after the ’60s, the protest years candidate Barack Obama derided when running for the presidency, the ground is shifting, this time away from political parties. Even though they still hold the power, people have begun dropping out and signing up as independent in droves.

The Tea Party has waned, except as a punchline or a curse. Occupy and the independence it represents is in.

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

“Surrendering to plutocracy is not an option”

By Joyce Arnold on 16 December 2011

Joyce L. Arnold, Liberally Independent, Queer Talk, equality activist, writer.

Two Corporate Parties. Corporate Nation. Duopoly. Plutocracy. 1% and 99%. Wall Street. The Two Party Front for the Oligarchy. All point to the same general challenge: how to keep those at the very top – financially, and so in terms of political elections and governance – from using our nation as their private playground. It’s not a new battle, but a long-running, ongoing one. I see no reason to think the need to keep fighting will disappear, nor do I see the fight to be any easier, but also no less winnable, today than in the past. “Winnable,” of course, in the sense of the current round, not the final score. Lots of people are thinking and talking and writing about this general topic. Below are some of those thoughts. I’d love to read yours in the Comments.

John R. MacArthur, publisher of Harper’s Magazine, offers President Obama Richly Deserves To Be Dumped:

As evidence of a failed Obama presidency accumulates, criticism of his administration is mounting from liberal Democrats who have too much moral authority to be ignored.
Most prominent among these critics is veteran journalist Bill Moyers, whose October address to a Public Citizen gathering puts the lie to our barely Democratic president’s populist pantomime, acted out last week in a Kansas speech decrying the plight of ‘innocent, hardworking Americans.’ In his talk, Moyers quoted an authentic Kansas populist, Mary Elizabeth Lease, who in 1890 declared, ‘Wall Street owns the country…. Money rules…. The [political] parties lie to us and the political speakers mislead us.’

Not a new situation, or new fight – “Wall Street” and its relationship with our political parties, and the Electeds of the same, didn’t just emerge as a threat to “innocent, hardworking Americans.” And what MacArthur goes on to write about Obama certainly isn’t a new description of various occupants of the WH.

By now it should be obvious that the system, and the Democratic Party, run Obama, not the other way around. Under this arrangement, the president carries out his duties as pre-eminent party functionary—fundraising being at the top of his list of responsibilities—and defers on legislation … .

In a foreward to Jeffrey Clements’ Corporations Are Not People, Bill Moyers writes Why ‘We The People’ Must Triumph Over Corporate Power:

Rarely have so few imposed such damage on so many. When five conservative members of the Supreme Court handed for-profit corporations the right to secretly flood political campaigns with tidal waves of cash on the eve of an election, they moved America closer to outright plutocracy, where political power derived from wealth is devoted to the protection of wealth. …
Citizens United is but the latest battle in the class war waged for thirty years from the top down by the corporate and political right. Instead of creating a fair and level playing field for all, government would become the agent of the powerful and privileged. …
America has a long record of conflict with corporations. Wealth acquired under capitalism is in and of itself no enemy to democracy, but wealth armed with political power … is a proven danger to the ‘general welfare’ … .

I do question the focus on the “political right,” without acknowledgement of the complicity of the “political left.” Whatever, it’s not a new battle, Moyers writes, and if the “class war” isn’t confronted, we can say

‘farewell to … fair play …, to representative government …
Unless ‘We, the People’ – flesh-and-blood humans, outraged at the selling off of our government – fight back.
It’s been done before.

Moyers provides some examples of what “we the people” have done.

… if the generations before us had given up, slaves would be waiting on our tables and picking our crops, women would be turned back at the voting booths, and it would be a crime for workers to organize. Like our forebears, we will not fix the broken promise of America … if we throw in the proverbial towel. Surrendering to plutocracy is not an option.

Perhaps that all sounds a bit, I don’t know, corny? Obvious? Old news? It also sounds very current, with millions of people experiencing the concrete, real life consequences that come with the “selling off of our government.” Two parties, swapping out “majorities” and White House appearances, both answering to the same handful at the top, aren’t sufficient to meet the needs of “we the people.” At least that’s my perspective.

( Photo via ThinkProgress )

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Who defines the rights of activists?

By Joyce Arnold on 09 December 2011

Joyce L. Arnold, Liberally Independent, Queer Talk, equality activist, writer.

In the Occupy pieces I’ve been posting, the general topic of activism has come up several times, and since civil disobedience and activism are obviously related to our political system, and so to this Two Parties, Too Few Choices series, I decided to spend some time on that here.

Over the last decade or so, activism in the U.S. has usually meant a one day, few hours event, maybe a march and a rally. Then everyone went home. Most of these “permit actions” have been done within the very carefully defined spaces and timeframes imposed by authorities.

And of course, the “virtual” activism of online petitions and texts and tweets and even old fashion emails, have played a huge role in informing and growing the numbers aware of, if not actually involved in, various actions.

But historically, and practically, activism that results in change isn’t going to look like the kettled and contained “protests” which became the norm, until fairly recently.

Wisconsin was a reminder – activism requires taking steps that inconvenience or disturb some people, sometimes people who agree with you, or who have no direct way to do anything about the issue you’re protesting. That’s not a minor consideration.

Some government workers in Wisconsin were no doubt very inconvenienced. But if activism is so contained and restricted that it causes little to no concern, it isn’t likely to have much effect, either. Let’s face it, playing within the rules of permitted protests and marches; writing letters to your congress/corporate people, visiting them in person, even voting – all of that can be helpful, but if the Electeds and Elites see no threat to their very comfortable status quo, why do we think they’ll respond? And if the public in general notices a march to city hall, they’re likely to forget it before all the activists even get home.

So, where do you draw the lines in activism? Many, probably most of us, draw one very firm line in insistence on non-violence. But beyond that fundamental, what is “too much”?
The people who sat down at lunch counters and refused to move until they were served, or were arrested, interrupted a legitimate business, kept some customers from eating. People who marched on the roads and streets could have created problems for others just trying to go buy groceries or get to work or whatever. Protests against the Vietnam war took up all kinds of city and state resources, disrupted streets and campuses. Sit-ins in lobbies or university offices made doing business in a normal way difficult if not impossible.

The marches and rallies in DC alone have required significant amounts of resources. Just a few: The Peoples Campaign, including several thousand building and camping in “Resurrection City”; the March for Life; Tractorcade; Rolling Thunder; Million Man March; March for Women’s Lives; March on Washington for LGB rights (unfortunately, while transgender persons were there, they weren’t included in the official list); protests against the Iraq War; Taxpayer March on Washington; Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear. Everyone of these, and many more, cost DC time and money, and probably disrupted plans of visitors.

It doesn’t mean an “anything goes” policy should prevail. But a look at our history reveals the necessity and the power of people speaking out, and walking out, toward forcing government and media and society to look, really look, at injustices.

The majority of people will never directly engage in “activism,” not the “take to the streets” kind. And that’s fine. Clearly the growing possibilities of “virtual activism” engage a lot more people, and that’s good, too. Others will be active, at some level, in the two dominant party political system, in “third parties,” even if just in voting. Another good thing.

Of course, all of this is my perspective, and certainly not one with which I expect everyone to agree. I do think, though, that it’s an important topic, not just as related to Occupy, but as one component of challenging the Two Party Front for the Oligarchy.

I want to conclude with one example of activism, and attempts to restrict it, coming out of Wisconsin. Thanks to Taylor for this one, via Job Party:

Standoff Coming in Wisconsin Against Restrictions to Protest at Capitol
… Jason Stein at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel lays out the specifics on what is going on in terms of (Gov.) Walker’s attempt to hold protesters financially liable and compel them to apply for permits for any demonstrations of four or more 72 hours in advance. …
… why would Walker go with this move, and why now? So far, what I’ve been hearing from Madison blogger Bluecheddar and local #occupy organizers Jenna Pope and Bill Fetty is that the specifics behind the re-strictions are being taken as a direct response to the ‘Solidarity Sing Along’, which has gotten under Walker’s skin … .
The sing alongs began at the State Capitol in Madison on March 11, 2011, and one has been held at the Capitol every week-day at noon since. …
… I’ve been assured that every day since the mass protests started dying down there has been an average of 50-100 Wisconsinites who go back to the site of the occupation to use song in a continuous action against Gov-ernor Walker. …
‘The Wisconsin Department of Administration has announced a new policy that would require demon-strations inside the Capitol of four or more people to request permits of the state 72 hours in advance, and could require protest groups to reimburse the state for the cost of policing them, at a cost of $50 per officer per hour.’
… Monday, December 19th will be the first day the Solidarity Sing-Along will be subject to the new policy. …

One protest, demonstration, rally, march, occupation, sing-along; one online petition; one congressperson letter or visit; one campaign volunteering; one vote at a time.

( Photo via ThinkProgress )

Read full story · Comments { 14 }

Desperation Inside the 99%

By Taylor Marsh on 07 December 2011

A woman in the border city of Laredo, Texas who was angry because she had been denied food stamps killed herself and shot and critically wounded her two children late on Monday, authorities said on Tuesday. – Reuters

Yesterday on Sean Hannity’s radio show, he made a startling statement about the poor that revealed the right wing’s economic philosophy today: Even the poor live well in America. Hannity went on from there to talk about the poor having microwaves, air conditioning and on and on. Few people are more clueless.

It’s why I offer Newt Gingrich’s rip off of Reagan’s “Morning in America” campaign ad, which is the perfect example of the right’s disconnect with the 99%.

It is a rare day when Al Sharpton emerges as the voice of sagacity, but when Newt Gingrich has the microphone, all things are possible. – Kathleen Parker

I sure did call Pres. Obama’s speech yesterday, but at least he gives great lip service to what’s going on with the 99%.

If Pres. Obama’s leadership resembled his speech in Osawatomie, Kansas in any way at all he wouldn’t be at 41% approval in the polls.

The anger and desperation some people inside the 99% feel today has been witnessed in Occupy Wall Street in many cities. People not in this position often do not understand or even empathize with people’s deep frustration today, which can lead to desperate acts.

It’s part of the divide in this country and why many Americans looking at Democrats and Republicans don’t feel compelled to support either, but also are not enthused about 2012. People are asking, Does it really matter to Americans who is elected from the big two parties?

Both big parties have proven they don’t understand what’s going on outside their own entitled, corporate and Wall Street backed bubbles. It makes people even more desperate in the current economic times.

This post has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

Newt I Love Me Gingrich Suckers Iowa Evangelicals

By Taylor Marsh on 04 December 2011

Gingrich has support from 25 percent of likely Republican caucusgoers, Paul is at 18 percent and Romney at 16 percent. – Iowa Caucuses

"If you were me, you'd have a big head, too."

OMG. OMG! OMG!!

So let me get this straight.

Flim flam artist, convenient conservative, serial philanderer and cheater, a man who ditches wives when they’re sick with cancer or MS, who’s a Freddie Mac sponge, K-Street addressee businessman with a loybbist’s touch, has won the hearts of enough Iowa evangelical Christians to now lead the pack.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHa…(breathe)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHa.

These people also actually believe that Newt Gingrich is a more righteous conservative than Ron Paul?

They also believe that Mitt Romney, who has a perfect family history, along with the perfect picture to boot, to go along with his “beet red… stubborn… thin-skinned” persona, isn’t good enough for Iowans, because he doesn’t call Pres. Obama a socialist, a Marxist, though he surely deserves points for not sitting on a cough in a green energy commercial paid for by Al Gore, doesn’t he?

Not in Iowa, where voters are content to stick their heads in the political sand until Mr. Gingrich smothers them with his legendary hypocrisy, because of their laughable gullibility.

Republican Party primary voters are rubes, especially in Iowa, a state that doesn’t deserve one-quarter of the attention it gets every presidential election cycle.

Hey, but considering I’m rooting for at least one serious independent challenger to the big two corrupt parties and their bought off Wall Street, insider candidates, Newt’s just the ticket to put a jet engine under that possibility.

Has anyone explained to Iowas, as well as Floridians and South Carolinians that there’s just no way Newt Gingrich can win the general election against Barack Obama? On second thought, it’s pretty frightening that would require explanation.

But if by some long shot of long shots, Newt I-love-me-I-really-really-love-me Gingrich pulls this nomination gambit off, you can bet more candidates will jump to challenge him outside the Republican and Democratic parties, because Obama vs. Gingrich would be even more depressing than Obama vs. Romney.

The 99% don’t want either of these men to run the country, because we all deserve better, this country deserves better.

Throwing a dart a candidate board with Rocky, Buddy, or a guy named Jon and a player to be named later would be far more satisfying than casting a ballot for either man, neither of whom actually offer a choice or will make a difference at all if they win. They’re flip sides of the same coin that leads us all to the same dead option end.

Read full story · Comments { 13 }

“Radical reform will originate only from ordinary citizens” – Greider

By Joyce Arnold on 02 December 2011

Joyce L. Arnold, Liberally Independent, Queer Talk, equality activist, writer.

In this Two Parties, Too Few Options series post, thoughts from a couple of people about where our political system is today, then another look at Americans Elect, which I’ve mentioned before.

First, William Greider, at The Nation:

Regular politics in Washington now resembles an ecological dead zone where truth perishes in a polluted environment. Democrats and Republicans shadowbox over their concocted fiscal crisis, neither willing to tell voters the truth, both eager to avoid blame for the damage they are doing to the country.
Out in the streets, meanwhile, the contrast with brain-dead politics is exhilarating. In Occupy Wall Street, we are witnessing a rare event—the birth of a social movement. …
… radical reform will originate only from ordinary citizens—not policy experts and their Wall Street supporters, who led the nation into ruin. The movement can inspire the people to become creative citizens again. Are we up to it? Let us find out. Let the democratic conversations begin.

A second voice already in the conversation is that of Don Smith, at OpEdNews:

On Occupying the Democratic Party
… There are many progressive Dems, and the populace support many progressive policies. But so far neither conditions nor the grassroots Dems have forced the Democratic leadership to stop selling out, while the GOP has become even more conservative and more uncompromising.
But reforming the Democratic Party will still be easier than starting a viable third party. …
As Randi Rhodes said on air: ‘Who’s more powerful? One voter? Or 3000 non-voting protesters?’
One can also ask: ‘Who’s more powerful? One thousand people who belong to a non-viable third-party (or advocacy group)? Or one person who works to elect progressive party leaders in the Democratic Party?’

Good arguments can be made that “reforming the Democratic Party will … be easier than starting a viable third party.” But equally as good arguments can be made that 1) it isn’t just the Democratic Party which must be reformed, but the Two Party Corporate System. And 2) given the years over which the Democratic Party has consistently moved to the Right and during which corporate influence has overtaken both parties, how much “easier” would it be, really, for reform to take place? How do you get out of the cycle of flipping between Republican and Democratic “majorities” and WH occupants, by working within the system that the Duopoly controls and maintains? Is it really “easier” to reform this entrenched system, than to build a “viable third party”? Maybe, but maybe not. Neither will be easy. And in either case, from my perspective, it’s going to require efforts from within and from without of the Democratic Party, or more realistically, the Two Party System.

Okay, that’s me, and no surprise to anyone who’s read more than a sentence or two I’ve written. Now to another quick look at Americans Elect, which continues to get attention as it makes gains in getting on state ballots. I’ll acknowledge a good deal of skepticism about AE, in large part because of how it’s organized. From an early November NPR report, Nonprofit Seeks To Be New Political Force, Peter Overby identifies “Wall Street investor and philanthropist Peter Ackerman” as the chairman of AE.

Unlike the regular political parties, Americans Elect has no contribution limits for donors, and there’s no disclosure. Several months ago, it changed itself from a political committee to a ‘social welfare organization’ under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code. …
Americans Elect says it has more than 3,000 donors. About a dozen have given at least $100,000 dollars. But only one is identified: Ackerman, the chairman, has put in $5 million.

There’s also this concern, which I saw at several places. Here, via Third Party Politics:

According to this story in the July 31 Christian Science Monitor, Elliot Ackerman, chief operating officer for Americans Elect, recently told the press that the group’s Candidate Certification Committee will ‘make sure we have candidates who bridge the center of American public opinion.’ This is the first indication that Americans Elect will filter candidates for its presidential nomination based on their ideas.

You can read about goals and process, and should you wish, sign up, at Americans Elect.

To learn more about specific candidates, go here. Among other things, you can check out the “Top National Matches,” the “Public figures whose views most closely match a national survey by Ipsos Public Affairs on priorities and answers to the core questions.”

The top five of the “national match”: Buddy Roemer (R), 74%; Dennis Ross (R), 74%; Trey Gowdy (R), 74%; Allen West (R), 73%; Ron Paul (R), 71%.

You can “track” candidates – and there’s a very long list – of your choice. With their “national match” ranking, the “most tracked”: Ron Paul (R) 71% (3,208); Barack Obama (D) 67% (1, 935); John Huntsman (R) 67 % (1,838); Buddy Romer (R) 74% (1069); Gary Johnson (R) 71% (849); Bernie Sanders (I) 64% (816); Al Franken (D) 69% (570); Dennis Kucinich (D) 62% (516); Mitt Romney (R) 58% (412); Newt Gingrich (R) 59% (408). Skipping further down, to look at other Republican wannabe’s, Herman Cain (R) 51% (329); Rick Perry (R) 50% (145); Rick Santorum 45% (45).

I’m sure I’m not the only one who notices that the top five “Matches” all identify as Republican. Which probably isn’t surprising, given the Rightward move of the nation. Nor am I the only one who wonders about the fact that an online only system leaves out a lot of people.

I have no idea how closely the “views” used in the “matching” reflect the thinking of anyone but the people who participated, and I certainly don’t know the “ultimate” goals of Ackerman and others. How much influence Americans Elect will ultimately have remains to be seen, of course. After some strong hinting, “Top Match” Buddy Roemer has announced he’s running for the AE spot, so we’ll see how that plays out in an online only process.

( Photo via ThinkProgress )

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

The 2012 Free-for-all Begins

By Taylor Marsh on 01 December 2011

Kristen Long - Politico

Pres. Obama’s approval ratings show he’s the most vulnerable incumbent president in modern times. But you’ll excuse me if I demur on any prospects of Republicans taking Pennsylvania, which never happens in presidential elections. However, a new element in the mix is finally floating to the top and that’s the real appearance of outsider candidates that could put the 2012 race into a 1912 Bull Moose or 1948 Strom-Dixiecrat – Wallace-Progressive Party free-for-all territory.

Rocky Anderson is reportedly starting a third party:

Disgusted with what he calls the corrupting influence of corporate money and militarism in politics, former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson is launching a new national political party and will likely be its presidential nominee.
“The end game is changing public policy in the interest of the people of this country. It’s changing our government,” Anderson said. “This is about taking on the two corporatist, militarist parties and in the process bringing the people of this country together so they can see that their interests, by and large, are really aligned.”
Anderson said he will likely be a candidate for the presidential nomination for the new party — which is yet to be named. He said the formation of the party will be announced next week “and shortly thereafter, I’ll be announcing my candidacy.” He has already started filling out paperwork for a presidential exploratory committee. [read more]

Buddy Roemer will also seek the Americans Elect nomination:

Manchester, NH- Today I officially announce that I will seek the Americans Elect nomination as a proud Republican but as an even prouder American. Our country is on the wrong track and Americans are in search of real leadership. Leadership that isn’t predetermined by lobbyists, political parties, or Wall Street executives, but leadership that is free to do what is right for the citizens of our great nation.

Jon Huntsman is being coy about possibly running as an independent, which was seen earlier this week in a Boston Globe interview, though I remain very skeptical he will. However, keeping his Republican powder dry for another run in 2016 seems foolish, because even though you can’t predict politics 3 months out let alone four years, the big guns that didn’t run this time, people like Chris Christie, will come in with a lot of support from the start.

The one thing missing from this outsider push for the presidency is a woman. There remains a conventional streak among female politicians, likely because our American system of power is tilted decidedly toward men, that makes a woman’s entry into this independent fray not only unlikely, but non-existent.

It’s one reason why I tip my hat to Conservatives4Palin, who raised the paltry sum required to run an ad in Sioux City, Iowa, encouraging their candidate to “Run, Sarah, Run.”

The Sarah Palin in the ad below is trying to reclaim where she began in Alaska, as an outsider standing up against crony capitalism, which is where she made her last mark this past Labor Day in her last big speech. Having been chewed up and spit out by the Republican Party boys’ club machine, even if her historic vice presidential candidacy put her on the map, which I talk about in my book The Hillary Effect. Sarah Palin is certainly no worse than Newt.

That may not sound like much, but in the current Republican circus, Newt has become the latest frontrunner standard.

Read full story · Comments { 10 }

Corporate party opportunism

By Joyce Arnold on 25 November 2011

Joyce L. Arnold, Liberally Independent, Queer Talk, equality activist, writer.

One indication of the “stuckness” of our Two Corporate Party System is the predictable efforts to use and/or co-opt trends or successes originating outside the strictly bipartisan fealty to the oligarchy; that fundamental allegiance to that one, or five or ten or whatever percent on top. When co-opting isn’t an option, because the efforts getting attention don’t fit your ideology or party platform, then, of course, you still do your damndest to force it into your comfort system by insisting it’s just a front for the other party, whose role includes playing as your “opposition.”

The Occupy movement has said, via General Assemblies in various locations, “we aren’t Democratic or Republican.” But that hasn’t stopped Democrats from claiming – when it’s convenient – that they’re the champions of the Occupiers. Nor has it stopped Republicans from claiming – usually whether it’s convenient or not – that the Occupiers are basically the enemy of everything a real American holds dear. I can see no reason to think or hope or believe that either Republican or Democratic Party will voluntarily change a system that rewards them so well.

At TruthOut, Sari writes:

I’m on a number of email lists across the activist spectrum, and have noticed an increasing tendency toward what might be termed ‘ideological opportunism’ on the part of some sectors that ostensibly stand in support of the Occupy Movement.

You don’t have to look very far or very hard to see what she’s talking about. Of course, the “opportunism” isn’t new, but the Occupy Movement is providing all kinds of openings.

I know we say things like this all the time, but here’s something that I really do think is of the “must read” category. I’ll freely acknowledge that one reason I so strongly suggest you read this is because Glenn Greenwald is saying a lot of what I’ve been saying, along with a lot of other people. But he lays it out very nicely: “Here’s What Attempted Co-Option of OWS Looks Like,” via OpEdNews:

The 2012 election is almost a full year away and nobody knows who is running against President Obama, but that didn’t stop Mary Kay Henry, the D.C.-based National President of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), from announcing last week that her organization endorses President Obama for re-election. That’s not surprising … but what was notable here was how brazenly Henry exploited the language of the Occupy movement to justify her endorsement of the Democratic Party leader: ‘We need a leader willing to fight for the needs of the 99 percent.’ …
A coalition of labor and progressive groups is about to unveil … ‘Occupy Congress.’
The coalition — which includes unions like SEIU and CWA and groups like the Center for Community Change — is currently working on a plan to bus thousands of protesters from across the country to Washing-ton, where they will congregate around the Capitol from December 5-9. …
One goal of the protests, Henry says, is to pressure Republicans to support Obama’s jobs creation proposals. …
Having SEIU officials — fresh off endorsing the Obama re-election campaign — shape, fund, dictate and decree an anti-GOP, pro-Obama march is about as antithetical as one can imagine to what the Occupy movement has been. And pretending that the ongoing protests are grounded in the belief that the GOP is the party of the rich while the Democrats are the party of the working class is likely to fool just about nobody other than those fooled by that already.

Or, if not “fooled,” then willing to play along. A few weeks ago, Greenwald recalls, he had written that

… WH-aligned groups such as the Center for American Progress have made explicitly clear that they are going to try to convert OWS into a vote-producing arm for the Obama 2012 campaign, and that’s what ‘Occupy Congress’ is designed to achieve.

With Greenwald, and many others, I don’t think those efforts will be successful. OWS isn’t focused on maintaining the Democratic Party. But if I, and others, are wrong about that; if, in fact, Occupy the Movement could be co-opted … then what would that say about our self-motivated, self-perpetuating, self-indulgent Duopoly? Occupy is the most significant challenge to “the System” that we’ve seen since the famous, or infamous, depending on one’s viewpoint, “60s.” This is a “if not now, when?” kind of moment. Greenwald continues:

I disagree with the prevailing wisdom that OWS should begin formulating specific legislative demands and working to elect specific candidates. I have no doubt that many OWS protesters will ultimately vote and even work for certain candidates — and that makes sense — but the U.S. desperately needs a citizen movement devoted to working outside of political and legal institutions and that is designed to be a place of dissent against it. …
When both parties are captive to the same factions, then … one can’t subvert the agenda of those fac-tions simply by voting for one party or the other.

Finally, in the “You know things must be really bad when” department, via Americans Elect:

With the supercommittee a super failure, David Brooks breaks down the current state of our two-party system. …
‘The Democrat and Republican parties used to contain serious internal debates … . Neither party does now . . . Independent voters are trapped in a cycle of sour rejectionism — voting against whichever of the two options they dislike most at the moment. …’
Brooks concludes with a sentiment that seems to be growing among voters across the country and the political spectrum: ‘It’s hard to see how we get out of this, unless some third force emerges . . .’

I’m actually agreeing with something David Brooks writes. I tend to think, however, that the “third force” has been emerging for quite some time, and is now present in the Occupy Movement.

( Corporate Flag photo via ThinkProgress)

Read full story · Comments { 13 }

Ann Coulter Endorses Mitt Romney

By Taylor Marsh on 17 November 2011

Alternate headline: Hell Freezes! Ann Coulter Makes Sense.

I couldn’t resist Ms. Coulter’s latest column on Townhall, mainly because it actually makes the perfect case for Romney, especially when she mentions the suburban women’s vote.

However, it’s her take down of Newt that is so delicious.

So now, apparently, we have to go through the cycle of the media pushing Newt Gingrich. This is going to be fantastic.
In addition to having an affair in the middle of Clinton’s impeachment; apologizing to Jesse Jackson on behalf of J.C. Watts — one of two black Republicans then in Congress –- for having criticized “poverty pimps,” and then inviting Jackson to a State of the Union address; cutting a global warming commercial with Nancy Pelosi; supporting George Soros’ candidate Dede Scozzafava in a congressional special election; appearing in public with the Rev. Al Sharpton to promote nonspecific education reform; and calling Paul Ryan’s plan to save Social Security “right-wing social engineering,” we found out this week that Gingrich was a recipient of Freddie Mac political money.

This scathing indictment comes the same day Gingrich tops Romney in the latest Rasmussen poll 32% to 19%, with Cain coming in at 13%. I guess Dennis Miller’s endorsement of Herman didn’t change any minds. Meanwhile, Rick Perry has crashed and burned.

Coulter continues:

The mainstream media keep pushing alternatives to Mitt Romney not only because they are terrified of running against him, but also because they want to keep Republicans fighting, allowing Democrats to get a four-month jump on us.
Meanwhile, everyone knows the nominee is going to be Romney.
That’s not so bad if you think the most important issues in this election are defeating Obama and repealing Obamacare.
There may be better ways to stop Obamacare than Romney, but, unfortunately, they’re not available right now. (And, by the way, where were you conservative purists when Republicans were nominating Waterboarding-Is-Torture-Jerry-Falwell-Is-an-Agent-of-Intolerance-My-Good-Friend-Teddy-Kennedy-Amnesty-for-Illegals John McCain-Feingold for president?)
Among Romney’s positives is the fact that he has a demonstrated ability to trick liberals into voting for him. He was elected governor of Massachusetts — one of the most liberal states in the union — by appealing to Democrats, independents and suburban women.

All Mitt Romney has to do now is convince the 99% he’s got better answers than Pres. Obama on the economy. Considering the wrong track numbers Obama’s dealing with today it’s my belief that even with Romney’s negatives, the American people will give him a chance.

In fact, against Pres. Obama there really isn’t a better Republican nominee to take him on. These guys are bookends of Democratic and Republicanism, representing the two establishment, corporate and Wall Street fueled political parties, each with their own flips and flops and marketing that doesn’t match the man.

Looking at both candidates the objective question remains Is this the best we’ve got?

Read full story · Comments { 13 }

2012, and looking for love in all the wrong Two Party places

By Joyce Arnold on 11 November 2011

Joyce L. Arnold, Liberally Independent, Queer Talk, equality activist, writer.

The Occupy movement certainly played a role in recent elections, though the widespread unrest and unhappiness were obviously present long before September 17. But Occupy is providing cover for Democrats to at least shift an inch or two to the left, though only while keeping the other foot firmly planted to the Right, and for many of them, only from the starting point of a Center that’s further Right than Reagan. While I’m very happy that there were some clear wins for progressives – in Maine, Ohio, and Arizona, for example – and the people who made those wins happen deserve much credit, I wonder. Is this just the latest round of our national pattern of flipping back and forth between the Two Parties game?

The Occupy movement, and the insistence that this isn’t about the electoral politics of Democratic and Republican parties, is helping make public the same conversations that have been occurring for decades. I began this series by saying that Two Parties = Too Few Choices. As long as our options are limited to the system of two choices, with both of those choices owned by those at the top of an increasingly unequal distribution of wealth, we’re stuck. Like Occupiers and like-minded people across the nation, we need to make more choices possible, because what we’ve been doing isn’t working for most of us.

I came across an essay by Paul K. Chappel, at Waging Peace. This part is particu-larly relevant.

As a child I was taught that voting was the be-all and end-all of citizenship, and if I showed up to the polls to vote I was fulfilling my civic duty. But the women’s and civil rights movements created dramatic change, even though many of its participants had little to no voting rights. Voting is just one tool in the democratic toolbox, and we can’t build a house with just a hammer. Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King Jr. used many democratic methods such as protests, petitions, boycotts, pressuring the legal system, and changing people’s attitudes for the better. Historian Howard Zinn said: ‘Democracy doesn’t come from the top. It comes from the bottom. Democracy is not what governments do. It’s what people do.’

We’re at a moment when more people seem to be thinking that way, and doing it out loud and in public. At WSJ, Jonathan Weisman writes, “Poll Finds Voters Deeply Torn.”

A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll has found an electorate that is convinced the country’s economic structures favor an affluent elite and is still deeply torn as to whether President Barack Obama or any of his leading Republican rivals can pull the nation out of decline….
The poll detailed a broader factor likely to color the contest: The electorate is angry and disaffected. Half of voters now identify either with the tea-party or Occupy Wall Street movements. Fifty-four percent see the economic troubles as the start of a long-term national decline, not a tough period the U.S. will get through. …
The coming election is ‘not about hope over the horizon but the grim reality of keeping your chin above water,’ Mr. Hart (Democrat and co-director of the poll) said. …
Alex Castellanos, a Romney adviser during his 2008 campaign, said Mr. Romney’s dispassionate promise to look under the hood and fix the economy isn’t exciting angry voters looking for a more passionate voice to challenge Washington.

Why would anyone think Romney, or any other WH hopeful, would “challenge Washington”?

The anger and fear aren’t new, but as Kathy Miriam writes at Occupy Patriarchy:

In 2008, when the nation began to crash, we did not rush to the streets when Obama appointed for fixing the crisis the same miscreants culpable for creating it. Nor did we riot upon word that while record numbers of people were plunged into joblessness, homelessness, and health crises, corporations were making record rates of profits. …
And there was no revolt among people of color despite the fact that for these communities recession is depression and even ‘economic holocaust.’ Nor did women surge into the streets when sold out by the State’s sudden bequeathing of decision-making power over health-care to Catholic bishops during the non-debates over Obama-care, thus ensuring an outcome that made hash out of reproductive justice for women. …
Through (Occupy’s) … action, the movement has re-directed resentment outwards from the self to the real cause of wide-shared suffering, namely a System that stops short of nothing in its predatory imperatives to feed on any living substance … for its means of extracting surplus value (profit). …
Once teeming with the spirit of rebellion, for decades now (with some exceptions) The Street has been under lock-down, zoned by police-escorted, permit-ted arenas of civilized obedience.

Occupy, the movement, has challenged the permit only expression of speech, and in a very literal sense, taken back The Street. In so doing, it’s taking steps toward breaking the Two Party Front for the Oligarchy.

Thomas Ferguson writes “How to Take Back Our Political System From the 1%” at AlterNet:

… the corruption of our regulatory institutions really reflects the workings of economic inequality in the government as a whole. At some point – and we’re past it – economic inequality begins to shade into political tyranny. … There is no substitute for a popular movement if you want to keep democracy.

I don’t think we’re going to find a way to “keep democracy,” to find the choices we need to meet the realities created by and for those The System serves if we continue looking to Two Puppet Parties (see the photo), hoping to find a candidate we can love and be passionate about. We need more choices. And probably we need to get over looking for a candidate to fall in love with.

( Corporate Flag photo via ThinkProgress.

Two Party Puppet Show photo via People’s Library)

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

REPORT: Wall Street Firms Earned More in Obama’s First Term than in 8 Years of Bush

By Taylor Marsh on 07 November 2011

The president, however, has not shunned Wall Street. He has courted financial executives for campaign donations, including inviting them to a campaign gathering at the White House. He has attracted more money for his campaign and for the Democratic National Committee from financial firm employees than all of the GOP candidates combined — a total of $15.6 million. – Wall Street’s resurgent prosperity frustrates its claims, and Obama’s

From the Washington Post:

The largest banks are larger than they were when Obama took office and are nearing the level of profits they were making before the depths of the financial crisis in 2008, according to government data.
Wall Street firms — independent companies and the securities-trading arms of banks — are doing even better. They earned more in the first 2 1/2 years of the Obama administration than they did during the eight years of the George W. Bush administration, industry data show.

Like George W. Bush, Pres. Obama has failed to inspire financial institutions to increase lending to “prime borrowers.” More:

A recent study by two professors at the University of Michigan found that banks did not significantly increase lending after being bailed out. Rather, they used taxpayer money, in part, to invest in risky securities that profited from short-term price movements. The study found that bailed-out banks increased their investment returns by nearly 10 percent as a result.
“If the goal was to support lending, it would have been sensible to require a portion of the money to support credit origination,” said Ran Duchin, one of the finance professors who completed the study. “Lending to prime consumers was not the most profitable use of their capital.”

The bigger the bank, the more money they make for themselves.

Profits have also rebounded. The largest banks, including Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Fargo, earned $34 billion in profit in the first half of the year, nearly matching what they earned in the same period in 2007 and more than in the same period of any other year. – Wall Street’s resurgent prosperity frustrates its claims, and Obama’s

This concludes yet another chapter in the Barack Obama marketing and myth story versus reality, brought to you by your hostess, the recovering partisan.

The party’s over, baby.

Read full story · Comments { 23 }

1 2 Next »

TAYLOR MUST READS

Lanny Davis Joins Booker and other Democrats Slamming Obama Bain Ads Against Romney
The attacks on Newark, N.J., Mayor Cory Booker (D) by the more vitriolic liberal commentators for what he said about [...]
It’s Not News that Romney Can Win
MITT ROMNEY’S LUCKY the Republican primaries unmasked his warts long before anyone started paying attention. Sure America saw the clown [...]
The Choice for Romney is Liz Cheney
Why not the best for President Obama and the Democratic party? And how much more will victory be worth having [...]
Oh Donna, How We Danced
DONNA SUMMER was writing “Love to Love You Baby”; I was Miss Missouri. “Last Dance” came out in 1978, the [...]
Edward Klein’s Jeremiah Wright Interview Goes Wide with Swift-boating Proposal, and Sean Hannity’s Help
“The world is about to see Jeremiah Wright and understand his influence on Barack Obama for the first time in [...]
Trayvon Martin Knuckle Injury: Small Abrasion, 1/4 Inch in Size
DEFENSE HACKS led by “Just One Minute” made a lot of noise on Wednesday, writing Trayvon Martin “showed bloody knuckles,” [...]
Romney’s Bill Clinton Swipe Followed by Whopper Rove Ad
MITT ROMNEY IS betting that tweaking Pres. Obama on Bill Clinton in Iowa will land, while just making stuff up. [...]
Hillary’s Vogue
“I feel so relieved to be at the stage I’m at in my life right now. Because you know if [...]
Republicans Already Lost Hispanics, Now Shoot for Losing Next Generation
“While President Obama has played politics on this issue, the Republican Party and our presumptive nominee Mitt Romney have been [...]
Obama’s Composite Girlfriend Creates Rip van Winkle Awakening
The success of “Dreams” has given Obama nearly complete control of his own life narrative, an appealing tale that has [...]
Ann Romney’s Style
IT’S FABULOUS and she can afford it. When I saw it on CBS “This Morning,” I knew it would catch [...]
Arrogant Amnesia: Obama Gets OBL, Republicans Stuck with ‘Mission Accomplished’ Cod Piece Photo Op
AN INTERVIEW WITH PRESIDENT OBAMA in the Situation Room with Brian Williams on the bin Laden raid has exploded. Sen. [...]
Gritty GIRLS Takes Over
“You could not pay me enough to be 24 again.” – female doctor giving Hannah a pelvic exam Inspired genius. [...]
Beyond Timothy Leary and Valley of the Dolls: Psychedelic Drugs and Healing in the 21st Century
“Rick Doblin has done a lot for the field, but he is more of a populist,” Grob says. “We need [...]
Shrill for the Women’s Vote: Ann Romney and Hilary Rosen Go to War
My Twitter feed was on fire after an appearance last night on CNN’s AC360, where I said that I thought [...]
For Zocalo Public Square: When My Butt Kicked Me, by Taylor Marsh
A Former Dancer Learns to Work Out Again After a Puzzling Injury Beyond politics. A very different type of piece [...]
Erick Erickson Gets the ‘Joe Scarborough Award’
As an added bonus, it was more than a bit ironic to hear Barack Obama call Paul Ryan a social [...]
Mad Men Megan Draper’s Black Pantie Moment
“You’re too old. I don’t need an old person.” – Megan Draper, “Mad Men” Megan Draper’s cutting “old person” line [...]
The Hill: Women are the Real Game Changers, by Taylor Marsh
I wrote a piece for The Hill yesterday. Here’s a snippet: HBO’s “Game Change,” adapted from the blockbuster book by [...]
America is a Woman
**updated** The bishops’ opposition to contraception is not an argument for a “conscience exemption.” It is a way of imposing [...]
Joe Scarborough’s Weird DM Rant Invades My Weekend
*updated below* So much for keep calm and carry on, what Joe Scarborough proclaims to be his motto. It was [...]
The Weekend Pres. Obama Gave Women Their Own Social Security
But the reality of life here is that Mr. Gulbranson and many of his neighbors continue to take as much [...]
Joe Scarborough Compares Obama Contraceptive Mandate to Federal Govt. Mandating Southern Baptist Female Deacons
“… I think women should be deacons as well as men. …But if the federal government, if the Justice Department [...]
Susan G. Komen Puts Romney’s ‘Not Concerned About the Poor’ In Perfect Context
The decision, made in December, caused an uproar inside Komen. Three sources told me that the organization’s top public health [...]
U.S. News & World Report: Time for a Tea Party of the Left, by Taylor Marsh
President Obama takes his base for granted on issues like the Bush tax cuts, Plan B, and the economy - US [...]
Ryan Lizza and The Hillary Effect, Case Proved Beyond Any Doubt
The reason I wrote my book was to tell a piece of history. It was to set the record of [...]
Capitalism Out of the Closet
**UPDATED** Would we be any worse off with Stephen Colbert as president? I doubt it. Politifact has watched the video [...]
UK Guardian Interview 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 Party’s Over
There’s a reason Obama reelect doesn’t have a slogan. All they’ve got is a question: Are you in? Symbolic of [...]
A Word from Amb. Joseph Wilson about The Hillary Effect
“During the primary elections that pitted Hillary Clinton against Barack Obama, Taylor was the leading analyst of, and most articulate [...]
Not Disappointed in Pres. Obama
**Postscript added** President Obama is now neck and neck with a generic Republican challenger in the latest Real Clear Politics [...]
Fan Politics
Despite rising public concern about the federal budget deficit, Americans favor keeping Social Security and Medicare benefits as they are [...]
Money Quote that Would Make Reagan Laugh
“Cantor and Kyl just threw Boehner and McConnell under the bus. This move is an admission that there will be [...]

TM Connect

Political choices people don’t want to make

“Is There a ‘Quick Fix’ for Partisanship?”

Reporters Without Borders lowers U.S. media ranking

The System won’t change by waiting until after the next election

Independents at Record Levels for Good Reason

The Two Party Invitation: Who’s Accepting?

Santorum Surge and Alan Colmes’ Callousness

The 2012 games with the same Too Few Choices

AP Report: Occupy Declared ‘Sexy’

“Surrendering to plutocracy is not an option”

Who defines the rights of activists?

Desperation Inside the 99%

Newt I Love Me Gingrich Suckers Iowa Evangelicals

“Radical reform will originate only from ordinary citizens” – Greider

The 2012 Free-for-all Begins

Corporate party opportunism

Ann Coulter Endorses Mitt Romney

2012, and looking for love in all the wrong Two Party places

REPORT: Wall Street Firms Earned More in Obama’s First Term than in 8 Years of Bush

Follow Taylor on Twitter

TAYLOR MUST READS

New Media