Top Menu

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 this problem is what happened to Elizabeth Warren when her rise was met by Tim Geithner’s foot, and why Ron Suskind’s book Confidence Men made the Administration queasy. It’s seen in Wall Street firms earning more in Pres. Obama’s first years than in both terms of George W. Bush.

Then there’s Obama’s foreign policy, the issue that weighs most for me, which picked up where Bush left off. Pres. Obama and his “serious reservations” didn’t keep him from signing the NDAA, something any conservative Republican president would sign. Indefinite military detention without trial is now the policy of the Obama administration, which is something Mitt Romney would also do. There is no habeas corpus at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. What is called “targeted killing” has actually increased under Pres. Obama, something Glenn Greenwald writes about regularly. As for “secret prisons,” it’s not quite as a bad as Bush, because now people are held for a “short-term, transitory” basis. But Pres. Obama’s surveillance program is identical to his predecessor. Candidate Obama was against the Iraq war, but he had no trouble bombing Libya without congressional oversight or approval, even though it was not of strategic interest to the U.S. or a clear and present danger. We’ve supposedly gotten out of Iraq, but there is a 104 acre embassy, the biggest on planet earth, with support and logistics to match.

It’s also why Pres. Obama showing up in Osawatamie, Kansas to use the Occupy message didn’t fool smarter folks, because if his leadership matched the words he spoke Robert Reich wouldn’t be floating hail Mary posts about switching Biden with Hillary.

What happened with Plan B, however, reveals something else.

As a recovering partisan these days and after watching Pres. Obama’s compromising conservatism, I no longer feel the urgency to support a political party who has threatened dire consequences if I don’t vote for them. Beyond foreign policy, economic, and civil rights issues mentioned above, Pres. Obama has also chosen to short-change women again and again on our freedoms, starting in the health care bill, then by executive order that empowered conservatives of both parties, and finally by making the decision on Plan B that would have come from Mitt Romney, too.

Pres. Obama has helped Democrats deliver a climate that this party has threatened since the ’70s would happen if I didn’t vote for them.

Watching Gloria Steinem and being imprinted politically during this era, while arguing with my boyfriend’s mother about feminism and the E.R.A., with my brother a co-sponsor in the Missouri State Senate, I remember how equal rights and freedoms became important to me. Because of when I grew up and the family I grew up in, politics was part of the destiny I chose, even as I mined my artistry.

For over 30 years, modern feminists like myself have been hearing that we must support Democrats, because if we don’t our freedoms will be on the line yet again. After supporting Democrats since my one vote for Ronald Reagan in 1980, what has finally happened through Pres. Obama is exactly what I was told this political party would guard against. So now, as the 2012 elections approach, Barack Obama and the Democratic Party are once again relying on the theory that because Republicans are worse women like me can be suckered into falling in line one more time.

The latest political move against women of all ages came recently when Pres. Obama decided to put politics over science on Plan B, even though it was conclusively proven safe for women, regardless of age. He said he was squeamish about it as a father. What made it worse is that he hid behind Kathleen Sebelius’s skirt, also saying he had nothing to do with the decision.

This kind of cowardice in a grown man is unattractive; in a president it is unacceptable.

The right applauded, which is as predictable as Pres. Obama positing that it was Sebelius’s decision not his. As usual, our President was simply present.

Leader Pelosi gave Pres. Obama a pass, which considering she sold women out on health care, isn’t surprising.

Rep. Diana DeGette, who’s a member of the laughingly called “Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus,” had this to say:

Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), a member of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus who pushed hard for Plan B to be made available over the counter to women of all ages, said that while she was “disappointed” in Sebelius’ decision, she believed it came from a place of genuine concern for young girls and is still “a work in progress.”

Any Democrat believing there a “progressive pro-choice caucus” still exists is deluding him- or herself. Ms. DeGette and the entire Democratic congressional pack have disgraced themselves, Mrs. Pelosi proving yet again she is not fit to be called “Leader.”

After all, it’s not like Plan B is an abortificient like RU486. All Plan B does is stop pregnancy or implantation. A non-scientific description, this basically means ingesting a pill that makes a female’s uterus inhospitable for fertilization or implantation. A chemical change in the female’s body so a pregnancy cannot begin. It’s not an abortion.

Plan B works like other birth control pills to prevent pregnancy. Plan B acts primarily by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary (ovulation). It may prevent the union of sperm and egg (fertilization). If fertilization does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb (implantation). If a fertilized egg is implanted prior to taking Plan B, Plan B will not work. – FDA

In the era of Obama, when it comes to women’s reproductive health, ignoring science for politics is where we’ve ended up time and time again.

What’s ironic to me is that supporting women’s individual freedoms is really a conservative idea. Conservatives trumpet “don’t tread on me,” freedom, and keeping government out of their lives, so if consistency existed this should also apply to a woman’s rights as an individual. The notion that the government should be able to tell any person what he or she can do with their own body is an anti-conservatism and anti-libertarian notion.

Conservatives who choose to use religion in their politics can certainly choose to be against women’s individual rights, coming down on the side that freedom is just for men. However, they don’t simultaneously get to call themselves a “social conservative,” because a true conservative would rail against abortion rights, but simultaneously have to admit that it isn’t anyone’s right to tell a woman what she can and can’t do with her own body, within limits already set by the Supreme Court.

On the other side, the liberal take on women’s individual privacy is easy to make, especially since we’ve won the right in the courts, so it can be argued as a civil rights issue, which is backed up in the Bill of Rights and confirmed by the Supreme Court through Griswold.

Religion making its way into this argument and the act of governing, compliments of Ronald Reagan and the lie of the “Moral Majority,” is the worst thing that’s happened to our democratic republic in our history. I could ask what’s “moral” about taking rights away from females, but these same people trumpet war, too.

It’s now even considered an extreme position to think women’s individual freedoms are important. On Obama’s conservative Plan B decision, you get replies like “it’s smart politically” or his fans argue from the right using parental rights over individual female freedoms.

Then there’s the reality that most women have more dire issues on their mind, because reproductive health choices are considered by most to be a given. For sexually active young females, poor women and those in rural areas, however, these issues are attached to one another. However, their stories don’t equal the same coverage as the majority of reports about women today.

Women often share the breadwinner role, so their focus is on who is protecting their bottom line.

Recently on MSNBC when they asked voters in Iowa about their choices, a woman said, “I need to take care of my paycheck, that’s why I’m supporting Romney.”

Why should women automatically bet that Pres. Obama will help their bottom line more than Mitt Romney?

Is it enough that the 111th Congress passed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which Pres. Obama signed? Women of all political persuasions need to expect all 21st century politicians to support economic equality. We should also demand that when it’s found out we aren’t being treated equally we have recourse, which is what Ledbetter is all about. Would any other Democratic president not have signed the Ledbetter Act? To laud something so simple as financial equality for the same job done reveals women are expecting way too little from politicians that depend on our support to politically survive.

Obama’s constant chant on reforming entitlements, including changing COLA on Social Security, would hit women the hardest, because in older age we are more likely to depend on it, a subject I’ve written on before (here, here).

Research from IWPR has shown the current Social Security program is a mainstay for women, and these findings have been supported by research from other organizations. Adult women are 51 percent (27 million) of all beneficiaries, including retirees, the disabled, and the survivors of deceased workers (52.5 million). Women are more likely to rely on Social Security because they have fewer alternative sources of income, often outlive their husbands, and are more likely to be left to rear children when their husbands die or become permanently disabled. Moreover, due to the recession many women have lost home equity and savings to failing markets. Older women–and older low income populations in general–have become more economically vulnerable and dependent on Social Security benefits. — IWPR

On “reforming” entitlements, Pres. Obama comes down the same place as Republicans, though he’s the moderate conservative, so we can expect entitlement “reform” to happen regardless of who is in the White House. In his last political term, why wouldn’t Mr. Obama join with Republicans? If the Senate goes GOP, he’ll even have an excuse. Meanwhile, there’s no one suggesting that the limit on income taxed for Social Security be raised for the wealthy, with Democrats caving again and again on a millionaire surtax, so the progressive argument is not only weakly offered, but also never fought strategically.

Pres. Obama proved his economic timidity in the 2010 midterms, when you didn’t hear anything close to the speech he gave in Kansas, which didn’t come until he began campaigning for his own reelection. At least he always has his own back. Back in 2010, he and his pal at the DNC, Tim Kaine, now running for senator in Virginia, refused to make any Democratic case at all on economics. Obama then followed that up by caving and extending the Bush tax cuts. Obama and the Democratic midterm shellacking is what delivered state houses in record numbers to the right, which led to an assault on unions, the middle class, as well as women’s individual freedoms. At a time when we all needed an economic champion what we got was a total Democratic collapse.

George W. Bush inspired the rise of the Tea Party and conservatives to start pushing back, so one hoped that Barack Obama’s repeated applications of his conservatism would unleash a requisite uprising on the left and a progressive challenger. However, there has been no challenge to Pres. Obama inside the Democratic Party, with progressives in Congress and outside groups again and again rallying for the Democratic Party head, while ignoring his preferred choice of conservatism over progressivism.

Hard economic times has led young women to get very serious about their economic choices. A New York Times article this past week offered interesting statistics. For the first time in three decades, more young women are now seeking higher education than are entering the work force.

Many economists initially thought that the shrinking labor force – which drove down November’s unemployment rate – was caused primarily by discouraged older workers giving up on the job market. Instead, many of the workers on the sidelines are young people upgrading their skills, which could portend something like the postwar economic boom, when millions of World War II veterans went to college through the G.I. Bill instead of immediately entering, and overwhelming, the job market.

Now, as was the case then, one sex is the primary beneficiary. Though young women in their late teens and early 20’s view today’s economic lull as an opportunity to upgrade their skills, their male counterparts are more likely to take whatever job they can find. The longer-term consequences, economists say, are that the next generation of women may have a significant advantage over their male counterparts, whose career options are already becoming constrained.

For now at least, many young women still feel that the deck is stacked against them.

While women focus on economics, for young, poor and rural women caught in the throes of a possible unwanted pregnancy after unprotected sex, the two will forever remain connected.

Because of this reality it remains stunning to me that in the 21st century all of us aren’t joining together, regardless of political bent, to make access to birth control, contraception, sex education a public health priority. So called “conservatives” trumpet home schooling, with “family values” candidates like Rick Santorum ignoring the consequences when our society doesn’t join together on these issues. Ron Paul’s cafeteria libertarianism, revealed through his anti-female and anti-gay policies, makes a mockery out his campaign, but again, economics rules over social policy today.

Since modern feminism was born, feminists have been told by groups like Planned Parenthood, NARAL and others that we must give money to help elect Democratic candidates who will keep our privacy protected or else.

Pres. Obama not being able to find a reelection slogan boils down to the fact that “hope and change” has been reduced to Republicans are worse.

For 30 years I’ve unflinchingly supported and voted Democratic. Over the last thirty years I’ve held my nose to vote for some pretty uninspiring Democratic candidates. Many of my colleagues, friends, readers and people I hear from via email, now put Pres. Obama in the “hold your nose” category, too. He’s earned the spot, so, boy, do I understand how they feel. Cenk Uygur wrote recently that he’s “uncommitted.”

As a feminist having listened to the Democratic Party’s warnings on what could happen if we let the right take charge, I’m no longer buying their propaganda or that the Democratic Party is worthy of support. On individual freedoms the entire Democratic structure has caved, including the first female Speaker of the House in U.S. history, Nancy Pelosi, all the way down to the so-called “Progressive Caucus.” This includes on economics, where Democrats, with Pres. Obama leading, never made the progressive Democratic economic case, whether it’s for tax increases on Social Security taxed income, higher taxes on multi-millionaires, all of which would have required a barnstorming campaign to pigeon hole recalcitrant Republicans, then shame them into submission.

Having no real choice between Democratic or Republican warmaking or economics is why so many progressives and Democrats are hailing Ron Paul, which has helped him rise in Iowa. Matt Stoller discussed his interaction with Paul during his time as an aide to former Rep. Grayson.

This is a guy who exists in the Republican Party as a staunch opponent of American empire and big finance. His ideas on the Federal Reserve have taken some hold recently, and he has taken powerful runs at the Presidency on the obscure topic of monetary policy. He doesn’t play by standard political rules, so while old newsletters bearing his name showcase obvious white supremacy , he is also the only prominent politician, let alone Presidential candidate, saying that the drug war has racist origins . You cannot honestly look at this figure without acknowledging both elements, as well as his opposition to war, the Federal government, and the Federal Reserve. And as I’ve drilled into Paul’s ideas, his ideas forced me to acknowledge some deep contradictions in American liberalism (pointed out years ago by Christopher Laesch) and what is a long-standing, disturbing, and unacknowledged affinity liberals have with centralized war financing. So while I have my views of Ron Paul, I believe that the anger he inspires comes not from his positions, but from the tensions that modern American liberals bear within their own worldview. – Matt Stoller

The two political parties have been under siege for some time, because Americans just don’t trust Republicans or Democrats anymore. Barack Obama was the last chance for political parties, specifically the Democratic brand, with George W. Bush having already given rise to rebellion inside the GOP, which is seen best through Ron Paul and the Tea Party. Meanwhile, Congress long ago ceded their importance as an equal branch of government, preferring loyalty oaths to their political party, as well as the boss in the Executive branch, which has become a marketing tool for itself, an American kingship of sorts, with no difference between Republican or Democratic presidents. Once in the White House, the presidents club rules.

So, having finally made it to the recovering partisan shore, though I’m not completely cured, I must say that Pres. Obama’s first term went a long way to liberating me permanently.

In 2012, this liberal’s vote is up for grabs.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

159 Responses to The Party’s Over

  1. ladywalker68 January 1, 2012 at 1:32 am #

    Terrific post, Taylor. I agree completely. Another vote up for grabs right here.

    Happy New Year!

    • Taylor Marsh January 1, 2012 at 1:43 am #

      Happy New Year, ladywalker68.

      We’ll figure out together over the next year.

      • ladywalker68 January 1, 2012 at 2:30 am #

        Boy, I sure hope so!

    • DailyPUMA January 1, 2012 at 1:51 pm #

      TM’s quote…Barack Obama was the last chance for political parties, specifically the Democratic brand….” endquote…..is a head scratcher.

      Hillary Clinton anyone?

      • Romberry January 2, 2012 at 3:08 am #

        Hillary Clinton isn’t running for president and sure as heck doesn’t run the Democratic Party.

    • newdealdem1 January 1, 2012 at 11:26 pm #

      Agree ladywalker68 about this post by Taylor.

      HAPPY NEW YEAR TO TAYLOR AND EVERYONE WHO READS AND POSTS ON THIS BLOG.

       

  2. TPAZ January 1, 2012 at 4:06 am #

    TM, Happy New Year. Once again, your analysis is 100% spot on. Next step, we liberal Democrats must move beyond stating why we will not vote for Obama and begin saying who we will vote for. Conservatives/Republicans have no problem stating their preference even knowing those names have little or no chance of winning. It’s their values they want the world to clearly see and hear. We need to start doing the same within our tribe. If the right can openly support Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Michele Backmann, Sara Palin, Donald Trump, why can’t we openly support it and mean it for Alan Grayson, Jennifer Granholm, Eliot Spitzer, Bernie Sanders, Russ Feingold, Rocky Anderson, Mat Damon, and others who are passionate about left wing politics.

    • Lake Lady January 1, 2012 at 11:17 am #

      Don’t forget Elizabeth Warren :)

    • Taylor Marsh January 1, 2012 at 9:36 pm #

      Hey TPAZ, appreciate it.

  3. tonyb39 January 1, 2012 at 9:01 am #

    Taylor,

    My god, you put into beautiful words what i so totally feel! I never thought when I voted for Obama that he would govern like this..I was under no illusions regarding Obama but to see all the betrayals written down as you have done, well it kinda makes me angry at myself..Nope, never will i ever be beholden to a party again….

  4. jjamele January 1, 2012 at 9:03 am #

    For way too long, when the Democrats are out of power, they promise the windmills in the form of health care, an end to adventurism overseas, equal rights for women and gays, protection of social security and medicare, and a more equitable tax system which requires the rich to “pay their fair share.”

    And when they are out of power, they bail on their promises, or deny they ever made them,  skipping to and fro to distract us as they bleat statistics proving how much  better life is under their rule and warning “surely, you don’t want JONES back!”

    I for one have had more than enough of the “stop being so ungrateful, it’s their fault, things could be a lot worse” campaign which seems to be the only thing the Democrats are capable of whenever they are running for re-election.  I’m going to take the risk that the Earth will crumble into a flaming cinder as it crashes into the sun if the Republicans get back into power, and vote third party.

    No, Mr. Obama.  I am Not “In.”

     

     

  5. rickroberts January 1, 2012 at 9:10 am #

    Excellent and thought provoking, especially the “figuring it out together” part.

    This will get me skewered, but I have to say it. If the president were not Obama, he would have primary challengers. Potential challengers fear igniting a civil war within the party if they challenge the first black president. I think that underestimates the intellect of people who elected him.

    • TPAZ January 1, 2012 at 10:21 am #

      Potential challengers fear igniting a civil war within the party if they challenge the first black president.

      That type of thinking’s due date expired after with 2010 elections. Let it go. We should be more concerned with the survival of this country’s Constitution; not for some damn footnote in history of a Trojan horse Democrat who is biracial (perhaps chosen for that reason). MLK Jr. said always judge a man by his character; Don’t you now have enough information to make an informed decision?

      • rickroberts January 1, 2012 at 10:58 am #

        We should be more concerned with the survival of this country’s Constitution; not for some damn footnote in history of a Trojan horse Democrat who is biracial (perhaps chosen for that reason).

        Um, straw man alert! You have added words I did not say. Further, I do believe in judging a man by his character, which perfectly explains why I think so little of Barack Obama. If we were only judging him by his character and the character of his leadership and policies, he would have primary challengers. Perhaps several of them.

        • TPAZ January 1, 2012 at 2:08 pm #

          Straw man alert? ( :1 a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted 2 : a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction).  Please explain. I’m providing you with the definition of the term.

          • rickroberts January 1, 2012 at 4:13 pm #

            I know what the phrase means, but thanks.

            You purported that I was saying or believed Barack was a trojan horse Democrat who was perhaps chosen because he was black (or biracial as you say). I don’t think any such thing. You said it so that you could knock it right down by saying we need to move on from what was settled in 2010. That’s a straw man.

    • Lake Lady January 1, 2012 at 11:19 am #

      Totally agree Rick.

  6. cruccia January 1, 2012 at 9:20 am #

    Thrilled to see you come over and join the POV of many who bolted the party in 2008. I have followed you all of this time, and your step is part of a logical progression. NEITHER party has been doing much for women. I write about it all of the time. And it is time we women stopped waiting for someone else (i.e.) the parties to do it for us. I was a died in the wool democrat for 40 years——I ran for Congress twice in the 90′s here in Ohio and was a party official and consultant who travelled the country teaching Dems how to raise money, and much much more. The awakening you have had is similar to my own, and it is a difficult, even sickening transition. HOWEVER, it does free one up to consider other options in getting women economic parity in the U.S., a job we left unfinished from the second wave of the 1970′s. Here is my latest post about “What Have The Parties Done For You Lately?”

    http://www.womenwintoo.blogspot.com/2011/12/what-have-parties-done-for-you-lately.html

    We’ve got alot of work to do, but great opportunities await us as well……..

    • juan.thompson1985 January 1, 2012 at 1:35 pm #

      “Many who bolted the party”? Many didn’t bolt the party.  2008 was the biggest year of Democratic enrollment ever, ever. I understand the frustations, but he has been the most progressive president we’ve had since LBJ, at least on domestic policy. And no real liberal would ever vote for Ron Paul, who oppose reproductive rights, marriage equality; his newsletter are full of racist, sexist, homophobic and anti-semitic musings. So again, no real liberal would ever, ever for vote for that man or Mitt Romney. The frustations are understood but I would wager that the people on this site are in the extreme minority, meaning there aren’t many of you. He will win and the overwhelming majority of liberals, blacks, latinos, young people, and a majority of women will support him.

      • Taylor Marsh January 1, 2012 at 2:52 pm #

        He will win and the overwhelming majority of liberals, blacks, latinos, young people, and a majority of women will support him.

        You need a reading comprehension class, because as I’ve written for well over a year, most Dems will come home to vote for Obama in 2012, because like you and the die hard Obama fans, Democrats have no principles they won’t allow their “leader” to betray, which you represent perfectly, and and the left is fundamentally gutless.

        • DerFarm January 2, 2012 at 4:20 pm #

          Taylor, calm down.  “The Left” is not fundamentally gutless.  The Democratic Party is not “The Left”.  You are talking about a specific kind of Liberal.

          “The Left” rode buses in Alabama and Mississippi, sat at lunch counters, stood guard in meetings, refused back down when threatned … and went to jail and hospitals because of it.

          “The Left” sat in front of Johnson and Nixon’s White House and got clubbed, spat upon and jeered because of it.  “The Left” tried to organize illegal immigrants and stood off attacks by JBS.  “The Left” started women’s studies, supported ethnic studies, funded libraries and backed librarians and didn’t stop when faced with scorn and hatred.

          “The Left” built women’s shelters in Atlanta, Jackson, Birmingham, Memphis. “The Left” built family planning clinics in Birmingham, Charlotte, Jacksonville, Topeka. “The Left” died in Atlanta, Jackson, Birmingham, Memphis, Charlotte, Jacksonville, Topeka defending those places.

          “The Left” defended Gay Marriage, inter-racial marriage, and the right to not be bullied in your neighborhood … and they faced hatred and violence doing it.

          You have no right to call “The Left” gutless.  You have no right to question our courage.  And that is what your words have done.

      • Solo January 1, 2012 at 7:53 pm #

        I am shocked that Taylor didn’t hit the delete button the second she finished reading your comment! You can’t expect rational thinking from purists! If Dems are actually stupid enough to buy into what the so called progressives on this site prescribing then people left of center in this country will find themselves in the same predicament our brethren north of the border find themselves in. In Canada the conservative party keeps winning election after election because Canadian progressives stupidly split their vote three ways. So despite the fact that the conservative party in Canada only got 38% of the vote in that country’s last election, they control that government.

        I have also in the past tried to point out to Taylor after reading one her almost daily Obama is going to lose articles is that demographics and time are on President Obama’s side. Why do you think the GOP is so desperately pushing those voter suppression laws. The President will get 90-95% of the black vote, 70% of the Hispanic vote, maybe 75% (thanks 2 the GOP’s overall we want to kill immigrants rhetoric) and the standard Dem 40% of the white vote! Crunch those numbers that all she wrote for the GOP candidate! Those numbers add up to the 270 electoral college votes needed to win the White House!

        • jjamele January 1, 2012 at 8:14 pm #

          All your posts boil down to “Nah Nah, Obama’s gonna win anyway!”  Which means, all of your posts totally miss the point.   If all you care about is winning the next election, good for you.  Some of us care about what happens after the votes are counted.  It’s called Principle.

          Apparently, in your world, all that matters is being on the winning side- and a politician’s victory at the polls is proof that he’s right, his detractors are wrong, and everything is A-OK.  Bizarre.

          • Solo January 1, 2012 at 9:05 pm #

            If you think I live in Bizarro world well then Bill Clinton is the Grand Exalted Mystic Ruler of said world. He was quoted saying after his only electoral defeat in the 1980 that he would never again lose an election over principal. Principal gets you nothing if you can’t win an election. 70%, 60%, even 50% of something is better than a 100% of nothing. Sorry for being practical!

        • Taylor Marsh January 1, 2012 at 9:08 pm #

          …I have also in the past tried to point out to Taylor after reading one her almost daily Obama is going to lose articles…

          Solo – Please provide examples and links of my “almost daily Obama is going to lose articles.”

          You won’t be able to.  However, since you made the charge I will be waiting for you to prove it.

          Reality: I have never once said Obama “is going to lose.” In fact, I have written the exact opposite, most recently in my book.

          This is just more fantasy from the fan politics crew.

           

          • newdealdem1 January 1, 2012 at 11:24 pm #

            This comment is addressed to Solo, the par excellance Obama apologist/suck up:

            You said that I contradicted myself some days a.go when I said “I am a NewDealDem no matter what party I belong to”.

            You attacked me at first reaction without asking me to explain what I meant by that.  You and all like you always pounced before you thought with what is left of your grey matter to politely ask why those of us disagreed with you.   Those who were in your camp never had the manners to ask to clarify why those of us were not supporting Obama in 2008 in the primary.  All the majority of those did who violently supported Obama over Clinton was to pounce with hate on those of us who were weary of this so-called Dem Party messiah (as if that were even a viable choice in any true Dem Party choice: messiah?)  Any review of Obama’s record in Chicago would have easily made many those who were rabid supporters of this political chimera think twice about this man if he didn’t have any non-white blood.  Rick’s comment is right on the mark here. Progressives terrified of anyone with African-American blood presenting themselves as fake liberals and being challenged by white liberals (and blacks as well) for their conservative principles and actions even though they pretend they are Dem Liberals for we the people.

            Here is an eye-opening interview with Harry Belafonte with Charlie Rose at the 92nd Street Y.  You can hear what he has to say about Obama starting around  45:10. http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12061

            What I meant by that comment was that the Dem party no longer is the Dem party that I registered with some years ago when the Liberal Party in New York became toothless.  This was in 1980.   The Dem Party  nowadays is nothing what it was when I was a kid and was eligible to vote.  That is what I meant when I called myself a NewDealDem regardless of what party I belonged to if any (I will now add).  The Dem Party today is not the Dem Party my mother was a member of since she could vote and that was when FDR ran for a second term.  The Dem Party today wasn’t/isn’t the Dem Party I belonged to (after being disappointed with the Liberal Party in NY) and voted for Carter/Mondale/Dukakis/Clinton/Clinton/Gore. .

            There is absolutely no contradiction between who I call myself “NewDealDem” and not aligning myself with the Dem Party any longer today  because I didn’t change who I am but the majority of those in the power broker positions in the party have changed.  They are no longer the Dems of FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton.  And, frankly, I am bummed by this because I never thought the day would come when I lost almost all respect for those in the party of my choice, the party of my first hero and heroine, Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt (who was a hero of Martin Luther King, Jr and all those who were his disciples including Harry Belafonte.)

            I changed for the better as a NewDealDem but not most of those in positions of power in the Dem Party today with whom I mostly don’t identify with.  They are the ones who left the party not me!

             

             

          • Solo January 2, 2012 at 1:11 am #

            Newdealdem1:

            You are truly a fool! Your complaint about the Democratic Party is that it isn’t the same party today that it was decades ago! Nothing today is as it was decades ago. I also have to laugh listening to you complain about the changes that have taken place in the Democratic Party over the last few years while at the same time praising the man most responsible for those changes, Bill Clinton. Bill and Hillary Clinton turned the Democratic Party into what it is today. If you can remember 1980, you should be able to remember the 1990′s and the “New Democrat” sales pitch the Clintons used to sell themselves to the American people at the time. Bill Clinton spent his entire time in office governing as a center left Dem. He was famous for taking con ideas and making them his own. NAFTA, Welfare reform and the like.

            He even took that strategy to the extreme where in 1999 he went along with the Republican idea of repealing of one of FDR crowing achievements, the Glass—Steagall Act! That was despite howls from progressives that it was a bad idea that would come back and bite the country in the ass. I believe that since then Billo has finally admitted that with the benefit of hindsight that wasn’t such a good idea. So here you are like all the other Marshans on this site trashing Obama and loving all things Clinton when it was the Clinton’s who laid down the template the current President and all other  Democrats for that matter are following.

            I also think I should point out the fact that since you lumped Clinton in with FDR that it means you have no appreciation of history and r in desperate need of history lesson, both recent and ancient. Obama isn’t perfect, but neither was Clinton (repealing Glass Steagall), Carter, LBJ (Vietnam), JFK (Adultery/Bay of Pigs), Truman (Dropped the A Bomb, twice, when he didn’t have to once) and even FDR (incarcerated 100k’s of Asian Americans because we were at war with an Asian country).

            In closing, I am not a suck up or an apologist for anyone even President Obama. I am just not a stupid Dem who expects my political leaders to be perfect. Learn how to use the damn Google! Taking your crap apart was too easy. All of what I just said, I didn’t have to Google it. I actually paid attention in history class you obviously didn’t!

        • Uh-oh January 2, 2012 at 5:43 pm #

          SOLO:  You make the assumption that the Dems are “the left”. Well, the MSM may say that, but it is not true. The left is not represented by either major party and that is the problem.

          Taylor is right. Obama is neither liberal nor progressive. He is not even really a centrist. Obama tends right and does not deserve the vote of any true liberal or lefty.

          • DerFarm January 2, 2012 at 6:16 pm #

            YEAH!!!!  Let’s elect Rick Santorum.  After all, there’s no REAL difference between them.

      • Lu January 2, 2012 at 1:15 am #

        Read the article posted. The party is over.  People are going to do what they need to to survive.

        • newdealdem1 January 2, 2012 at 1:27 am #

          Oh, how grown up and intelligent you are, Solo.  Always like all you Obama supporters do when you can’t argue with any alacrity you resort to name calling.  You’re not worth responding to any longer.  You’re not worth my precious time.

          • Solo January 2, 2012 at 1:38 am #

            Believe it or not I know actually what you mean. Arguing with someone who doesn’t know anything isn’t simulating. I notice though how u skipped right by all the points I made and went straight to the whining! Next!

          • newdealdem1 January 2, 2012 at 2:18 am #

            Last post to you.  I won’t respond to someone’s point by point when that someone makes the same point over and over and over and over and over again to people who post here to whine about the Clinton’s without any historical perspective.  And, your comments had nothing to do with what I posted to you in the first place, you just saw that as an opportunity to rant and rave just as you always do on this blog with the same results which as I am sure with someone of your exceptional historical acumen and presumptive intellect as you so humbly present yourself surely know that’s the definition of insanity.

            You know nothing about me or my background, so you should do yourself a favor and precede with caution before dissing someone about their knowledge of history just because I won’t engage you for saying the same thing over and over and making comments that had nothing to do with my post to you  there is no point arguing with you or engaging you in conversation, you know it all already anyway.

            Oh, but just for the road, Google this! http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/2008/09/political-investment.html  Perhaps you will have learned something from reading this comprehensive analysis of Glass Steagall and Clinton before you pull that trigger happy CDS gun of yours.

            I’m done here.

      • Romberry January 2, 2012 at 3:30 am #

        No real liberal would ever vote for Barack Obama either. A Democrat, yes. A liberal? No.

        Tell ya what, take a gander at what retiring Democratic Representative Lynn Woolsey had to say recently and then put it through the polti-speak translator:

        “Barack Obama is who I thought he was,” Woolsey said. “He’s a moderate president. He’s not a progressive. He really believed he was the president who was going to be able to reach over to the right and bring people together. Every time he reached, they moved farther.* He was not going to reach to the left because he’s not a lefty, period. He is kind of a cold, aloof guy.”

        Woolsey explained that is why in 2008 she supported Hillary Clinton in the primaries.

        “Not because she was more progressive,” Woolsey said, “but because I knew she stood for what she stood for. She has some – whatever you call those things…”

        Press replied, “I think Madeline Albright said, ‘cajones’…”

        Of course Woolsey turned around right after all that and talked about how (in her opinion) it was “vitally important” to turn out and re-elect Obama…so when push comes to shove, she doesn’t really stand for much other than being a tribal Democrat herself.

        *Yes, every time he reached, always starting in the middle rather than doing anything at all to pull the Overton Window back to the left, the Republicans moved even farther to the right. And Obama followed them, and moved the Overton Window in an even more extreme rightward direction. In fact, Obama has moved so far to the right that the only way the GOP candidates running for the right-most wing of The Money Party’s nomination can get to the right of him on most issues is to move even further to the right and into the tall grass of Lunacy Land®.  And that is The Ratchet Effect in play.  What’s The Ratchet Effect? Short excerpt of the high points:

        The electoral ratchet permits movement only in the rightward direction. The Republican role is fairly clear; the Republicans apply the torque that rotates the thing rightward.

        The Democrats’ role is a little less obvious. The Democrats are the pawl. They don’t resist the rightward movement — they let it happen — but whenever the rightward force slackens momentarily, for whatever reason, the Democrats click into place and keep the machine from rotating back to the left.

        Here’s how it works. In every election year, the Democrats come and tell us that the country has moved to the right, and so the Democratic Party has to move right too in the name of realism and electability. Gotta keep these right-wing madmen out of the White House, no matter what it takes. … So now the Democrats have moved to the “center.” But of course this has the effect of shifting the “center” farther to the right.

        Now, as a consequence, the Republicans suddenly don’t seem so crazy anymore — they’re closer to the center, through no effort of their own, because the center has shifted closer to them. So they can move even further right, and still end up no farther from the “center” than they were four years ago.

        Obama’s “centrism” not only enables the Republican shift, it compels it. So long as there is no actual leftward pull, the Overton Window will continue its inexorable slide to the right — inexorable only because “reasonable centrists and pragmatists” are preventing any resistance within the Democratic wing of The Money Party — and the ratchet will click into place yet another turn to the right.

      • cruccia January 2, 2012 at 10:39 am #

        Juan—-even though Democratic participation in 2008 was up, many DID leave the party. Pollsters figured that of Hillary’s 18 million, 17–20% left the party. At minimum that would be around 3 million voters, a not insignificant number. Most were older diehard voters who won’t be coming back. That the slack was taken up by many first time voters is interesting, but we will see whether those are diehard Dems like the ones who bolted, or just fairweather friends. This set of statistics was ignored by the Dems, but we know they exist because they were watched and recorded by the Republicans.

  7. secularhumanizinevoluter January 1, 2012 at 10:28 am #

    The unfortunate reality is YES, with one of these shithouse rat crazy repugnantklan/teabaggen meat puppets…and that INCLUDES Mitty tha slippery …it could and will be ALLOT worse. For women, for gays, for the poor, for the middle(what’s LEFT of them)class, for the uninsured, for education, for the economy and for our civil rights. Just look at the psychochristian anti abortion legislation coming out of the House and the States. Just look at the gutting of education, the sciences,attempts to use psychochristian nonsense instead of science in teaching science or determining eco important laws and safe guards.

    Like it or not for at least one more election, unless we want to do a national suicide, we are stuck with these, and in particular this President as candidates. But the DAY after the election I am if not officially in reality no longer a Democrat, small OR large D. I will be at LEAST independent and more likely green or OWS if it morphs into a political party. I am DONE with these political whores.

    • TPAZ January 1, 2012 at 1:59 pm #

      Painless suicide is still choosing death over life.

    • Cujo359 January 1, 2012 at 2:51 pm #

      One thing I’ve learned in the last few years is that the surest way of getting conservative agendas passed is to elect enough Democrats to take control of the House and Senate. Gutting FISA, turning back the clock on abortion, turning our justice system into something out of the Middle Ages, and putting our medical futures in the hands of the same insurance companies that have failed to live up to their obligations already took having enough Democrats in office. While they were out of office, they were against all of those things.

      Well, let’s let them be out of office again, so they’ll fight those things again.

      Continuing to elect Democrats, who have failed us miserably in the last few years, is the sure road to suicide. They will know they own us, because if we don’t punish them for the failures of the last few years, there is absolutely nothing we will punish them for. They will do whatever they want, which is more of what they’ve been doing.

      Until someone comes up with a better solution, I’m all for removing them from power, and replacing them with people who are not heinous collaborators of Wall Street and the GOP.

    • Taylor Marsh January 1, 2012 at 3:31 pm #

      But the DAY after the election…

      Secularh – This is *exactly* what I’ve been writing for months, over a year, actually.

      It is also absolutely worthless and means positively nothing, because you are enabling Pres. Obama’s conservatism with your falling in line obedience.

      We all need to muster a lot more strength than this.

      • secularhumanizinevoluter January 1, 2012 at 4:25 pm #

        Get someone to run against Obama in a primary…almost ANYONE and I will vote for them.

        “we need to muster a lot more strength than this”

        And at this exact point in political time do that exactly how? Sitting out the election? I am open to suggestions…but time is running out.

        • jjamele January 1, 2012 at 7:55 pm #

          The point is that nobody gives a damn how you feel about Obama if you go ahead and vote for him anyway.

          You can bet that if anyone at the White House listens to “progressive” talk radio,  they tun out the moment a caller says “I’m going to support the President, even though I’m dissapointed because…” who cares if you are frustrated and disappointed, if you are just going to fall in line like a good little sheep anyway?

          The President and the Dems don’t have to do a damn thing as long as everything is predicated in “I’m going to vote Democratic anyway.”

        • Taylor Marsh January 1, 2012 at 9:09 pm #

          Secularh – Pick someone else to vote for besides a conservative like Obama or write someone in.

    • Lu January 2, 2012 at 1:17 am #

      Obama should just step down and let Hillary kick republican butt.

  8. Joyce Arnold January 1, 2012 at 11:01 am #

    Great post and great comments.

    As a liberal; as a feminist; as an “activist” lesbian; as a “turbulent 60s” participant, choosing to become an “independent” on the decidedly Left side of things happened quite some time ago. Actually, it was as much a natural part of my own r/evolution as it was a decision.

    Barack Obama, along with his many Dem Elected accomplices, have provided what is probably the most obvious and convincing evidence to date of the Rightward movement of the Democratic Party.

    As long as we keep playing within the imposed Corporate Party rules, we’re only bit players on the stage they own. When Party or Personality trumps policy; when we accept that casting a vote, within the limits proscribed by the Two Parties, is fulfillment of our “civic duty”; as long as “wait until after this election” is the framing we accept when told to “be patient,” told “it’s the other party’s fault,” told any of the familiar “reasons why” the Electeds who really, really want to help us out, but just can’t right now … as long as we participate in maintaining the status quo, that’s where we’re stuck.

    Efforts from within and from without the Two Party Front for the Oligarchy are, I think, essential in challenging the Corporate Duopoly.

    And yep, I know I’m only repeating myself. But damn, how bad does it have to get before more people acknowledge the failures of our system? The Two Parties are at fault, but voters are responsible for our choices. Electeds aren’t given much reason to do things differently.

    • Taylor Marsh January 1, 2012 at 9:38 pm #

      Hey Joyce. Happy New Year.

    • ladywalker68 January 3, 2012 at 4:00 pm #

      Terrific post, Joyce!

  9. Lola-at-large January 1, 2012 at 11:29 am #

    Good stuff and well said, but you do realize you are now firmly in PUMA territory yourself, right? I’m glad to see you finally get there, but the irony is remarkable.

    • rickroberts January 1, 2012 at 12:59 pm #

      Oh, my. You are about to be scolded. :)

    • Taylor Marsh January 1, 2012 at 3:11 pm #

      do realize you are now firmly in PUMA territory yourself, right? 

      I reject everything “puma” represents, which is a person so ignorant on foreign policy that he/she would have handed the keys to the commander in chief cabinet to the biggest war hawk in a generation, John McCain.  We’d still be in Iraq if McCain were president.  That act alone takes such incredible civic negligence as to render the voter who would not give Obama-Biden the opportunity to prove themselves incapable of making any political decision worth taking seriously.

      No one made the case against candidate Obama stronger than I did, but as a responsible citizen, I did my civic duty handing Barack Obama the chance to at least prove Democratic policies can beat conservative ideas when wielded through the benefit of a majority Congress, with Speaker Pelosi in charge of one chamber.

      Pres. Obama is now, however, revealed through his record, which is no better than a Republican moderate and in some cases, though in foreign policy he’s the same as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney’s anti-American assault on civil liberties and in some cases human rights.

      I appreciate you commenting, Lola-at-large, and I hope you retool and inform yourself if you intend to come back and engage again, because the crew who comment here are whip smart politically and don’t suffer fan politics, fools or self-impressed Obama bloviators, who are as entertaining and they are predictable.

      It’s particularly unfortunate that you chose to weigh in here by championing “puma” status, which is not respected around here and will be given the seriousness it deserves, which is the same I give it in my new book, absolutely none.

      • newdealdem1 January 2, 2012 at 12:20 am #

        Taylor, I respect you a lot but not all those who once ever called themselves PUMA or sympathized with PUMA’s (like myself) voted for McCain/Palin in the general.  There were some PUMA”s who turned out to be Republicans or Libertarians (the Ron Paul type) but not all those who called themselves PUMA”s or who didn’t call themselves PUMA (like myself) but believed lots of what those who were true blue Dems said, the Dem Party was so bowdlerized and compromised during the 2008 Primary,  I lost all respect for my beloved Party which I belonged to since the 1980 election before which I belonged to the Liberal Party in New York before they became toothless.

        I may not have called myself PUMA (given what I began to see as some of the members being  stealth conservatives and libertarians) but I did understand what those who were true blue Dems voiced as their frustration given how much hatred was spewed to those of us who didn’t support Obama (PUMA or not) by the “new Democrats” who were recent members of the party and by veterans of the Party who were Senators, House Members, etc who truly did stab then Senator Clinton in the back.

        The big lie from the Obama supporters was that he was against the Iraq war and Senator Clinton was a supporter of that War.  This was the bullshit excuse to support Obama given by those who hated Senator Clinton.  And, those of us with half a brain knew this was BS. Obama built his entire campaign upon his so-called Chicago speech being anti-Iraq War when he voted exactly how then Senator Clinton voted to support the troops in Iraq when he was the Senator from Illinois.

        That is when President Clinton made that brilliant speech criticizing Obama for the lie that he was against the Iraq War and President Clinton was called racist and worse for making those comments and what he said was god dammed true.

        As a reminder, here is what President Clinton said: Obama: Big Fairy Tale!   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLDx4NZr2u4

        So, this was why I didn’t call myself a PUMA because some of them took it too far and were nothing but stealth conservatives or libertarians but not Dems.  But,  I believed the original thought process of the PUMA’s, those who were true blue Dems that party unity was not going to do me any good any longer just as OWS believes nowaday’s.

        And, I understand your antagonism Taylor towards those who called themselves PUMA’s who were not true blue Dems but stealth conservatives or die hard libertarians.

        Happy New Year.

         

         

         

         

      • Lu January 2, 2012 at 1:29 am #

         

         

        • newdealdem1 January 2, 2012 at 2:37 am #

          What the hell are you talking about.  I never voted for Obama and will not vote for him in 2012,  I know very well what PUMA stood for and if you read my post I never said what you said I said such as “There were those who advocated getting drunk and voting for McCain, but it was by no means the consensus or any kind of primary goal.”

          What I said was there where quite  a few in PUMA who turned out to be Republicans or Libertarians who were trying to recruit registered Dems to vote for McCain/Palin.  So, although I was sympathetic to the Party Unity My Ass sentiment given what had gone on in the primary and here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=um5QHGxmoBE  Harold Icces whose father worked for FDR.

          So, I’m not misrepresenting what some PUMA”s were.  The ones who were Republicans or Libertarians advocating voting for the Republicans in the General and consistently dissed Dems and not Republicans were the ones who turned me against the notion of calling myself PUMA although I agreed with the basic premise of “Party Unity My Ass” advocated by the true blue Dems among the group.

          I’m no Obama supporter, never was and never will be.

      • Lu January 2, 2012 at 11:52 am #

        Taylor,

        PUMA is an acronym for Party Unity, My Ass as applied to the way Obama was selected during the 2008 Primary.  There were those who advocated getting drunk and voting for McCain, but it was by no means the consensus or any kind of primary goal.  I would appreciate it if you would refrain from misspeaking for us.

        The performance of the Obama Administration says it all and if you think BO has reduced the body count with the recent withdrawal, you have not yet come to understand the flim-flam man.

      • ladywalker68 January 3, 2012 at 4:04 pm #

        Unfortunately, those of us who refuse to drink the Obama-flavored kool aid automatically get a PUMA sticker slapped on our foreheads by one of his disciples…

         

        ..On another note, I am seeing a new Obama slogan, “We can’t wait…”

        To which I snarkily reply, “Yes We Can!!!!”

    • Solo January 1, 2012 at 7:55 pm #

      Hmmm! You used the dreaded P word and Taylor didn’t delete?

      • newdealdem1 January 2, 2012 at 12:48 am #

        You remain a brain dead Obamabot, Solo!

        • Solo January 2, 2012 at 1:20 am #

          I am brain dead? You don’t even know basic American political history!

  10. Lake Lady January 1, 2012 at 11:41 am #

    Great post Taylor! Thanks.

     I have been on a very similar track to yours. I am done with the Dems. As you know I decided awhile ago to spend my energy locally. It has been very satifying. I have been able to affect change in my little corner of the world. My local coalition is both conservative and liberal. We argue the macro while we agree in the micro,isn’t that interesting? Our solutions to local problems have been both conservative and progressive. Our opposition are individuals who love croney government and they are finding themselves marginalized by our success.

    Maybe if everyone made it their business to get involved locally we could develop a way forward independent of the national decay. Local government is too often controlled by the same small group who never get opposition due to lack of interest or willingness to put time in to one’s community.

    It sure fights a feeling of powerlessness.

    Happy New Year to Taylor and fellow “TMers”!

    BTW your book is on it’s way to me via Amazon!

    • Taylor Marsh January 1, 2012 at 9:40 pm #

      Hello Mayor LLady. Thrilled to hear you bought the book. I’m grateful.

      Happy New Year.

    • Wonk the Vote January 3, 2012 at 3:50 am #

      Happy New Year, Lake Lady!

      We argue the macro while we agree in the micro,isn’t that interesting?

      Love this.

  11. juan.thompson1985 January 1, 2012 at 1:37 pm #

    I find it disturbing that so many so-called liberals are playing the racecard and saying he would be primaried if he were not black. I understand the frustations, but he has been the most progressive president we’ve had since LBJ, at least on domestic policy. And no real liberal would ever vote for Ron Paul, who oppose reproductive rights, marriage equality; his newsletter are full of racist, sexist, homophobic and anti-semitic musings. So again, no real liberal would ever, ever for vote for that man nor Mitt Romney. The frustations are understood-especially on foreign policy-but I would wager that the people on this site are in the extreme minority, meaning there aren’t many of you. He will win and the overwhelming majority of liberals, blacks, latinos, young people, and a majority of women will support him.

    • Lake Lady January 1, 2012 at 1:49 pm #

      Why is it illiberal to point out political realities? How is it racist to point out that the AA community is a big block of Dem voters and the wise Dem will not take a chance on alienating them? That is not playing the race card in my book. In fact it is you who are playing the race card when you say a “liberal” is not allowed to mention such a possibility.

    • TPAZ January 1, 2012 at 1:57 pm #

      A real progressive would have vetoed NDAA. Just saying…

    • Cujo359 January 1, 2012 at 2:23 pm #

      “he has been the most progressive president we’ve had since LBJ, at least on domestic policy.”

      Nonsense. Nixon was far more progressive. Clinton and Carter were more progressive. Carter wouldn’t have stood for the NDAA as Congress passed it.

      It’s also sadly ironic that an Obama fan shows up here accusing others of using the race card. Talk about projection – Obama’s is the campaign whose supporters never failed to scream “racist” whenever someone important objected to him.

      • jjamele January 1, 2012 at 7:58 pm #

        Obama is the best Republican President since Nixon.

      • Solo January 1, 2012 at 8:36 pm #

        Nixon was far more progress? Really? The guy who campaigned in 1968 saying he would end the war in Vietnam but actually expanded it into Cambodia when he got into the Oval Office was far more progressive? The guy who was at the center at the greatest political scandal in this country’s history that eventually forced him to resign his office was far more progressive? The guy who had an enemies list, sent the IRS after his political enemies was far more progressive? The guy who sent thugs (the plumbers I believe is what the media called them) to break into the DNC headquarters at the Watergate office complex was far more progressive? Wow! So let me see if I got this right. Your are comparing a President (Nixon) who had the quit because of his corruption favorably to another President (Obama) who so far has run a completely scandal free administration. Even for a Marshan this some powerful Obama Derangement! Your comment is right up there with that crazy BS Teabaggers say about the President!

        • Romberry January 2, 2012 at 3:58 am #

          First, you are aware that under current law, everything Nixon did would be considered legal? Wiretaps? You got ‘em. Break ins? Wave the national security card, get a pass.

          As far as ending the Vietnam War, yeah, Nixon expanded it. But in the end, he did end it.

          Also, yes, in terms of actual domestic policy, Nixon was at least arguably to the left of Obama. One example? Nixon’s health care proposal From Slate in June of 2001:

          If Sens. Hillary Clinton and Edward Kennedy ascended to liberal heaven and Saint Peter told them they could write up any health-care bill that they wanted, what would they ask for? Well, they might require businesses to pay three-quarters of the cost of health insurance for their workers. They might require the policies to cover not only doctor and hospital bills but lab work, mental health treatment, birth control, nursing home care–pretty much you name it. The federal government could fund the same health-care benefits to those not covered by employers or Medicare. Medicare recipients could get a prescription drug benefit, just as Congress is trying to provide today–and so could everybody else. To eliminate the burden of filling out forms and filing claims, the feds could provide one and all with an official “health card,” much like a bank credit card, that would be honored on sight by doctors, hospitals, pharmacists, and labs. Smaller companies that had difficulty paying for these extravagant health benefits could receive subsidies from the government.

          Best of all, the two senators wouldn’t have to draft this fantasy bill themselves! That’s because the plan I just described was already drafted and sent to Capitol Hill by a Republican administration whose members included someone named Dick Cheney, someone named Donald Rumsfeld, and someone named Paul O’Neill; and the Republican Party chairman was someone named George Bush. Not recently, of course: The bill was submitted to Congress a quarter-century ago, during the waning days of the Nixon administration. “Nothing,” said Caspar Weinberger, Nixon’s secretary of health, education, and welfare, “should deter us from adding, this year, comprehensive health insurance protection to the basic security guarantees that America offers.” In transmitting the proposal to Congress, Nixon, arguably the most liberal Republican president since Theodore Roosevelt, declared, “Comprehensive health insurance is an idea whose time has come in America.”

          Nixon also proposed and created the Environmental Protection Agency, supported and signed into law the creation of OSHA, supported and signed into law the Clean Air Act of 1970. (I can almost hear Obama telling us how much he’d really like to do those things, but that they might be “too disruptive” or “put too much burden” on business in trying economic times.) Also, you didn’t have Nixon screwing around with FDR’s political calculus of a dedicated funding stream and earned-benefit model for Social Security that we see from our current “progressive” president working to undermine.

          So more progressive than Obama? Yeah, arguably so. In fact, Obama is about as progressive as the 90′s era Republican Party whose economic policies he seems to believe in and push.

          Look, Nixon was a turd. I know that. Everyone who was alive then knows that. And that’s why it’s so profoundly confusing to know that so many today can not recognize the kind of stench emanating from the current White House. It really smells not that much different from the White House of GW Bush, and that was a stench that even more than a few Republicans could not pretend didn’t exist by the end.

    • Taylor Marsh January 1, 2012 at 3:21 pm #

      I find it disturbing that so many so-called liberals are playing the racecard and saying he would be primaried if he were not black.

      You just proved Rick’s point.

      It’s not “playing the racecard (sic)” for Rick to say a “civil war within the party if they challenge the first black president.”  After many elections where the loyalty of African Americans made a huge difference, you are naive to think the Establishment doesn’t respect what is owed.

      I take a different view on why Obama wasn’t primaried, which primarily comes down to money and the futility of asking Democratic organizations to put their own lights own by bucking the Dem money machine.

      The bottom line, however, is that if anyone deserved a primary challenge it is Barack Obama.  He’s been a total disaster for the Democratic brand, though he’s solidified conservative foreign policy across both Establishment parties.

      Democrats, but especially movement progressives (though I’m not one), should ask themselves whether they prefer Obama to “reform” entitlements or a Republican, because it’s going to happen and who gets the blame should matter.  Democrats don’t deserve it because Barack Obama prefers to govern from the position of present.

    • Ramsgate January 2, 2012 at 4:59 pm #

      “He will win and the overwhelming majority of liberals, blacks, latinos, young people, and a majority of women will support him.”

      Sure he will. Because over and over again, they behave like abused spouses returning for more abuse.

      No insult meant to abused spouses.

  12. juan.thompson1985 January 1, 2012 at 2:47 pm #

    Clinton was more progressive? The record says otherwise: DADT, welfare reform, that anti-marriage equality legislation, Gramm Leach, telecommunications deregulation. The list goes on. There is a lot of revisionism here. Also I don’t think you are actually asserting that Nixon was a better and more progressive president than the current occupant of the White House. Or are you? If so. . .my god.

    And I implore us to not divide ourselves by race or gender. I assume most of us are on the liberal/progressive side of the spectrum and this group of political active people is the only group truly committed to battling racial and gender injustice. The point I was trying to make was Obama is not, not being primaried because he is black. It is because he is an incumbent president. There was much talk of a liberal challenging Clinton in 1996 after he signed the welfare reform bill, but ultimately nothing came of it because challenging an incumbent president is incredibly tough.

    • Cujo359 January 1, 2012 at 3:08 pm #

      Clinton altered the tax laws to be more progressive, something Obama has failed to do. Nothing else you mention about Clinton is anything that Obama has failed to do, or at least advocate for, since he took office.

      You need to check your history, specifically how Nixon dealt with inflation. He did it the way a progressive would have. Note that he formed the EPA, OSHA, and signed the Clean Air Act, absolutely none of which Obama would have done. Then you can get back to me with your “oh my god”. Nixon was a paranoid and let the Vietnam War go on far longer than he should have, but he was a “far left liberal” by today’s standards on domestic issues.

      No, you said rickroberts was playing “the race card” by saying that no one would oppose Obama due to Obama’s popularity among blacks. That’s short for “you’re being a bigot”, not “let’s not let racial differences divide us”. I don’t know enough about the goings on in the Democratic Party to say whether he’s right or not, but it’s a plausible idea. Democrats can be pretty shallow sometimes, particularly when they’re afraid of losing.

      • juan.thompson1985 January 1, 2012 at 10:28 pm #

        1.Everything I mentioned may not be true about Obama but those items certainly don’t make Clinton a progressive.

        2. Some of you people are so deranged by your anti-Obama feelings that you make absurd claims. Nixon made have had some progressive ideas, but anyone who would argue that Nixon was more progressive and or a better president than Obama is a joke. No one but a few confused and ignorant anti-Obama characters think that

        3. You have no way of knowing if Obama would have done those things that Nixon did. So that’s a trifling argument.

         

         

         

        • Cujo359 January 2, 2012 at 12:29 am #

          Re:

          1. You’ve forgotten what we were arguing about, which is that you said that Obama is the most progressive President since LBJ. Logically, showing that any other President was more progressive is how one disproves that point. Whether I managed that or not, saying that Clinton is more progressive is not the same as saying that he is a progressive.

          2. Deranged? You managed to forget what the argument was about, or you don’t have enough philosophical understanding to realize what arguing about it entails. Hardly speaks well of your ability to detect derangement in others.

          3. Of course I do. The man has hired every Wall Street pirate he could find as financial advisers. He’s refused to prosecute any of the white collar crime that led to this financial debacle we’re trying to dig our way out of. If that doesn’t tell you that he’s not into regulations that help the little guy, then I daresay no one knows anything.

          • juan.thompson1985 January 2, 2012 at 11:53 am #

            1. That doesn’t make Clinton more progressive than Obama. I’m afraid you’re confused or incapable of understanding my argument

            2. Your condescension is funny.

            3. Obama wouldn’t have created the EPA? You think Clinton or Nixon would have prosecuted the wall street criminals? Again, you have no way of knowing that, you’re making this up. Go look in the mirror and ask yourself why you are defending Nixon as more progressive than Obama? Ask yourself why your hatred of him has engulfed you so much that find yourself defending Richard Nixon, one of the worst and racist, sexist presidents of the latter 20th century. Ask yourself that and then get back to me.

  13. Tess January 1, 2012 at 3:11 pm #

    I finally refuse to hold my nose and vote for one more Democrat only to be sold down the river. ERA goes down… Carter is President. Don’t Ask Don’t Tell… Clinton is President. The Hyde Amendment… signed by every president since 1976.

    I have poll watched, carried petitions, marched, demonstrated, been arrested, and voted in primaries and general elections for 43 years. Last year I left the Democratic Party. Thank you for putting into such powerful prose my reasons for doing that.

    • Taylor Marsh January 1, 2012 at 3:26 pm #

      Thanks, Tess, grateful this piece spoke to you and so many others.

    • rickroberts January 2, 2012 at 9:42 am #

      Tess, it is particularly heartbreaking when people who have been in the fight for so long become disillusioned. I have been seeking older people to help me figure things out.

  14. Cujo359 January 1, 2012 at 3:30 pm #

    That’s a long list of reasons, Taylor, and it’s hard to add to them. As I told secularhumanizinevoluter in another comment here, I think that if progressives let the Democrats get away with failing us this time, they will realize that they can do whatever they want and not pay a price. That has to stop, or the steady drift to the right of American politics will continue unabated.

    Happy New Year.

    • Taylor Marsh January 1, 2012 at 9:10 pm #

      Cujo359, you are so right.

      Happy New Year to you, too.

  15. Antonio January 1, 2012 at 4:09 pm #

    “There’s a reason Obama reelect doesn’t have a slogan.

    All they’ve got is a question: Are you in?”

     

    Happy Newyear

    There is nothing left to “run” on…nothing…nothing…nothing!!!

     

    Have a happy Newyear!

     

    • Taylor Marsh January 1, 2012 at 9:32 pm #

      Happy New Year, Antonio.

  16. hedy January 1, 2012 at 6:48 pm #

    This is the first time I have posted since you said that O was the president and that we should stand behind him even though he did everything he could to ruin Hillary. I for one would never stand behind a man that the media forced on us and still is. We could have had a great president in Hillary and the world would have been a lot better off with her but no people turned on her and allowed someone that we knew nothing about and still don’t. I am 66 and McCain was the first republican that I ever voted for and I will never go back to the democratic party again even if O were to put Hillary on the ticket with him. I hope the people finally see him for what he is………

    • juan.thompson1985 January 1, 2012 at 10:34 pm #

      And what is he? There is no difference in between Clinton and Obama. And the media forced him on to us? That’s absurd. People voted by their own free will. And I hope you realize you’re in the minority. In 2008 more people registered as Democrats than ever before. So because a few so-called liberals left means nothing. 85% plus of Dems will vote for him again.

  17. Sara January 1, 2012 at 8:04 pm #

    It’s a legitimate rant but the situation we (as disillusioned Dems) find ourselves in was a completely foreseeable result.  (See hedy’s comment at 6:48 pm).  Frustrating that your rant doesn’t end with any concrete options for those who share the anger.

    Why don’t you back Schoen and Caddell’s proposal for a write-in campaign for Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire?  Imagine what would happen if she even came close……

    • Art Pronin January 1, 2012 at 9:13 pm #

      Sara- as a disallusioned dem myself I hear u. I also hear Taylor. I do think a write in would be great be great if u are in a state  which permits that- not all do. I will be voting in the dem primary but i wont be voting for obama in that. i might skip his name. write ins in NH would be a potent statement and has been done n history with effect- im not sure if there is any real organizing to get that done though. If u have caucuses u can vote uncommitted at least. Beyond that not sure.

      Im leary of all thes pols and current 3 rd parties as well. In tx the greens are funded by rick perry’s friends. I dont agree with libertarians on role of govt int he economy etc.. americans elect is ho hum to me and im on there often. no labels-please. Its 1931 and we have no fdr thsi time it feels like.

      • Taylor Marsh January 1, 2012 at 9:39 pm #

        Happy New Year, Art.

      • dafederalist January 2, 2012 at 3:38 am #

        Its 1931 and we have no fdr thsi time it feels like.

        No ART….it’s 1931 and we have Ronald Reagan’s clone.

    • Taylor Marsh January 1, 2012 at 9:22 pm #

      Hello Sara.  It’s not a rant at all. It’s a list of Pres. Obama’s first term failings and reasons he isn’t going to get my support in 2012, as well as why Democrats have lost me. The reasons are solid.

      It’s interesting that you, as well as secularh, can’t figure out that you have the choice to just write in or vote for someone other than Mr. Obama. 

      People have to get out of their head that voting beyond the big 2 parties “wastes” your vote. NO vote is wasted; it’s yours to do with as you see fit. Until people pick outside the box we’ll be stuck in the current system that never changes and candidates like Obama will expect you to fall in line even when he’s delivering conservatism over progressivism or even basic Democratic policies.

      Schoen and Caddell are living in an alternate universe and obviously don’t know Clinton at all. She would NEVER in a million years challenge Pres. Obama.  It’s preposterous to posit. It’s also a stupid proposition to event the notion of drafting someone whose heart & soul isn’t in it.

      Presidential politics is a blood sport & the candidate has to be committed.

      Hillary Rodham Clinton has made it clear she’s not in politics today. I also find it curious that people believe she’s the only other choice besides Barack Obama, which says a lot about Democrats.  She’s SoS right now, a diplomatic position, which she’s made clear has worn her out.  The future may hold something else, but the present absolutely does not.

      Thanks for the comments, just don’t believe what the Obama Fan Boyz say I’ve written about Pres. Obama, because as Solo illustrates above, most of the things are untrue. It’s bound to become fodder across blogs & diaries.  As I wrote in my book, Pres. Obama is beatable, but the GOP circus isn’t exactly the way to do it. Additionally, Obama’s a formidable campaigner, much better than he is a leader, so he can still be reelected. I just have no intention of helping him win reelection.

      • secularhumanizinevoluter January 3, 2012 at 9:50 am #

        It’s interesting that you, as well as secularh, can’t figure out that you have the choice to just write in or vote for someone other than Mr. Obama. “

        Miz Marsh…I luvz ya…ya KNOWZ I duz…but that simply is not true. I know and have spoken about the options of not voting or writing a name in. Heck, I live in  a state that is most likely a pretty safe Dem vote…so it wouldn’t even hurt Obama at all. It’s just that at this particular point in time/history the alternative, the REAL alternative is electing a repugnantklan/teabagger. ANY one of which is shit house rat crazy..certfiably insane. That and a shit house rat crazy repugnantklan/teabagger House dosen’t jerk you awake screaming in the dark of the night?!

  18. Sara January 1, 2012 at 10:36 pm #

    Ms. Marsh,

    I can assure you that I’m quite capable of assessing whether my state allows write-ins, or not.  And I can assure you that I understand fully that I can vote for someone other than Obama.  Your statement is condescending.

    I am also well aware that Hillary Clinton has stated that she’s not running.  If she did have any interest, do you think she’d admit so publicly?  I agree that she would never challenge Obama, and I didn’t suggest that.  But an organized initiative to draft her possibly resulting in a large write-in turn-out in NH could put pressure on Obama, with the help of powerful party members, to bow out.  I believe that was the thought behind Schoen and Caddell’s proposal.  They have never suggested that Hillary should or would challenge Obama in the traditional sense.

    As for what the Obama Fan Boyz say about you, I am unaware.  I don’t follow that.  And I have not had the opportunity to read your book.

    Signed,

    a Clinton Democrat

    • Solo January 1, 2012 at 11:09 pm #

      So a Dem has to have the last name Clinton for you to vote for them?

      • rickroberts January 2, 2012 at 9:46 am #

        No, dear, any more than a Roosevelt Democrat will only vote for a Roosevelt.

        • Wonk the Vote January 3, 2012 at 12:18 am #

          Lol. Simple answers to Solo questions.

           

      • secularhumanizinevoluter January 3, 2012 at 9:51 am #

        So a Dem has to have the last name Obama for you to vote for them?

  19. juan.thompson1985 January 1, 2012 at 11:05 pm #

    Schoen and Caddell have no interest in seeing progressive or liberal policies implemented. They are corporatists of the highest order. They’re DLC-pre 2008 Clintonites. Anyone who thinks they share our values is fooling themselves.

  20. Miriam123 January 1, 2012 at 11:11 pm #

    I”m a hard-right conservative. (Not a religious socon – but a constitutional conservative, tea party, libertarian leaning conservative defense-hawk, free-market fiscal conservative, not pro-choice, but pro-gay rights, decriminalizing drugs, various shit).

    So I disagree with most of your positions as well as those of (Im figuring) most of your readership.

    But, I find it so refreshing to listen to people who aren’t koolaid drinkers, no matter what their persuasion.

    Btw, believe it or not, the reason that conservatives (of many stripes) hate being called ‘republican’ (which is true) is that they feel betrayed by the establishment republican party and don’t want to be identified with it (except that they have to register repub to vote in most primaries – yech.). For example, a free-market conservative is painfully aware that the first bank bailouts took place under Bush…. not Obama. So while we disagree on almost everything, there are strong feelings of betrayal on both sides.

    So – go for it in being strong for your principles. Don’t be afraid to shake up the ‘establishment’ (which is what the tea party tried to do – and partially succeeded – shake up the republican establishment).

    Power to the people. Kick ass – live true to who you are.

     

    • rickroberts January 2, 2012 at 9:49 am #

      You sound like a Libertarian to me, and I am coming around to your way of thinking on some issues. I hope you will stay here and contribute to the discourse.

  21. 1950democrat January 1, 2012 at 11:19 pm #

    You’re finally saying what we PUMAs said in 2008. Some of us voted GOP, some third party, some wrote in Hillary.  But if you’d rather insult us, okay.

    Bye. again.

     

  22. Karl K January 1, 2012 at 11:36 pm #

    You lefties just KILL me. How does it feel to be totally snookered by Obama? Of course, had you exercised an ounce of critical thinking before you all swooned over him, you wouldn’t have be so soundly and thoroughly snookered.

    So why will Obama go down as a WORSE president that Jimmy Carter? Simple. He is an incompetent lazy hypocritical petulant charlatan.

    That’s right, Obama is a charlatan, with neither the temperament, attitude, or intellect — yes, I said intellect — to be president. Because in the end, Obama is simply not that bright.

    I don’t know about you, but when he got up and said “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for” and “this is the day the planet began to heal” my bullshit meter was redlining. Or when he says during the BP fiasco, “we won’t rest until…” — gimme a break. Astonishingly pretentious because, you know, we won’t be resting because we will be playing a lot of golf. Or raising a lot of campaign money. From a lot of Wall St. guys.  If the speechifying isn’t pompous, or arrogant, it’s exploring new depths of banality and demagoguery, erecting false choices and straw men in sentence after sentence after sentence. And the quantity of speechifying! For a while there he was on TV giving an address or news conference more often than Seinfeld reruns.

    Meanwhile, he’s supposed to be this intellectual giant, compared to Chimpy Bush McHitler, but then winds up shooting his mouth off about the Cambridge police and surgeon’s fees for  diabetic amputations without having any facts at hand, among other examples too numerous to mention. He lies about his mother not getting insurance because of pre-existing conditions.

    Then there are his rhetorical gaffes — 57 states, the constitution was written 20 centuries ago, “corpseman” Austrians speak Austrian — that pass by unnoticed by the fawning media but would be front page news if uttered by Dubya or, the media’s favorite whipping girl, Sarah Palin, or the favorite whipping boys, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum. Of course, even when the teleprompter provides him fully formed sentences, virtually everything Obama says has a “sell-by” date — Guantanamo, status of Jerusalem, the ground zero mosque, health care negotiations on CSPAN, shovel ready projects-, and the biggest whopper of all, deficit reduction — you name it, he’ll take one side, and then the other, or ignore what he promised, and then give us the “HOPE” upturned look, pretending that he’s actually thinking.

    Of course, the apologists put it down to other qualities — too aloof, too technocratic, too businesslike — matters of style, not substance. Of course, that’s what OBAMA thinks too – in his delusion or pretense (I’m not sure which is worse) the “shellacking” he and his party got in the 2010 mid-term election was all about not getting the message out well enough. Of course, that’s total drek. The Democrats got their asses handed to them because (1) they spent too much money — the stimulus was about as effective as dropping $100 bills randomly out of airplanes — and (2) they rammed through a 2700 page baroque health care bill whose intended and unintended consequences have yet to unfold but which reflect a kind of governmental intervention that the American electorate is, with some justification, suspicious of.

    Top that off by the fact that people are waking up to the horror that state and local governments have spun out of financial control — largely under the reign of Democrats — and for Democrats, you’ve got a 3-part formula for being summarily shown the exit door, and told not to let it hit them on the way out.

    You know, sometimes, in my most cynical moments, I think folks are swayed because Obama looks good in a suit — see the covers of Rolling Stone — especially when he does that swagger walk. 40 long is my guess. If nothing else, he has a future career as a Ralph Lauren model, which may come sooner that he wants. It’s the “glamour.”

    But when you cut through it all, Obama has revealed himself: he’s a narcissistic petulant hypocrite (“They talk about me like I am a dog.”) And then there’s the pettiness — it’s like there’s nothing else out there that rivals the menace of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, the state of Arizona and its immigration policies — or that most insidious of organizations, the US Chamber of Commerce(!!). Holy crap. Attacking the Supreme Court during the state of the union while they have to sit there, stone faced. It brings new meaning to the word “crass.”

    His policy and management mistakes are taking on epic proportions. He outsourced his legislative agenda to the Assistant Vice Principal Harry Reid and the frozen-faced Speaker Pelosi (“We have to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it;” “The health care bill will create 400,000 jobs”)…if both of them had IQs any lower we’d have to water them twice a day. And then we get Cash for Clunkers, bailing out GM with money the taxpayer will never see…rinse and repeat. Rinse and repeat.

    And virtually every senior person he has put into his administration has been a joke; (the only decent one, Gates, was a Bush leftover). Salazar on the oil spill; Holder, he of the deaths from Fast and Furious, and who makes Alberto Gonzales look competent; Romer promising an amazingly unrealistic unemployment rate; Geithner the tax cheat and Goldman lackey; Napolitano and the TSA and the airport hand groping we all have to deal with; Chu the nobel prize winner who should be getting the economic BOOBY prize for flushing a half a billion dollars of taxpayer money down the Solyndra toilet….and on and on and on. His chief space guy thinks his main mission is outreach to the Islamic world. Really, it’s fucking endless.

    His foreign trips have been humiliating embarrassments: running around the Copenhagen conference, trying to broker a meaningless climate deal, while everyone avoids him; pitching Chicago for the Olympics and getting voted off the island in the first round; in the Far East, selling stimulus when no one’s buying and failing to get a trade agreement that should have been signed and sealed before he left the country. Bowing to foreign leaders. Raising his hand in the middle of a group picture of world leaders. Idiotic.

    Bottom line? Incompetence and embarrassment run wild in the clusterfuck that is the Obama administration.

    Top it all off, the media still has their noses right up his sphincter, leaving Obama completely exempt from the rabid dog inquisitiveness customary with, say, Republican candidates. Of course he will not release his college and law school  transcripts… because well, he thinks he is above it all.  And the media go ga ga anyway. Of course he doesn’t have to explain his 20 years in the pew of a racist pastor. Of course he’s never asked why he renounced public financing of presidential campaigns in the general election, why he is the first candidate  in recent memory not to have released his medical records, or the first to have raised $1 billion dollars in private cash, or the first to have played 90 rounds of golf in his first three years in office.  No wonder he turns up his nose so often in his Mussolini like pose.  He knows he will ALWAYS get a pass.

    Meanwhile, all you guys are going to hold your noses and vote for him again…you too Taylor. You wanna know why? Because you all  think Republicans are heartless devils who are going to turn the United States into a racist evangelical revival meeting, and force girls to get abortions by back alley quacks with un-sterile coat hangers.

    In other words, there are new places of stupidity that you have to visit. My advice? Bring your dramamine.

    Of course, this was the Obama strategy all along. Snooker them with visions of unicorns….and when they wake up and find nothing, snooker them by demonizing the opponents. So, come November, when you punch the card, or flip the lever, remember, you’ve been snookered again.

    God I hope there’s real change coming. Frankly, a Pentecostal snake charmer would be an improvement over this guy.

     

    • dafederalist January 2, 2012 at 2:28 am #

      “Karl K 01 January 2012 at 11:36 pm #

      You lefties just KILL me. How does it feel to be totally snookered by Obama? Of course, had you exercised an ounce of critical thinking before you all swooned over him, you wouldn’t have be so soundly and thoroughly snookered.”

      DISCLAIMER:  I want to apologize to Taylor for my conduct in the following but this Karl K Person did ask for it……

      LETS BEGIN……

      Are you fucking kidding me?   Have you seen the freak clown ass hats on your side of the aisle?  Lets run thru them shall we?

      Ron Paul—Who thinks that the civil rights act is an assault on liberty.  Really?  Well, I’m sure the four little girls that were killed in that church bombing in Birmingham, Alabama 1963 would appreciate that opinion had it not been for them being…you know…DEAD.  Government is the referee…and should step in.

      Mitt Romney–Who will say and do literally anything to attract people who will not vote for him because he is a Mormon.  (He is soo desparate, I am waiting for him to say, “I’ll suck your dick for crack”.)  By the way…please pay close attention to SC, LA, MS, Al, and Texas if he is your Nominee they are not going to vote for Mitt not only because he is mormon but because us southern folks are still trying to figure out…who the fuck names there child TAGG.

      (And will someone please tell Tagg to STHU….Everytime Mitt’s 5 grown and able sons speak, it just reminds America that all 5 of his sons are too chicken shit to serve their country….It makes perfect sense as to why it is soooo easy to speak of sending other peoples children to war. )

      Rick “The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex. “Santorum –who seems to think that people will not google his name and figure…well rick…you did ask for it.

      Rick Perry–This brain trust makes George W. Bush (You know, the guy that lost an 8 year game of hide and go seek) look capable.  Is he soo dumb that he forgot on the list of three things:

      1)  Run for President

      2)  Just Maybe the “niggerhead” rock thing might come up.

      3)  uhmmm, ahhh, uhmmm… (Psssshhh…you are the Govenror of Texas and your state is on FIRE maybe raising some taxes on the Oil Conglums might help you pay for…you Know…firefighters?)

      Newt Gingrich–Did you really think that people would not remember that you are the reason things are soo devided in our Government?  REALLY???  I know half the country watches Fox news but how dumb do you think we are?  (Well, we did vote GWB back into office)

      and then there was Michelle Bachman—You know, I am a firm believer in God and I believe he answers all of our prayers Michelle.  God answers all of our prayers and sometimes the answer is NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

      No Michelle, you will never be the President of the United States!

      No Michelle, you will not be the Nominee of your party!

      No Michelle, you will not be on the ticket, in the cabinet, or near any position of power.  God to Michelle….”Michelle, you should be lucky I overslept the day you won the position you currently have and yes Michelle…your Husband is a big fat QUEEN and STEVIE FREAKIN WONDER COULD HAVE SEEN THAT He  IS IN THE CLOSET.”

      (P.S. Michelle..I find it Ironic that your state bird is the LOON)

      Most important is that with all the major FUCK ups that President Obama has done engaging these conservative ideals and conservative values…hell…even mentioning Ronald Reagan (Or as I like to refer to him as…”He Who Must Not Be Named”)  as if he were the best thing since sliced bread….I would still vote for him over the mental institutional rejects that your “Leadership” allowed to escape out of the asylum to run for President or as I like to call them…the TEABAGGER Candidates.  The candidates on your side of the aisle are so dumb…their combined IQ would not be enough for them to qualify for Special ED.

      • Karl K January 2, 2012 at 11:08 am #

        Are you fucking kidding me?   Have you seen the freak clown ass hats on your side of the aisle?  Lets run thru them shall we?

        First of all, don’t hurt you ankles jumping to conclusions that these are guys on my” side of the aisle.”  I’m a registered independent…I’m a libertarian with a small ‘l.”  To echo Glenn Reynolds, I’d like a society where gay married couples can have a closet full of assault weapons. (Oh, I forgot to mention Barack Obama’s views on gay marriage — what are they, exactly?  Another “present” vote from Mr. Hope and Change).

        Second, I live in Illinois, and I voted for Barack Obama for senate. Why? Because his opponent, Alan Keys, is insane.

        Third, I won’t disagree with you on many of the things you say about the current Republican field.  Personally, I would have liked to see Mitch Daniels run, or Paul Ryan. Guys with brains.

        Fourth, and finally, the next president of the United States has to lead this country in an entirely new direction. He has to do five things, in order of importance.

        1. Get our debt under control. We’re headed to financial oblivion if we don’t. That means cutting government TODAY, not in some hazy distant future. Whole swaths of the government should be shut down. It also means getting our entitlement obligations under control, consigning Obamacare to the ash-can (though the Supreme Court is likely to do that ), while providing a minimal social safety net.

        2. Eliminate crony capitalism. Farm subsidies, guaranteed loans to green companies, cash for clunkers, exchanging bodily fluids with Goldman Sachs…..you name it. It’s all gotta go.

        3. Truly reform the financial system. I work in the industry, and Dodd-Frank is a joke (like the two sponsors, now appropriately EX-members of Congress). Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be unwound (see #1). Firms need to de-leverage, and the interconnectedness of financial transactions needs to have simple rules to prevent bankruptcy cascades.

        4. Allow aggressive domestic energy development. Shale gas, pipeline, deep water drilling.

        5. Apply a muscular foreign policy (this is where I differ with many of my libertarian friends on the Ron Paul side of the spectrum).  I have no problem with the United States exercising its power, as long as Congress signs off (see; Obama and Libya). The US is a force for good in the world.  Iran is a huge menace, and we shouldn’t hesitate to apply military force to them if need be. This regime has asked for it for the last 40 years. Power is all they understand.

        So, given two choices — say, Barack Obama or MItt Romney — who is more likely to take a real run at these 5 key things?

        The answer, of course, is quite obvious.

         

         

        • secularhumanizinevoluter January 3, 2012 at 9:57 am #

          “Personally, I would have liked to see Mitch Daniels run, or Paul Ryan. Guys with brains.”

           

          BWAHAHAHAHAHA! You ARE as clueless as most libertards end up sounding aren’t you!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • secularhumanizinevoluter January 3, 2012 at 9:54 am #

        What dafederalist said!

    • TPAZ January 2, 2012 at 6:14 am #

      I don’t know about you, but when he got up and said “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for” and “this is the day the planet began to heal” my bullshit meter was redlining

       

      That’s right, Obama is a charlatan, with neither the temperament, attitude, or intellect – yes, I said intellect – to be president. Because in the end, Obama is simply not that bright.

       

      Of course, this was the Obama strategy all along. Snooker them with visions of unicorns….and when they wake up and find nothing, snooker them by demonizing the opponents.

      Karl K, I have a bullshit meter, too. Your troll piece tries too hard. Also, this is not an Obot site. Either Obama is this 21st century Machiavellian genius politician or he’s just a puppet being controlled by a puppet-master; he cannot be both. Which is it? Your logic isn’t obtuse it’s inconsistent.. Put another way, you’re reciting mindless right-wing talking points lacking policy substance. We prefer original thinking at TM, if you don’t mind.

      • Karl K January 2, 2012 at 1:19 pm #

        Put another way, you’re reciting mindless right-wing talking points lacking policy substance.

        So, answer me this…is anything I said about Obama wrong? Is he, or is he not, a not-very-bright petulant hypocrite?  Is he, or is he not, a man who says he will do one thing, make a promise about this, or that, and then renege on it? Or ignore it?

        Is Eric Holder, or is he not, an astonishingly incompetent AG–he who probably lied in front of Congress about Fast and Furious? (hey talk about a policy problem, THAT enterprise is the poster child for a goofy idea).  Is, or is not, Stephen Chu a crony capitalist for financially insupportable “green companies.”

        I love it when you guys accuse ME, and folks like me, of parroting right-wing talking points, but when it comes time to address the REAL substance of what I say, you simply can’t. If you brush away the dust from your eyes, the reality stares you right in the face.

        Indeed, the irony is that YOU are engaging in parroting the standard response of “right wing talking points”  because you simply can’t address the ideas on their merits.

        You know, there are times, in my complete anger and disgust at Obama, that I actually think it is great he became president. First, it gives the lie to the notion that the USA is so deeply racist that it can never change. But second, and most important, his administration shows the country what happens when you elect a “progressive.”

        Obama is transformational figure all right. He is going to transform the Democratic party into a shell of its former self.

         

        • TPAZ January 2, 2012 at 6:23 pm #

          How is Obama’s intelligence equal to a policy position that he is either for or against?

          However, I agree with you 100% on Eric Holder; he should have brought criminal charges against BP for the oil spill, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, and financial firms for blowing up our financial system in 2008 and selling toxic assets to Europe which is now imploding, and the prosecution of George Bush and Dick Cheney for high crimes and misdemeanors. Yes, I agree with you on these issues, Karl

          • Karl K January 3, 2012 at 12:54 am #

            “Mistermeaners.”  Nice. Is that a cartoon character?

            Just to enlighten you, and all the other Bush Derangement Syndrome sufferers…Europe is imploding financially because countries have borrowed too much money to fund the leftist fantasies of free healthcare, no taxes (except for the rich), and retirement at 50 with full entitlements.

            And, if you care to understand ANYthing about economics, the other reason is huge current account deficits because….well, the European welfare state is very non-productive, while the citizenry still want their computers, cell phones, DVDs, and flat screen TVs.

            But hey, it’s all Dick Cheyney’s fault.

            If we threw him in jail, all would be right with the world.

             

        • secularhumanizinevoluter January 3, 2012 at 10:02 am #

          “I actually think it is great he became president. First, it gives the lie to the notion that the USA is so deeply racist that it can never change. But second, and most important, his administration shows the country what happens when you elect a “progressive.””

          1.”I actually think it is great he became president. First, it gives the lie to the notion that the USA is so deeply racist that it can never change.”

          Naaaah, we have the teabaggers and repugnantklan and more then a few libertards to remind us just how racist a segment of American society is.

          2.” But second, and most important, his administration shows the country what happens when you elect a “progressive.””

          Thanks for another example of your and most of the rights inability to even understand basic political discrptions and how they relate to behavior.

  23. juan.thompson1985 January 2, 2012 at 12:07 am #

    Puma? Get over it. The Pumas are nothing more than an uber small group of wackos, who made no difference in the 2008 election and will make no difference this year. Get over yourselves. You don’t matter and you’re not true progressives or liberals.

    • Lu January 2, 2012 at 1:11 am #

      Draft Hillary 2012.

      PUMA

    • jinbaltimore January 2, 2012 at 6:55 am #

      If the PUMAs don’t matter, why your fixation with them?

      • juan.thompson1985 January 2, 2012 at 11:58 am #

        I’m not, I merely responded to someone mentioning them. I attacked them for what they are, a small bitter band of people that no one cares about and have no impact, no impact on elections. If you think PUMAs matter, you’re delusional.

        • Taylor Marsh January 2, 2012 at 12:20 pm #

          That’s exactly what the ANTI-puma blogger I brought on in 2008 to combat their campaign wrote:

          Nobody Takes PUMA Seriously but PUMA

          I brought in the author of the post to specifically take on the puma crowd. 

           

           

        • jinbaltimore January 2, 2012 at 2:03 pm #

          Can you really not see that you contradict yourself here?

          There is one reason the PUMAs matter, and only one principle about which they seemed to agree even in 2008: what was done in the 2008 Democratic Party presidential nomination process was anything but democratic.

          How anyone could expect a noble Democratic Party to rise from those ashes is beyond reason.

          update: There’s no way that what happened to primary voters in Florida and Michigan was “fair,” which makes the process about as democratic as W’s 2000 “victory.”  The fruits of that victory, well-documented in your post, do not surprise but only fulfill the promise of corruption offered then.

          • Taylor Marsh January 3, 2012 at 2:48 am #

            The primaries were fair & there was absolutely no conspiracy or anything undemocratic about them.  More importantly, because of her president husband, Hillary & her team should have been prepared for the caucuses & what was coming.

            I will say what I said before and that is caucuses are fundamentally unfair, because too many people cannot attend them.  They should be abolished for primaries.

  24. juan.thompson1985 January 2, 2012 at 12:18 am #

    @ Karl K. Raising his hand in the middle of a group picture of world leaders. Idiotic.” What are you talking about? That says what about him? It’s not surprising that you spend multiple paragraphs attacking Obama for gaffes and supposedly embarrassing the country, while you supported Bush who was the biggest presidential embarrassment our country has produced in long a time. So much so that the world’s opinion of America declined drastically and other world leaders saw him as a joke.  It’s people like you with your petty, partisan, intellectually dishonest and disingenuous attacks that make American politics so awful sometimes. You sir are a hypocrite who listens to talk radio and Fox News so much that you actually start believing the garbage you’re peddling.

  25. Karl K January 2, 2012 at 12:58 am #

    Hey Juan, here ya go.

    http://quitenormal.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/whohereisamarxist.jpg?w=584&h=430

    Imagine if Bush had done this — you guys would all be saying ” Look…look how gauche, classless, and stupid that is!!”

    But then again, you can’t even see your own double standards, or grasp your own contradictions.

    And then, like so many lefties, rather than deal with the facts about Obama  (the hypocrisy, the lies, the two-faced statements, the sell-by date promises) or the substance of the argument,  you invariably fall back on demonizing.

    Or blaming Bush. (And meanwhile, you have ZERO idea about my thoughts about W.. They may surprise you…or not).

    LIke I said, there are new territories of stupid you still have to visit.

     

     

     

     

     

  26. juan.thompson1985 January 2, 2012 at 1:48 am #

    I love how you know what we “lefties” would have said if Bush had done that. But this shows denseness of your argument. Who cares about that picture? It’s about policy and results. And the current president is 10x better than Bush. And why don’t you talk about your feelings on Bush? Are you that ashamed? You must be otherwise you wouldn’t resort to meaningless pictures to push some faulty argument. All politicians stretch the truth and lie, Bush and Obama, you are dangerously naive to believe that Obama is somehow the worse.

    Your delusional perspective is rendering you incapable of making a persuasive argument on substance, instead you focus on a picture. A picture!

    • Karl K January 2, 2012 at 4:50 pm #

      I am not ashamed — are YOU ashamed because you’ve been snookered by Obama? If not, you should be.

      Look, Bush did some good things and some bad things.  I won’t enumerate them here…

      But I will address one thing and that is Afghanistan and Iraq. Think about what we did. We deposed two hideous governments — an medieval theocracy and an 1984 style totalitarian dictatorship.  in the latter case, had we done nothing, Saddam was poised to take advantage of sanctions coming off along with $100 barrel of oil. As for WMD? Just read the Duelfer report on where he was likely to head.

      Look, all of you lefties out there who would have advocated doing nothing are under the moral obligation to imagine what the alternative might have been. The Taliban, continuing to oppress women and decapitate criminals in unused soccer stadiums. Saddam, along with his two pathological sons, continuing his brutality on the population, and gearing up for another round of weapons creation and adventurism. — all the more likely, given where Iran is now.

      Abu Ghuraib and other similar events notwithstanding, the liberation of 20+  million people from the yoke of a disgusting dictator was a noble undertaking.  And to think that Obama’s precipitous withdrawal, to placate those like you, could throw it all away…well, it makes me sick.

       

       

  27. amabomon January 2, 2012 at 2:59 am #

    Karl K:
    January 1st, 2012 at 11:36 pm
    ——————————————
    Excellent comment. I am a registered Democrat who thinks of himself as a centrist, but according to a 10 question internet survey that I took last year that purportedly reveals the survey taker’s political persuasion, I am left of center in the Libertarian direction. I voted Palin/McCain in 2008 and did not feel bad about it at all considering that it was my first Republican vote ever. The Democratic party sucks. Ron Paul sucks, too, as far as
    I am concerned, although in a matchup with Obama, it will be Paul for me. Now Palin, the true corruption fighter, and the one who has actually proven that she will take on the cronies in her own party would be someone for me. She’s lambasted crony capitalism B
    before it was cool, and the mantra of the OWC f(l)akes who are being led by pro-Obama sponsors. She’s genuine which is a rare treat.

  28. dafederalist January 2, 2012 at 3:04 am #

    Hi Taylor…and HAPPY NEW YEAR…As soon as I get caught up on my bills (spent the last 6 months Unemployed after 7 years of faithful work..and finally got a job) I promise I am going to get your book!  Please make sure you market the book to the women studies programs at the Universities!!!!  

    To all my PUMA friends here….I was just like you…I was INCENSED at the party leaders for how they treated Hillary.  I still to this day believe she was the most qualified candidate and would have made an exceptional President because she is an Exceptional Human Being.  I came close to embracing PUMA as a way to get even with how they treated Hillary.  But Hillary stepped in….and Taylor as well…and I had to realize that in 2008 was our chance to get a Democrat who seemed to say all the right things.  Hell, TED Kennedy even endorsed then Senator Obama.  But that was 2008….(Or as I like to call it, Pre-Barack Obama having a record).  Now in 2012, He has a record…..OH BOY does he have a record….and had the mental patients that escaped the asylum that housed Dr. Hannibal Lector from Silence of the Lambs were not in control of the Republican Party and they actual ran an alternative SANE (Like that John Huntsman Fellow that is polling a .05%)  candidate this cycle I would seriously consider not voting for President Obama.  The NDAA thing would have been the final straw.  Thats when I realized that he doesn’t need a slogan…all he has to do is point at the ass hats that are running for President on the other-side of the Aisle.  Lets just say…I have my voters card thumb nailed to the front door with all of my calendars markets for November 2012.  There is nothing else that Barack Obama will need to say to me to conjugal me to get off my ass and in that polling booth!  But I am not going to donate any money to his campaign.  I am not going to volunteer for his campaign.  I’m going to take my hanker-chef, wipe my ass with it, and hold my nose with said hanker-chef an push the button for Barack Obama.  There is still time for him to act like a true Democrat but some how….GIVEN HIS RECORD….I doubt it.

     

    • Wonk the Vote January 3, 2012 at 3:06 am #

      I understand why people felt like giving Obama a chance over McCain.

      I didn’t, but I did feel like giving him a chance once he became president because there was just too much at stake and I really wanted universal healthcare to pan out despite my doubts about Obama. I wanted him to prove them unfounded. Shrug.

      However, Senator Obama HAD a record which Taylor herself covered more in-depth than about anyone else in the blogosphere well before Obama became the nominee. Any true blue liberal who didn’t at least see the red flags in Obama’s “Ronnie Reagan” crap and “sixties and seventies excesses” then and at least have some reservations about it… just didn’t look at the fine print or “wanted to believe” so much they ignored the cognitive dissonance.

      Taylor said she was a Democratic partisan from the start so I wasn’t surprised she campaigned against McCain once the nominee was settled.

      I think holding people’s votes in 2008 against them is a waste of time and counterproductive at this point. I don’t care who anybody voted or didn’t vote for. It’s been four years for goodness sake. There is too much at stake. Half of this country is poor/low-income. The middle class is drowning. I was really struck  this holiday season to hear relatives of liberal and conservative political stripes  expressing mutual frustration and deep dissatisfaction with both parties and the lack of meaningful alternatives provided by either. This could be a pivotal moment in American politics where a critical mass has been reached. Maybe not. We will find out soon enough. We really don’t have much to lose by working together to push back on the Oligarchy and restore the parties to the grassroots. We have everything to continue losing if we continue to enable both the R and D wings of the Oligarchy.

      I was also delighted by the story of the person who glittered Sanitarium and told him to taste the rainbow. More politics of glitter. Less politics of lesser evils.

      IMHO

  29. casualobserver January 2, 2012 at 9:23 am #

    I’ll make my contribution to reaching the coveted 100 post thread…..site sponsors eat that stuff up.

    Somewhere up there in all the noise, I did find 2 nuggets that would help reverse the left/liberal/Dem coalition’s present slide towards becoming a generally ignorable political force.

    First, make a realistic assessment of your current condition…..Taylor Marsh……”The Dems are basically a gutless bunch”

    Second, make a realistic assessment of what your present skillset and influence actually could accomplish in the future….Lady of the Lake,,,,,, As you know I decided awhile ago to spend my energy locally…. I have been able to affect change in my little corner of the world.  Maybe if everyone made it their business to get involved locally we could develop a way forward independent of the national decay. Local government is too often controlled by the same small group who never get opposition due to lack of interest or willingness to put time in to one’s community.

    The people who are really in charge did not get there overnight nor did they ever think jawboning was the path to accomplishment. Pick an opponent in your own wieght class.

    • secularhumanizinevoluter January 2, 2012 at 10:39 am #

      While feeling basically impotent to influence this immediate national election I have been and will continue to be active in our local politics..we even managed to oust a junta of sleazebag repugnantklaners and turn coat DINOs to reclaim control of our local council.

      I most certainly will remain as active if not more so locally. nationally….maybe I’ll just repeat what I did in 08…pass on Presidential or vote Green but Dem down ticket. Hard to believe after all the work, suffering and sacrifice of the 60s and 70s for voting rights, civil rights and reproductive rights we are in the 21st century watching a devolution of the most important things…our constitutional rights,EVER in our history…over seen by a “Democratic” President!!!.

  30. cruccia January 2, 2012 at 10:43 am #

    BTW Taylor, I read your book a couple of weeks ago, and while I don’t agree with you that the flood of sexism will never happen again, it was a terrific book and an important piece for the record. Glad you wrote it.

    • Taylor Marsh January 2, 2012 at 10:57 am #

      Thanks so much cruccia. Not expecting people to agree with everything, but I absolutely agree that it was important for history and the record.

      Appreciate it dafederalist!

  31. Beth in suburban Chicago January 2, 2012 at 11:33 am #

    I read a variety of sites (as I’m sure most here do) and was pleased to find this one on http://www.hotair.com yesterday. Taylor not only got a link, she got a whole item!

    It was titled “Taylor Marsh throws in the towel on Obama:” http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/01/taylor-marsh-throws-in-the-towel-on-obama/

    The author urged all to read it, and ends with, “Particularly given the history of the author, this piece is nothing short of stunning.”

  32. mrks January 2, 2012 at 1:50 pm #

    this is the most energetic post since right after the primaries.

    obama is a disaster. Taylor said he was one before the selection and did her best to support the insane things he has done. however he stepped across the line and now he is toast.

    Taylor get back to the roots of your past regarding obama and the world will suport you.

    obama is a disaster was a disaster and will continue to be a disaster.

  33. elliesmom January 2, 2012 at 2:32 pm #

    I predict that Taylor Marsh will write several pieces about how her “liberal vote is up for grabs” between now and when both candidates are firmly in place. Her change of heart about Obama will suck some of the readers who left her in 2008 back in and attract some new readers. When the election draws nearer, she’ll write a few pieces about how much she doesn’t want to vote for Obama again, but the Republicans aren’t giving her a choice that her conscience will allow her to vote for. So maybe she’ll vote 3rd party. Then she’ll decide that voting 3rd party is too risky because it might help the Republican win. Then she’ll tell all of her readers that if they don’t vote for Obama, too, they’re too stupid to live or something to that effect. Oh, and buy her books to find out why.

    • Lake Lady January 2, 2012 at 2:48 pm #

      Ha ha ha ha ha…..amazing the assumptions people make without knowing who the hell they are talking about.

      • elliesmom January 2, 2012 at 3:22 pm #

        As the weeks and months go on, we’ll see who knows her best. I would love to be wrong.

      • Taylor Marsh January 3, 2012 at 2:19 am #

        LLady, the woman has not one clue.

  34. amabomon January 2, 2012 at 2:47 pm #

    elliesmom, lol. I think you have her pegged.

    • Lake Lady January 2, 2012 at 2:50 pm #

      Oh jeez….time to go pay my bills amaboman has returned.

  35. amabomon January 2, 2012 at 3:00 pm #

    The name’s amabomOn, and for the dyslexics, I may just be who Betsy once surmised. Lady Lake, at least I didn’t vote for the golden calf. Shame on you.

  36. amabomon January 2, 2012 at 3:16 pm #

    Excellent commentary, Karl K. By the way, if you have your own blog, I would like to know what it is because I like your style, and find myself in agreement with most of what you have written here.

  37. amabomon January 2, 2012 at 3:26 pm #

    Karl K., don’t ya know it’s the Obamacrat party? Many of the thinking Democrats, who knew a fraud when they saw one, have already given up on this abomination of a party. Little by little, the lemmings are now awakening.

  38. ladywalker68 January 2, 2012 at 3:58 pm #

    The “Are you in?” slogan is offensive. Trying the scam making us believe that whatever his “in” is, is really cool. I ain’t buyin’ it and I ain’t in.

    Again, very lazy, very empty. Means nothing and stands for nothing.

  39. amabomon January 2, 2012 at 4:09 pm #

    Obama knows himself best, and has admitted to his laziness.

    If people vote for “nothing”, then they shouldn’t expect anything.

  40. insipid January 2, 2012 at 8:50 pm #

    Let’s list the lies:

    1. Indefinite military detention without trial is now the policy ofthe Obama administration, which is something Mitt Romney would also do.

    No, it’s not. In fact he stated very clearly that it is not their policy in his signing statement.  Furthermore it was NOT the administration that put that in there but the Republicans.  that’s what happens when people listen to idiots such as you.  They don’t vote and they get crappy legislation such as this.  But Barack Obama was given the choice 1. Sign legislation that would likely be found unconstitutional anyways and that he would not enforce or 2. Veto it and run the risk of interrupting or losing millions of jobs in this economy.  But in any case calling this the administrations policy when it is a Republican bill and saying it is now the policy of the administration is a lie.

    2. Candidate Obama was against the Iraq war, but he had no trouble bombing Libya without congressional oversight or approval, even though it was not of strategic interest to the U.S. or a clear and present danger. We’ve supposedly gotten out of Iraq, but there is a 104 acre embassy,
    the biggest on planet earth, with support and logistics to match.

    Next to Osama Bin Laden, Kadaffi killed more Americans in terrorist attacks than any other. My ass he was no danger.  And also  it’s a lie that there was no strategic interest, remember they have oil.  Also there was a compelling humanitarian reason to be there as Kadaffi was getting ready to  massacre scores of civilians.  This is why we had the support of the French, British and the Arab League.  Lastly the embassy was built under George W. Bush, not Obama.  But you’re just having a sad because your statements regarding his “disastrous Libyan policy” has been proven wrong.  And you say foreign policy is your stron suit?  I’d say lying is your strong suit.

    3. Pres. Obama has also chosen to short-change women again and again on our freedoms, starting in the health care bill, then by executive order that empowered conservatives of both parties, and finally by making the decision on Plan B that would have come from Mitt Romney, too.

    I love the Hannityesque way you list a whole bunch of shit knowing that the average reader will just accept it all.  The health care bill has already insured 1.25 young woman who would not have health insurance without it.  The health care bill mandates that insurance  company must cover birth control with no copays and the dread signing statement you’re talking about merely stated that the Hyde amendment is the law of the land and that this bill does not change that. The bill didn’t and it is.  But at
    least it gives you a chance to keep  your lying hate on.  While I’m not sure how I feel about plan B, the fact is that 1. People 17 and up can get it without a prescription and 2. Kids under 17 won’t, in all but very rare cases,  use it anyway. The very naivety that kept them from using birth control in the first
    place generally keeps them from taking the pill.  What we need is better sex education, something we won’t have if you lying emoprogs continue to flog the bullshit proposition that “both parties are the same” you lying hack.

    4. As a recovering partisan these days and after watching Pres. Obama’s compromising conservatism, I no longer feel the urgencyto support a political party who has threatened dire consequences if I don’t
    vote for them.

    Oh bullshit, you’re not “recovering” you’ve been spreading lies about Obama for three years now (four if you count the campaign).  The notion that you just had a revelation is just a laughable lie.

    5.      What’s ironic to me is that supporting women’s individual freedoms is really a conservative idea. Conservatives trumpet “don’t tread on me,” freedom, and keeping government out of their lives, so if consistency existed thisshould also apply to a woman’s rights as an individual. The notion that the government should be able to tell any person what he or she can do with their
    own body is an anti-conservatism and anti-libertarian notion

    It’s NOT a fucking conservative idea and it hasn’t been one for almost 40 years now.  Whether it should be or not is irrelevant, the fact is that 1. Obama has increased access to birth control FAR more than he’s limited it and 2. ANY republican would be FAR worse than he is .  Putting out this screed suggesting that a Republican wouldn’t be so bad is just a lie.  Especially when the SC hangs in the balance.

    6.      Obama’s constant chant on reforming entitlements, including changing COLA on Social Security, would hit women the hardest, because in older age we are more likely to depend
    on it, a subject I’ve written on before,

    Lying ass fear mongering.  What changing COLA to CPI does is ensure that
    NO ONE elderly person will be at the poverty line. In fact, if the Fiscal Commission plan were adopted wholesale (which would raise the bottom threshold from replacing 90% of the first 9,000
    of income to replacing 90% of the first $15,000 in income), the basic benefit for people with an average lifetime wage of $15,000 (in 2010 dollars) would increase by nearly $3,500.  http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/07/omg-cola-cut-duck-everybody.html.  So Taylor, why do you hate poor women so much?

    7       On “reforming” entitlements, Pres.Obama comes down the same place as Republicans, though he’s the moderateconservative, so we can expect entitlement “reform” to happen regardless of who is in the White House.

    Which Republican wanted to increase S-chip the way Obama has done?  Which Republican wanted a new GI Bill?  Which republican would of passed the ACA which already has caused a discount of 50% for senior (most of which are women) and provided free wellness visits and has already closed half of the donut hole.  In fact, liar, he’s already increased entitlements more than any President has in 40 years.

    8.      Pres. Obama proved his economic timidity in the 2010 midterms, when you didn’t hear
    anything close to the speech he gave in Kansas, which didn’t come until he began campaigning for his own reelection.

    Here’s what he had to say in September 2009:

    But here’s the problem. Even before this last financial crisis, the economy had problems. Just last week, a Census report came out showing that in 2008, before the downturn, family income fell to its lowest point in over a decade, and more families slid into poverty. Folks at the top 1 percent did pretty good. Everybody else saw their wages and income flat. That’s unacceptable. And I refuse to let America go back to the culture of irresponsibility and greed that made it possible — (applause) — back to an economy with soaring CEO salaries and shrinking middle class incomes; back to the days when banks made reckless decisions that hurt Wall Street and Main Street alike. (Applause.) We’re not going to go back to those days. It would be bad for unions, bad for the middle class, and bad for the United States of America. We’re not turning back. We’re moving forward.

    Not that I expect you to research when lying is so much easier.

     

    9     Obama then followed that up by caving and extending the Bush tax cuts. Obama and the
    Democratic midterm shellacking is what delivered state houses in record numbers to the right, which led to an assault on unions, the middle class, as well as women’s individual freedoms. At a time when we all needed an economic champion what we got was a total Democratic collapse.

    First off the “cave” came after the Democratic   “shellacking”  which was brought about bypeople like you shilling for the “no difference” idea.  He “caved” so that 160 million poor andmiddle class could get a tax cut, he “caved” so that millions of people, likemyself would be able to get unemployment, he caved so that people such as myself would get credits for schooling. But make no mistake, if we had retained the house and Senate or better yet ADDED to our majorities the “cave” would never of been necessary.  See unlike this lying ass essay reality shows that elections matter.

    10.    This includes on economics, where Democrats, with Pres. Obama leading, never made
    the progressive Democratic economic case, whether it’s for tax increases on Social Security taxed income, higher taxes on multi-millionaires, all of which would have required a barnstorming campaign to pigeon hole recalcitrant Republicans, then shame them into submission.

    That’s such a HUGE lie it’s almost laughable.  Really? are you kidding?  He hasn’t made the case
    for a tax on millionaires?  Not only has he MADE the case repeatedly in the last few months, he even ADDED a tax on millionaires to the health care bill.  Really, read a fucking newspaper.
    I’m not even gonna bother getting quotes of him pounding the magicalbully pulpit for a tax on millionaires. Cause really if you’re this fucking stupid that you don’t know, that it
    just means you don’t want to know.

    11.   The two political parties have been under siege for some time, because Americans
    just don’t trust Republicans or Democrats anymore. Barack Obama was the last chance for political parties, specifically the Democratic brand, with George W.Bush having already given rise to rebellion inside the GOP, which is seen best through Ron Paul and the Tea Party

    Really, homophobic. Anti-choice known bigot Ron Paul you’re implying is as good a choice as Barack Obama?  The president that has provided free birth control to women, free mamagrams, has increased access to doctors for women and is also our first Black President you’re implying is no better than that old racist?   Maybe it hasn’t occured to you that the polls are correct, that MOST Democrats like Obama.   And THAT’S the reason that the primary idea won’t work and will never work.  That YOU’RE the one out of touch.   Jane Hamsher’s phrase “dumb mother fucker” comes to mind. Really, you should get another job, political analysis is not your forte.

    • Wonk the Vote January 3, 2012 at 2:34 am #

      ANY republican would be FAR worse than he is .  Putting out this screed suggesting that a Republican wouldn’t be so bad is just a lie.  Especially when the SC hangs in the balance.

      Same script as the one that started on May 31, 2008. Rinse, lather, repeat.

      In fact he is far worse than a Republican when it comes to women’s rights. He is passing an anti-women agenda under the mantle of party of women, NOW, NARAL, etc. It’s a co-optation of the worst kind, and all the Obama progs think he’s good for women and don’t fight him…whereas they’d all be fighting (and likely winning more than a few battles) against an anti-women rightwing C-Street agenda that most of this country actually does NOT agree with and would protest if they really understood the repercussions and ramifications that it would impart in their own lives and on a community-wide and nation-wide scale.

       

       

      • insipid January 3, 2012 at 4:32 am #

        You’re the one blindly following a “script” not I.  It’s the same script that said Bush was the same as Gore and that John Kerry was not liberal enough.  Name ONE Republican that would give women free access to Birth control as Obama has done.  Name ONE Republican that would provide free mamagrams for women as Obama has done.  Name a Republican that would name TWO women to the SC or appoint Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.   Hell, name one Republican that would of signed the Lilly ledbetter act.  You’re just spouting out frustrati talking points that don’t survive ANY scrutiny.

        • Wonk the Vote January 3, 2012 at 11:53 am #

          More of the Obama script from insipid.

          What free access to birth control? What free mammograms?

          You’ve no idea of the health insurance law and its real life application for women.

          Shouting “Sonia! Elena! Michelle! Hillary! Lilly!” does not change Obama’s record as president.

          Where’s the Paycheck Fairness Act? Ledbetter is symbolic and its benefits intagible without the Paycheck Fairness Act. By keeping Hillary out of domestic politics and putting her at the helm of his Administration’s foreign diplomacy, he’s kept her voice out of the national debate to point that distinction out forcefully and challenge him to use his force of the bully pulpit/executive pen to get things done rather than having his followers keep shouting that empty Ledbetter talking point which is really an insult to what Lilly has fought for.

          An Obama SCOTUS that put Walmart before women is nothing we ladies can’t live without.

           

           

          • juan.thompson1985 January 3, 2012 at 12:59 pm #

            Tell that to the women who support Ledbetter that its an insult. You’re so full of hatred that now you’re blaming Obama for appointing HRC SOS? He took her out of the dialogue? Does she not have the choice to become SOS? This is the 21st century, women like HRC, have the choice. You’re ridiculous.

            And the healthcare law does have access to birth control, you should read it. You’re obviously ignorant. This is not about HRC! What is wrong with you people? You’re like the last of the Japanese who don’t know that war is over. Get over it. The United States, the progressive movement is all bigger than HRC. You people do realize how isolated you are don’t you? Most Americans are worried about jobs, peace, and justice. And you’re yelling about a former presidential candidate. She seems to have moved on, I encourage you do to so as well.

          • Wonk the Vote January 3, 2012 at 1:09 pm #

            I’m a woman who supports Ledbetter. You obviously missed the point.

            I would have supported Hillary in staying in the Senate and be a force for women, children, and the middle class in general, but I was glad when she accepted Sec. of State too.  Politically Obama did remove her as a voice in the Senate and remove her as any kind of a challenging force to his Administration on domestic politics.

             

      • Taylor Marsh January 3, 2012 at 10:32 am #

        Same script as the one that started on May 31, 2008. Rinse, lather, repeat.

        We’ve been hearing it for over 30 years, with Christine Pelosi floating it yesterday on Huffington Post, which isn’t surprising, but given the actual facts is embarrassing for her.

        In the Obama era, Democrats AND congressional progressives and their supporters have delivered the exact climate they said voting for them would never happen.  The turnover of state houses in 2010 unleashed the right like we’ve not seen in over 50 years, not just on women’s individual freedoms, but on the middle class and unions as well, not to mention what was delivered when Pres. Obama signed the NDAA.

        • juan.thompson1985 January 3, 2012 at 2:29 pm #

          And Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act and DADT. Obama didn’t remove Clinton from anything @ WONK. Has it ever occurred to you that she agrees with him. Stop it with this nonsense.

          • jinbaltimore January 3, 2012 at 5:41 pm #

            Clinton signed those two into law because of other Blue Dog democrats.  Do you think gays and lesbians would be serving in the military today if Clinton hadn’t urged that compromise when BARRING GAYS SERVING was on the table?

            Whereas Obama’s position on these things, which he calls “evolving,” evolves backwards.

          • Wonk the Vote January 3, 2012 at 7:32 pm #

            Has it ever occurred to you that she agrees with him.

            If Hillary agrees with O on his domestic policies and politics where women’s rights are concerned, then she would be a hypocrite for supporting those rights for women across the globe but not here at home.

             

             

  41. davenireland January 2, 2012 at 9:55 pm #

    Happy New Year to you all, and looking forward to reading your book Taylor,

    Ive been playing around with the Electoral Map and Im shocked to find how strong a hold Obama has on the electoral college. From what Ive calculated, Obama is likely to have 262 points to the Republicans 184. Im classifying Nevada as an Obama-leaning swing state so that brings him up to 268, only 2 shy of victory.

    Going on these calculations, and it is early days Ill admit, anything can happen, but out of the swing states: Indiana (11) Virginia (13), North Carolina (15), Ohio (18) and Florida (29) Obama only needs ONE!

  42. JDubya January 2, 2012 at 10:07 pm #

    Interesting piece.

    I do find it ironic that you are stating that conservatives are more about individual’s rights (a truthism of conservatism) yet you start chatting on the levels of conservatism and the responses regarding abortion.

    As a male, I do not butt into the dialogue. But as a taxpayer, I do not want to pay for it. I do find it disgusting that your hero, the current President, signed the Mexico City Act making the financing of abortion then new export with the brand “Made in America”. Is this really what my tax dollars need to finance? Or how about putting a cell phone or free internet into the hands of the most worthless by product of booze and drugs. But its all Bush’s fault.

    What a joke.

    I know, I know; its the whole “if a women’s life is in jeopardy mantra”. It is always applied to the argument of keeping abortion “safe and legal”, yet I am still paying for it. Can you actually publish some statistics on this rape/incest statistic? Yeah, I figured that one pretty quick.

    This Morning After Nightmare pill accesible to minors will be the end of Liberalism as we know it. Thank God. (I am not religious, sucker). Your fellow minions have revealed their bankrupted morality with this one.

    When my wife and I were first starting out, we went for an abortion. It was a very emotional experience from a male’s perspective. I cannot possibly imagine it from a woman’s point of view. It was a very resonating experience and it is over 15 years ago. What really sticks in my mind though were some of the other conversations I overheard young women, under 18, going back and forth. There was the one that was having her second abortion.

    I read about the day after pill and how ALL women, regardless of age, should have access and anonymity on the matter. I totally disagree with you on the age portion.

    I could care less what you or any other woman do with your bodies. But when it comes to this BS about allowing underage girls; children, minors, you have no say. If you have daughters and want to sign off on their future, fine, but not when it removes parents like me from knowing what the government is providing for my offspring, then, you become the problem. This is why the country is in problems.

    Our society has caved in from the frivolity espoused by the left/liberal/democrat crap that has been unladed onto our society.

    These ruins are not from conservatism: where you are in charge of your own destiny- and responsible for the outcomes.

    What we have is now a failed philosophy, by a bunch of witless wish-casters, who follow like lemmings the “beliefs” that are flashed onto your miniscule brains.

     

  43. Wonk the Vote January 3, 2012 at 12:32 am #

    Very interesting discussion.

    Taylor, I’ll have to give this a more thorough read, but glad you got the conversation going.

    I didn’t vote for Obama in ’08, but once he became President-elect–I gave him a chance to earn my vote in ’12.

    So far, he has not.

    I will not vote for Mittens or Newtered or any of the other Rs. Unless something dramatically changes, Huntsman doesn’t stand a chance, so that’s moot.

    I think we should all write in RuPaul.

  44. ladywalker68 January 3, 2012 at 1:51 am #

    I didn’t vote for Obama in ’08, but once he became President-elect—I gave him a chance to earn my vote in ’12.

    So far, he has not.

    That sums it up for me.

    Taylor, you’ve caused some heads to explode. Well done!!!   LOL!!!!

    • Taylor Marsh January 3, 2012 at 2:21 am #

      heh-heh… It’s really fun to see it out in the open & on the page. ;-)

  45. klassicheart January 3, 2012 at 3:19 am #

    A very good post.

  46. secularhumanizinevoluter January 3, 2012 at 5:49 am #

    JDubya wrote “When my wife and I were first starting out, we went for an abortion.”

    Then went on to tell how he listened in on the OTHER females…some as young as GASP younger then 18 discussing their abortions…no doubt while snapping their gum and painting their nails.

    His CLEAR implication being THEY were not and HAD not given as much careful thought as he and HIS wife had and CLEARLY shouldn’t be able to have an abortion. Then launches into a basic claim of ownership over HIS chillen and that big evil GOVment shouldn’t be allowen the lil sluts to have access to the morning after pill.

    As clear an example of the double standard of so many anti-everybody ELSE’S-reproductive rights attitude of the anti reproductive rights mob.

    And then the tired old bloated red herring of HE doesn’t want to pay for it..

    How these people can look at themselves in the mirror in the morning without hurling is beyond me.

    HIM and other good UBERChristian conSERvative types can avail themselves of abortion services because THEY will only use them for the RIGHT purposes. But those OTHER folks….well they just have to be CONTROLED donchasee!

     

    • Taylor Marsh January 3, 2012 at 11:44 am #

      Hey secularh – I was hoping someone would flag that section. It’s telling.

      • secularhumanizinevoluter January 3, 2012 at 6:11 pm #

        These “people” make my skin crawl. My favorite was the ‘spokes person” for paula Jones…an anti abortion activist who had THREE abortions herself…TWO before the were legal and one a  late term or as she would call it “partial birth”. And this piece of work has the gall, the unmitigated GALL to try to deny others the same rights SHE used…or abused three times. Hell, that makes her a SERIAL KILLER doesn’t it!!!

        These people are beneath contempt.

  47. spincitysd January 3, 2012 at 8:11 am #

    141 Comments plus this for 142. Good job Taylor!! And good job to all the men and women who joined in for a rousing bit of political fisticuffs. Happy New Year to all of you, each and every one– including our resident Obama-bot whack-a-doodle; plus the odd PUMAs who came decided to celebrate Ground Hog’s Day a bit early. Get some popcorn ready because tonight is Iowa! Oh joy, oh rupture– um rapture; I definitely meant rapture.

     

.... a writer is someone who takes the universal whore of language
and turns her into a virgin again.  ~ erica jong