Taylor Marsh throws in the towel on Obama

posted at 3:00 pm on January 1, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

Just how disappointed are progressives about the performance of Barack Obama during his first three years in office? Perhaps no better example can be found than a simply jaw dropping editorial tirade this weekend from Taylor Marsh. (Actually Michelle Marshall) For those not familiar, the author of “The Hillary Effect” used to blog under the moniker “Democrat Taylor Marsh” and was arguably one of Obama’s most hard core supporters once in office, despite having previously been a prominent PUMA supporting Mrs. Clinton during the primary.[* See Update below] A devotee of Gloria Steinam, to say that she embodies the modern progressive movement would be a bit of an understatement to say the least.

All of this is what makes her New Years declaration more shocking. Titled, “The Party’s Over,” she takes not only Barack Obama, but Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic establishment to task while pretty much running up the white flag for liberalism.

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…

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.

I’ll warn you right up front that this is a rather long diatribe, but I assure you that it will be worth your time to click through the link and read the entire piece. Marsh spends a great deal of time describing her disappointment in Obama over his decision to not allow little girls access to Plan B. (And we’re talking about birth control for 12 year olds here.) The litany of complaints doesn’t end there, however. She accuses Obama of being more of a warmonger than George W. Bush, failing to tax the rich sufficiently and committing the sin of noting that entitlement programs need reform without (again) moving to tax the rich to solve it.

The ending is even more poignant, however, and we’ll close this exercise with another quote:

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.

Particularly given the history of the author, this piece is nothing short of stunning.

Update: I was contacted by Ms. Marsh, who wished to state that while she was an Obama voter she was not a supporter of the PUMA movement.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5

The answer is they don’t have to reject their system because they have ours to fall back on.

itsspideyman on January 1, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Did anyone here accuse you of being a crypto-Satanist? No. We accused you of using Alinskyesque Tactics, because us Hot Gassers who have been here for more than a few years have seen them come and go repeatedly.

BTW, our current Democrat Secretary of State did her Senior Thesis at Wellesley about Saul Alinsky. It was embargoed for the entire 8 years her husband was in power, including the last couple of years in his Presidency, while he was playing with cigars, engaging in workplace adultery with a workplace subordinate, and letting bin Laden plan the 9/11 attacks.

Del Dolemonte on January 1, 2012 at 7:05 PM

Hey – I didn’t bring the Alinsky dedication into the discussion. And I never read more of Alinsky than the ten tactics that are readily available on the web.

And if Hill read Alinsky? Good for her. I mean, what is Alinsky-ism — living wages for stockyard workers? Why do you hate a man who fought long and hard for the people Repblicans pretend to represent?

Clinton, by the way, had the most successful presidency — for America — than any president since Roosevelt. Just as Lincoln is reputed to had suggested that his other generals drink the same whiskey Grant did, I wish that Bush was smoking the same cigars as Clinton.

urban elitist on January 1, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Clinton, by the way, had the most successful presidency — for America — than any president since Roosevelt. Just as Lincoln is reputed to had suggested that his other generals drink the same whiskey Grant did, I wish that Bush was smoking the same cigars as Clinton.

urban elitist on January 1, 2012 at 7:13 PM

With a Republican congress, which he rubber-stamped their economic agenda.

itsspideyman on January 1, 2012 at 7:22 PM

Clinton, by the way, had the most successful presidency — for America — than any president since Roosevelt.

urban elitist on January 1, 2012 at 7:13 PM

LOL. You lefties have no memories. Back in the days of Clinton, whenever you pushed the dems to say why they supported Clinton, the best they could do was say that “he hasn’t screwed anything up” because he generally did NOTHING during his tenure. He only ended up signing GOP bills (like the trade and welfare bills) and tried to take credit for them (but all the dems hated them so Clinton couldn’t push that lie too far). Clinton signed the welfare reform and then told his supporters, “Don’t worry, I’ll change it with new legislation next term” which was such a total joke because he never passed anything of his. Then, years later, he tried to claim that welfare reform was his. LOL. The dems are only lucky that they have retards like you backing them. They know they can say anything because you idiots can’t think your way out of a paper bag and have no memory of anything that happened before yesterday.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 1, 2012 at 7:23 PM

I’s saying that his record stacks up as moderate at best, and many progressives are extremely disappointed. The bailouts save millions of jobs but car companies weren’t nationalized. Neither was Wall Street. Whatever you think of Obama, you have to admit that when he became president in the midst of an immense economic meltdown, he nationalized nothing. he’s a capitalist, for freak’s sake.

The funny thing here is that you assume that somehow I’m not a middle class guy with kids in college, a mortgage and a 401k. I’m not in favor of burning anything down.

urban elitist on January 1, 2012 at 4:05 PM

You have got to be kidding. Moderate at best? I love the way the left keeps moving the goalpost further to the left and then calling leftist actions “moderate” because it’s not next to the new goalpost. Just because Obama isn’t standing beside Karl Marx, IN YOUR OPINION, doesn’t mean that he is magically moderate.

By the way, PROVE that he saved millions of jobs. Your word isn’t good enough for me. In MY opinion, he has save ZERO jobs that should have been saved. Bankruptcy procedings would have maintained those jobs and NOT forced us to bail out the “greedy” companies that should have been accountable for their bad management.

He’s a capitalist???? He’s a Marxist that has learned how to get ahead in a capitalist system. He’s part of the 1% that the moronic OWS supporters rail against and yet I don’t see him donating all his profits to help the downtrodden. I do see him trying to force EVERYONE ELSE that has actually produced something in the country to pay for his pet projects.

Stop pretending that he’s a middle of the road type citizen. If you actually believe that, then you must be keeping company with people that love Che, Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot.

Zooid on January 1, 2012 at 7:24 PM

Clinton, by the way, had the most successful presidency — for America — than any president since Roosevelt

Cool, now I can ignore any posts from urban! Thank you bro.

racquetballer on January 1, 2012 at 7:24 PM

I never heard of this “Taylor Marsh”, and I wouldn’t be a bit surprised to find that I disagree with her political and social viewpoints. Yet I consider this person a kindred spirit because having one more person realizing that the system is a sham and all we truly have is a corrupt two party dictatorship means success. I say WELCOME! Go towards the light of liberty. Fight the Democratic and Republican parties. We can disagree on trivialities later once they, the true threat to our national security, democracy, liberty, and freedoms, have been destroyed.

God Bless America

AttaBoyLuther on January 1, 2012 at 7:27 PM

urban elitist on January 1, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Isn’t it kinda curious how people that live under those ‘advanced’ healthcare systems have been coming here to have anything serious done when they need it..?

affenhauer on January 1, 2012 at 7:29 PM

This what happens when the leaches are feed well enough

J_Crater on January 1, 2012 at 7:30 PM

Clinton, by the way, had the most successful presidency — for America — than any president since Roosevelt. Just as Lincoln is reputed to had suggested that his other generals drink the same whiskey Grant did, I wish that Bush was smoking the same cigars as Clinton.

urban elitist on January 1, 2012 at 7:13 PM

With a Republican congress, which he rubber-stamped their economic agenda.

itsspideyman on January 1, 2012 at 7:22 PM

No, it was the Clinton tax increase that balanced the budget. Oddly, I do kind of find myself pining for the Bill-Newt Bromance sometimes.

racquetballer on January 1, 2012 at 7:24 PM

No one since Johnson has had an Administration in which middle class incomes has risen, save Clinton. We were largely at peace, intervened forcefully and effectively to save lives, and the budget was balanced. And we started to stop hating on the Gays. Clinton was proof that centrist Democrats know best.

urban elitist on January 1, 2012 at 7:31 PM

RickB on January 1, 2012 at 5:41 PM

Ok, so I waded through that whole thing and there was one sentence on the environment. You seem to forget the media attention paid to “Silent Spring” and pesticide pollution.

The party platform was a campaign document, and the environment issue was in the public media. The GOP needed some reference to it to be able to claim that they wanted a clean environment too!

It really sets my teeth on edge the way you people manufacture an issue then blame the GOP for trying to accommodate you.

Same thing with health care. You demand health care as a right, Romney tries to mitigate the disaster that would result, and you want to crucify him for joining the Borg Collective.

But ya, blame Nixon/Romney. I do too, but not because they wanted those policies but because they were ineffective at resisting the demand, and unable to see the consequences beyond losing votes.

It really does get tiresome, so just get off my lawn! Damn kids.

Skandia Recluse on January 1, 2012 at 7:32 PM

Tax the hell out of rich Democrats … they are traitors to their party

J_Crater on January 1, 2012 at 7:35 PM

We were largely at peace,

The dem ostriches. No, we were not at peace. You are going to pretend that WTC bomb I, our embassies, barracks, … had not been hit time and again under Clinton, with no response to speak of (save him hurling a few Tomahawks that just happened to coincide with his grand jury testimony …)? Lying sack of sh#t.

intervened forcefully and effectively to save lives, and the budget was balanced. And we started to stop hating on the Gays. Clinton was proof that centrist Democrats know best.

urban elitist on January 1, 2012 at 7:31 PM

LOL. Now, you are in favor of the US telling the UN to go shove it (as Clinton did for Kosovo)? BTW, Kosovo was a disaster. Everyone knew it. Of course, you don’t remember the hundreds of thousands of refugees going this way and that after the US waded in, only to have Clinton and Wes Clark respond with, “Uh …. Er … uh … Uh …”. No, you don’t remember any of that and how it was clear in the first few hours of the attack that our planning was pathetic, at best. Clinton got lucky when Milosovic gave up totally by surprise. Even Clinton was surprised.

You really are a lying scumbag. And stupid. But, mostly lying, now.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 1, 2012 at 7:38 PM

the budget was balanced

This lie has been repeated by both Republicans and Democrats for political advantage and is plain wrong. The budget was balanced on the backs of social security income. The actual defecit never got closer than a 75 billion dollar deficit.

itsspideyman on January 1, 2012 at 7:39 PM

the budget was balanced

This lie has been repeated by both Republicans and Democrats for political advantage and is plain wrong. The budget was balanced on the backs of social security income. The actual defecit never got closer than a 75 billion dollar deficit.

itsspideyman on January 1, 2012 at 7:39 PM

You are correct, spidey. The national debt never declined from one year to the next during Clinton’s terms. I hate that these guys keep repeating this lie. Even GOPers don’t push back against this clear falsehood. It did get very close to balanced for one year, but never got out of deficit.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 1, 2012 at 7:42 PM

Yes, Gingrich had the most successful reign as speaker, letting Clinton take credit.

joeindc44 on January 1, 2012 at 7:45 PM

Would Leslie Stahl grill Barack like she’s doing to Eric Cantor?

SouthernGent on January 1, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Didn’t he play drums for the Rolling Stones?

Montjoie on January 1, 2012 at 7:48 PM

It really does get tiresome, so just get off my lawn! Damn kids.

Skandia Recluse on January 1, 2012 at 7:32 PM

You still got lawn today!?!

Yoop on January 1, 2012 at 7:49 PM

here’s Powerline reporting on Whittaker Chambers review of the early Alinsky book

“A liberal is [a person] who puts his foot down on thin air,” Chambers quotes Alinsky from his book. Chambers adds that “The author has glimpsed a vision which is greater than his ability to put it in practical terms.” To the extent that Obama seems otherworldly, aloof, and/or clueless, it is because he really is a dedicated Alinskyite, whose desire to change America fundamentally should be taken seriously. It helps explain why his heedless irresponsibility is in fact purposeful.

now, silly people like urban will think this is a good think…be a visionary, reach for the stars…blah blah blah.

But, urban, here’s the reason that Uncle Saul and Uncle Joe are nuts:

#SocialismInEightWords Final score: 150 million broken eggs, 0 omelets

from IowaHawk on his twitter today.

(actually it looks like urban has left…maybe it is pizza night at his mom’s…but I thought the Iowahawk thing was very true

r keller on January 1, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Ah the ruling class taking credit on the backs of the American people. Political success is measured by how much of our money they can overspend and redistribute. Just sickening–throw them all out!

racquetballer on January 1, 2012 at 7:53 PM

And we started to stop hating on the Gays. Clinton was proof that centrist Democrats know best.

urban elitist on January 1, 2012 at 7:31 PM

Oh, that’s hilarious.

We know damn well what bigot Obama supporters like yourself think about gays.

We also know you and your fellow bigots have zero – ZERO – problem with discrimination against gays who disobey their Obama massas.

And what regimes does supposedly “pro-gay” Obama endorse? The Palestinians/Hamas, the Taliban, and the Iranians, all of whom execute gays.

northdallasthirty on January 1, 2012 at 7:55 PM

Pardon my ignorance, but who is Taylor Marsh, and why is her towel newsworthy?

Gordy on January 1, 2012 at 7:57 PM

Taylor Marsh. (Actually Michelle Marshall)

What is it with commies that they are ashamed of their real names? The jug-eared idiot in the White House once went by the name “Barry Soetoro.” But that, of course, is not the name on his birth certificate that only was released after a friend of Barry became Governor of the state and could alter public records.

And we have this idiot with a perfectly fine name deciding to become Taylor Marsh. There is something odd about people who decide to take on other names instead of standing up with the name they have. Disreputable even.

Happy Nomad on January 1, 2012 at 7:59 PM

“Centrist Democrats”… those are as extinct as dodo birds.

Marxism is for dummies on January 1, 2012 at 8:02 PM

It’s New Years Day and I’m beat. Remind me, Why do I care what she thinks?

Finbar on January 1, 2012 at 8:10 PM

You still got lawn today!?!

Yoop on January 1, 2012 at 7:49 PM

Ya, hah. well it’s not really lawn, but if you cut the weeds off to a uniform height it looks like lawn, from the highway as you pass by at 100mph. Of course, it’s under about 6 inches of snow. Could be more, haven’t been out, have no need to go out, but I do have pitchers.

Skandia Recluse on January 1, 2012 at 8:14 PM

We were largely at peace, intervened forcefully and effectively to save lives, and the budget was balanced. And we started to stop hating on the Gays. Clinton was proof that centrist Democrats know best.

urban elitist on January 1, 2012 at 7:31 PM

I’m guessing you are a twentysomething idiot who is hitting the blogs from some occupy camp. I say that because your perspective on Clinton is moronic. Clinton and his people rushed to waste the so-called peace dividend on social welfare programs. Had Clinton and his child-killer AG actually done something about terrorism the atrocities of 9/11/01 would not have happened. I assume you are old enough to remember the day that 3,000 Americans were incinerated or jumped to their deaths because Bill Clinton and Janet Reno refused to deal with Muslim terrorists.

Bill Clinton was able to reap the benefits of the end of the cold war and the policies brought about by Reagan/Bush. Clinton caused the 9/11/01 atrocities by his ignorance and the ignorance of those around him. In terms of historical importance, Clinton is nothing more than a placeholder with an asterisk due to a semen stained dress and the honor of being only the second President to be impeached (and the other showed up for his swearing in so drunk he was offensive and incoherent).

Clinton never intervened forcibly and was largely despised by the military because he viewed the Department of Defense as a social experiment. I would suggest you educate yourself about the world and the real facts before you post one more ignorant comment.

Happy Nomad on January 1, 2012 at 8:16 PM

Marsh spends a great deal of time describing her disappointment in Obama over his decision to not allow little girls access to Plan B. (And we’re talking about birth control for 12 year olds here.)

Actually, what she is talking about is not really birth control, but, a pseudo abortion pill, since it is taken after irresponsible sex with people they don’t want to marry. And for 12 year olds.

William Teach on January 1, 2012 at 8:22 PM

I guess she’ll be going back to soft porn?

lonestar1 on January 1, 2012 at 8:28 PM

Now that she has had her tirade she will fall back in line and vote democrat like a good little girl. The dems will always be able to count on her vote (as well as that of her readers.)

The fact that she considers abortion an exercise in conservative (and libertarian) ideals is so laughable, it makes it easy to ignore anything else she says.

goflyers on January 1, 2012 at 8:43 PM

Marsh spends a great deal of time describing her disappointment in Obama over his decision to not allow little girls access to Plan B

.

And this is the problem I have with journalism today. Who the hell cares that Marsh (or Marshall) has with Obama? We all have viewpoints and opinions. Why is this woman’s view more important just because she gets to write leftist propaganda for the DNC?

I’m particularly sensitive on this point after my idiot brother came for Christmas and declared social conservatives unpatriotic. He has deemed anybody who does not agree with his far left viewpoint as unpatriotic. I called him out on it and he did what every liberal does (associating his absurd claims with “economic disparity” and “social justice.”

The fact of the matter is that there is a national dialogue and the Democrats act as if their views are the only ones that matter. Obama sneered at Christians and called them “clingers.” Pelosi and Reid refused to let Republicans be part of the legislative process and since 2010 any credible idea out of the House is immediately squelched by the Dems in the Senate. Obama and is co-conspirators act as if they have complete control over the national dialouge.

They do not. And it is high time we put the bastard in his place.

Happy Nomad on January 1, 2012 at 8:43 PM

Clinton, by the way, had the most successful presidency — for America — than any president since Roosevelt. Just as Lincoln is reputed to had suggested that his other generals drink the same whiskey Grant did, I wish that Bush was smoking the same cigars as Clinton.

urban elitist on January 1, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Er, Clinton wasn’t smoking those cigars.

As for Clinton’s “Presidency”, you’re entitled to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own “facts”.

At the time Clinton left office, every public opinion poll that asked the question “What would Bill Clinton’s Presidency Be Remembered For?”, the Majority mean result of those polls (70%) said “Scandals”.

And I would direct you to a fascinating opinion piece that appeared in the NY Times-Owned Boston Globe on July 4, 1999. That would be about 18 months before Clinton left office and left Bush 9/11.

That article, which you can find at the Boston Globe website, will cost you $3 to read. But it’s $3 well spent.

It’s written by “Historian” Richard Goodwin, who early in his career was a Left Hand Man to both John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. In his piece, Goodwin, who of course admits later that he voted for Clinton twice, concludes that Bill’s “Presidency” has, as of 1999, been a complete failure. I know you can’t be bothered by Facts, but please check it out.

By the way, Clinton was originally elected on a Lie; the Fed first posted stats that the Economic Recovery he would later take credit for actually began in March of 1991, or 18 months before the Democrat Media elected him President by not reporting that Inconvenient Truth.

Del Dolemonte on January 1, 2012 at 8:44 PM

So is she going to get someone to primary Obama or is she going to vote for the Republican presidential candidate? Or are these empty words to match her empty ideas?

talkingpoints on January 1, 2012 at 8:49 PM

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

Right. But in 2012, only Obama will be playing catch. [Oh, come on! You don't think she'll vote for a gop candidate, do you? lol!]

Blake on January 1, 2012 at 8:59 PM

Del Dolemonte

Hey, good job!

It was funny that it sent a mortar my way when I wasn’t even talking to it.

The play-by-play was great:
-Alinski was the greatest person ever. Loved the book
-Do you know who he dedicated it to?
-Silence
-Hey, DD, it hasn’t answered your question
-STFU Horace
-I’ve hardly read Alinski – just some blurbs on the Net

HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa!

Horace on January 1, 2012 at 9:03 PM

She will fall in line, her vote isn’t “up for grabs”. Never in this rant does she say she definately won’t vote for Obama again. There is no way she would ever vote for an “R” of any kind. I guess she could vote for Ralph Nader or whoever is this year’s green party loser, but she knows that doing so makes her even more irrelevant than she already is. Nope, she will come back to Obama, claiming he is the only choice she has and that the alternative is unacceptable, even if that alternative is Romney or even Huntsman. She will bring up the same arguments to vote for Obama as she is crying about now. She will cry on and on about having no primary opponent to vote for over Obama but that she is left no other choice but to vote for Obama again. mark my words!

Dollayo on January 1, 2012 at 9:06 PM

Skandia Recluse on January 1, 2012 at 7:32 PM

1969: Halt all dumping in the

Great Lakes
In his State of the Union Address of 1969, President Nixon detailed a 37-point message on the American environment that included goals ranging from monitoring motor vehicle emissions standards to halting all dumping in the Great Lakes. President Nixon’s ambitious endeavor would eventually lead to his request for Congress to establish the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Under the express direction of President Nixon and following public hearings, in late 1970 the EPA was established and “a new era of environmental protection began.” This endeavor was the first attempt by any administration to specifically address environmental problems through a newly created, independent agency.
Source: Cameron Lynch in W&M Env. Law Review, vol. 26 #1, p.215-216 , Jan 1, 2001

On OSHA

Nixon and OSHA (1969-1970)
President Lyndon Johnson had unsuccessfully tried to pass a comprehensive job safety and health bill in 1968. When President Richard Nixon took office a year later, he too pushed for a similar bill. Hundreds of representatives from labor testified in front of Congress for the second year in a row, which gave the push for federal legislation momentum. And unlike a year earlier, Nixon had the support of key business interests such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which was pleased that Nixon had incorporated some of their concerns into the new bill.

After some political maneuvering and concessions on both sides of the aisle, OSHA passed in 1970 with praise from labor and business interests, as well as republicans and democrats

Read more: OSHA Law History | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_6566663_osha-law-history.html#ixzz1iGOFvON0

Nixon didn’t have to pushed to sign any of it.

RickB on January 1, 2012 at 9:19 PM

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

. . . for any candidate that is not a Republican.

. . . make checks payable to Taylor Marshall.

. . . until I’m in the voting booth when my DNA will take control.

2ndMAW68 on January 1, 2012 at 9:27 PM

So here’s the deal on Taylor Marsh. I used to read and blog on her site since she was a staunch Hillary supporter in the primaries. But she was never a PUMA. As soon as it became evident after the debacle of the rules and by laws committee’s May 31, 2008 decision to give some of Hillary’s delegates to Obama, she abandoned Hillary for Obama. She also lost most of her readership because she took to insulting all of us “dead enders” because we refused to give up o the woman who was clearly a better candidate.

Ironically, the very things she is complaining about now in re Obama were ALL the things we complained about three and a half years ago. This was obvious to anyone who was watching. Her views now are a day late and a dollar short.

Anifin on January 1, 2012 at 9:31 PM

She will fall in line, her vote isn’t “up for grabs”. Never in this rant does she say she definately won’t vote for Obama again. There is no way she would ever vote for an “R” of any kind. I guess she could vote for Ralph Nader or whoever is this year’s green party loser, but she knows that doing so makes her even more irrelevant than she already is. Nope, she will come back to Obama, claiming he is the only choice she has and that the alternative is unacceptable, even if that alternative is Romney or even Huntsman. She will bring up the same arguments to vote for Obama as she is crying about now. She will cry on and on about having no primary opponent to vote for over Obama but that she is left no other choice but to vote for Obama again. mark my words!

Dollayo on January 1, 2012 at 9:06 PM

+1000.

Which is, of course, why laughing uproariously at these poor saps like her is the one thing that we and Obama have in common.

I mean, seriously. Obama may be the best gift ever given the American right — because no one else could ever make such an enormous fool out of this woman. She knows Obama is an idiot. She knows he’s a racist demagogue who doesn’t have the brainpower to be an assistant fry cook or the work ethic to cash a welfare check.

And she can’t do anything about it, because that would make her a racist.

northdallasthirty on January 1, 2012 at 9:36 PM

Pieces like Ms, Marsh’s would mean something if it wasnt just the whining of a pseudo intellectual who cannot come to grips with the failure of her belief system. In true liberal fashion, whether its a stimulus package (not big enough), income redistribution (not progressive enough), or education (not spending enough), its never the philosophy that is blamed, therefore….

What i am getting at, is this….

She will never vote for a Republican no matter how many facts, results, or giant piles of real world proof sit at her feet. This is the infantile holding of the breath and hoping for a reaction from those who disappointed or upset her.

When conservatives feel betrayed by politicians we abandon those who are guilty, when progressives are betrayed, they throw a tantrum but fall in line when its voting time. Otherwise, liberals would be extinct. They have been failing since the early 20th century yet continue to get elected. My argument is proven with one word…..

DETROIT

Bet she eventually writes a diatribe against whoever the GOP nominee is, justifying her begrudging vote for Obama as her only sane choice.

The rebuttal….did I mention, DETROIT?

alecj on January 1, 2012 at 9:45 PM

Clinton never intervened forcibly and was largely despised by the military because he viewed the Department of Defense as a social experiment. I would suggest you educate yourself about the world and the real facts before you post one more ignorant comment.

Happy Nomad on January 1, 2012 at 8:16 PM

Actually, Clinton started his own War of Choice in Kosovo, without UN Approval. Gave Halliburton No-Bid Contracts during that war too.

And later he was shamed into having his other Bill (Cohen) fire his fellow Arkansas Perfumed Prince “General” Weasely Clark, after the latter almost started a 3rd World War with the Rooskies during that Clinton War Of Choice.

Del Dolemonte on January 1, 2012 at 9:48 PM

I mean, seriously. Obama may be the best gift ever given the American right — because no one else could ever make such an enormous fool out of this woman. She knows Obama is an idiot. She knows he’s a racist demagogue who doesn’t have the brainpower to be an assistant fry cook or the work ethic to cash a welfare check.

And she can’t do anything about it, because that would make her a racist.

northdallasthirty on January 1, 2012 at 9:36 PM

No, it’s much more than that. Since O’bama has continued so many of Chimpy Bush’s policies, she would rather be Waterboarded than admit that just possibly said Chimpy Bush knew what he was doing, and O’bama is just continuing his policies.

Del Dolemonte on January 1, 2012 at 9:51 PM

… What freedoms have women been short-changed on again?

Seven Percent Solution on January 1, 2012 at 3:09 PM

The ability to kill babies freely… at any age.

dukecitygirl on January 1, 2012 at 9:53 PM

I mean, seriously. Obama may be the best gift ever given the American right — because no one else could ever make such an enormous fool out of this woman. She knows Obama is an idiot. She knows he’s a racist demagogue who doesn’t have the brainpower to be an assistant fry cook or the work ethic to cash a welfare check.

And she can’t do anything about it, because that would make her a racist.

northdallasthirty on January 1, 2012 at 9:36 PM

Your ability to mind read is matched only by your wit. Taylor Marsh, like a lot of the activist left, like myself, is disollusioned by this President’s repeated capitulations to the right. From Van Jones to the tax cut heavy focus of the stimulus to the failure to demand a public option in the healthcare bill, to the continuation of Bush-era War on Terror policies and tax cuts, the list goes on and on and on. This presidency has been nothing but Bush III-lite. Our dissapointment in him has *nothing* to with insane conspiracy theories that find racism within Obama’s milquetoast center right governance. You all can spin off whatever crazy theories you want. But don’t pretend that the left’s disagreements with the President are the same as your own.

libfreeordie on January 1, 2012 at 9:54 PM

… What freedoms have women been short-changed on again?

Seven Percent Solution on January 1, 2012 at 3:09 PM

You do realize that women have only secured real property rights in this country in the last 100 years right?

libfreeordie on January 1, 2012 at 9:55 PM

Who is this b*tch?!?!?!

Furthermore, who cares!?!?

Bubba Redneck on January 1, 2012 at 9:56 PM

Like all good little libtards, she too will still vote for Obama. Anything wearing a (R) is the worst sort of evil to these folks.

Decoski on January 1, 2012 at 9:58 PM

Once in the White House, the presidents club rules.

This is the only point I can agree with her. She is to the left somewhere between Obama and Ron Paul. A lib liar who’s only choice is to vote for Obama. And our only choice is to vote for the non-Obama to stop soulless creatures such as herself from doling out birth control to 12 year-old girls.

HellCat on January 1, 2012 at 10:01 PM

Skandia Recluse on January 1, 2012 at 7:32 PM

Nixon on AA

The President’s Committee on Government Contracts, chaired by Vice-President Nixon in 1959, blamed “the indifference of employers to establishing a positive policy of nondiscrimination.” Reacting to the civil rights movement, President John F. Kennedy established a Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity in 1961 and later issued Executive Order 10925, which used the term “affirmative action” to refer to any measures generated to achieve non-discrimination. In 1965, President Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 requiring federal contractors to take affirmative action to “ensure equality of employment opportunity without regard to race, religion and national origin.” Gender was included in the action in 1968.

Perpetuating the civil rights movement and affirmative action even further was the fact that on March 23, 1973, the Nixon administration’s Department of Justice, Department of Labor, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Civil Service Commission issued a joint memorandum titled “State and Local Employment Practices Guide.” The guide pointed out that the Nixon Administration… “since September of 1969, recognized that goals and timetables… are a proper means for helping to implement the nation’s commitment to equal employment opportunity.” While strict quotas were not encouraged, goals based on specific timetables were.

RickB on January 1, 2012 at 10:02 PM

… What freedoms have women been short-changed on again?

Seven Percent Solution on January 1, 2012 at 3:09 PM

You do realize that women have only secured real (strong mine) property rights in this country in the last 100 years right?

libfreeordie on January 1, 2012 at 9:55 PM

So they had fake ones before then . . . .

I call BULLSH*T !
So what you are saying is that no woman before January 01, 1912, including the injuns and going all the way back to the time humans/hominids first walked on these shores has owned or has had the right to own land in these United States.

Them injuns were racists!!!!!!
They deserve them reservations for what they did all those centuries before whites came here to them squaws!!!!

Bubba Redneck on January 1, 2012 at 10:05 PM

this is a rather long diatribe, but I assure you that it will be worth your time to click through the link and read the entire piece

why is it so important to read an article by a Leftist who’s mad that Obama isn’t Leftist enough?

Steven McGregor on January 1, 2012 at 10:09 PM

Never heard of her. This strikes me as little more than a temper tantrum. In 10 months, she’ll not only pull the lever for Obama but she’ll be openly encouraging others to do the same.

ombdz on January 1, 2012 at 10:12 PM

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…

-
Say it loud baby… The Dems generally don’t really ‘care’ about the people they woo with their talk… As Barry warned ya’ll… It’s just words.
-

the budget was balanced

-
I’ve heard about the surplus soooo many times… The most significant surplus during Clinton’s term was found on a blue dress…
-

RalphyBoy on January 1, 2012 at 10:18 PM

I cant say that I know Marsh/Marshall, but I dont know why the author finds it stunning that a leftist is in open rebellion against Obama. In visiting the lefty blogs, this has been true for the past two years. He’s not left enough for them.

gxpgxp on January 1, 2012 at 10:18 PM

Would Leslie Stahl grill Barack like she’s doing to Eric Cantor?
SouthernGent on January 1, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Could you believe it!? She was so transparent. Obama was reasonable and Cantor was one of those uncompromising ‘Jooos’ the libs blame every evil upon.

HellCat on January 1, 2012 at 10:20 PM

So what you are saying is that no woman before January 01, 1912, including the injuns and going all the way back to the time humans/hominids first walked on these shores has owned or has had the right to own land in these United States.

Um, I’m not sure who the “Injuns” are, perhaps some brand of backwoods kin you know quite a bit more about than I do. However, our history makes quite clear that the various nations of people who lived here before the establishment of the United States have had scant claims to property rights recognized by the federal government. The breaking and re-breaking of multiple treaties should tell you all you need to know about that.

As for women and property, um yes, through the end of the 19th century any property a woman owned was forfeit to her husband upon their marriage. That means that woman had property rights but they certainly weren’t secure. And that’s just one fundamental right women were denied until the 20th century. Suffrage rights weren’t secured until the 20th century. There were no laws that protected women from rape within a marriage until 1991. That’s not a misprint. Let alone the struggles women have dealt with to get domestic violence recognized as a law. Are you really going to assert that women have never faced discrimination in this country? That’s just ignorant.

libfreeordie on January 1, 2012 at 10:21 PM

Why is there a photo of Ronnie Wood, circa ’75, for the intro to this story?

M240H on January 1, 2012 at 10:22 PM

Your ability to mind read is matched only by your wit.

Taylor Marsh, like a lot of the activist left, like myself, is disollusioned by this President’s repeated capitulations to the right.

libfreeordie on January 1, 2012 at 9:54 PM

First Bolded part = More Alinsky.

Second Bolded part = O’bama and the Democrats controlled the White House, Senate and House for 2 full years between January of 2009 and January of 2011.

How is the lack of getting anything done during that Half a Presidential Term when they controlled the entire Government the Right’s Fault?

F-

Del Dolemonte on January 1, 2012 at 10:23 PM

libfreeordie on January 1, 2012 at 10:21 PM

Startin’ the new year off with a ‘giner full o’ sand just ain’t the way to go, son.

M240H on January 1, 2012 at 10:27 PM

What freedoms have women been short-changed on again?

Seven Percent Solution on January 1, 2012 at 3:09 PM

You do realize that women have only secured real property rights in this country in the last 100 years right?

libfreeordie on January 1, 2012 at 9:55 PM

Really?

During the nineteenth century, states began enacting common law principles affecting the property rights of married women. Married women’s property acts differ in language, and their dates of passage span many years.

One of the first was enacted by Connecticut in 1809, allowing women to write wills.

The majority of states passed similar statutes in the 1850s. Passed in 1848, New York’s Married Women’s Property Act was used by other states as a model:

AN ACT for the effectual protection of the property of married women.

Passed April 7, 1848.

The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly do enact as follows:

Sec. 1. The real and personal property of any female who may hereafter marry, and which she shall own at the time of marriage, and the rents issues and profits thereof shall not be subject to the disposal of her husband, nor be liable for his debts, and shall continue her sole and separate property, as if she were a single female.

Sec. 2 The real and personal property, and the rents issues and profits thereof of any female now married shall not be subject to the disposal of her husband; but shall be her sole and separate property as if she were a single female except so far as the same may be liable for the debts of her husband heretofore contracted.

Sec. 3. It shall be lawful for any married female to receive, by gift, grant devise or bequest, from any person other than her husband and hold to her sole and separate use, as if she were a single female, real and personal property, and the rents, issues and profits thereof, and the same shall not be subject to the disposal of her husband, nor be liable for his debts.

Sec. 4. All contracts made between persons in contemplation of marriage shall remain in full force after such marriage takes place.

F -

Del Dolemonte on January 1, 2012 at 10:29 PM

How is the lack of getting anything done during that Half a Presidential Term when they controlled the entire Government the Right’s Fault?

F-

Del Dolemonte on January 1, 2012 at 10:23 PM

Its not. If you read this closely when actually grading papers you’d be brought up on charges of capricious grading and drummed out of any school worth its salt. I was laying out why I don’t approve of the President and why I see him as a Bush III Administration. Instead of getting Joe Lieberman in line, instead of getting Ben Nelson in line, instead of stumping in Maine to get Snowe and Collins in line he capitulated to the centrist elements in the Democratic party. And gave them a healthcare bill that only Bill Frist or Mitt Romney could love. That was a failure of leadership, along with a host of other wasted opportunities in the first two years of his term. So I don’t blame the right for that, I blame obama.

F– for you or something!

And your weird group think on Saul Alinsky is only hilarious.

libfreeordie on January 1, 2012 at 10:29 PM

ts not. If you read this closely when actually grading papers you’d be brought up on charges of capricious grading and drummed out of any school worth its salt. I was laying out why I don’t approve of the President and why I see him as a Bush III Administration. Instead of getting Joe Lieberman in line, instead of getting Ben Nelson in line, instead of stumping in Maine to get Snowe and Collins in line he capitulated to the centrist elements in the Democratic party. And gave them a healthcare bill that only Bill Frist or Mitt Romney could love. That was a failure of leadership, along with a host of other wasted opportunities in the first two years of his term. So I don’t blame the right for that, I blame obama.

F– for you or something!

And your weird group think on Saul Alinsky is only hilarious.

libfreeordie on January 1, 2012 at 10:29 PM

Thanks for proving my points. I couldn’t have done it any better.

D-

Del Dolemonte on January 1, 2012 at 10:31 PM

libfreeordie on January 1, 2012 at 10:29 PM

Sooo, basically, yer fessin’ up to getting suckered by the Chicago way, right? Got took by a scumbag, right?

M240H on January 1, 2012 at 10:33 PM

Del Dolemonte on January 1, 2012 at 10:29 PM

So me being off by 50 years is a worse mistake than you not realizing that 1848 is after 1776? No wonder your grading is all off.

libfreeordie on January 1, 2012 at 10:33 PM

Del Dolemonte on January 1, 2012 at 10:29 PM

So me being off by 50 years is a worse mistake than you not realizing that 1848 is after 1776? No wonder your grading is all off.

libfreeordie on January 1, 2012 at 10:33 PM

Thanks for proving my points. I couldn’t have done it any better.

D-

Del Dolemonte on January 1, 2012 at 10:31 PM

Del Dolemonte on January 1, 2012 at 10:34 PM

So me being off by 50 years is a worse mistake than you not realizing that 1848 is after 1776? No wonder your grading is all off.

libfreeordie on January 1, 2012 at 10:33 PM

No, I just correctly refuted your claim that Women’s Property Rights in the US only happened in 1911.

As you posted:

You do realize that women have only secured real property rights in this country in the last 100 years right?

libfreeordie on January 1, 2012 at 9:55 PM

I then posted a US law from a century before that.

BTW, nice to see another disciple of Alinsky here.

Del Dolemonte on January 1, 2012 at 10:37 PM

Sooo, basically, yer fessin’ up to getting suckered by the Chicago way, right? Got took by a scumbag, right?

M240H on January 1, 2012 at 10:33 PM

Its not personal for me in the way it is for y’all. But then again I wasn’t part of the Bush = Hitler crowd either, I just thought he was a really bad President, and unfortunately for us, a more effective wrangler of Congress to do his will. But, no, I don’t think Barack Obama invented hardball politics. Doesn’t the Perry-Gingrich Virginia debacle suggest that Republicans are just as eager to take advantage of opportunities to push their opponents off of the ballot? I think he actually believes that center-right politics is a good idea.

But you’re right about one thing, I was definitely fooled by some of his rhetorical moves that suggested an investment in a leftist worldview. And quite a big chunk of the institutional left will admit that. But I’m not engaging in that stupid “scumbag” talk (or the pseudo racist “thug” discourse for that matter) thats not what its about.

libfreeordie on January 1, 2012 at 10:38 PM

RickB on January 1, 2012 at 10:02 PM

ya, ya, sure, sure.

Look, the reason why the environmentalists were successful, and why the civil rights people were successful is because they had a point. There was pollution and discrimination, and republican politicians tried to accommodate their political opponents and did so for political reasons. Not because they wanted to advance those policies.

Now, fifty years later, you are trying to discredit those old republicans for what those policies have become, and for what the democrats have done with that policy.

We’ve cleaned up the environment, we’ve reduced significantly, discriminatory attitudes but we’ve reached the point where the environmentalists and the civil rights crowd continue to demand more. They are never going to be satisfied, especially since it is such an effective cudgel for them to use to beat up republican politicians, and you can’t blame Nixon for that.

Why are you blaming Nixon for affirmative action anyway? Isn’t that (affirmative action) a good thing? Since, in your quote, it was JFK who actually issued an executive order shouldn’t you be blaming Kennedy for that?

What are you trying to prove here anyway?

Skandia Recluse on January 1, 2012 at 10:38 PM

BTW, nice to see another disciple of Alinsky here.

Del Dolemonte on January 1, 2012 at 10:37 PM

Can I assume that in your eyes that anyone who has ever read anything by Alinsky is a “disciple of Alinsky?”

libfreeordie on January 1, 2012 at 10:43 PM

No, really, http://www.panmacmillan.com.au/cover2/9781405038980.jpg, it’s Ronnie.

M240H on January 1, 2012 at 10:44 PM

BTW, nice to see another disciple of Alinsky here.

Del Dolemonte on January 1, 2012 at 10:37 PM

Can I assume that in your eyes that anyone who has ever read anything by Alinsky is a “disciple of Alinsky?”

libfreeordie on January 1, 2012 at 10:43 PM

Translated: “Del just cleaned my clock”.

Thanks for admitting you’ve read Alinsky. Did your copy have his original dedication to Lucifer, or did the printer censor his words?

Del Dolemonte on January 1, 2012 at 10:48 PM

What are you trying to prove here anyway?

Skandia Recluse on January 1, 2012 at 10:38 PM

Your original argument:

Yep hafta agree, three of the most notable accomplishments of the democrat controlled congress who, with the support of the news media and pubic opinion, forced Nixon to sign, thus giving you the opportunity, fifty years later, to rewrite history.

How old are you? I was there, lived through it. Saw it with my own eyes.

Skandia Recluse on January 1, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Nixon didn’t have to be forced to sign a thing.

RickB on January 1, 2012 at 10:52 PM

I wasn’t part of the Bush = Hitler crowd either, I just thought he was a really bad President, and unfortunately for us, a more effective wrangler of Congress to do his will.

libfreeordie on January 1, 2012 at 10:38 PM

Utter Horse Hockey.

I’m sure what you are referring to is Bush “convincing” Congress to Invade Iraq, right?

In reality, the Democrats who voted to Authorize Force did so because they knew they were all on record-after all, they had all stated (while Democrat Bill Clinton was President) that Iraq had to be taken out, had WMDs, etc.

Remember, in 1998, Bill Clinton’s Justice Department (that would be the same DOJ that had earlier successfully prosecuted a female Federal employee for Lying Under Oath About Sex) indicted Osama bin laden. In said Indictment, they said he was working with al Qaeda.

Or maybe you are talking about when Bush “wrangled” Congress into reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when he realized they were in trouble?

In reality, his warnings were ignored. By the Democrats who controlled the Banking Panel.

Incomplete.

Del Dolemonte on January 1, 2012 at 10:58 PM

Remember Leftist Hero Phillip Agee? He outed more CIA spies than anyone in history, and yet ended up dying in Cuba.

Of perforated ulcers.

Del Dolemonte on January 1, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Do you think it was really REEELY painful? Do you think he was SCREAMING at the end? Just wondering – because I have no idea…..

williamg on January 1, 2012 at 10:58 PM

Of perforated ulcers.

Del Dolemonte on January 1, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Do you think it was really REEELY painful? Do you think he was SCREAMING at the end? Just wondering – because I have no idea…..

williamg on January 1, 2012 at 10:58 PM

And the Night Shift checks in!

You obviously missed my followup post.

I brought up Agee because if he had been living in the US and had those perforated ulcers, the chances are much better that he would have survived. I myself suffered from the same affliction, so know what I’m talking about. I’m alive today because I was in an American hospital.

Del Dolemonte on January 1, 2012 at 5:42 PM

Del Dolemonte on January 1, 2012 at 11:10 PM

Nixon didn’t have to be forced to sign a thing.

RickB on January 1, 2012 at 10:52 PM

You haven’t refuted my point either. Your comparison doesn’t match up. My original comments remain, there was public opinion in favor of the EPA, it was a left wing generated idea, and the GOP tried to accommodate that demand. If you want to hammer me for overstating the case by using ‘forced’, I will confess to not knowing what was in Nixon’s heart but what I remember of his language was his attempt to compromise. Same with Romney. The language of both was reluctant, with misgivings and doubts, but they acquiesced to the demand rather than trying to fight it. Which is my complaint with Romney; he doesn’t seem to have a conservative principle for which he will fight. Nixon was….Nixon.

Whether Nixon was forced or pressured or maneuvered into signing onto EPA, or OSHA, doesn’t make him the focal point for what the democrats are doing now with the EPA and especially what Obama is doing under the disguise of social justice.

Skandia Recluse on January 1, 2012 at 11:23 PM

Whether Nixon was forced or pressured or maneuvered into signing onto EPA, or OSHA, doesn’t make him the focal point for what the democrats are doing now with the EPA and especially what Obama is doing under the disguise of social justice.

Skandia Recluse on January 1, 2012 at 11:23 PM

I haven’t heard anyone here make that argument. What I and others are asserting is that Republican =/= conservative, and getting rid of Obama is only the first step in fighting what ails us. It does matter who we replace Obama with, and even recent history has given us Republican administrations (including Bush 41 and Bush 43) who had about the same amount of knowledge (if not necessarily respect) for the constitution that Nixon had.

gryphon202 on January 1, 2012 at 11:35 PM

Richard M. Nixon was no “conservative,” if by conservative you mean that he abided by the constitution. He didn’t. That’s a settled question. The vast majority of Republicans going back to Coolidge haven’t been a shade better, though the last time debt was actually retired, defined as a lowering of the debt ceiling, happened to be under JFK.

gryphon202 on January 1, 2012 at 11:38 PM

Gryphon202
My defense of GOP politicians is because of the tactics being used to discredit them. My complaint with the GOP is their lack of ability to defend themselves, their willingness to compromise on what should be principles.

My distaste for the democrats began with Nixon, and as only grown since. My frustration with the GOP likewise began with Nixon and was only temporarily alleviated with Reagan.

My partisan support for the GOP is a reaction to the hyper-partisanship of the democrats, especially since 1968.

Skandia Recluse on January 1, 2012 at 11:52 PM

Contrary to what the Mittens fanbois believe, RP has the greatest chance of getting these cross-over dems and independents. But, the police state and crony capitalist republicans have already said they will “not allow” Paul to secure the nomination. So, I guess we’re stuck with Obamao 2.0.

Uh huh… all those people working in government jobs, or for non-profits or whose job depends on union contracts are going to run over and support RP because they’re pissed about civil liberties. They won’t care at all that RP will slash lots of those positions; soccer moms will suddenly decide that the Feds should have no role in education – no more new schools for them and their darlings; oh yeah, forget about all those people that desperately wanted “the public program”; yeah they won’t care once they get right with RP. /s

Nope, the progressives who will run over and support RP will most probably be pretty much the usual one-issue voters.

rhombus on January 1, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Actually, there are government workers and soccer moms who would vote for Ron Paul.

But he won’t ever get the votes of the type of elitist such as Taylor Marsh.

For them, in the end, there is really only one-issue: abortion rights-they are willing to overlook any other type of perfidy by Democratic candidates, and overlook their areas of agreement with Republican candidates. abortion rights, for these voters, trumps all.

Ron Paul will never attract these kinds of voters, because of his stance on abortion.

Not a fan of Paul by any means, but I give him some credit for his stance on abortion, which is totally compatible with Libertarianism (though some try to deny it).

Dreadnought on January 2, 2012 at 12:04 AM

Who is this b*tch?!?!?!

Furthermore, who cares!?!?

Bubba Redneck on January 1, 2012 at 9:56 PM

Bubba…I think Taylor is some guy in drag that won some minor drag queen title, and now of course is some kind of spokesperson.

KOOLAID2 on January 2, 2012 at 12:05 AM

Del Dolemonte on January 1, 2012 at 11:10 PM

Thanks for the follow-up, but still wondering. Question still open. Maybe there was a witness.

williamg on January 2, 2012 at 1:40 AM

Second Bolded part = O’bama and the Democrats controlled the White House, Senate and House for 2 full years between January of 2009 and January of 2011.

How is the lack of getting anything done during that Half a Presidential Term when they controlled the entire Government the Right’s Fault?

F-

Del Dolemonte on January 1, 2012 at 10:23 PM

-
Say that to a lefty in a face to face when they act like the Republicans have stopped Barry since day one… and watch their heads spin… Denile is a tough place to live when the facts are so easy to deliver.
-

RalphyBoy on January 2, 2012 at 2:36 AM

Pres. Obama’s compromising conservatism,

The above phrase does not compute to the extent that it would make a Vulcan’s head explode. Seriously.

Theophile on January 2, 2012 at 3:26 AM

My partisan support for the GOP is a reaction to the hyper-partisanship of the democrats, especially since 1968.

Skandia Recluse on January 1, 2012 at 11:52 PM

Then don’t let yourself become the mirror image of what you hate, Skandia. I think that the Watergate scandal was nothing more than petty revenge on the part of the Dems for Nixon’s exposure of Alger Hiss. It was a raw deal, and I’m all but certain the Dems engaged in the same kind of behavior with regularity for years going back to FDR and beyond. But that still doesn’t change the fact that Nixon signed legislation with minimal prodding that was unconsitutional. Period.

If we are to have any hope of renewing America, we have to be honest about the problem. Dems will tell you that the problem is partisan politics. But they are wrong. It goes much deeper than that, and probably farther back than even your lifetime, Skandia.

gryphon202 on January 2, 2012 at 3:33 AM

She will fall in line, her vote isn’t “up for grabs”. Never in this rant does she say she definately won’t vote for Obama again. There is no way she would ever vote for an “R” of any kind. I guess she could vote for Ralph Nader or whoever is this year’s green party loser, but she knows that doing so makes her even more irrelevant than she already is. Nope, she will come back to Obama, claiming he is the only choice she has and that the alternative is unacceptable, even if that alternative is Romney or even Huntsman. She will bring up the same arguments to vote for Obama as she is crying about now. She will cry on and on about having no primary opponent to vote for over Obama but that she is left no other choice but to vote for Obama again. mark my words!

Dollayo on January 1, 2012 at 9:06 PM

Bingo. Dunno why anybody would be making a big deal over this column of hers – I’ve seen plenty like it from time to time over Obama’s presidency. “Wah, wah, we aren’t being catered to, our votes are up for grabs” might be true, but in effect there’s no change. The Dems are the only group remotely close to what these banshees are after and as such they’ll be voting for ‘em.

Aquarian on January 2, 2012 at 5:15 AM

So because he hasn’t done these things, he’s a pragmatic centrist, even though he would if he could. I think you need to reconsider your definition of “moderate,” pal.

gryphon202 on January 1, 2012 at 4:25 PM

+1

Love all your comments, gryphon.

Lenin was derided as being moderate, too, when, finding that his initial policies were quickly bankrupting Russia, he retrenched and brought in capitalist experts and advisers. Obama is one of those “moderates” like Lenin, I suppose.

Burke on January 2, 2012 at 5:57 AM

The only thing up for grabs is our money; Taylor can keep her towel.

racquetballer on January 2, 2012 at 6:37 AM

Clinton, by the way, had the most successful presidency — for America — than any president since Roosevelt. Just as Lincoln is reputed to had suggested that his other generals drink the same whiskey Grant did, I wish that Bush was smoking the same cigars as Clinton.
urban elitist on January 1, 2012 at 7:13 PM

I find it astounding that anyone with a high school education actually still believes, post-2008, that the illusory economic growth of the 90s is something to trumpet as a success.

RINO in Name Only on January 2, 2012 at 8:31 AM

She’s lying through her teeth. Once she pulls the curtain she will punch a hole next to Barack Obama like all the other Democrat robots do. They are like sheep. All it takes is a little D at the end of a politicians name and they go in lock step.

Hummer53 on January 2, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Wah wah Obama isn’t what I want him to be but I’ll still vote for him anyway wah wah.

Boring.

Good Lt on January 2, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Agree with the others here that see this as a meaningless rant. The woman is an unhinged lunatic, basically. Obama isn’t liberal ENOUGH ?

Please. The majority of the country sees him as too liberal. She represents, what ? The 10% of America – at best – that actually want him to do MORE liberal insanity ? Despite the fact that one of the 5 biggest swings in US history put Republicans firmly in control of the House specifically to STOP Obama from pushing through his liberal agenda ?

And there is a sane person on the planet Earth that actually thinks she would vote for a Republican ? Please.

deadrody on January 2, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Well, she’s given up the horse. Now, we just have to teach her to ride.

Pablo Snooze on January 2, 2012 at 10:42 AM

A devotee of Gloria Steinam

In other words, has a face that causes dogs to bark and small children to cry.

Wallythedog on January 2, 2012 at 10:52 AM

I love a good liberal tirade against their own, but I’m not too excited about this one. There’s no way in hell she will be voting Republican. She is upset because Obama is not liberal enough, not because she realizes that liberal policies are killing America. She will hold her nose and vote D in November, and so will her readers. This is much ado about nothing.

TheLoudTalker on January 2, 2012 at 10:58 AM

There cannot be a whinier group of political malcontents on Earth than the American left. After spending the past two years researching my book Never Allow A Crisis To Go To Waste on how Barack Obama implemented the full range of socialist practice and theory, I can only shake my head in disbelief at these complaints.

Barack Obama is the most successful president of the left since FDR. The highlights (or lowlights if you prefer) of Obama’s accomplishments include:

1) Nationalizing GM and Chrysler.

2) The Dodd/Frank bureaucracy regulating every commercial loan in he country.

3) Obamacare’s direction of the health insurance industry, redistributing over $2.5 trillion over its first decade of full operation.

4) Massive new subsides and direction of a new alternative energy industry.

5) Doubling the rate of economically significant regulation before implementing most of Obamacare and Dodd/Frank.

6) Expanding government as a percentage of GDP from 21% to 25%.

If this conservative/libertarian could find a GOP president who would reduce government’s size by 4% of GDP, halve regulation and free 1/6 of the economy from government direction, I would be tempted to declare him President for Life.

I have come to the conclusion that the left are simply terminally unhappy people dedicated to making the rest of us miserable as well.

Bart DePalma on January 2, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5