Taylor Marsh Goes PUMA!

I really couldn’t believe it when I started reading. I’d seen her tweet out the new post, Party’s Over, at her blog just 16 minutes ago as I type this, and decided to check it out. It’s a real heavy hitter for the first day of the year, and sure to provoke lots of ire in blogger boyzland. I can’t wait to see the fall out. Basically, she vindicates so many points that PUMA made, and then declares her vote is up for grabs. Now, I will believe that when I see it of course, but this is a huge moment of vindication for the PUMA movement. Here’s a taste of what she has to say, but I do recommend going to read the whole, sprawling piece:

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.

But it gets better. She even expresses sympathy for conservatives, especially women, and flirts with the idea that it’s okay for women to be more concerned with their finances than with whether they can have an abortion, should they ever need one:

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?

Then she straight up calls the Democrats liars and, for the love of goodness I cannot make this stuff up, flirts with the Ron Paul train:

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

If your jaw isn’t dropping by now, you weren’t paying attention in 2008. I mean, damn. It’s quite late to be realizing all of this, but she at least has the stones to acknowledge her own uncritical thinking in that process:

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.

Go. Read the whole thing. I used to love Taylor Marsh, but she really lost me in 2008 with her defenses of Obama, which I could clearly see were misguided attempts born of partisan poisoning. Glad to see she’s willing to confront those demons of hers, and intellectually honest and brave enough to come out and disown Obama AND the Democrats just as the election years starts.

This article has been edited and cross-posted from Peacocks & Lilies.

About Woke Lola

Bitch, please.
This entry was posted in 2012 Elections and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

57 Responses to Taylor Marsh Goes PUMA!

  1. DeniseVB says:

    When you’ve lost Taylor Marsh, your party is in deep doo-doo. The comments are excellent too. What a great way to start 2012, to watch my former party hyper-partisans pals awake from their comas 😀

  2. Zaladonis says:

    She’s a day late and a dollar short. Or three years late and disingenuous as ever.

    Until she understands and admits she was dead wrong in 2008 by attacking me and the very few others who argued that voting for McCain was the smart liberal choice in 2008, when it was clear we’d have a Dem majority House and Senate, she doesn’t get it.

    Taylor Marsh is part of the problem, she helped make the Bush disaster into this disaster, and I bet she’ll continue to help make it worse not better.

    • DeniseVB says:

      Good point Z, I was caught up in the Taylor Marsh 2008 blog banning of NOT agreeing with her that Obama was the best choice over ANY icky Republican. I won’t go back, ever.

      To tell you the truth, she probably just sniffed which way the wind is blowing and jumping on the ABO wagon to save her blogdom 😉

      Here’s her conservative alter ego…..a fiercely independent conservative.


      • Zaladonis says:

        To tell you the truth, she probably just sniffed which way the wind is blowing and jumping on the ABO wagon to save her blogdom

        I think that’s exactly it!

        • Lulu says:

          Yeppers, the Dems have big stink all over them. It is a dying party. The fad is over. Obama and the corporatist Dem party is no longer cool. Depression era housekeeping tips are the latest rage per the NYT which keeps running stories on new-found joys of sweeping, doing laundry in a bucket, and coddling eggs by the hipsters. Hope and change did not work out so maybe apathy with society in general with a clean personable living environment is doable. Taylor Marsh is a day late and a dollar short and I am tired of “I must have been insane or I was caught up by the beauty and mystery of Axelrod, er Obama” stories to justify their dumbness.

  3. catarina says:

    TM is FOS. What a shameless opportunist.
    She and Justlen can KMA.

    Oh, and Happy New Year!

    PS is there a love bomb thread?

  4. myiq2xu says:

    She and Justlen can KMA

    Is he hanging out at TM nowadays?

  5. Betty says:

    I can’t trust Marsh ever, I still believe that group took money or some promise of privilege in return for “what they did”. They thought, imo, that they were much more powerful then they were, that they could school the masses much like the MSM does and we would be none the wiser and they would never have to acknowledge it. In other words: They stink.

    Her site has gone into decline I have heard, is she now trying to make a comeback, is she to be trusted? Has she learned a lesson? Will she be loyal to the truth and her readers or will she be dazzled again by an offer of money or privilege? Or has the offer already been made and she’s trying to gain a critical mass so that at the right moment she can again attempt to turn that mass in a direction contrary to common sense?

    There are plenty of honest, thoughtful, intelligent, insightful, well informed, ethical, writers and commenter s to read in a day – why would anyone bother with her?

    • Lola-at-Large says:

      I bother because folks like her a temperature check on trends within the progressive movement. And because us peons are unlikely to affect the kind of change we want to see without sheep like Marsh bleeting the message out to her larger, more connected audience. There’s been a growing surge on the left for some of Ron Paul’s ideas, and quite frankly, when progs are entertaining the possibility of considering some of his policies, it’s good for reform. That works the other way, too, ftr. My 2 cents.

  6. catarina says:

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

    Women often are the breadwinners, and that’s been the case for quite some time.
    Did she just figure out that money is a *women’s issue” or that Democrats don’t like to talk about that much?

    • Lola-at-Large says:

      She probably DID just figure out that money is a women’s issue. And she would never have had that revelation had it not been for the surge in conservative feminism as a result of Sarah Palin’s candidacy. It’s not always through winning that we can affect change.

  7. Lola-at-Large says:

    I’m definitely taking a wait and see approach, but I did think this was a big enough change to be discussion-worthy.

    BTW, Glennzilla had a good read yesterday in a similar vein: http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/

    • DeniseVB says:

      It’s HUGE, glad you found it. TM’s flip-flop is a sure sign of the Democratic Party Apocalypse 😀 Who else will follow……

      Kool-aid rehab is a 12-step program too 😉

      • K.T. says:

        I don’t think the Democratic Party Apocalypse will happen until Jeralyn & Big Tent Democrat write posts such as Taylor’s. If you’ll remember, once Obama won the nomination, Jeralyn demanded that all posters support him. She allowed no dissent. Her readership is much larger than Taylor’s.

    • yttik says:

      “Obama’s first term went a long way to liberating me permanently. In 2012, this liberal’s vote is up for grabs.”

      Yep,me too. I am grateful that the election of 2008 liberated me from so many of my belief systems. But what still remains unsaid and undone is any acknowledgement or apology for the bullying and abuse that went on. All over, people I used to hang out with are coming to the realization that Obama was One Big Assed Mistake, America, but I could have told you that a few years ago. And Obama is not really the biggest problem, the biggest problem was being stabbed in the back and betrayed by people who were all supposed to be on the same team. Thirty, forty year alliances went right out the door when this shiny new guy showed up on the block, and my fellow Dems didn’t just flock to him, they stomped me into the ground on the way.

      • Lulu says:

        It was the big corporate money talking and the possibility of jumping on the gravy train. The scandals and stories of Obama only benefiting his early supporters are finally sinking in. Obama Inc. only benefits him and the ones who paid for him. Everyone else gets peanuts or nada. I always thought most of the Obots were wannabes aspiring to the party power and perks (and money) but with Obama there is not enough to go around (I read somewhere he is the man with the “shitas” touch). Everyone has to give up something for HIM like he is a tinpot dictator. So the stiffed supporters are turning on him. They are too refined and creative classy to say where is my damn money. It went to Solyndra and the banks dumb-asses.

        • Mary says:


          Fool me once……

          Obama is a fraud, pure and simple. And the so-called “elites” of the party were duped.

          I always laughed at Digby’s phrase “veal pen.” AS IF the Obots and their blogger supporters weren’t in their OWN veal pen.

          Oh well. They alienated millions of lifetime Dems. So be it.

    • gxm17 says:

      Holy fuck. I’m dumbstruck.

  8. Lola-at-Large says:

    I left this comment on her article (we’ll see how long it lasts, heh):

    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.

    • soupcity says:


    • myiq2xu says:

      Taylor responds:

      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.

      • Zaladonis says:

        TM pretends there’s something superior or “whip smart” about taking three years to figure out what PUMAs knew at the start.

        This is the same nonsense I hear from those who supported Occupy at the start and later on figured out it’s bullshit. There’s nothing admirable about being slow to realize someone’s peeing on you.

        This is TM’s disingenuousness to a t:

        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.

        The authentic case against Obama was that he has always failed to use Dem policies to beat conservative ideas and with even more power he’d fail even more spectacularly as President. Anybody who made that case and believed it could not have also made the case that voting for Obama was the only responsible choice. God she’s a putz.

        She hides, a scoundrel, behind crap like “as a responsible citizen, I did my civic duty,” when the truth is she’s an opportunistic nitwit who’d sell out everyone or anything to feed her narcissism and lust for gold that she’ll never get.

      • Three Wickets says:

        I don’t know Taylor well, but she sounds stupid to me. McCain would have been not materially different from Obama on actual governing foreign policy, and he would have been less accomodating on bailing out the banks. Most importantly, if the financial system had not *conveniently* scheduled a complete nervous breakdown in Sept 2008, McCain would have continued leading in the polls as he had before and after both conventions, and we would be talking today about a Hillary challenge to McCain in 2012 rather than spazzing about the Obama presidency.

      • elliesmom says:

        Anyone who thinks that a person who waits to be hit by a car before learning to look both ways is smarter than the person who learned to look in the first place has a major problem with admitting she was wrong. While I don’t expect her to wear a hair shirt, not dumping on the people who were smarter than she was would be nice. If she’s sincere. Personally, I think this is the beginning of a series on how her “liberal vote is up for grabs” and how at the end of the day Obama will have earned her vote again. I ALWAYS look right, then left, then right again before I cross the street. Or maybe it’s left, then, right, and then left again. I don’t know, but I always look.

        • Zaladonis says:

          Yep. And I bet if you see a big 18 wheeler coming down the road and you make a strong case for everybody to watch out, you don’t then tell everybody it’s their civic duty to step in front of the truck so we can see if the driver and the brakes function well enough to stop before it hits you.

  9. Three Wickets says:

    Progressive activism is becoming marginalized. They don’t have a candidate, they don’t have leaders or direction. They have OWS which is a big pot of gumbo. In the words of one very active Progressive yesterday, the Titanic is taking on water. People can stay on the ship with the captain and pretend everything will be fine, or they can set out on lifeboats in search of land.

  10. foxyladi14 says:

    Exactly ! well said .. 🙂

  11. I think TM is pure opportunist and sees the trend, but it’s still a great sign just the same. Great find. Still, she can kiss my ass. 🙂

  12. yttik says:

    It’s a good post, Lola! I’m glad you told us what’s going on because I don’t visit Taylor’s blog anymore.

  13. DeniseVB says:

    • Lola-at-Large says:

      I retweeted ya. 😉

      BTW, she responded with her still-entrenched-tribalism to my comment. PUMA is still filthy dirty and not welcome because…well, we didn’t PROCESS is the same way. I’ve been seeing this same argument all over the left blogosphere, especially when it comes to Ron Paul. They are REALLY threatened by him and by the fact that so many people continue to drop the Dem Party like a $5 hooker with herpes.

      • Zaladonis says:

        Don’t be fooled by Taylor Marsh or the others of her ilk, Lola. They are smarmy and they are many.

        It’s always good to be as informed as possible and I join those who appreciate you going to her site to stay abreast and writing about it here; but don’t be fooled. TM is an opportunistic scammer, no matter what trumped-up foreign policy crapola she types out.

        • Lola-at-Large says:

          Oh, I’m not fooled for a minute. That’s why I put that comment on her post to check her progress. Major fail on her part. And, as Myiq would say, she has not closed the circle. I know from personal experience that that process is neither easy nor short, and one revelation doesn’t often do it. She’s got a lot of work to do, but she’s moving in the right direction.

        • Zaladonis says:

          If you believe she’s moving in the right direction, she’s fooling you.

          She’s moving in exactly the same direction she was moving in three years ago. Like Obama, her only direction is self promotion and aggrandizement. The only reason she’s abandoned Obama and the Democratic Party now is because it suits her own ambition. She doesn’t belong in the category of evolving, she belongs in the category of no-honor-among-thieves.

          The entire post is a rambling justification posing as argument. Just grab any point she makes; for instance:

          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.

          She’s yet again claiming Superior Victim status when the truth is SHE wrote those warnings that WE listened to and (I, anyway) rebutted and pointed out were bogus. Those were exactly the arguments SHE used as attack weapons to help get Obama elected. Now, because it conveniences the position she has to take to keep her blog viable, she separates herself from it and pretends it was the Democratic Party that put forth those warnings. She’s not moving in the right direction any more than Occupy is, the direction they’re moving in is part of the problem today as much as she was three years ago.

        • Lola-at-Large says:

          Appreciate your opinion, but her self-interest in this case, if that is what it is, coincides with one of my goals: making sure Obama is not reelected. When I say she is moving in the right direction, that’s not me being fooled, that’s me recognizing that the goal cannot be reached as long as people like her maintain their support. I don’t give a shit one way or the other whether this helps her blog or her career. If it help get the ratfucker out of office, it suits me just fine.

        • Zaladonis says:

          We’re still a year out.

          If it benefits her own ambition, which very definitely includes her vanity and paltry pocketbook, she’ll help Obama get re-elected.

          And there’s more than one way to do that.

          Unless there is a monumental turn around in the US this year, either Obama or the GOP candidate will be elected President. One doesn’t have to support Obama to help him get elected. And the Obama people are putting all their effort into making sure Romney is their opponent; gee I wonder why they’d want a Mormon for that.

          I don’t give a shit one way or the other whether this helps her blog or her career. If it help get the ratfucker out of office, it suits me just fine.

          Have to be careful with ends justify the means, it’s a tricky trick of tricksters that too easily leads to unintended consequences.

      • DeniseVB says:

        Thanks for the RT ! I need to work on my hashtags, as I try and balance between the tcots and the p2s. Between all of us who have twitter accounts, TCH should get out to a variety of twitheads 🙂

        Did you get banned at TM ? RD’s kinda like her mini-me, huh?

        I’ve read there’s been a huge surge in Dems switching to GOP registrations to vote in the primaries, have wondered….to skew the GOP field (Paul) to lose to Obama or for jumping on another unicorn’s(Paul) back?

        Glad I’m in Virginia, sigh. An Open state, but they don’t let anyone on the ballot /snork.

        Do me a favor and go to my wall photos at FB. There’s a group photo with Edwards at YK07. We were the “team” that worked his freaking booth for 4 days for free. I just saw RD mention in a post she was there too as an Edwards supporter. Is she in the photo? I don’t think so, I would have remembered her. (rule out the blondie on the lower left)

        • Lola-at-Large says:

          I did not get banned at Taylor Marsh, and yes, RD is totally a mini-me version. I suspect it has to do with their leftist indoctrination as feminists. Left-feminism is one of the most authoritarian factions on the left, and they are in no way prepared to give up their nightmares of back-alley abortions or their memories of Phyllis Shafely. They are fighting old, old boogiemen and women, and they aren’t intellectually curious enough to question it. It’s what led so many (like madamab) back to the progressive drinking trough. Those fantasies are just too compelling, to hell with what’s actually good for women.

          I couldn’t find the pic. Can you link to it on my FB page, or at the new P&L page?

          BTW, TCHers, P&L now has a Facebook fan page. Find us at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Peacocks-Lilies/290728884306528?sk=wall P&L and the fan page will be very active this year since it’s an election year, so please like us if you want to keep up!

        • DeniseVB says:

          The Edwards group photo in in my profile album. D’oh me, I forgot I used it in 2010 as a reminder to self and m’ freaking kool aid “friends” on FB….I was allowed to speak from teh trenches 😉

          Gotcha P&L liked on FB. BTW, for On the Fly, do you follow Ace of Spades on FB? OMG, the graphics are hysterical. Also, iOTW just won the top 50 blog graphics something, they’re mostly NSFW, but always think …. how do I link this to your fun page?

        • Lola-at-Large says:

          Denise, you can post anything at all to the On the Fly page and the P&L page. Just look for the link near the top that says “Everyone (Most Recent). That will give you a status update bar to post from. Please do leave a link to Ace of Spades, because all I could find was a link to some bar in Cali.

        • Zaladonis says:

          I don’t want to start any blogger-versus-blogger thing here, and have no dog in that race, but I think calling RD a mini-me of TM gets it wrong.

          Of the two, from what I read (past tense) of their posts, RD was much more honest and intellectually curious, and frankly brighter and original. I loved reading RD’s posts, there was nothing like them anywhere else; conversely, as political commenter TM was never anything more than a parrot or echo who’s crafty at pretending to be independent critical thinking. IOW she’s a fraud. RD’s biggest problem that I could see is protecting her sacred cows (most obviously feminism and Pharma). That’s a big problem (I believe nobody can be a genuine rebel and at the same time maintain any sacred cows), and it’s the reason I stopped reading her, but it’s not nearly as bad as the disingenuousness of a TM.

        • Three Wickets says:

          Not sure what you mean by the sacred cowness of RD’s feminism…she was hardly radical compared to her other frontpagers. Personally my biggest issue with TC has always been the dynamic behind the original Big Schism, though all that seems like ancient history now.

        • Zaladonis says:

          I mean she considered her sacred cows, in this instance her version of feminism, immune from question or criticism.

          One can grow, learn, evolve, rebel while protecting one’s principles but not sacred cows.

        • Three Wickets says:

          Well being against bigotry is an easy principle to have.

        • myiq2xu says:

          Personally my biggest issue with TC has always been the dynamic behind the original Big Schism

          Just out of curiosity, what do you think happened? I was there behind the scenes but you weren’t a front-pager.

        • Three Wickets says:

          Should have been clearer. I don’t know what happened behind the scenes, and the internal politics did not concern me. My dumbfounded impression at the time was entirely in response to that long Cannon Fodder thread, and I left for a year.

  14. Better late than never, I say.

    Welcome back to sanity, Taylor.

Comments are closed.