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.