The Ostroy Report

Why I'll Be Watching Yet Another Republican Debate Tonight

2012-01-26T08:05:00.003-05:00

It seems like there's been a Republican debate every two days for the past several months (because there basically has been). And no matter how many I've watched so far (and I've dutifully watched them all), I'll be siting by the television yet again tonight watching. Just waiting....

The truth is, these debates have become so predictable that I could practically script them out in advance. To be sure, we'll see more of Rick Santorum's "I've-Done-Everything-Before-Everyone-Else" routine. We're certain to hear Rep. Ron Paul Sr. declare again that we should withdraw all of our troops from military bases around the world. We're sure to hear Mitt Romney bash Newt Gingrich again for being "disgraced out of Washington" over ethics violations. And we'll no doubt see Gingrich rip Romney apart again over his massive wealth and "job-killing" days at Bain Capital. And now that the audience is allowed to cheer again, we may also even see more of Newt's moderator-bashing bit he clearly enjoys so much (and is quite good at). None of this is new, and it's become quite boring to sit through it all. But I'm just waiting...

What I'm waiting for is that delicious moment all politicians dread. The moment in a debate where a candidate suffers from humiliating foot-in-mouth disease, in some cases blowing the campaign. We've seen plenty of them over the years: when George Bush Sr.looked at his watch as if he had somewhere more important to be, or when he didn't know the price of milk. Or Gerald Ford's incredible misstatement that "There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe." Or when Michael Dukakis said he'd still oppose the death penalty even if his wife Kitty had been raped and murdered. Or Dan Quayle's embarrassing "You're no John Kennedy" moment with Sen. Lloyd Bentsen. And more recently, Gov. Rick Perry's "oops" debacle. So I sit waiting...

I wait for Gingrich to blow a gasket and literally become emotionally unhinged, maybe even telling Romney to "fuck off." I wait for Santorum to look into the camera and whine like a five-year-old to voters "Why aren't you supporting me over that serial cheater Gingrich?!" I wait for Paul to break out into "Oompa Loompa" for no apparent reason. And I wait for Romney to ask all the other candidates if he can pay them to quit the race.

So I wait...

The State of the Union Address: Can't Republicans Even Pretend to Care About the Little Guy?

2012-01-25T08:55:00.006-05:00

If anyone still has a doubt as to the true intentions of Republicans in the House and Senate all they needed to do was watch President Obama's State of the Union Address Tuesday night. The strategy is quite clear: say no to everything Obama wants, hope for a worsening economy, and win the Oval Office in November.

How else do we explain how one side of the House Chamber cheered enthusiastically while the other sat stiff, straight-faced and motionless when Obama said "Businesses have created more than three million jobs;" "No bailouts, handouts, and no copouts; "Teachers matter;" "American consumers finally have a watchdog in Richard Cordray with one job: To look out for them;" and "An economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share and everyone plays by the same set of rules." Can you guess which side of the room sat Republicans?

Someone in the GOP should remind House Speaker John Boehner that his freakishly orange mug is on camera the entire time the president speaks, which means his constant expressions of discomfort and discontent over job creation, education and fairness were on full display. Someone should suggest to Majority Leader Eric Cantor that smug smirks don't paint a picture of cooperation and compromise. And for Pete's Sake, regardless of how they ultimately vote, wouldn't it simply make more political sense to at least cheer and applaud along with Democrats the notion of hiring more teachers, creating jobs, reigning in Wall Street, and treating all people fairly? Apparently their venomous hatred of Obama, Democrats and everything both stand for simply won't allow them to even pretend to be good guys.

Obama's smart. He now 100% understands and accepts that his enemies across the aisle stand only for (1) lowering taxes for the rich; (2) ending entitlement programs for the poor and middle class; (3) reducing government regulation of their fatcat corporate pals' businesses; and (4) ending his political career. At this point all he can and will do is take his message to the people, continuing to draw clear distinctions between his agenda and that of Republicans: 'Vote for me and I'll use government to help you, or vote for them and have them kick you to the curb in your time of need.'

The GOP's Massive Problem

2012-01-24T08:15:00.004-05:00

So now I've watched yet another in a seemingly never-ending series of Republican debates, and I'm convinced of two things: the GOP presidential race is in a total state of chaos, and, President Obama will be re-elected. One thing's for sure, when conservatives aggressively bash each other for being rich Wall Street capitalists, you know the party's in serious trouble.

The GOP's problems are multiple: three contests into the season (Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina) have not produced a clear front-runner. In fact, they've been won by three different candidates--Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. Populist (and I say that with a tinge of facetiousness) Ron Paul Sr. has fared moderately well in each, and will continue to play spoiler, syphoning away key votes from the young and the restless Libertarians. Or, he will at some point attempt to barter delegates for influence. Or he will end up running as an independent and really screw things up for the party.

In what has got to be incredibly frustrating to Romney and his campaign, Mr. Inevitable is looking more and more like Mr. Improbable with each passing day. He can't seem to break out of his 25% range (with the exception of the very Mitt-friendly "Live Free or Die" state) and his increasing desperation has made him extremely negative, a quality that, unlike Newt, does not come naturally to him nor, unlike Newt, is one he's good at. At last week's debate he vowed to stay positive yet within the first minutes of Monday's debate he went for Gingrich's jugular, claiming he was "disgraced" out of Washington in the late 90's. Moderator Brian Williams dutifully called him on this clear flip-flop. "Here we are again," lamented Williams.

After a landslide victory in South Carolina, it would appear that Gingrich's momentum in the South will continue--the next big primary being Florida on January 31--while Santorum continues to split the evangelical vote. But the truth is, Gingrich has zero chance of winning the nomination. He's under-funded, has little organization on the ground in most states, and is the king of self-destruction. He's a cranky, bitter, baggage-laden old insider who's laughably portraying himself as the outsider most qualified to reign in Washington's excess and crony capitalism. The man who helped break the system wants voters to believe that only he can fix it. This is a campaign that has, for all intents and purposes, already imploded. Like a volcano, the visible eruption simply has yet to surface.

Santorum is simply too extreme to catch fire among moderates and independents. His campaign is running on fumes since his big Iowa surprise. But fumes won't propel him much further, especially as Newt remains the temporary favorite among hard-core conservatives. The former Pennsylvania Senator with the humiliating 18-point defeat in 2008 will soon be forced to join the Suspension Club and watch from the sidelines with Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann and Jon Huntsman Jr.

Which brings us back again to Mr. Improbable. It's hard to imagine a party nominating someone whom it seemingly despises. Someone so fake, so disingenuous, so elitist, so unable to connect with regular folk on any conceivable level. This guy's so stiff I could iron my shirts on him. He's flip-flopped so many times that Birkenstock should name a sandal after him. No one, especially Mitt himself, seems to have a clue what he truly believes in his core. And that's a disaster for a politician. Plus, he's a Mormon. Don't underestimate how big a problem this has already been for him. It just might be one big reason he can't break from 25%.

In their rapacious hunger for the nomination, Gingrich and Romney are ripping each other to shreds, putting each other on the defensive over wealth, scandal and electability. And they're creating the templates for Obama's eventual ads. To be sure, the Newt & Mitt Show is going to get even uglier by the minute. So ugly in fact that by the time someone is left standing in August, whoever the hell that is, he and the party will be so weak that Obama will have a cakewalk to re-election.

Is there a chance there will be no clear winner by August? Is there a possibility of a brokered convention? Will the party's leaders entice a Mitch Daniels, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie or Paul Ryan to come to Tampa for a chance to grab the Oval Office keys? At this point, anything's possible.

The Hypocrisy of South Carolina's Conservatives

2012-01-23T08:09:00.007-05:00

Newt Gingrich won the South Carolina primary Saturday by a landslide. Exit polls showed that 60% of voters said that religion, and a candidate's faith, was the primary reason they voted for someone. And an overwhelming majority of those folks voted for Gingrich, the thrice married philanderer whose current wife Callista is an admitted cheater who slept with another woman's husband for six years. Then there's Rick Santorum, the bible-thumpin' pseudo-preacher with the seemingly rock-solid marriage, who came in a distant third. What's wrong with this picture?

Perhaps South Carolina's uber-religious believe that absolving Newt of his past indiscretions simultaneously absolves them of their own, maybe even giving them license to continue this salacious behavior. It's a little club of rich, white, God-fearing male philanderers with a self-serving philosophy towards faith and fidelity:

"We are Christians. We believe in Jesus. We believe that people should live a clean, wholesome, family-values life. We believe in the sanctity of marriage, and that this great institution should be between a man and a woman. We believe that those who don't share our views on God and religion are not people of faith. Now, we do accept the fact that some of us may chase some tail every now and then, and when we do, the Lord will be be quick to forgive and forget. No sense gettin' all crazy over a silly little affair...or two...or three. But we'll continue to lecture everyone else in the world about how they should behave."

The hypocrisy in Saturday's primary results is mind-numbing. Gingrich arrogantly preaches about the "sacrament of marriage" and rants on endlessly about President Obama being the most "radical" president in history, yet when it comes to his own bedroom and relationships he's been so radical he's practically re-written the marital laws single-handedly. True conservatives, especially evangelicals, should be running from him like he was Lucifer incarnate. Instead they lavish him with a landslide. They believe Newt and Callista make for a perfect First Couple; the perfect symbols of American marriage, and appropriate role models for our children (one wonders just what Callista's official "cause" would be if she were First Lady. Loyalty? Honor? Integrity? Fidelity?)

South Carolinians, and perhaps conservatives elsewhere as the primary season continues, appear oddly happy and eager to forgive Gingrich, the "69 year old grandfather," for his sins. I think that says an awful lot about religion, and its role in Republican politics, in America today.

Why I'm Endorsing Rick Santorum

2012-01-20T08:12:00.005-05:00

I just finished watching the 482nd Republican presidential debate and am convinced that the candidate most deserving of the nomination is former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum. Let me point out that I didn't come to this conclusion without much internal struggle. Like most Americans, I've been torn these past several months between the intellectual superiority of Rep. Michelle Bachmann, the debating mastery of Gov. Rick Perry, the vision of Herman Cain, the conviction of Mitt Romney, the integrity of Newt Gingrich, the clarity and coherence of Rep. Ron Paul, the Svengali-like charisma of Jon Huntsman Jr., and the humility of Santorum.

But I've been aided in this process. One by one, many of these campaigns have imploded, leaving just Gingrich, Paul, Romney and Santorum standing before Saturday's critical South Carolina primary. But make no mistake: Santorum is the real deal. While he may come off as arrogant, insolent, temperamental, smug, self-aggrandizing, narrow-minded, intolerant and bigoted, it's not political expediency talking. He's not pretending. With Rick, what you see is exactly what you get.

Romney, the so-called "inevitable" nominee whose campaign just happens to be on its own brink of implosion, is a fairly loathsome chap. He twists and turns more than the Taconic Parkway, and it's impossible to believe anything that comes out of his mouth. He's the ultimate opportunist, shamelessly shifting his positions more often than I change my underwear. Just try to figure out what he really believes about abortion, health care, immigration, the Bush tax cuts, climate change, gun control, gay marriage and Don't Ask Don't Tell, for example. You'll get a migraine just from the conflicting research.

The Stormin' Mormon is 100% fake. From his comically dark dyed hair to his disingenuous answers to every question. And he's a colossal hypocrite. He rails on about making one's own way without government handouts, yet he's the proverbial rich kid who was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple. Ironic how it's always the silver-spooners who tell the rest of us how to be financially responsible and independent. No wonder he can't gain any more traction than a snowbound '77 Pinto. He's now officially the loser in Iowa and, according to new polls out Friday morning, he's trailing Gingrich in South Carolina. Sorry Mitt, winning New Hampshire, where you own a vacation home and which borders your home state of Massachusetts, doesn't make for "inevitability."

Gingrich, on the other hand, has tremendous momentum and has just picked up the all-important endorsement of Perry, who Thursday said, "Newt is not perfect, but who among us is?” Exactly. What's a few marital indiscretions among conservatives, right? Perry added: "I have no question that Newt Gingrich has the heart of a conservative reformer..." That is, of course, if what he's reforming is the sacred institution of marriage he so honorably defends. Apparently, Newt never met a mistress he didn't like...or married. When asked by debate moderator John King of CNN about the ABC interview that aired Thursday with his second wife Marianne, in which she claimed Newt asked her to be in an "open marriage," the feisty former House Speaker lashed out with a fury never before seen in a presidential debate.

"The destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office, and I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that," Gingrich sanctimoniously scolded. "I am frankly astounded that CNN would take trash like that and use it to open a presidential debate."

King, looking like a post-neuter Poodle pup, said that it was ABC News which broke the story, not CNN.

"Don’t try to blame somebody else," Gingrich angrily barked, wagging his finger at King to the cheers of the highly-conservative-yet-apparently-infidelity-supporting crowd. "You and your staff chose to start this debate with it."

Booyah! I gotta say, I agree 100% with Newt. Can't a self-righteous, hypocritical blowhard propose a kinky extra-marital-sex relationship to his wife without the damn lamestream liberal media attacking him two days before a crucial election?

Gingrich is not one to shy away from a tough battle, especially where America's needs come before his. "Callista and I have a wonderful relationship. We knew we’d get beaten up, we knew we’d get lied about, we knew we’d get smeared, we knew there would be nasty attack ads. And we decided the country was worth the pain." Just like last year when he defended his adultery on the grounds of patriotism. I'm tellin' ya, there's nothing this modern day Thomas Paine won't do for his country.

Which brings us to Santorum. As his campaign manager Michael Biundo said, "If you’re supporting Rick Santorum, you’re never going to have to worry about opening the newspaper and being surprised at what you see." That's because he is genuinely despicable. No pretension. He sincerely believes his abhorrent rhetoric and backward positions. He'll be the perfect foil for the Euro-loving socialist President Obama. And for this we must respect and support Rick Santorum.

Why Huntsman May Pull Off a Huge Upset in New Hampshire

2012-01-08T20:41:00.007-05:00

The Republican candidates for president assembled Sunday morning for yet another debate, this time the second slugfest in ten hours. With the primary season set to kick off Tuesday in New Hampshire, the two debates in that state presented a last chance opportunity for the GOP hopefuls to change the direction of the race. In particular, it was do or die for former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. who, with his 1% national polling, is seemingly on life support.

Huntsman literally had nothing to lose this weekend. This was his last shot at convincing New Hampshire voters that he, not Mitt Romney, is not only the most deserving candidate, but the one most able to beat President Obama. Did he nail it? Hardly. With the exception of one major point-scoring moment where he attacked Romney for criticizing him for serving as Ambassador to China in the Obama administration, Huntsman was his usual meek, measured self, never showing enough passion, emotion or charisma to be commanding. But that may not matter on Tuesday when voters go to the polls.

The truth is, Huntsman's the only real grown up in the room. He's not just smart and honest, but logical and rational...and possessing a stellar resume. When he spoke Chinese in Saturday night's debate to drive home a point to Romney about U.S. relations with the Asian superpower, I suspect the value of having a president so versed in the Chinese culture and language was not lost on many in the audience.

Look at the GOP pack. Romney's an outright liar, more consumed by political expedience than anything, changing his positions more than I change my drawers. What's most intriguing about his consistent 20-25% polling is the obvious fact that 75-80% of Republicans can't stand him. Rick Santorum is an evangelical hothead, whose idea of "small government" is one which amends the Constitution to ban gay marriage, gay sex, abortion, life support and contraception while denying the Separation of Church and State. Ron Paul is an angry old quasi-anarchist while Newt Gingrich is, well, just plain angry. And Rick Perry is less qualified to be president than I am. On the national stage, this picture ain't pretty.

What Huntsman has going for him is that Tuesday's primary is in the "Live Free or Die" state. The state where maverick voters typically march to the beat of their own drum and don't like being told how to think or who to vote for. Roughly 40% of the state's voters are undeclared, independents. And that could be the difference for Huntsman, who's been quietly inching up in the polls.

While I'm not going to make a prediction at this point, as it sure as hell seems like Romney's gonna coast on Tuesday, I will say I would not be surprised at all if there was a stunning upset and Huntsman either won or finished a very close second. And if that's the case, this election will be thrown wide open, and it could spell the beginning of the end for Romney as the contest heads to the very conservative South.

"Those Hands Dug Freedom For Me"

2012-01-04T07:51:00.001-05:00

If Rick Santorum should win the Republican nomination for president next November much of the credit should go to those six powerful words he delivered in an emotional victory speech in Iowa early Wednesday morning after a long night of caucusing. I say victory speech because losing by just eight votes to the supposed front runner Mitt Romney is indeed a massive victory, and surely a very disappointing finish for the former Massachusetts governor. As Santorum boldly declared the second he took to the podium, "game on."

The hands former Pennsylvania Congressman and Senator was referring to belonged to his grandfather who toiled in the coal mines to provide for his family. He spoke of what it means to work hard for honest wage and live the American Dream. It's a narrative that should bode very well for him as voters struggle to make ends meet in a still recession-like economy. It's a message that the uber-wealthy Romney, with his elitist country club lifestyle, attitude and deferential positions towards corporate America, wishes he had. Take all that, throw in RomneyCare and a general unlikeability factor and last night's results spell t-r-o-u-b-l-e for him.

Romney, who simply can't seem to break out of the 20-25% vortex he's been frustratingly swirling in, will have not just Santorum gnawing at his tail non-stop now, but a very angry Newt Gingrich as well who, despite a relatively poor 13% showing, has vowed to kick some serious Mitt ass this next week leading up to January 12th's New Hampshire primary. They'll get their shot during Saturday's GOP debate in Manchester and another the following morning on NBC's "Meet the Press." The guy who thought he was gonna coast to the nomination now has two extremely ferocious pit bulls vying to destroy him. It's not gonna be pretty, but it's sure gonna make for some delicious viewing.

But it's time to get serious. While it may be fun right now to watch these rapacious conservazombies devour each other with bloodthirsty zeal, the long term picture is quite troubling. I believe Rick Santorum stands a very strong chance of winning the nomination. And as such, rational Americans should pray that he does not end up anywhere near the Oval Office. Under the right economic circumstances, it's not such a stretch to think he could go all the way to the White House.

To be perfectly blunt, Santorum is a very dangerous candidate. In his speech last night he likened government aid programs to fascism. His social positions are downright frightening. He's rabidly anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-immigration, anti-stem-cell research, favors school prayer and the teaching of creationism, and invokes God and religion more than Jesus himself. He supported Rep. Paul Ryan's plan to gut Medicare, thinks climate change is a hoax, and would blow up Iran if he could. And, despite his tear-jerking tales of grandpappy's blue-collar laboring, he's firmly anti-union. Let's also not forget how he took home his wife's dead 20 week old fetus from the hospital and made his kids hold, kiss, talk to and pose for family photos with it. Get the picture? Santorum and his neanderthal views would set America back 200 years.

Could he beat Obama? Well, like the president, he's relatively young (53) and a devoted family man with kids. He's got that attractive faux-everyman narrative in a bad economy, and he's got the support of true conservatives. He's the anti-Romney personified. Oh, and he's also white.

What Our Young Folks Need to Know About Ron Paul

2011-12-20T07:29:00.003-05:00

He's the Republican Party's Howard Dean, right? The independent outsider who speaks his mind, takes unorthodox positions and appears to be afraid of no one. The kind of irreverent, in-your-face candidate young people find very attractive. But do they know about Ron Paul's history of making outrageously offensive, racist comments? Probably not. If and when they do they'll drop him like a bad check.

Ron Paul is the Bee Gees of politics. And just like young people in the 1970's were clueless that the hip "Saturday Night Fever" disco band had an even greater run as a 60's rock band, they're gonna find out that Paul has a big past as well, albeit a very dubious one. Right now he's benefiting from an upsurge in support following the implosions of the Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain campaigns, as well as the apparent swift failure of Newt Gingrich 2.0. In fact, new polls show him as the front runner in the Iowa caucuses, and a real threat to Mitt Romney, especially if he breaks off and runs as an independent.

But young folks need to go back and read the Ron Paul Political Report and the Ron Paul Survival Report from about 1989-1994 to gain further insight into the radical extremist mind of the candidate who's winning their hearts. Here are some examples of his incendiary remarks:

-"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

-"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

-"Order was only restored in L.A. (after the riots) when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

-"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

-"What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?"

Paul's also written that black protesters should gather "at a food stamp bureau or a crack house" instead of the Statue of Liberty; that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. "seduced underage girls and boys;" and that people with AIDS "enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."

Over the years Paul has either denied he's made these statements (claiming someone else wrote them) or says they've been taken out of context.

"It's typical political demagoguery," he said. "If people are interested in my character . . . come and talk to my neighbors."

Well, it's hard to imagine any other "context" for these racist rants. And as for whether he's the actual writer or not, the offensive comments were made in his newsletters under his byline. Claiming there was a ghostwriter is a pretty lame excuse for someone whose entire foundation and principles rest with personal liberties and responsibility.

Paul is a 1950's era Texan who's on record saying he doesn't believe in the 1964 Civil Rights act. He's an angry old man with dangerous views about minorities, civil liberties and how America should be governed. He's not just some awe-inspiring, patriotic Thomas Paine-like elder firebrand who deserves the admiration and respect of our youth. To the contrary, his virulent positions blatantly contradict what America truly stands for.

I know Howard Dean. I've supported Howard Dean. Ron Paul is no Howard Dean. The sooner our young citizens figure this out the better off they, and America, will be.

House Bill to End Food Stamps for Millionaires....and Other Ridiculously Meaningless Measures

2011-12-14T08:00:00.008-05:00

There was an actual headline in Tuesday's NY Times that the Republican led House of Representatives was taking up a measure to end food stamps and unemployment benefits for millionaires. I suppose their single-digit approval rating has finally prompted them into action to enact such truly meaningful legislation.

Thankfully, the House isn't wasting precious Chamber time on payroll tax cuts and
jobs bills. In fact, they've been quite busy this week. Below is a list of some
other critical measures passed by the House:

-A bill to end farm subsidies to NYC landlords

-A bill prohibiting Talmudic Law from being allowed in US courts

-A bill prohibiting ObamaCare from applying to pets

-A bill limiting the mortgage interest deduction to only people who own homes

-A bill banning fairies and mermaids from serving in the military

-A bill to secure our borders from space aliens

-A bill naming the Statue of Liberty the official statue given to us by the
French around 1886

-A bill restricting the presidency to only people with birth certificates

-A bill declaring the week during the Republican convention "Intelligence Amnesty Week"

-A bill to make English America's official language. Oh wait, this one's actually for real...

Democrats For Newt!

2011-12-12T19:55:00.007-05:00

Ok, I admit it. I secretly support Newt Gingrich's bid for the Republican presidential nomination. I mean, I really really want him to win. I think he's the quintessential conservative and, gosh darnit, he's been around so long he truly deserves this honor. And the party deserves him, as do Republican voters. I can't think of a more fitting nominee to lead this party of hypocritical crazies off a cliff.

Oops, did I just give myself away there? Perhaps. Maybe I'm not so altruistic after all. Maybe I think President Barack Obama's re-election odds increase about a zillion percent if he runs against Gingrich. Quite frankly, I practically wet myself just thinking about it.

Once the Republican love fest with Newt reaches it's primary climax later next year (that is, of course, if he doesn't self-destruct before then), the reality of the general election will quickly set in. If the current crop of leading GOP'ers (including Sen. Tom Coburn, Rep. Peter King, John Sununu and former Rep. Guy Molinari) who've been outspoken in excoriating Gingrich is any indication, he's in huge trouble.

Imagine Obama going up against Gingrich and his record. Imagine what happens when the president and Democrats bang down his closet door and unleash the avalanche of skeletons that have been ever-so-vulnerably stored there for the past fifteen years (Wanna know the difference between Democrats, Republicans and independents? Republicans are the only ones forgiving of Newt's myriad personal and political transgressions).

Gingrich's "repentant sinner" routine may allow those self-righteous, sanctimonious evangelicals to excuse his serial philandering and multiple ethics violations in the interest of vitriolic partisan politics, but the rest of America has a tad more scruples than that. They expect that if you run as a values candidate, ya gotta have some actual values. Newt's core is as rotten today as it was when he crucified Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair while he was sticking his...er...um...hand in the cooking jar of infidelity.

While Newt would like to portray himself as the wise old user-friendly 68-year-old Washington outsider grandad who's finally found Jesus enough to keep his married shmecky in his pants, the rest of thinking America sees him for what he is: the bomb-throwing sabre-rattling morally-bankrupt career-insider who makes outrageously offensive comments about the president, the poor and Palestinians to name a few.

The GOP Candidates Do Monty Python's "Four Yorkshiremen"

2011-12-11T20:07:00.017-05:00

The Republican presidential campaign has so far delighted us with sixteen debates in what has become the best reality freak show on television. And Saturday night's free-for-all in Iowa provided an extra special treat.

The candidates sparred over everything from the economy, health care and Palestinians to ethics and infidelity. There was even another huge "oops" moment, this time for Mitt Romney, who reinforced his reputation as a rich out-of-touch elitist by challenging Rick Perry to a $10,000 bet over his health care record (Perry would have lost the bet, btw). This blunder didn't go over well in a state where the average income is $40,000. What the hell was he thinking? This one's gonna cost him dearly.

But the most fun came at the end of the debate when the candidates were asked what financial sacrifices they had made in their lives. And as my friend Paul keenly observed, this is when the debate turned into Monty Python's hilarious "Four Yorkshiremen" sketch where a bunch of snooty aristocrats wax nostalgic about their difficult upbringings, trying to out-poor each other with one absurd claim after another.

Perry said he his house didn't have running water until he was six, and that his mother sewed his clothes until he went off to college. Gingrich said he was raised in an apartment above a gas station. Ron Paul told of growing up through the Depression. Michele Bachmann said she had to work at 13 because her single mom fell below the poverty line. Romney sheepishly admitted he hadn't been poor, but that his father had been.

If only the Repubs had had more time they surely would've ended up describing how they had lived in a rolled up newspaper or a shoebox.

By the way, here's what I think of Romney's $10K bet...

Donald Trump's Irrelevance Must Be Killing Him

2011-12-09T07:52:00.005-05:00

What do Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman have in common? Besides seeking the Republican presidential nomination, they've all just very painfully reminded Donald Trump just how politically irrelevant he truly is. And I say "painfully" because Trump is a megalomaniac who'd rather slice of his left hand than be irrelevant.

The real-estate-tycoon-turned-buffoon is set to moderate the Newsmax ION Television 2012 Presidential Debate December 27 in Des Moines, IA. But only Rick Santorum and Newt "Holy-Shit-I'm-the-Fucking-Frontrunner!" Gingrich have agreed to attend. Understandably, Santorum would attend a crack-whores conference if it offered him a chance to speak. And Gingrich desperately wants Trump's endorsement and is sure to get it now (are there really folks out there dumb enough to vote for Newt just because Donald Trump said to?).

Someday we'll get to fully understand the genesis of Trump's massive neurosis. I'm not a shrink, but clearly this man has a very deep emotional hole. His insatiable hunger for attention, recognition and relevance is gargantuan and alarmingly self-destructive. Truth be told, he was once considered, and by this writer as well, to be a brilliant, innovative, straight-shooting independent thinker on the right side of many social and political issues. And then he apparently took asshole pills and turned from The Donald into The Douche. He's become an angry, belligerent, small-minded fool who will literally do or say anything if it means someone will stick a mike or camera in front of his horrifically-coiffed head. Whatever comes out of his mouth now just seems like it's been marinated in batshit-crazy-sauce.

Trump seems to have crossed the critical line where one loses an ability to realize just how insane they look and sound. He's now just an embarrassing punchline. One thing's for sure: you know you've become a pathetic joke when Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry won't have anything to do with you.

This is Why Romney Won't Win the GOP Nomination

2011-12-01T07:05:00.002-05:00

Mitt Romney, the 1%'er who was born on 3rd base and thinks he hit a triple, apparently suffers from an entitlement disorder so profound that it makes him believe he can run for president of the United States and not be challenged to explain his positions.

In an interview Tuesday with the usually softball-throwing Fox News, Romney demonstrated on national television perhaps his biggest shortfall: that he thinks the world owes him something. Furthermore, he thinks he has the right to do or say anything he wants in order to get it.

Romney was all smiles as he sat down for what he incorrectly thought would be the typically friendly Fox lovefest. But host Bret Baier apparently had something else in mind as he began grilling the former front-runner over his rampant policy flip-flops. Romney quickly became defensive, testy, condescending and quite fidgety as he nervously shifted in his seat and awkwardly crossed his legs.

Baier: Like the [New Hampshire’s leading newspaper, which endorsed Romney rival Newt Gingrich last weekend] “Union Leader,” your critics charge that you make decisions based on political expediency and not core convictions. You have been on the both sides of -- of some issues. And there’s videotape of you going back years speaking about different issues -- climate change, abortion, immigration, gay rights. How can voters trust what they hear from you today is what you will believe if you win the White House?

Romney: Well, Bret, your list is just not accurate. So, one, we’re going to have to be better informed about my views on issues. My view is you can look at what I’ve written in my book. You can look at a person who has devoted his life to his family, to his faith, to his country. And I’m running for president because of the things I believe I think I can do to help this country. And -- and I know in politics, there are going to be those who try in every way they can to tear down one another.

The former Massachusetts governor also strongly denied ever suggesting that his state's health care model of the individual mandate be adopted nationwide.

Baier: So, governor, you did say on camera and other places that, at times, you thought it would be a model for the nation.

Romney: You’re wrong, Bret.

Romney: No, no. There’s tape..the tape out there — continue to read the tape, and the tape goes on to say for each state to be able to look at it.

Baier on Wednesday said on Fox's The O'Reilly Factor that Romney was annoyed by what he claimed was his unfair questioning. He said Romney "was irritated by the interview after we were done." The feisty flip-flopper "made it clear at the end of the interview" that he was not happy. "He said he thought it was overly aggressive." He added that "as we were walking in the ‘walk and talk’ and then after we finished, he went to his holding room and then came back and said he didn’t like the interview and thought it was uncalled for."

Well, too bad Mitt. We're truly sorry that you think your record as a businessman and politician is above scrutiny. We're sorry that challenging you to explain your controversial record feels like an unfair 'gotcha' attack. We're sorry that you feel so entitled to the nomination that you believe the bright glare of the media should beat down only on others. We're sorry that you feel voters don't have a right to know who the hell they're voting for.

Romney's performance during that Fox interview was a revelation into just who he really is: an out-of-touch privileged whiner who will fold like a $2 beach chair the minute the real pressure's on. And most important it was a testament to his character, or lack thereof. It showed that behind all the youthfully black hair dye and pearly white smiles there's a highly pompous, arrogant CEO who simply doesn't get it that being president is very different than having the ability and power to tell everyone what to do. We can expect more of this outrageous behavior from him as these next few contentious weeks unfold.

Though I thought I'd never be saying this, let's hope the rest of the 'mainstream media" is as "aggressive" as Fox as they interview the various candidates.

Hubris, Hubris, Hubris. Explaining Herman Cain's Downfall

2011-11-30T07:51:00.002-05:00

Herman Cain is just the latest example of a politician's career imploding over a sex scandal. Such personal transgressions have sunk many a campaign since the days of the Roman Empire, so that's nothing new. But what's surprising, and inexplicable, is why someone with a walk-in-closet full of skeletons would run for high office, thereby putting at grave risk his family, career and reputation. The only answer that makes any sense is hubris. And a massive dose of it.

The dictionary defines hubris as excessive pride or self-confidence; arrogance. But with Cain I'd take it even further and toss in narcissism and megalomania. Those two conditions are defined as inordinate fascination with oneself; excessive self-love; vanity and a mania for great or grandiose performance respectively.

With Cain, here's a guy who's alleged to have sexually harassed (and possibly molested) several women and engaged in a long-term extramarital affair with at least one other. Knowing this, what on Earth was he thinking in running for president? Did he honestly believe that his past behavior, unlike that of Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, Anthony Weiner, Eliot Spitzer and countless others, would not become public fodder? Did he think he was above scrutiny? Does he feel entitled? Is he in utter denial? Does he think that his version of "I did not have sex with that woman!" is going to bury the story any more than it did for Clinton?

Cain walked into this campaign with high stature. With a solid business record as a former Godfather's Pizza CEO and as a very successful corporate motivational speaker. He also came with his 43-year marriage and his family in tact. And while he has yet to drop out of the race, he is sure to in the next few days. His political career is now dead as a doornail, and he will leave the campaign with his conservative supporters and donors angry, his marriage wrecked, a family who he's hurt terribly, and a business reputation that's severely damaged. Who the hell would hire him to motivate their corporate troops after this mess?

And the biggest display of his hubris yet is in his unequivocal denials of any wrongdoing. In fact, he claims, as he told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Monday, that there's a conspiracy hellbent on "derailing the Cain train." No, the train just went into the wrong tunnels, Herm. But Mr. 9-9-9 takes no responsibility for any of it.

To be sure, we've seen D.C's version of this Greek tragedy played out a zillion times before. First comes the salacious accusations, then the vociferous, unequivocal denials, followed by an eventual humiliating public mea culpa, perhaps with the shell-shocked Mrs by your side, and then a shameful resignation. I suspect we are going to see all of this from Cain very soon. The main question though is, why did he think things would end any differently for him? Hubris, hubris, hubris...

The Cain Mutiny

2011-11-29T08:06:00.008-05:00

There's only one thing that can actually make Newt Gingrich's history of marital infidelity seem trite, and its name is Herman Cain. The man who gave us bad pizza and an even cheesier tax overhaul plan is once again at the center of a new sex scandal, accused of having a 13-year extramarital affair with Ginger White, a single mother from Atlanta whom he me while running the National Restaurant Association (clearly, his tenure as head of this trade organization in the 1990's has not served him well, sexual-scandal-wise). Seems like women all over America are jumping off the Good Ship 999.

White said she came forward because of the way Cain's been disparaging the various women who've accused him recently of sexual harassment.

"It bothered me that they were being demonized, sort of, they were treated as if they were automatically lying, and the burden of proof was on them. I felt bad for them."

Cain has strongly denied the accusation, but in a very curious manner. In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer Monday he confidently stated that he did not have a "13-year" affair as if inside he was giggling to himself saying "That's because it was a TWELVE AND A HALF YEAR affair!" Technically, he would not be lying, although that's a pretty pathetic defense. What's more, he issued his denial with the same sort of "I did not have sex with that woman!" arrogance of the 90's scandal-plagued Bill Clinton. And we know how that story ended.

It's hard to imagine Cain's campaign surviving this, especially on the heels of the harassment scandal. He's done. And it's a great day for Gingrich, who, by comparison, is starting to seem like an altar boy (not exactly hard to do in the Republican Party, where political, ethics and sexual scandals run rampant).

The GOP presidential pack is motley crew of misfits and miscreants. By default, Gingrich has found himself atop this garbage pile as he's watched the campaigns of Donald Trump, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and now Cain implode. His chief rival at the moment, Mitt Romney, is stuck at around 20% and is not liked by voters or GOP leadership. His reign at or near the top is misleading. It's not because voters want him there, it's because they've had no one else. That they've now jumped aboard the skeleton-filled NewtWagon is proof positive.

Newt may have cost himself much support among hardcore conservatives with his controversial amnesty-like position on immigration offered at the last GOP debate. Additionally, we've yet to see how his many past, well-documented political and personal indiscretions and transgressions will truly impact his campaign. They nearly sunk him once before. Gingrich is his own worst enemy. To be sure, his mouth, if not his past, will put him in the hot seat once again.

The question then is, who's next to lead this sorry pack? Is Jon Huntsman, the only Republican with the integrity, character and experience to be president, going to have his turn at the top? Will Romney win by default after Newt's next fall? One thing's for sure, the GOP campaign train wreck will surely provide more entertainment over the next several months.

My New Favorite Reality Show: "The Real Republicans of Washintgon"

2011-11-22T08:18:00.007-05:00

I must confess: up until a couple of months ago I was addicted to Bravo's "Real Housewives" franchise. C'mon, what's more fun than watching Theresa Guidice in the kitchen with all her "ingrediences?" Or the Orange County and Beverly Hills ladies and their fake hair, teeth, boobs and plastic surgery claw at each other like a bunch of alley cats? But then I got sick of it all. Felt ashamed. Realized there's probably a million other things I can and should be doing with my time. Like watching the never-ending Republican presidential debates.

My new favorite reality show is "The Real Republicans of Washington." Who needs tough little Joe Guidice when we have the feistier-than-ever Newt Gingrich? Why waste time watching Camille Grammer embarrass herself when we can watch Michele Bachmann implode? Why listen to Kelly Bensimon say stupid things when we can watch Herman Cain take a week and a half to answer a question about Libya? Why listen to Texas airhead Gretchen Rossi when you can feast your ears on Texas airhead Rick Perry?

I'm telling ya, "Real Republicans" has more interesting stars, better catfights, more drama, more salacious scandals and airs weekly as well. There's sexual harassment, marital infidelity, botox, shameless hypocrisy, Mormons and libertarians (and who's nuttier than those guys, huh?). But maybe, just maybe, you might learn something about government in the process so it's not entirely a waste. Quick honey, wake up the kids....

Is Gingrich Lying Over Freddie Mac Involvement?

2011-11-17T07:54:00.008-05:00

Ya gotta give credit to Newt Gingrich. At least he's consistent in his colossal hypocrisy. Back in the 90's while he was crucifying Bill Clinton over the former president's sexual escapades with Monica Lewinsky, the then-House Speaker was simultaneously cheating on his wife. And now we learn from a Bloomberg News article, which cites former Freddie Mac officials, that while Gingrich was excoriating President Obama, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Democrats for their supposed roles in the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae housing and financial crisis he knew that he had earned upwards of $1.8-million on Freddie's payroll to lobby their cause to his influential Republican pals on Capitol Hill.

On the hot seat after soaring recently in the polls, Gingrich's defense of his actions is lame at best and unethical and duplicitous at worst. At a GOP debate last week he claimed to have made only $300,000 from the relationship and that he was paid as a "historian," giving the federally-backed home mortgage company "advice on precisely what they didn’t do,” which was to stop giving high-risk loans to borrowers with no or poor credit history. He later expanded his role to "strategic adviser."

"First of all, it wasn’t paid to me," he said this week. "Gingrich Group was a consulting firm that had lots of people doing things and we offered strategic advice." So, we're supposed to accept on face value that Gingrich does not personally profit from Gingrich Group revenue? Furthermore, the Freddie officials confirmed to Bloomberg that he never warned of a housing bubble and offered no criticism of the business model.

According to the Associated Press, Gingrich’s work with Freddie Mac started in 1999 after being brought in by the company’s top lobbyist, Mitchell Delk, to consult on legislative and regulatory issues, the company said at the time. He was paid approximately $30,000 a month into 2002. Freddie brought him back again four years later at $300,000 annually to help defend against attacks from conservatives.

So Gingrich appears to be lying, which is clearly such a pattern for him that it consistently and ultimately brings him down, as it is certain to do again now.

Back in 2008 Gingrich aggressively challenged Obama to distance himself from Freddie and Fannie by returning all campaign contributions. And at the recent debate, he arrogantly charged that those responsible for the housing crisis should be put in jail: "You ought to start with Barney Frank. Go back and look at the lobbyists he was close to at Freddie Mac." Perhaps what's good for the goose is good for the Gingrich...

David Brooks is Wrong About the Penn State Rape

2011-11-15T08:14:00.005-05:00

I have to take great issue with today's New York Times op-ed column by David Brooks. Titled Let's All Feel Superior, Brooks addresses the alleged Penn State rape of a 10-year-old boy by Jerry Sandusky, and the failure by assistant coach Mike McQueary, who witnessed this heinous act in the locker room shower in 2002, to intervene on the spot. His main supposition is that none of us truly knows what we would do in that very same situation until we're in "McQueary's shoes," and that it's easy for us to judge and condemn others when we might actually behave in the same manner.

Brooks calls this lack of action "Motivated Blindness," which he defines as "they don't see what is not in their interest to see." He then goes on to cite cases, such as the infamous Kitty Genovese murder in Queens, NY in 1964, where bystanders watched silently and did nothing as victims were beaten and killed. But what Brooks is doing here is not only over-intellectualizing McQueary's shameful behavior, but making broad and unfounded generalizations about society overall.

Contrary to Brooks' bizarre semi-excusing of McQueary's inaction, I suspect there are very, very few people who would witness a young boy of ten getting anally raped and not be compelled to immediately intervene, even with physical force. Speaking for myself, and as someone with four children, I am 1000% certain of what I would've done in that locker room. And there are few things in this world that I am as certain about. My reaction would've been visceral and swift. Without thought. Without thinking of any personal consequences or safety concerns. I would've ripped into Sandusky with everything I had and would've then attempted to detain him until police arrived. And I can't imagine any other decent, compassionate, caring human being acting differently. I simply cannot fathom anyone seeing this brutal act of savagery on a child and walking away, leaving a monster to continue his incomprehensible attack.

Sorry Brooks, I think your Motivated Blindness Club has very, very few members.

How Jon Huntsman Jr. Could Be the GOP Nominee

2011-11-14T07:59:00.002-05:00

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and make an early prediction that Jon Huntsman Jr. is going to be the Republican nominee for president in 2012. By all accounts, the odds are I will be proven wrong. But I'm not so sure. I think the former Utah governor and Ambassador to China truly stands an excellent chance of winning.

To be sure, the GOP pack right now is in a state of disarray. Voters on the right are switching their allegiances as often as I cut my hair (about every four weeks). First they showed the love for Donald Trump, then Michelle Bachmann, then Rick Perry, then Mitt Romney, then Herman Cain and now the object of their disaffection is former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. A new CNN poll shows Mitt and Newt in a virtual tie for the lead, while Cain, embroiled in an embarrassing, campaign-killing sex scandal, has dropped from 25% to 14%. I suspect it's only gonna get worse for Cain.

But here's where it gets very interesting and wide-open. The current crop of Republican candidates are akin to the 'wild girls' you dated while single. They're fun, edgy and perhaps a bit more racy then the gal you plan to settle down with someday. But when it's time to walk down the aisle, you want someone mama will love. Hence, Huntsman.

Romney's problem is that he cannot break out of his 23% range because voters and the Republican establishment truly dislike him. He flip-flops so much that Birkenstock should name a sandal after him. And, he's a Mormon. Add all this up and you have serious voter apprehension, which explains his utterly stagnant campaign.

Gingrich, on the other hand, is the popular new "old" kid at the dance. He's got the momentum, and he's benefiting by the implosions of the Bachmann, Perry and Cain campaigns. But he's got more skeletons in his closet than a medical lab at Harvard. Let's not forget why his own campaign near-imploded early in the race. It's not that he's risen to the top, it's simply that the top has sunk below him. But those skeletons won't go away. He cannot be considered a serious candidate as a result. Too much personal baggage to overcome.

That leaves Romney, who is bound to stumble somewhere, somehow. But even if he doesn't, all it takes is for voters in New Hampshire to support Huntsman and he becomes the new front runner. And the rest, they say, could be history.

In the end, what it boils down to is this: will early primary and caucus voters ultimately dump the wild girls and bring a nice girl home to mama? Huntsman's smart, witty and squeaky-clean, and with his impeccable bi-partisan credentials, diplomatic and foreign policy expertise, and moderate positions he just may be the prom queen voters want to send up against President Obama next November. On paper, Huntsman certainly has the best chance of beating him.

Suspend Football at Penn State

2011-11-11T08:16:00.005-05:00

For the past several days now I've been literally sickened by the Penn State sexual abuse scandal and all the horrific images that get conjured up as a result. Nothing short of criminal charges and jail time would be a just punishment for those involved. This pathetic group includes the legendary but now disgraced head coach Joe Paterno; Mike McQueary, the then-28-year-old graduate assistant coach who witnessed the rape of a 10-year-old boy; athletic director Tim Curley; university vice president Gary Schultz; university president Graham Spanier; and that filthy piece of perverted trash Jerry Sandusky, whose reign of sexual terror on young boys most likely spans several decades. They knew of the crime(s), chose to do nothing and, worse, built a protective wall of silence around it. That makes them as complicit as Sandusky.

First off, what kind of grown man (can we please stop referring to McQueary as a "kid?") walks in on another grown man ass-raping a child and doesn't run over and beat the living shit out of him? What kind of human being witnesses that kind of sick evil perpetrated on an innocent, helpless boy and simply turns and walks away? This piece of amoral garbage goes home instead and tells his daddy about it, as if he saw some kid harmlessly bullying another kid in a schoolyard. They then told Paterno, Curley and Schultz. All did nothing. And no one called the police. Their behavior is beyond unconscionable.

And the spin? The "details" of the incident might not have been properly portrayed by McQueary. That he may have told Paterno it was some kind of "horseplay" or that something "inappropriate" had taken place, and not made a specific reference to sodomy. But does that really matter? Was the fact that a 50+ year old man and a 10-year-old boy were both naked in a locker room shower not enough? Would the fact that they were simply alone in a locker room not enough to raise a serious eyebrow? But let's keep the proper perspective here. By McQueary's own account, he witnessed Sandusky ramming his dick into this poor kid's anus. That this crime got watered down on any fucking level is beyond comprehension. How he lives with himself, how he sleeps at night, is unfathomable.

And for what? Football. Football took priority over the savage brutality perpetrated on this young victim. It was more important to protect the venerable Penn State's prestige and reputation than to protect little children from a vicious sexual predator and rapist. Those in the power seats shamefully and selfishly used that power to maintain the status quo and the $70-million that the football program generates. So beyond the shame, beyond the firings, beyond the potential criminal charges and jail sentences, the last and perhaps most fitting form of punishment would be to suspend the school's NCAA football status for 10 years and force upon it the very moral, ethical and human decency priorities it so woefully failed to recognize on its own. At Penn State, this scandal was all about football. So there should be no more football at Penn State.

And as far as all the fuss about Paterno, and whether the God of coaching deserves better treatment here? Fuck him and his iconic status. What we'll remember him by now is not his illustrious five-decade career, but rather how he de facto sanctioned the rape of little boys and then let the rapist stand, with other little boys, victims for sure, on his sidelines watching more Penn State football games.

Gingrich Rises From the Ashes

2011-11-10T07:56:00.007-05:00

A funny thing is happening in the Republican race for president: Newt Gingrich, with all his political and personal warts, is starting to look good again to conservative voters. I'm not sure it says more about the former House Speaker's credentials and overall appeal as much as it's a vote of no-confidence for the rest of the lame GOP pack. When Newt becomes your Great White Hope, you know your party's in trouble.

At the outset of the campaign Gingrich had promise, and then he quickly imploded. Appearing in May on NBC's Meet the Press Gingrich was asked about Rep. Paul Ryan's plan to scrap Medicare. "I don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering," Gingrich said. "I don't think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate." Though I think he was absolutely correct and rational in his thinking, he was widely criticized and attacked by Ryan, Rush Limbaugh and many others in the party. Two days later he back-peddled and disingenuously tried to spin his way out of it on On the Record with Greta Van Susteren.

Then came the Tiffany debt scandal and the staff defections. It appeared as though Gingrich's campaign was as dead as a doornail. And then the rest of the GOP pack started talking. And skeletons started falling out of closets. National polls now have Gingrich running third behind Herman Cain and Mitt Romney. But Cain, the faux frontrunner who never really had a believable shot at the nomination, is currently embroiled in a growing sex scandal which is sure to put the nail in his political coffin. Romney, the-frontrunner-who-no-one-really-wants, has several major obstacles to overcome: he's a Mormon, he's not liked and he's flip-flopped so much that Birkenstock should name a sandal after him. And Rick Perry, who was once the GOP's Boy Wonder, has been dying a painfully slow death. He's so in over his head he can't even remember all the government departments he hates and would immediately shut down. Wednesday night's colossal debate gaffe will probably be his campaign-ending moment. It's certainly gonna be something that poli-sci students study for years to come.

While Newt's opponents are floundering, the momentum is with him. He's a master-debater and his resilience seems to be paying off. And timing is everything. So it's not such a stretch that he could end up with the nomination, especially if something negative about Romney should surface, or if he should stumble on policy. Remember, it's usually not the early frontrunners who end up with the nomination. While the Republican Party spent much of this year seducing anyone who isn't Romney to run-- Chris Christie and Mitch Daniels among them--the answer might've been under their trunks all along. Everyone loves an underdog.

It's Not Because Cain is Black

2011-11-07T08:07:00.006-05:00

It's because I'm black!, cries Republican presidential front runner Herman Cain. But the rampant racism which Herman Cain has recently said no longer exists in America but which he now claims is as the root of the sexual harassment allegations against him, has left other prominent black conservatives, including Michael Steele, Ron Christie, J.C. Watts, Alan Keyes, Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice, unscathed. Funny how those folks don't seem to be the victims of the same sort of "high-tech lynching" Cain supporters claim he's facing.

Cain has been the target of accusations of inappropriate sexual behavior towards three female employees of the National Restaurant Association while he headed that trade organization in the late 1990's. The scandal threatens to derail what was a high-flying campaign which recently landed him in the lead over rivals Mitt Romney and Rick Perry. The Cain camp, and the candidate himself, has appeared utterly unprepared and woefully inept at handling the fallout. Cain has stumbled publicly, appearing frustrated and combative with reporters when pressed for details, and has defended himself with charges of smear campaigns and racism by opponents, the media and liberals.

But what is bringing Cain down isn't his color, but rather his off-color comments and gestures he's been accused of by women who've felt harassed and threatened by him, and frightened and angry enough to have filled out complaint reports against him. And if the $45,000 he paid to one accuser for her silence is any indicator of what really happened, I'd say where there's smoke there's generally a fire ablaze...

Remembering Adrienne Shelly

2011-11-01T08:02:00.003-04:00

Today marks the 5-year anniversary of the passing of my late wife, the actor, writer and director Adrienne Shelly. Adrienne was the victim of a brutal murderer, a young construction worker, who attacked her while she was writing in the West Village apartment she once lived in and had kept as an office. She was a beautiful wife, a loving mother, an adoring daughter, a much loved sister, a fiercely loyal friend, and a very unique, gifted actor and filmmaker.

On this day we celebrate Adrienne's life, her accomplishments and the legacy she's left behind. It is in her honor that I started the Adrienne Shelly Foundation with a singular mission: to support women filmmakers. Since 2007 we've awarded 25 grants and scholarships through our partners, who include the Sundance Institute, Tribeca Film Institute, American Film Institute, Columbia University, Boston University, IFP, Women in Film, Rooftop Films and the Nantucket Film Festival. We’re very proud of these grantees, and even have among them Cynthia Wade, 2008 Oscar winner for her documentary, Freeheld, which ASF helped fund.

Tonight we launch our 4th Annual Celebrity eBay auction at 7pm EST. It's our biggest source for raising funds. Items up for bidding can be viewed at our preview site. We're offering breakfasts and lunches with folks like Paul Rudd, Jon Hamm, Michelle Williams, Meredith Vieira, Bill Hader, Cheryl Hines, Susie Essman, Rosanna Arquette, Mark Cuban, Jonathan Tisch, Andrew Tisch, Gina Gershon, Alison Brie and Danny Pudi, Rachael Harris & Angela Kinsey, and many others.

The auction also includes walk-ons on Community, Hung and the upcoming film "You Remind Me of Me;" set visits to Pan Am, Drop Dead Diva, Wrap Up Show (plus Howard Stern studio tour), The Good Wife and Castle; a Today Show tour with Al Roker (w/on-air spot); NY Giants Owners Box tix, plus field passes and signed Eli Manning helmet; VIP tickets w/Meet & Greets at Rachael Ray, Martha Stewart, Hardball with Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, E! News, The Soup, Joan Rivers; and VIP tickets to Two and a Half Men, Ellen, Letterman, Colbert, Daily Show, Chelsea Handler, and Real Time with Bill Maher.

Tomorrow night, Nov 2nd, we're hosting the first annual Adrienne Shelly Foundation Woman of Vision Salute in conjunction with The Museum of Modern Art's Film Plus program. We're honoring filmmaker Nicole Holofcener (Walking and Talking, Lovely & Amazing, Friends with Money, Please Give). We'll be screening Lovely & Amazing, starring Catherine Keener. Following the film there'll be a discussion between Nicole and Catherine.

For Ticket information, or to make a donation, please visit www.adrienneshellyfoundation.org

Not Everyone in the 1% Deserves 'Occupy's' Scorn

2011-10-31T08:19:00.007-04:00

I think its very dangerous, and quite frankly unfair, for the Occupy movement's "99%" to vilify the "1%" as if everyone who falls into that elite income group is (a) corrupt (b) greedy (c) selfish and (d) insensitive and indifferent to the needs and struggles of the poor and middles classes.

Let's get something straight: America is a capitalist nation. Our economic structure is such that there are going to be extremely wealthy people and a helluva lot more who aren't. Those who don't like this system are free to move to another country like North Korea where everyone is piss poor and living under a brutal dictatorship. America's problems aren't about rich vs. poor per se, but about those who care vs those who don't.

The Occupy protesters, in summarily indicting as evil everyone in the 1%, are doing a major disservice to the movement and their long-term cause. At the risk of sounding like a conservative, this broad stroke demonizing of everyone who's rich is class warfare and it needs to stop. There are plenty of kind, decent, generous, very wealthy people who also happen to care about the poor, the sick, the needy, the less fortunate. People who donate millions from their incomes annually to fund all sorts of social, health, education, environmental and child welfare programs, and whose money also goes to political organizations to fight for the little guy. People who've spent a lifetime in public service trying to make things better for those who need help. People who could've financially enriched themselves in the private sector but instead chose meager government salaries. George Soros is in the 1%. The Kennedys are in the 1%. Nancy Pelosi is in the 1% as is Alec Baldwin, Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn, George Clooney and all the notorious "Hollywood liberals" who are as bleeding-heart as you can get. Their wealth has not stopped them from giving a shit. To the contrary, it's provided valuable resources and a greater platform through which to help. These people are among the best friends and benefactors the poor and middle class will ever have. So it's terribly misguided and counter-intuitive to lump them in the same bucket as the self-serving cads who only care about lower taxes, less regulation and protecting corporate largess.

To be sure, there are many gross inequities in America's economic system which have justifiably been the focus of the Occupy protests. The income gap between the rich and poor is the highest in 80 years. The wealthiest 1% have seen their incomes increase 281% since 1979 while the poor and middle class have earned just 16-25% more. The CEO-to-worker pay ratio is around 350-1. Corporate America has been rewarded with astounding tax breaks while shipping millions of jobs overseas. And no one on Wall Street has yet to be penalized for creating the worst financial crisis in 85 years.

But that does not justify an across-the-board vilification of everyone in the 1%. There's nothing inherently wrong with being rich in America. What's wrong is when you use this wealth to disenfranchise and subjugate those who aren't. There are certainly plenty of legitimate gripes the Occupy protesters can and should be angry about. But it would be very wise not to alienate the very rich, connected and influential people who are among its biggest supporters and who it will need in the weeks and months to come.

"Jobs Bill Killers!!"

2011-10-21T08:10:00.007-04:00

It's time President Obama and Democrats brand Republicans as "Jobs Bill Killers." They need to frame the debate by effectively accusing the GOP as simply refusing to pass any bill, even ones that include tax cuts, that will put struggling Americans back to work. They should repeat the term Jobs Bill Killers like a mantra and utter it in every sentence. Like propaganda. Just like Republicans do. Think "Job killers. Death Panels. Baby killers." It's time Democrats start speaking in soundbites and bumper-stickers. That's what voters understand.

Thursday night Republicans again voted in lockstep to defeat yet another jobs bill put forth by Democrats. In a 50-50 vote, GOP senators defeated a part of Obama's bill that would allocate $35 billion for states and localities to hire additional teachers, police, firefighters and other first responders while protecting existing workers.

"For the second time in two weeks, every single Republican in the United States Senate has chosen to obstruct a bill that would create jobs and get our economy going again," Obama said. "That's unacceptable. We must do what's right for the country and pass the common-sense proposals in the American Jobs Act."

And what got the Republicans' panties in a snit? Funding for the measure would have come from a 0.5% tax increase on people earning more than $1 million a year. That's a half a percentage point on millionaires. You'd think this would be small enough to get Repubs on board, right? As John Belushi would say in his famous Saturday Night Live rants, "But Nooooooooooooo!"

As Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor like to say, "Now is not the time to raise taxes on anybody." But I ask, is there ever gonna be a time when Republicans accept a tax increase? The "not now" excuse is just a lame tactic to protect their personal financial interests. It's the same old same old with these guys. Feed the rich, screw the poor and middle class.

The truth is, the Republican Party stands for nothing except low taxes and less regulation. This is the way it's always been and always will be. As evidenced by audience reaction in recent GOP debates, there seems to be zero compassion and empathy for the less fortunate. Republicans in the audiences have cheered and advocated people being left to die without medical coverage. They've cheered executions. They've cheered gays being discriminated against in the military. And they went wild when Herman Cain blamed people for their own state of unemployment. Welcome to compassionate conservatism, 2011 style.

Romney and Perry and Cain, Oh My!

2011-10-19T07:08:00.006-04:00

If Sylvester Stallone ever decides to make Rocky VII perhaps he should cast Mitt Romney in the lead. The former governor of Massachusetts and sometimes Republican front runner came out swinging in Tuesday night's GOP debate in Las Vegas, deftly schooling Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Herman Cain and Rick Santorum on how to dominate and control your opponents while still keeping your cool and looking presidential.

The evening began with Cain having to vigorously defend his controversial 9-9-9 plan which, according to the Tax Policy Center, would raise taxes on 84% of taxpayers, hit the poor and middle classes the hardest, and benefit the rich. When challenged by his opponents, Cain kept dismissing as incorrect such independent research and instead urged voters to look at "our analysis" on his website. Sure, why trust all those crafty outside wonks when you get all the truth you need right from the Cain camp!

The former Godfather's Pizza CEO also tried to justify his tax plan with a convoluted analogy about "apples and oranges" that I'm still trying to figure out. I'm not sure how he ran Godfather financials, but Cain clearly needs a math lesson in adding up his apples and oranges. As Romney quipped, "I’m going to be getting a bushel basket that has apples and oranges in it because I’ve got to pay both taxes..."

Throughout the debate Romney was attacked from all sides and at several points Santorum and Perry simply talked over him during his allotted time, which clearly angered him. The most heated exchange occurred when Perry accused him, to boos and hisses from the audience, of hiring illegal aliens.

"You lose all of your standing from my perspective, because you hired illegals in your home, and you knew about it for a year," Perry barked, calling Romney's anti-illegal immigration stand the "height of hypocrisy." He then interrupted Romney's reply, prompting an aggressive push back: "I’m speaking, I’m speaking," Romney asserted. "This has been a tough couple of debates for Rick, and so I understand that you’re going to get testy." He lectured Perry on debate etiquette a few moments later after another intense exchange: "You have a problem with allowing someone to finish speaking....And I suggest that if you want to become president of the United States, you have got to let both people speak."

The night was owned by Romney. He exposed Cain's 9-9-9 for the sham it is; won the alpha male contest with Perry; shut down Santorum; smartly ignored Michele Bachmann; and got uber-arrogant Newt Gingrich to sheepishly admit that he was for an individual mandate before he was against it. I can't imagine his poll numbers not rising while Perry's sink deeper into single-digit Bachmann country.

As for Cain, he simply appears like the clumsy two-left-footed Little Leaguer who no one wants to criticize and who gets condescending props just for lumbering out into the field. Clearly, despite his current faux-front runner status, no one, especially Romney, seems to take him as a serious threat. Unless there's some giant skeleton suiting up in Romney's closet, he'll coast to the nomination.

The low point of the debate? Perry repeatedly referring to Cain as "brother" in what sure as hell seems like way too familiar a term for a white politician with a Texas drawl to be calling a black man.

Herman Cain's Fuzzy Math

2011-10-16T07:20:00.001-04:00

"Do the math!," Herman Cain incredulously replies when challenged by skeptical critics to explain how his mantra-like "9-9-9" tax overhaul plan doesn't lower taxes for the rich while increasing taxes on the poor and middle class.

But that's just the problem. Cain's math is so fuzzy it would make George W. Bush proud. As Cain explains it, he'd do away with the current tax code and replace it with a 9% personal tax, a 9% corporate tax and a 9% national sales tax. Through this overhaul, he says, most people will pay less taxes than they currently do. But his calculations simply make no sense to many experts including economists, the Wall Street Journal and even Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.

For example, there are 30-million Americans whose incomes are low enough that they don't pay any income or payroll taxes. So for them 9% is 100% more than they currently pay. Add a 9% national sales tax on top of the average 8% state sales tax they pay now and that's another 100%+ increase. So an individual earning and taking home $26,000 who pays about $2100 in state sales tax will, under 9-9-9, end up paying about $2400 in new income tax and a total of approximately $4800 in total sales taxes. That's a total tax bite of more than $7000 vs $2400. How can Cain with any degree of credibility claim that his plan won't increase taxes for the poor and middle classes?

Now take the rich, who currently pay the maximum 36% personal tax rate and 15% in capital gains taxes. In eliminating the cap gains tax and lowering the personal rate to 9% you don't need an economics degree from Wharton to recognize the enormous windfall 9-9-9 lavishes on the wealthy.

So one of two things is happening here: either Cain is stupid or he thinks we are. Let me assure you, Herman Cain is not a stupid man. 9-9-9 is nothing more than a plan in search of logic.

My Conversation with One of Occupy Wall Street's Organizers On the Eve of a Possible Showdown

2011-10-13T21:08:00.016-04:00

I spent some time Thursday night at Zuccatti Park in Lower Manhattan, site of the Occupy Wall Street uprising. I went there to observe and to get a better understanding of this nascent movement firsthand and to speak with one of the original organizers. I also wanted to gauge the mood and pulse of the place on the eve of what could be a very significant turning point in the movement.

Backpedaling from his promise last week that protesters can stay in the park indefinitely, Mayor Bloomberg, at the request of the park's owner, Brookfield Office Properties, has ordered demonstrators to evacuate by 7am Friday to allow for cleaning. Afterwards, people would be allowed back in, but would no longer be able to camp out. From those I spoke with and from what I could hear from others, the protesters were preparing for an intense resistance to the evacuation, a showdown with police that surely would've turned very ugly. But again Bloomberg has reversed position and cancelled plans for the clean-up and evacuation. This is a major victory for the movement.

While I was there I saw many people with brooms and mops, sweeping and bleaching the pavement in a self-motivated initiative designed to show the Mayor, Brookfield, the police and the nation that non-violent protest and respect for the park are not mutually exclusive things. "We can do this ourselves," one young demonstrator told me. "We don't need to be kicked out to keep the place clean."

Friday's victory will surely fuel the movement and empower it to build. I was told that a major announcement is to be made imminently, perhaps Friday, which will point to future direction. Right now OWS is at a critical crossroads. It is intentionally not a policy-incubating/advocating organization. It has no leaders, no demands, and is beyond fractured. It has gained national attention because it has been an encampment: a communal mini-society of disillusioned, disenfranchised, disparate, mostly young people sharing frustrations, anger, opinions, ideals, food and living quarters. They have their own news channel (at http://www.livestream.com/globalrevolution ) as well as a newspaper, The Occupied Wall Street Journal. Each night its General Assembly convenes at the park's Eastern end where anyone can address the crowd while everyone else in and around the ringlet repeats what is being said so those further from the speaker can hear.

But in the absence of a clear, coherent, consistent message, and spokespeople who can articulate that message in the media and to Americans all across the nation, it's largely been the novelty of the tent city phenomenon that's garnered much of the attention and propelled protesters into television sets across the country. It will need more organization and a shifting towards more traditional protest movements rather than serve as an emotional outcry. It's currently a highly fragmented kaleidoscope of ideas, passions and agendas--everything from unemployment, corporate greed, prison reform and fracking to anarchy and Marxism.

The aptly named Jeremy Bold is an extremely serious, committed and very likable, 26-year old librarian from Brooklyn who's been a prominent voice and presence since the movement's beginnings early last month (He's in the blue shirt seated at the table at the start of the above video, and is later shown being arrested). When we spoke across from the park he had one eye on me, and another frequently on his cell phone looking for texts alerting him to what was happening back at the protest. He seemed nervous and concerned about a possible confrontation with police in the morning, yet seemed fully prepared for that. Bold clearly shies away from being labeled an organizer or leader, instead classifying himself as one of "hundreds of people" of who helped get OWS off the ground. He's quite idealistic, yet is savvy enough to sense that the movement may need at some point soon to shift its focus, strategies and free form philosophies in order to evolve to the next level.

"I think there's a important change coming, and I wouldn't even call it a transition, but building a bridge basically. What we're doing now is focusing on dialogue amongst ourselves and amongst the sympathizers, and that's a really important stage. We have to build solidarity with each other. We have to recognize our common struggles and learn to trust each other. But in order to enact real change in a broader world, in a world that isn't just Occupy Wall Street, there's a bridge that has to be crossed. We have to build a bridge to figure out how the kinds of discussions that could be policy related, that could be conceptual, that could be cultural...those things have to translate into something broader and into the wider world. And the bridge has to be built to do that. What that is is like figuring out what the power is, how we can represent the power within Occupy Wall Street in the world that is not Occupy Wall Street. And I can't say very much specifically about it. I totally recognize it, and there's a lot of people that recognize it, but what we're doing right now, for one, is not making any demands for a very good reason because we are still learning to appreciate each other and appreciate what this movement can be."

Whether Occupy Wall Street can, or will, move beyond its current configuration and scale depends upon its desire and ability to transcend the Utopian communal spirit that currently dominates its thinking in order to grow into the kind of potent national force, like the Tea Party, that can infiltrate the political system and achieve legislative success.

This is the kind of Ad the Democratic Party Needs to Get Behind

2011-10-13T07:22:00.007-04:00

With a critical election coming up next year, it would seem no longer feasible that the Republican attack machine could mount a successful campaign to brand President Obama and Democrats as being weak on national security. The killing of Osama bin Laden, in a major symbolic way, was the first step in eradicating that age-old myth. But Obama didn't stop there.

Earlier this month, the administration tracked down and killed two American-born Muslim terrorists, Anwar Awlaki and Samir Khan, by Drone attack over northern Yemen. And just last week, thе U.S. Justice Department announced it had thwarted a terrorist рlοt involving аn elite Iranian military unit tο assassinate Saudi Arabia’s ambassador tο Washington. An Iranian-born U.S. citizen, Manssor Arbabsiar, іѕ іn custody.

There have been other instances where the administration's broken up various plots to kill Americans, and I'm sure there'll be others before next November. But in order to command this issue and rid themselves of a patently false label they've be historically slapped with, Obama and Democrats must effectively craft the right message and define the debate, and then use every media resource in its foreign policy arsenal to effectively spread this message to voters. Nothing's automatic in politics, and just because something is factual doesn't mean the voting public will view it that way.

Between now and the election I will be creating a series of 30-second campaign ads that will not only focus on national security, but domestic issues such as the economy and health care. The above video is our first, (which I wrote, directed and produced and is edited by Ben Guzman.) The message is simple: "Re-elect President Obama...and Keep America Safe." Our ads will not only carry a simple, strong message, but they will be delivered with the same type of bumper-sticker/soundbite effectiveness through which Republicans have been defining the debate for over a decade now. It's how Democrats need to be speaking.

Why this Democrat is Rooting for Jon Huntsman Jr.

2011-10-12T07:04:00.002-04:00

Let me first be very clear about one thing: I am a life-long Democrat and I will be voting to re-elect President Obama next year. But I am also rooting for the smartest, sanest Republican in the race, Jon Huntsman Jr. Not to win the general election, but the GOP nomination.

So why am I supporting Huntsman? The state of politics today is the ugliest it's been in decades, if ever. The partisan divide has never been greater and is plagued by rabid, vitriolic hatred. We're no longer a society of Americans but instead one of two angry armies of blue and red. Our political system is broken, brought to a virtual legislative standstill by one party whose leaders are more obsessed with defeating Obama than they are with actually doing something to fix the economy, put people back to work and have government run as the Founding Fathers envisioned.

Which is why America needs an Obama/Huntsman election in 2012. The former Governor of Utah is a decent man. An honorable human being. A patriotic American who's served four presidential administrations on both sides of the aisle. He's exactly the sort of candidate conservatives should be nominating but likely won't because his party has been hijacked by it's radical fringe element which advocates everything from eliminating taxes and entitlement programs to eviscerating the EPA and Department of Education all the while seeking to turn America into an evangelical empire.

Huntsman, on the other hand, is a moderate who respects education and human/civil rights; understands climate change; appreciates diplomacy; is experienced with global economies; and has intelligent, rational positions on Social Security, Medicare, health care, immigration and Afghanistan.

Huntsman should be the Republican nominee not simply because he deserves to be, but because his candidacy would restore civility, integrity and sanity to a political process that has driven off a cliff in recent years. Americans deserve a presidential election with two candidates of substance and intellectual curiosity who would shift the critical issues of the day, and fixing America's problems, to the forefront of the debate rather than having them co-opted by the politics of personal destruction and distraction.

I may disagree with several of Huntsman's positions, but I wouldn't lose any sleep were he to become president. I know he would do right by America, as Obama's attempting to do. It's time the nation's presidential candidates star acting, well, presidential.

The "Occupy" Movement Should Follow the Tea Party Playbook

2011-10-10T06:23:00.000-04:00

I was in Boston over the weekend and spent some time in "Occupy Boston" on
Rose Kennedy Greenway along Atlantic Avenue. What I saw there left me wondering just where this 'movement' was headed.

Set in Dewey Square in the Financial District near the touristy North End, about 99% of the occupiers are a hodgepodge of newly minted and aging hippies; fringe counter-culturalists advocating everything from class warfare to anarchy and Marxism (several were selling books on the latter two subjects).

There wasn't much protesting taking place either. Just a lot of people sitting around in tents, eating, relaxing and looking more like they were having fun than anything else. The scene looked like Woodstock without the music. You would think on a gorgeous Indian Summer day in a major city that this group would've capitalized on the opportunity to loudly voice its message to the throngs of people walking by. There was no visible anger, no visible frustration. No shouting, chanting or cries of "What do we want/when do we want it?" This was a demonstration in desperate need of populist Viagra.

Most of the signs were posted, not held. Virtually all of them were extremely radical, abstract statements such as:

"Eat the elite"

"The American dream is a pyramid scheme"

"Break up big banks"

"End the fed"

"I make your latte every morning and am in the other 99%"

That last one seemed to sum up their misplaced anger and confusion: the notion that everyone who goes to Starbucks is in the wealthiest 1%, or that no one who gets a latte before toiling at work all day can possibly be in the 99%. That's a terribly unfair and, quite frankly, disingenuous generalization.

The consensus seems to be that rich is bad, poor and middle class good. The message I heard most was 'We don't like rich people.' And if that becomes their overriding theme, they are doomed as a movement.

Which brings me to the broader protest movement. I haven't been down to Occupy Wall Street but it seems to be attracting supporters across all age, income, vocational, religious and ethnic groups. It appears sufficiently focused on key economic issues rather than waging a counter-culture revolution. I have great respect and admiration for this grassroots group, which is why I have such strong feelings about how they can become an even greater force that can actually achieve change in Washington.

Occupy Wall Street needs to tear a page out of the Tea Party handbook and start letting Washington and the media know exactly what it wants, which as of now is unclear. It should be demanding an immediate jobs bill. A bill to end corporate loopholes. A restructuring of the tax code. No repealing of Dodd-Frank. That is if it actually wants to have an impact on legislation instead of being just an emotional outcry.

The Tea Party message remains crystal clear: low taxes, less regulation and an end to entitlement programs. For the most part, the talking points and demands are consistent from Seattle to Sarasota and everywhere in between. And this is a movement that mobilized quickly, sending 63 Congressmen to Washington to legislate its hardcore agenda. No one needs to ask, "What do they want?" They've successfully transformed how government is working right now and they influence every politician from Eric Cantor to President Obama. Occupy Wall Street's leaders would be wise to follow a similar path to relevancy.

Lastly, a word of advice to OWS supporters: stop telling those who disagree with you, or who question some of the movement's strategies and overall effectiveness, that they "don't get it." It's rude, condescending and utterly obnoxious. You're no smarter or more "in touch" than anyone else. At its core, the movement itself is about the right of dissent and fighting oppression, so this sort of sanctimonious lecturing is rather ironic. Please respect that there are opinions that differ from yours. It doesn't mean that those who have them don't fully support the movement just like you.

The Occupy Wall Street Movement Needs a Clear Set of Demands

2011-10-07T07:01:00.014-04:00

I have been awed and inspired by the raw energy, passion and commitment on the streets of lower Manhattan these past several weeks by the Occupy Wall Street movement. These are folks of all shapes, sizes, ages, races, religions, social classes, education levels, the employed and the unemployed, union workers and workers of all types, both blue and white collar.

These protesters are not a bunch of ragtag hippie freaks who have nothing better to do. These are people just like you and me. People who are fed up with the state of the economy, with high unemployment, slow growth and corporate greed. People who are either out of work or fear they may be soon if things don't change. And it's change that they want. Finally, people in this country are taking to the streets, and it's not just in New York but in cities all around the country. I suspect the movement will grow and tens of thousands will soon become hundreds of thousands, and maybe even millions. They should be a great source of pride to us all.

What concerns me is the messaging, or perhaps the lack thereof. What I hope to see come out of this movement, and soon, is a very clear set of goals. Demands which can be both easily heard and understood in Washington. It's not enough to simply march in the streets. You have to know what you want. And you need to let your opponents know that in precise terms. President Obama, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have to clearly understand what it is that the movement is fighting for.

Imagine these politicians in a room together, watching the protests on TV and asking each other, "What do these people want? What do they want us to do?" Well, they wouldn't be asking those questions if every time they turned on their TV's they saw hundreds of thousands of marchers chanting "Jobs Bill! Jobs Bill! Jobs Bill!" If they heard "Jobs Bill NOW! Jobs Bill NOW!" Or, Bill to End Corporate Loopholes!" Or, "No Repeal of Dodd-Frank!" But I'm afraid this type of goal is not being demanded.

Instead, the messaging is currently a hodgepodge of fanciful pipe dreams akin to Miss America's "I'd like to create peace on Earth." Here's some quotes that MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan got from protesters:

"I am choosing to no longer participate in what I perceive to be an abusive relationship," said Occupier Lopi.

"Our goal to create a massive independent weapon of mass help! We are not intent on destruction. We are intent on confronting and fixing what we all know is a bought government." another occupier told him. "This is our shared moment to seize prosperity."

"Our nation is too busy growing debt, poverty, homelessness, wars, oil spills, global temperatures and inflation on everything we need -- like food, education and healthcare -- to slow down, stop and fix the problem," another named Goldi said.

"I'm here because I love my family, and want to protect them from the thief with the gun on the street to the thief with the pen behind the desk!" said Calvin Roy.

It's this sort of broad, idealistic and unrealistic mission that could soon turn Occupy Wall Street into a failure if it cannot get a clear, specific agenda out. It must tell Washington in no uncertain terms, clear terms, what it wants. Because it is action, and effecting real change, that is ultimately at the core of any successful protest movement. And that would be an incredible legacy for this amazing group of people.

The Legacy of Steve Jobs

2011-10-06T07:56:00.004-04:00

I shed a tear this morning. It was for a man whose grieving family just lost a loving husband, father, son and brother. His name is Steve Jobs, founder and CEO of Apple. He was just 56. Why is that so many of the truly good die so young?

Jobs' death for me is no different than the raw emotion I feel when anyone else leaves behind an adoring spouse and young children who will grow up missing their father's love and presence. That's the real tragedy.

But through Jobs' death the world has been unjustly robbed of the kind of visionary of which there's unfortunately an abundant shortage. A man whose contribution to society ranks among those of the great innovators like Einstein, Edison and Ford. Someone who broke all the rules, and when he re-wrote them, broke them all over again...again and again.

This morning I watched his moving commencement speech delivered to the Stanford graduating class of 2005. To call it inspiring would be like saying Martin Luther King Jr. was a non-violent protester. Mere words do neither man the appropriate historical significance they rightfully and uniquely deserve. I urge everyone to watch this speech as well. His message about life, death and everything in-between is timeless.

In the interest of full disclosure I must admit I am anything but a technophile, and I have no great love for computers and computer geeks. Truth is, it took me five years to put down the vinyl and buy a CD, and I was probably the last guy to get a BlackBerry. If you look up "Man Least Likely to Embrace Technology" in the dictionary you'll see a picture of me.

But I now own an iPod, an iPad and a Mac. And I've become a full-fledged iTard, the very denigrating name I heaped on those who've been drinking the Jobs/Apple Kool-Aid for years. I am now drunk and happy just like them. And that's the true genius of Jobs' vision. He didn't just grab the geeks. He managed to win over the old school schmucks like me as well. Technology for the masses. That's his true legacy. It's mind-numbing to think how much he's changed how we live, work, think, create, read, write, communicate, relax.

Today we mourn the man, the mind and the memory. Let's hope somewhere out there there's the next young man or woman who will soon break all the rules, and change the world, only to break those rules over and over again.

ChristieWatch: Is NJ's Big Man Getting Ready to Say 'Yes?' Why 2012 Makes More Sense than '16

2011-10-02T11:13:00.008-04:00

It's another day of ChristieWatch, and another day of "will he or won't he?" New Jersey governor Chris Christie, the larger-than-life Republican who's literally being begged by GOP leaders to enter the 2012 presidential election and save the party from Rick Perry and Mitt Romney, told a local crowd Friday that while his state may have problems, the country has even bigger issues to contend with, hinting that America might benefit from his services more than his home state. And several people close to Christie confirm that he's reversed his position and is now seriously considering running.

I've been saying for months now and I will keep insisting that Christie will toss his hat into the ring, and maybe even early this week. And given the weak economy; high unemployment; Obama's plummeting popularity among blue color whites, Hispanics and seniors; Rick Perry's implosion; and a general disdain for Mitt Romney; the timing could never be better for him.

The conventional wisdom is that Christie's sitting this one out and is instead waiting for 2016. But that election could be a lot more difficult for Christie, with the challenge summed up in two words: Jeb Bush. The popular former Florida governor and a member of the Bush dynasty, which gave us two presidents named George, is the party favorite and has patiently waited his turn, focusing on 2016 in an open battle for the Oval Office.

There are other factors that could make '16 much more difficult for Christie.
For one, the national economy could be in a significantly better place by then. Economies are cyclical, and it's more likely than not that we'll be in a solid recovery with 3-5% annual GDP growth, unemployment around 6%, a strong housing market and consumer confidence in the 80's, almost double what it is today.

Additionally, Christie won't be the star-dusted new kid on the block anymore. By then he'll be into his second term as governor with a meaningful track record to scrutinize, and it may not be pretty. Remember, Jersey's economy remains weak and suffers from higher unemployment than the national average at 9.5%. And Christie's got a very big, abrasive mouth that's gotten him into trouble. The next four years could be a public relations nightmare for him if he's not verbally disciplined.

If Christie's smart, he'll realize his time is now. He'll strike when the iron is hot, not when he prefers there be an iron. And, I'd bet dollars to donuts that his running mate will ultimately be Florida's junior Sen. Marco Rubio, a Tea Party rock star, highly popular among his fellow Hispanics and who hails from a critical swing state. In appealing to blue collar whites, seniors, Hispanics and independents, a Christie/Rubio ticket would be very formidable opposition to President Obama. And if things don't markedly improve in the economy, it very well could be a winning ticket.

So keep on eye on The Big Man. The political landscape will never be more fertile for him than it is now. And if he does run, Sarah Palin won't. She knows he'd eat her alive, and I suspect she's waiting for him to make his decision before she announces hers. If he doesn't run, I still think she will, taking on a weakened Perry and Michele Bachmann for the Tea Party vote.

Chris Christie: "A Big Man for a Big Job"

2011-09-27T08:08:00.009-04:00

If there's one thing I know about politics it's this: if a politician says black, it's white. Up, it's down. And if he says he's not running, that usually means he is. And in the case of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, there's a far greater likelihood that no means yes. And soon. As uber-conservative Bill Kristol said over the weekend, Christie "is a big man for a big job."

Right now the Republican leadership is courting Christie more relentlessly and shamelessly than I did Susie Smith in the 10th grade. They're beside themselves. They're like Jon Favreau in "Swingers" leaving a zillion pathetic "I love you" messages on his answering machine. They're kissing his ass more than the GOP sucks up to corporate America. And I believe it's working.

Imagine what they're saying: "Chris, this is your shot, man. The White House is yours if you want it. Bachmann's gone, Perry's finished, and even if Palin enters the race we know she'll say something horribly offensive and stupid within minutes and implode. You know we can't stand Romney. This guy's as fake as his hair color. You're the real deal. You're who voters want. Think of the narrative: a blue collar kid from Newark grows up to be president of the Unites States! How can you pass this up? Look at Obama's numbers. Look at the economy. Look at unemployment. Look at your record in New Jersey and how much budget-busting cred you have. A straight-shootin' workin' man for the people! You'll be like Fiorello LaGuardia, only bigger. And by bigger we of course mean taller. Look, we promise you this: if you enter the race we will shower you with gobs of money and support, and we guarantee you will win the nomination. There's nothing to stop you. And then it's just a short skip into the Oval Office over a weak, unpopular Obama. So whattya say, Mr. President!?"

And if you're Christie, as I've been predicting for many months now, this seductive entreaty is, ultimately, gonna be too attractive to pass up.

Is It Palin Time?

2011-09-26T08:13:00.005-04:00

Tea Party Princess Michele Bachmann soared out of the starting gate, became the
instant frontrunner, and then started to speak. Her campaign then imploded. Tea Party King Rick Perry entered the race and overnight he became the new frontrunner. As Bachmann's fortunes fizzled, Perry was prematurely and naively anointed the eventual nominee and GOP savior. Then he started talking. And debating. And then he imploded. So with such Tea Party royalty fighting to stay alive does that make the landscape deliciously ripe for the Queen herself, Sarah Palin, to enter the race?

Perry, after three embarrassing debate performances where he's been trounced by Mitt Romney, is now a proven rank amateur on the national stage and is all but toast. As Bachmann struggles to regain some traction, albeit unsuccessfully, it's become the perfect moment for The Wasilla Wonder. Think about it: she's been sitting on the sidelines for months--spending no money and losing no political capital--waiting for Perry and Bachmann to kill each other off. Her timing could be genius.

To be sure, no Tea Bagger has more juice and star wattage than Palin. And with the implosions of the Perry and Bachmann campaigns there's no one to pick up the mantle and give the Tea Party a solid run for its money. Enter Palin. Were she to announce her candidacy she would surely leapfrog to the front of the pack and battle Romney for the nomination.

But here's where it gets real interesting. Given the general distaste for Romney among Republicans, his over sized RomneyCare baggage, and the liability of his Mormom faith, it is entirely plausible that Palin could end up the nominee.

But a Palin candidacy would virtually guarantee President Obama's re-election. Sshhhhh....hear that? That's the sound of Democrats everywhere screaming "Run Sarah Run!"

Thoughts on the GOP Debate

2011-09-23T07:30:00.009-04:00

(note: not my voice at beginning!)

The Republican candidates for president took to the podium Thursday night in their sixth debate of the campaign season. The location of Orlando, FL was quite fitting, as this nine-ring circus was about as entertaining as anything at Disneyworld.

The current pack of GOP hopefuls mainly consists of a bunch of under-qualified loons, led by cracked Tea Pot queen Michele Bachmann. And I say "current" because I still believe there's more acts to come, like Sarah Palin, Rudy Giuliani, George Pataki and yes, maybe even Chris Christie.

The main draw was the rematch between the two front-runners, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Texas Gov. Rick Perry. As in the previous debates, Romney came out the big overall winner. Not because he presented anything substantive in terms of fixing the economy and reducing unemployment, but because he projects the most presidential persona. But that's a fairly easy feat to achieve when your opponents are like the patients in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest."

Perry and Romney battled over Social Security, healthcare, immigration and the factual accuracy of what's contained in their respective books. The sparring was so fierce at some points that it prompted former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.--the only true president in the bunch--to joke that these two were at risk of bludgeoning each other to death.

My favorite Perry moment came when he screwed up his well-crafted smack down of Romney's relentless flip-flopping. He got so tongue-tied that it was embarrassing. "Is it the Mitt Romney that was on the side of — against the Second Amendment before he was for the Second Amendment? Was it — was before — he was before the social programs from the standpoint of — he was for standing up for Roe v. Wade before he was against first — Roe v. Wade?" WTF, was he medicated?! Kinda makes you think of that other articulate Texas statesman, George W. Bush, who infamously opined, "Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." And while he may be a rough and tough cowboy down in Texas, this verbal gaffe painfully highlighted his lack of sparring skills on the national stage. He utterly blew a well-rehearsed moment where he should've decimated Romney.

My second favorite Perry moment came when, under attack over his state's college tuition assistance program for the children of illegal aliens, he said to those who who oppose it that "I don't think you have a heart." When a guy who's heartless on every other social and entitlement issue claims you have no heart then you must be the freakin' Tin Man.

The truth is, both Perry and Romney emerged as big winners. Perry, who stands no real chance of winning the nomination, likely scored big with his radical fringe base: Tea Baggers who wish to eliminate taxes, the EPA, the Department of Education, Social Security, Medicare, all government regulation and any traces of sanity. The crazier he sounds, the more they love him. Romney no doubt gained traction with moderates and independents...the people who actually elect presidents.

The real trouble for Perry, even with his base, is that he needs to decide which role he wants government to play in their lives. When he seeks federal aid for border security, or when he unilaterally imposes a mandatory vaccination for 12-year-old girls to prevent cervical cancer, he clearly seems to favor government intervention. When the subject is taxes, regulation and entitlements he's a different Rick Perry. It can't cut both ways. It'll further confuse the easily confusable Tea Baggers.

As for the other candidates, I'll quickly sum up their performances:

-Huntsman: smart, knowledgeable, experienced, funny, rational, moderate, sane
-Bachmann: the complete opposite of Huntsman
-Newt Gingrich: more smug and ruthlessly partisan than the 90's version of himself
-Rick Santorum: way too angry and combative to be taken seriously
-Herman Cain: please stop saying "wif" instead of "with." That's not presidential
-Ron Paul: grass roots hero who needs campaign root canal
-Gary Johnson: really bad hair, dude. Maybe it got all messed up while crawling out from whatever rock you've been under?

Obama Finally Gets Tough

2011-09-20T08:06:00.009-04:00

Finally there's some tough love in the Oval Office. President Obama came out swinging on Monday, heeding the advice of his critics in taking a firm stand on his positions for fixing the economy and reducing unemployment in the face of intense, unyielding opposition from Republicans. He boldly declared that there would be no cuts on spending without an increase in taxes on the wealthiest Americans and corporations, and issued a veto threat to back up his new found mojo.

Speaking from the Rose Garden, Obama was uncharacteristically uncompromising as he set his bar high while confidently warning House Speaker John Boehner and his merry band of GOP obstructionists to play ball or face being branded as the party of millionaires:

"The speaker says we can’t have it ‘my way or the highway and then basically says my way — or the highway," Obama said, adding, "I will not support — I will not support — any plan that puts all the burden for closing our deficit on ordinary Americans. I will veto any bill that changes benefits for those who rely on Medicare but does not raise serious revenues by asking the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to pay their fair share."

As the Washington Post's Dana Milbank wrote, "At last, the president hasn’t conceded the race before the starter’s gun, hasn’t opened the bidding with his bottom line, hasn’t begun a game of strip poker in his boxer shorts."

Obama put forth a plan to cut an additional $3-trillion in spending cuts--in addition to the $1-trillion proposed during the debt ceiling debate--to help close the budget deficit. His speech certainly made Democrats and progressives happy. While his plan of attack calls for $320 billion in Medicare and Medicaid cuts, that's much less than what Republicans have sought. And, he removed a proposal to slowly raise the eligibility age for Medicare to 67 from 65. He also took Social Security cuts off the table, and seeks the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for individuals making more than $200,000 and couples making more the $250,000. Additionally, his proposal would cap itemized deductions and some exclusions for these same taxpayers. And as he proposed last week, his "Millionaire's Tax" would seek to end the inequity in the tax code and force the richest Americans to carry their fair share of the nation's tax burden, thus reversing a gap that has widened precipitously during the past thirty years of largely Republican control of Washington.

"It is wrong that in the United States of America a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million," he said.

It's good to see Obama finally drawing his proverbial line in the sand with his enemies. With his poll numbers tanking, Americans' confidence in his economic stewardship evaporating, and with a Republican Congress hellbent on making him a one-term president by rejecting every single thing he proposes including tax cuts, what he's now done is clearly warn them, "Get real and work with me or else." And it's damn nice to see Obama doing the threatening for a change.

You Bet It's Class Warfare

2011-09-19T08:12:00.014-04:00

Its called the "Millionaire's Tax", and its pure genius. Finally, President Obama and Democrats have caught on to the power and importance of branding. My God, it's almost Rovian in its sheer simplicity and potential impact.

The tax is a brilliant scheme by the president to achieve his goal of taxing
the rich and creating more equity in the lopsided tax code, and in the process funding his American Jobs Act. Also called the "Buffett Tax," because it was inspired and advocated by Nebraska Billionaire Warren Buffett who recently noted that many of America's wealthiest individuals' effective taxes rates are lower than those of their secretaries.

The beauty of the tax, which as expected has been broadly criticized by Republicans, is that it defines the issue more clearly than anything the administration has tried in the past and it forces politicians into one of two boxes: the rich one and the one with the poor and middle class. To paraphrase former President George W. Bush, "You're either with millionaires or you're against them." And that's a message that could resonate quite loudly with average Americans as they struggle through this challenging economy. But self-serving Republicans are crying foul.

"When you pick one area of the economy and you say, we're going to tax those people because most people are not those people, that's class warfare," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) said over the weekend.

Is it class warfare? You bet. But not in the way Sen. Graham and the GOP leadership would like you to believe. The truth is, the rich have been waging war on the poor and middle class for decades now, and it's time the tide turns. Income inequality in the United States has never been more glaring. According to the Wall Street Journal, "the average tax rate for the top 400 earners in the U.S. fell to as low as 16.62% in 2007 from a recent peak of 29.9% in 1995. It ticked up again in 2008 to 18.11%, according to the latest annual Internal Revenue Service analysis of returns. Capital gains represented a very high proportion of the top earners' incomes—about 56.7% on average." And those dividends and capital gains are taxed at a favorably low 15%. The problem is, the poor and middle class are not flush with either, so this is a very generous tax loophole enjoyed primarily by the nation's wealthier earners.

What's more, according to 2010 Census data, the top-earning 20% of Americans--those making more than $100,000 each year--received 49.4% of all income generated in the U.S., compared with the 3.4% earned by those below the poverty line. That ratio of 14.5-to-1 was an increase from 13.6 in 2008 and nearly double a low of 7.69 in 1968. To be sure, the rich have never been richer, and the poor have never been poorer. So what are Republicans constantly complaining about?

The Republican mantra these days is to rant about the evil of "big government" and how it's destroying America. Texas Gov. Rick Perry promises voters that if he's elected president he will "make government as inconsequential in your lives as possible." But how exactly do they define big government? Does this include Social Security and Medicare? The military? The National Weather Service? Air Traffic Control? The Centers for Disease Control? The U.S. Postal Service? Which "inconsequential" services would they suggest killing off? And the bigger issue is, who pays for them? Is it the secretary who forks over 25%+ of her pay, or Warren Buffett and the nation's rich who pay 16%? If that isn't class warfare I don't know what is.

It's time the rich stop whining about class warfare and start paying their fair share of taxes to pay for this country's essential services and to help reduce its debt. How about we borrow from Sen. John McCain and piggyback the Millionaire's Tax with the slogan, "America First." The nation's rich needs to stop thinking about their own pocketbooks for a second and show some concern for the country in which they've amassed their colossal wealth. If the Obama administration is smart, it will hammer home this Millionaire's Tax rhetoric until it becomes the sort of highly effective propaganda Republicans have been successfully regurgitating for years.

On a side note, I wonder how many of our nation's richest inherited most of their wealth? Being born on third base doesn't mean ya hit a triple, so how about sharing that good fortune by paying more taxes and reducing the income gap? Also, what do folks like Alex Rodriguez, Alec Baldwin, Jerry Seinfeld, Katie Couric and Salman Rushdie have in common? With the exception of perhaps a maid and a personal trainer, these millionaire's don't create jobs, so let's stop the disingenuous rhetoric and quit calling them "job creators." They're just very rich people who, thanks to the lowest tax rates in history, get to keep more of their money than their maids and personal trainers.

Still Think Obama's Job Speech Was a Success?

2011-09-16T08:03:00.003-04:00

It's been a week since President Obama's much hyped jobs speech and it's safe to say, aside from some mildly impressive oratory and attempts at strategic partisan posturing, the speech is a failure in terms of what truly matters (I've re-posted my video analysis of the speech).

Americans are fed up with the economic status quo. The country's been slammed by the worst economy since The Great Depression, 14-million people are out of work, and by the president's own estimations the unemployment rate will remain at 9% by next year's election. Furthermore, Americans are sick of the political gamesmanship and partisan chicanery that's prevented anything material from being legislated that will help them. That explains Congress's abyssimal 13% approval rating.

So a week later what we're faced with is the ugly truth that plagues Washington politics and the nation's economic health: that Obama's "American Jobs Act" has zero chance of passage in the House; and that the partisan vitriol, which has paralyzed D.C., is more intense than ever. That fact's been made quite clear by the words and actions this week by Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor, among other GOP leaders. And that's why the president's speech has failed. Nothing has changed, and nothing will.

Voters want and need a fix, not a fancy speech that puts a political marker in the ground. Maybe, and I mean maybe, the speech might in some way help Obama's re-election efforts as it showed a more passionate, aggressive leader who's pitted himself against an obstructionist right wing and is now semi-forcefully framing the debate. But Americans didn't watch the speech because they hoped it'd boost Obama's chances of winning another term. Americans are desperate for action. Action which will help lift the struggling economy out of its miserable trough. People want to be put back to work, to see their home values increase, and want the country to grow and prosper again and invest in its future so it can compete on the global stage. And they want their leaders to stop the juvenile bickering and, put bluntly, stop fucking around with their lives as they further their selfish political ambitions.

So what's next? America simply sits back for the next year as Obama is neutered by a salivating GOP which, in the homestretch and with it's rapacious eyes transfixed on the White House, is going to say "no" to everything he and Democrats put forth? This doesn't fix the economy and it doesn't help Americans. It's a pretty bleak picture.

Weiner's District Goes Republican for First Time in 90 Years. Hillary, Are You Listening?

2011-09-14T07:50:00.010-04:00

The news just keeps getting worse for President Obama. With the economy threatening double-dip recession, unemployment at 9.1% and his approval ratings at the lowest levels of his presidency, his prospects for re-election are dimming by the minute.

Obama can't seem to gain any traction anywhere. His much ballyhooed jobs bill has been initially rejected by House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and its eventual passage, in any truly meaningful form, seems highly improbable. Additionally, new income stats out this week show that the poverty level rose to its highest level in almost 20 years. And on Tuesday came the potentially deadliest blow of all: former Congressman Anthony Weiner's heavily Democratic and Jewish 9th district voted for Republican Bob Turner, a Christian, over Jewish Democrat David Weprin. Democrats have held the seat since 1921. For the left, this special election loss to replace the scandal-plagued Weiner may be a chilling foreshadowing of next year's election. It's hard to imagine Obama winning if Democrats can't hold onto bastions like the 9th. Hillary, are you listening? I'm re-posting my video here urging you to run.

Secretary Clinton, the decision needs to be made now. There isn't a sane Democrat alive, or a truthful one, who believes, given the current political landscape, that Obama could survive against a strong, rational, pro-business, moderate Republican such as Mitt Romney who can also convince Jews that he, unlike Obama, will unequivocally support Israel. Make no mistake: losing diehard Queens and Brooklyn liberals, a great percentage of them Jewish, spells disaster for the president. Which is precisely why you must run and ensure that the Oval Office remains in Democratic hands. Without you, I firmly believe we are going to lose.

Don't discount Romney's inevitability as the GOP nominee. He handily beat his opponents in Monday's GOP Tea Party debate. He once again appeared presidential, and wiped the floor with them on a broad range of issues including the economy, jobs, Social Security, healthcare, immigration and national security. And, he's not batshit crazy like the rest of them (with the exception of Jon Huntsman Jr.). Lastly, as much as people would like to deny the racial factor, Romney is also white. For these reasons, he is going to appeal to a great many disaffected Democrats and Independents. New polls show Obama has lost white and Hispanic support by as much as 50%.

To be sure, the Republican strategy of opposing Obama on every level since 2008 has worked exactly as they planned. They have him against the ropes and there's no reason on Earth to believe they're gonna take a dive now, no matter that it could lift the economy out of its doldrums and help struggling Americans. Their ideological zealotry and obsession with winning the White House isn't going to stop now that they can actually see the finish line. There is nothing, I repeat nothing, that Obama is going to do that will achieve Republican support and passage. Which means there's little reason to believe that there will be any material changes to this dire political landscape of Obama's. If he plays his cards right, and it surely seems like he's doing that quite well these days, we're gonna be looking at President Mitt Romney next year. Again, this is why Hillary Clinton must run for president against Obama in the 2012 primaries.

Why Obama's Jobs Speech Failed to Deliver

2011-09-09T08:00:00.004-04:00

President Obama had two goals for last night's jobs speech before a joint session of Congress: to instill confidence and hope in a shaken, economically ravaged, unemployment-plagued electorate, and to convince House Republicans to put aside their partisan vitriol and immediately pass his "American Jobs Act." On both counts I think he failed.

This was not supposed to look, sound and smell like every other speech. It needed to be a grand slam. The kind of speech that materially moves the needle. The kind of speech that makes Americans watching at home feel that this time things will change. A speech that would need to transcend the political gamesmanship and GOP obstructionism that has crippled Washington. A speech that would be remembered, in a time of dire crisis, like those passionately delivered by the likes of FDR, Truman, Kennedy and Reagan. A speech that would truly inspire and result in action. Again, the speech failed to achieve these goals.

To be sure, the $447-billion jobs bill has elements that analysts say will give some boost to the economy. Anytime employees and employers get tax cuts it will have a stimulative affect. Giving an incentive to employers to hire workers, especially those unemployed over 6 months, is also a good thing. And of course, government spending to put constructions workers, teachers, teens and others to work will have impact. But for the people sitting at home, those who needed to change their perceptions of where the country was/is heading, I suspect it had little or no effect.

The president made a huge strategic error in addressing a joint session of Congress. The speech should've been short and sweet. Fifteen minutes. And delivered from the Oval Office, where Americans would've taken it much more seriously for it's focus and gravity. Instead what we got was the standard pomp and circumstance show, complete with all the smiling, cheering, glad-handing, back-slapping and odd merriment that typically accompanies these bi-partisan charades. The inappropriately festive setting utterly contradicted what was supposed to be the dire message and tone, and set the event off on the wrong foot. I sat at home like millions of others I'm sure and said, "Arrgghh...a bunch of shifty politicians patting themselves on the back again while the rest of us suffer."

But since he did speak before Congress, he blew major opportunities to call out Republicans for their clear and obvious lack of support for what he was presenting. He should've said, "Look what happens when I say the government should spend money to help you, to help put people to work, to help re-build America's infrastructure, to put more teachers in schools, and get kids off the street and working...just look what happens when I say all this. Half the room, the Republican side, sits stone faced with arms folded sternly while Democrats are cheering. Remember that, America. Remember next November who is trying to help you and who is not. I challenge you here tonight Speaker Boehner, Rep. Cantor, Senate Minority Leader McConnell to pass this bill and stop playing games with people's lives, money and with America's financial health. People will remember next November whether you rose above your partisan rancor and passed this bill or whether you simply didn't care about them. America will be watching what you do after tonight."

As for the House Republicans, mere lip service was paid after the speech by Boehner: "The proposals the president outlined tonight merit consideration. We hope he gives serious consideration to our ideas as well.” Translation: "That's what I have to say to not look like a complete obstructionist jackass. But, just like with the debt reduction debate, whatever ultimately passes my House, if anything, will look nothing like what Obama presented tonight. And it will be more of what we want...which is to not spend more of our rich constituents' money or tax them further."

In the speech Obama challenged Republicans to rise above their rigid ideology and simply do what's best for America: "The question is whether, in the face of an ongoing national crisis, we can stop the political circus and actually do something to help the economy.” Guess what my money's on?

He continued: “There should be nothing controversial about this piece of legislation. Everything in here is the kind of proposal that’s been supported by Democrats and Republicans.” What this shows is that he still doesn't get it. He still believes that somehow Boehner, Cantor & Company are gonna say, "Ya know ...he's right. Just as in years past, we really don't have any opposition to these measures....so let's go with them and help him help the unemployed." Fat chance. With fourteen months before the election, the GOP's singular focus and goal is to oust Obama. He could find the cure for cancer right now and they will reject it on the grounds that it will put undertakers and hospice workers out of work.

Judging from the overall reaction Thursday night in that glaringly divided House Chamber, this bill has a microscopic chance of getting passed...especially as presented and desired by Obama. And if we ask folks on the street today about the speech I'm sure they will say "What speech?" And if they actually did watch it, they'll probably sum it up with, "eh..." Over the next several days, I'm sure the national polls will show just that.

Ostroy on MSNBC Wednesday Morning at 11:30

2011-09-06T22:57:00.005-04:00

Check out MSNBC Wednesday. I'm scheduled to be interviewed by anchor Thomas Roberts at 11:30 EST regarding my blog urging Hillary Clinton to take on President Obama in next year's Democratic primaries. Catch it if you can...

Why Hillary Clinton Must Run

2011-09-06T08:45:00.003-04:00

Dear Secretary Clinton...
It's time for you to announce that you'll be running against Barack Obama in next year's Democratic presidential primaries. Your party and your country need you now more than ever.

Yes, we all know how rare it is to take on a sitting president from your own party. But this is no normal election year and the circumstances are dire and the stakes too high. By next November if there isn't significant improvement in the economy and appreciably reduced unemployment, President Obama will likely lose to a Republican. And it might be a Tea Party Republican like Michele Bachmann or Rick Perry, who will set America back 200 years from an economic, policy and social standpoint. Government as we Democrats know it will be unrecognizable, and the advancements we've made in the areas of education, healthcare, science, environmental protection and civil/human rights will fall to ignorance, intolerance and religious zealotry. We simply cannot lose next year's election, and you must be a part of the strategy to keep the White House in Democratic hands.

You've seen Obama's poll numbers. You know the state of the economy. You saw Friday's employment report that showed zero job growth for August. The Obama administration projects that unemployment will be at 9% by the election, yet no president since FDR has been elected when unemployment tops 7.2%. And you've seen how Obama's former supporters are hugely disappointed and disillusioned by his constant caving to the right. Most Americans now believe our government is broken and not functioning properly. Democrats need and want a president who knows how to fight. A president who knows what she stands for, has a vision to achieve her goals, and the passion and gravitas to battle the ruthless obstructionist GOP machine to push through her agenda. A president who'd rather wage war with Republicans than succumb to them. There are tens of millions of voters ready to dump Obama and support you.

There's been much speculation that you'll be running in 2016. But that will be too late. Your time is now. Regardless of whether a Republican or Democrat is in office, the economy is sure to turn around well before the 2016 election. Economies are cyclical, and this one too will improve. And if Obama loses next year, a Republican incumbent running in a strong economy will no doubt win re-election. Which means your next real chance to actually occupy the White House will be 2020 when you will be seventy-three; too old to be president and too old to want to be.

If you run next year you will win. Remember how close you came to beating Obama in 2008. Think of how easy it will be to beat him this time. And I'll bet my life savings on a match-up between you and any Republican. Should you run, I and countless others will do everything in our power to support you...from blogging to raising money to campaigning in the streets.

Madam Secretary, please run. America's future depends on you.

Obama's Huge Mistake on the Jobs Speech

2011-09-02T08:13:00.014-04:00

Several weeks ago President Obama announced he'd be addressing the nation after Labor Day to outline his plan to create jobs and kick start economic growth. For independents, Democrats and his progressive base, the speech needs to be a grand slam full of substance and viability and not merely another dispassionate Obama professorial lecture which lacks substance.

But even if Obama knocks it out of the park and delivers a solid blueprint for putting Americans back to work, House Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor and the rest of the rabidly anti-Obama Republican House will vehemently oppose it. As Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell proudly declared last year, their mission is to make Obama a one-term president. He could find the cure for cancer and they'll argue how it's gonna put undertakers out of work. So curing the nation's jobs problem is not something they're going to support.

Case in point the battle that was waged this week, and lost by Obama, over the scheduling of the president's jobs speech. Originally set for September 7th, Obama sent a letter to both Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid requesting to address a joint session of Congress. Of course, Reid said yes. And of course, Boehner said no. The reasons? Because the GOP presidential debate is scheduled for later that night, and that there'd be little time to properly secure the Chamber on such short notice. A tug of war ensued for several days before Obama acquiesced and moved the speech to the following night.

But make no mistake, this debate wasn't about scheduling or security. It's about the Republican tactic of saying "no" to anything Obama requests and proposes. And it's precisely this sort of partisan chicanery and vitriol of which Americans are sick and tired.

And it was a huge mistake for Obama. He caved. Again. Without a real fight. Just backed off the way he's done repeatedly these past two and half years. And it's enraged his base and continues to make him appear weak, scared and lacking vision. What should he have done? Quite frankly, he should've told Boehner to fuck off. He should've kept the 7th and addressed the nation from the Oval Office instead which would appear more presidential than standing before a bunch of jeering Republicans in a pomp and circumstance show. Given the unprecedented level of disrespect they've shown this president since he took office, is there any reason to think they're gonna show him any respect that night?

As for the speech itself, he needs to go right for the jugular. He's gotta take of the gloves and attack Republicans for driving our economy off a cliff. He can't worry about coming off combative. He must appear tough and resolute, placing blame squarely on the GOP's shoulders, while instilling confidence that he knows how to combat both unemployment and his Republican enemy. It needs to sounds something like this:

"My fellow Americans....I am speaking to you tonight to offer an aggressive plan to put you back to work. A plan that will create jobs and rev the nation's economic engine again and put us back on the road to prosperity. Make no mistake, the economy stinks. It's been devastating to many, and I understand how it's been affecting each and every one of you...especially those of you who remain unemployed, with houses foreclosed or under water, and savings depleted. I'm fed up, just like you. And you know what I'm most fed up about? The constant partisan obstructionism of Republicans that's preventing me from helping you. I cannot do my job, I cannot end unemployment, if my opponents in Congress are hellbent on making me a one-term president more than putting you back to work. And that should anger you as much as it angers me. I can fix this economy and I can put you back to work, but I can't do it alone. Republicans have to stop worrying more about their own political interests than they do yours. They've got to stop worrying more about the wealthy and corporations instead of the poor and middle class. Republicans have to stop saying "no" to everything I propose solely because they want me out of office. It's infuriating that they're putting their political goals before the good of the country...and it's hurting you and it's hurting America. They're standing in the way between you and prosperity. So this is a critical time in our nation's history. A time when we can act to restore America's strength and prosperity or time for more political gamesmanship by those who are against America and root for it and you to fail. I speak to you directly right now House Speaker Boehner. I speak directly to you right now Majority Leader Cantor. I speak directly to you right now Senate Leader McConnell. It's time for you to stop obstructing and start working to put Americans back to work. They want you to stop targeting me and start targeting job creation. That's what they elected you to do last November. It's time to stop fighting me and start fighting unemployment. It's time to be Americans first and Republicans second. Enough is enough. So here's my 10-point plan to achieve full employment. I say to the Republican leadership, you can either approve this bill and get people working again or you can continue to obstruct this process and play games with America's future. The choice is yours, and I guarantee you, voters will be watching your every move. Point #1....."

And he better have a solid, actionable plan and not merely more of the same vague, over-intellectualized, esoteric drivel that he's blandly delivered multiple times. He needs to start looking at the polls which have Tea Baggin' Texas Gov. Rick Perry up 44% to his 41%. He needs to appreciate that, with the unemployment rate projected at 9% in November '12, no president since Ronald Reagan has been re-elected with a rate over 7%. He needs to accept that 72% of Americans now believe our government is not functioning properly and that our system is broken. He needs to recognize that only 45% of Americans approve of his performance, and just another 29% are happy with his handling of the economy. He's got to start accepting the ugly truth that there are people like Boehner, Canter and McConnell--those who he's misguidedly tried to make bi-partisan nice-nice with for almost three years--who were probably watching Friday's release of the zero job growth stats while shouting "Yeah!" and fist pumping in excitement. Because zero job growth is their political dream come true.

Obama's gotta stop looking and acting like he's thrown in the towel. He's gotta stop caving. He's gotta finally realize who his enemy is and fight them accordingly. He's gotta stop acting like "the only adult in the room" and start acting and sounding like a warrior. He's gotta grow some balls.

Next Thursday night's speech is Obama's FDR moment. It's just a week away. There's plenty of time for him to pull this out and demonstrate true leadership and regain some control of the debate. Let's hope he does. But I'm sorry to say that I, and millions of others, have lost faith and aren't so sure.

Being Michele Bachmann Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry

2011-09-01T14:37:00.003-04:00

Tea Party Queen and GOP presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann continues to make bizarre public gaffes which portray her as either crazy, ignorant, bigoted, hypocritical, insensitive, callous or all of the above. Her latest bout of foot-in-mouth disease stems from comments she made in the wake of the East Coast earthquake and Hurricane Irene.

Speaking to a group of Tea Party supporters Bachmann said: "I don’t know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians. We’ve had an earthquake; we’ve had a hurricane. He said, ‘Are you going to start listening to me here?’ Listen to the American people because the American people are roaring right now. They know government is on a morbid obesity diet and we’ve got to rein in the spending."

Forty-five people died from this past weekend's storm, including children. Towns were completely devastated, with an estimated $1-billion+ in total damage. People lost homes and businesses, and five million were left without power. The suggestion that God was punishing these people to send a message to politicians to stop their profligate spending is beyond irresponsible and reprehensible and shows the extent of Bachmann's evil. It's another shining example of how she, like so many of her fellow Tea Baggin' loons, use and abuse religion for political purposes and to spread her vile, hate-fueled dogmatic propaganda.

After taking much heat over her comments what does Bachmann do, apologize? Fat chance. The word "apology" does not exist in her vocabulary. Culpability is not in her DNA. She simply cannot say "I'm sorry...what I said was wrong and insensitive." Incredibly, what Bachmann chose to do instead was dismiss her offensive remarks as an attempt at humor.

"Of course I was being humorous when I said that. It would be absurd to think it was anything else. I am a person who loves humor, I have a great sense of humor," she said.

So let's get this straight: Bachmann denies being an exploitative Jesus freak but she thinks Irene's devastation is something to joke about? I love humor too. In fact, I did stand-up comedy for twelve years. But there's nothing I find funny about the entire Eastern seaboard being ravaged by death and destruction from a Hurricane's violent fury.

What is it about these Tea Baggers like Bachmann, Sarah Palin and Rick Perry that not only causes them to say the most outrageously offensive things but also renders them incapable of taking responsibility for their words and actions? In Bachmann's case, her irrational indifference to large-scale human suffering is unconscionable and is the antithesis of presidential.

You Know You're a Tea Bagger If...

2011-08-22T08:10:00.007-04:00

As the 2012 presidential campaign intensifies, there's been much speculation
as to the philosophies, motivations and overall composition of Tea Party constituents.
To help clarify any lingering confusion and to help define these passionate Americans,
I offer the following Litmus Test:

You know you're a Tea Bagger if:

1. You hate science and the corrupt scientists who manufacture data in nefarious schemes

2. You think global warming is a hoax

3. You think there are hundreds of Nobel Peace Prize-winning scientists who believe
in Intelligent Design

4. You think Social Security, Medicare and "big government" are mutually-exclusive

5. You think God is an evangelical Christian conservative

6. You think Elvis was born in August

7. You think the "Soviet Union" remains one of America's biggest threats

8. You can see the "Soviet Union," or Russia, from your backyard

9. You think Paul Revere is famous for warning the British

10. You think the historic "Shot Heard Round the World" took place in New
Hampshire

11. You think John Wayne Gacy was a rugged movie star

12. You think John Wayne was a serial killer

13. You think homosexuals can be "cured" by Marcus Bachmann

14. You think Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has committed "treason"

15. You think there are "Death Panels" consisting of evil doctors who will kill
old people

16. You think Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity tell the truth and that Fox News is
fair and balanced

17. You think governors who advocate their state's secession from the Union
would make great presidents of the United States.

18. You think that African American males like President Obama benefit more by
government assistance than those hard-workin' white folks

19. You think President Obama is an illegal alien

20. You think Michele Bachmann really worked for the IRS just to get inside to
better understand the enemy

21. You think the Founding Fathers abolished slavery

22. You love America but scowl when your opponents exercise the very Democratic
principles which make it great, like free speech; separation of church
and state; a free and open press; freedom of religion; checks and balances;
freedom from persecution; and civil rights for all

23. And most of all, unlike your founding Tea Party brethren 238 years ago,
you think "No taxation without representation" really just means "No taxation."

Obama's the "Dick Cavett President"

2011-08-18T17:59:00.005-04:00

I love Dick Cavett. He's a brilliant, irreverent thinker with a uniquely dry, sardonic, sarcastic wit and deadpan delivery. Qualities that make for a terrific
writer, humorist and interviewer, but unfortunately not a United States
president

Sadly, Barack Obama has become the Dick Cavett President. He's wicked smart, cool and lightening quick with an intellectually biting quip. And while George Bush may have been the guy some wanted to have a beer with, Obama's the guy you'd love to hang with at 2am at a Village jazz club and smoke some weed.

But his brand of nuanced, over-intellectualized witty replies to Republican
street bashing makes him look wimpy, weak and outmatched. While the GOP's Hulk Hogans are verbally beating his ass, he's in full-on Cavette mode. The only thing missing is the mod turtleneck. Guess who's winning the rhetoric war?

Case in point: earlier this week Texas Gov. Rick Perry, the Tea Baggers' Great White Hope since he entered the race a week ago, stooped to a familiar thuggish strategy of attacking Obama's patriotism and calling into question his lack of military service. When asked about this on CNN Obama replied, "I’ll cut him some slack. He’s only been at it for a few days now." WTF?! What kind of lame response was that? That's the best he's got? Asked to comment on the president's quip, Perry deftly attacked with "Actions speak louder than words. My actions as Governor are helping create jobs in this country. The President's actions are killing jobs." Ya see, Dick? That's the way to frame the debate and stay on point, all the while cutting your opponent's legs off.

So what should Obama's reply been? How about:

"Gov. Perry is in this campaign just a week and his #1 campaign strategy for fixing the economy and putting people to work is to attack my patriotism? How offensive to the American people who are seeking help from their elected leaders...not more of the same Republican smear rhetoric and stonewalling." How's that? That would show some fire in the belly. Some much needed balls.

The terrain for Obama could get much shakier if, as reported, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie decides to enter the race. And why wouldn't he? Obama's struggling on every front, and he's the GOP's wet dream right now. With his big straight-shootin' personality and Boy-Wonder-like deficit-busting reputation and moderate social views, he could, as I've been warning for months, be Obama's worst nightmare. He could be the tough-talking, take-no-prisoners, roll-up-the-sleeves populist firebrand that would appeal to way more independents and moderate Democrats than the administration would like to contemplate.

With the new Gallup poll citing a dismal 26% approval rating on the economy, Professor Obama better immediately rethink his game plan and start fighting fire with fire and show us some guts or he'll soon be back lecturing Constitutional Law in Chicago.

Ostroy's List of Air-Travel Don'ts

2011-08-16T16:41:00.011-04:00

Having recently returned from a trip to Barcelona, and as a frequent flyer, I've had the displeasure of spending many hours in the air with strangers who are clearly in need of a little reminder about proper air-travel etiquette. These days, with long lines, invasive x-rays requiring near-nudity, constant delays, smaller, more crowded planes and the threat of terrorism, the flying experience is frustrating and challenging enough without some buffoon sitting next to me making the flight even more unpleasant.

So to make the overall flying experience more bearable, at least for me, I hereby request that passengers follow "Ostroy's List of Air-Travel Don'ts:"

1. If you're considerably overweight, please don't expect to encroach my space. I have absolutely nothing against you personally. This is all about real estate. I didn't buy my seat so I could subsidize yours. If you're too large to fit into your own seat, buy two.

2. Please don't endlessly pray out loud next to me, no matter what religion you follow. It freaks me out and makes me wonder what you're so afraid of and trying to prevent.

3. Please don't bring really smelly food on the plane to gorge on. Remember that we're sitting so close we're practically having sex. I can do without the Burger King wafting into my yard.

4. What part of my face buried in a book is confusing to you? Please don't talk to me. Let me read. If I want to chat I'll start a conversation.

5. And if you do talk to me, please don't do it with a mouth full of food. I don't want little chewed Burger King pieces flying at me like mortar shells.

6. Please don't fart incessantly. If you have a gas problem, please lock yourself in the lavatory and decompress in private.

6. Please don't get on a plane if you have breath that would choke a swine.

7. If you're sitting behind me, please don't kick my seat non-stop.

8. If you're sitting in front of me, please don't snap your seat back at 100 miles an hour. Slow it down, pal, you're not doing crunches. A little head's up so you don't smash my laptop would be most appreciated.

9. My headrest is not a walking stick, so please don't use it as one. I didn't pay for whiplash.

10. Please don't fly unless you've showered sometime in the prior week. Your stank has no where to go except in my face.

11. Please don't listen to your iPod so loudly that the people 10 rows back can hear it through your headphones.

12. When you're putting your bag in the overhead and I'm in the aisle seat, please don't put your crotch anywhere near my face. Be mindful of where your package is headed. Same goes for your ass.

13. Please don't fall asleep and rest your head on my shoulder....unless you want it elbowed by an intolerant New Yorker. We're not gonna snuggle.

14. Please don't blatantly stare at my computer screen while I'm working. If I want your input I'll ask for it.

15. And whatever you do, do not even think about chewing tobacco and spitting the "juice' in a cup every three minutes. This is the rudest, most disgusting thing you could ever possibly do on a plane. Please indulge your mouth-cancer-inducing pleasures elsewhere.

There ya go. Maybe we can now all fly a little more pleasantly and comfortably. I thank you in advance.

Bachmann Wins Straw Poll; Perry's Running; Pawlenty Says 'I'm Outta this Freak Show!'

2011-08-15T07:56:00.003-04:00

The Crazy Party took a step closer to nominating a presidential candidate who
makes even moderate Republicans' skin crawl.

In that great political bastion of Ames, Iowa this weekend a microscopic
percentage of that state's Tea Party faithful ran to the ballot box to officially
anoint Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann their Great White Hope. Less than 24 hours later Tim Pawlenty, perhaps the sanest hopeful in the place next to Jon Huntsman, tossed in the towel. Apparently intelligence, sanity and moderation are not qualifications for being a Republican president these days.

Let's start with Pawlenty. In assessing the landscape objectively and without partisan rancor, and despite that I disagree with much of his views, the guy probably would've made a decent president, or at least the kind who wouldn't keep me up at night worrying about America's moral destruction. But unfortunately for T-Paw he doesn't fit the Crazies' fantasy image of the Republican Alpha Male. To their naked eye, he kinda looks and sounds more like their stereotypical image of a liberal. You can almost see him behind the wheel of a Volvo, his Bierkenstocked foot resting on the foreign pedal.

Which brings us to the GOP's newest boy-wonder, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who fits the Alpha Dog profile with his folksy drawl, cowboy boots, pick-up truck and general swagger. When he's not talking to God he's busy promising voters that he'll "make Washington, D.C. as inconsequential in your life as possible." I wonder if that pesky little government involvement he'd like to rid Americans of includes Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Veteran's benefits, the Post Office, the Centers for Disease Control, the National Weather Service and even the military? Or are those the "consequential" aspects of government; the "good stuff?"? This is a politician who's running for the highest office in the land, yet an office and a government for which he has zero respect and appreciation. A governor who's wanted his state to secede from the Union. It's hard to convince voters you should be president of the "government" you so clearly disrespect. But as I keep saying, Rick Perry has about as much chance of becoming president as Katie Perry.

Now onto Bachmann, who is very likely to slug it out with Perry these next many months for the Crazy vote while Mitt Romney sits back and watches, and benefits from, the train wreck. You can be sure Bachmann and Perry are gonna rip into each other like "The Real Housewives of New York."

Bachmann hit the Sunday morning talk show circuit and was in rare form. Gotta give her credit: she is a master at staying on point and evading virtually every question while coming off over-rehearsed, robotic and lacking substance...and with her usual mangling of the English language. On CBS's "Face the Nation" she boasted that "I have been taking my message all across Iowa, and people resonate with that message." Sorry Michele, messages resonate, not people. But then again what do you expect from a woman who thinks the historic Shot Heard 'Round the World was in New Hampshire?

On NBC's "Meet the Press" host David Gregory appeared as frustrated with her evasiveness as if he were talking to a tight-lipped 15-year-old. He played the clip of her talking about her husband Marcus's influence in her life: "My husband said, 'Now you need to go and get a post-doctorate degree in tax law.' Tax law? I hate taxes. Why should I go into something like that? But the lord said, wife, you are to submit to your husband." She insisted that in her marriage being "submissive" means being "respectful." Gregory was incredulous as he suggested that that kind of "respect" would never fly with his wife.

The candidate who claims she could fix the economy is just three months also humored Gregory with her stand against homosexuality, asking her to comment on her previous statements such as: "It's part of Satan....It leads to the personal enslavement of individuals.....Personal bondage, personal despair, and personal enslavement. And that's why this is so dangerous." Her straight-faced answer? "I don't judge." I guess that's ok if you think calling someone Satanic isn't judging them. And as for that "personal enslavement" thing, kinda gets us back to that whole "submissive" question, no? Hmmm....

On "Fox News Sunday" with Chris Wallace she was outed for appearing to support Obamanomics. Wallace pointed to her opposition to the Stimulus Package yet cited three letters she wrote to the Federal government asking for money for her state, saying the funds would help Minnesota's economy. A bit of a contradiction you say? Not to Michelle, who's argued that if the money's there for the taking, why should voters in her state lose out? But if she truly believed the Stimulus was a bad thing for the economy and would continue to rack up perilous debt for America, wouldn't it have been more politically expedient, and consistent, to refuse such funds? This is yet another example of the colossal hypocrisy of the Bachmann's, who've had no trouble over the years seeking government money for both political and personal use.

And when Wallace, pointing to Bachmann's lone opposition to raising the debt ceiling, asked her about her seeming inability to compromise if she were elected president she offered that she'd hopefully be taking thirteen new Republican Senators with her to Washington for a filibuster-proof Congress. So much for compromise.

Watching and listening to Perry and Bachmann's words and actions I wonder why they even bother pretending to like Democracy? Clearly, neither respects the notion of compromise, the Separation of Church and State, checks and balances, a free and open press, or the truth. Their brand of politics seems more fit for a despotic third-world nation.

Assessing the GOP Debate

2011-08-12T08:00:00.005-04:00

Good news for President Obama. He officially won Thursday night's Republican
debate in Iowa and he didn't even have to show up. Despite all the criticism coming at him from all sides including mine, not one GOP hopeful was able to present him or herself as a viable alternative for 2012.

Mitt Romney, who earlier in the day showed his true elitist colors while defending corporate America as "people too," was as consistently bland, evasive and flip-flopping as ever, while trying to convince voters that having economic expertise means buying up troubled companies and gutting them for maximum profit. If this is what being "front-runner" means, then the party is in very serious trouble.

That other supposed front-runner, Michele Bachmann, came charging out of the gate shouting her talking points and, bragging of her accomplishments, pointed to her "light bulb law." Not one of her finest moments of rhetoric.

Tim Pawlenty, who perhaps had the most to lose, perhaps lost the most. He needed to show voters that he was tough and able to fight. He gave it his best shot. And his best shot was pretty darned weak. Imagine Woody Allen screaming at someone. Not terribly scary.

What was scary though was Newt Gingrich's obnoxious, anger-filled display. He arrogantly criticized everything the moderators asked him as being "gotchya" questions--even those Chris Wallace asked about his record--and he was so full of rage it was embarrassing. This, as his ex-wives will attest, is a man who is clearly used to getting this his way and when he doesn't he gets belligerent and narcissistic.

As for the other hopefuls--Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Herman Cain and Boy-Not-Wonder John Huntsmann--they were as unimpressive and irrelevant as ever. Yawn....

So that brings us to three Republicans not yet in the race but who very well may dive in shortly: Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Rudy Giuliani, and the Wasilla Wonder, ole Grizzly Mama herself, Sarah Palin.

Let's start with Palin, who in fact will in no way enter the race. She's so ill-equipped to be president that even her empty suit is empty. But she utterly loves all the attention and will milk it till the very last drop.

Rudy Giuliani may be one of the party's best bets, but as soon as Democrats play his infamous "There were no terrorist attacks on Bush's watch" clip he's doomed. Throw in failed marriages, cheating, and a general disdain for the working class and his picture gets even darker.

And that brings us to Perry, who, if he can somehow manage to get beyond his radical "secession" comments, as well his state's dismal record on education, health care and the environment, is most likely to win the nomination. He's an aggressive, articulate, attractive, funny, engaging Texas governor...and we all know how that can end up.

Change I Never believed In

2011-08-09T10:31:00.004-04:00

President Obama has taken a lot of heat lately over what many believe is his mismanagement of the economy and his inability to successfully take on his Republican opponents. Unlike millions of other Democrats, I am neither disappointed or surprised by his political failings. Prior to the 2008 election, and as an ardent supporter of Hillary Clinton, I wrote quite frequently about what I believed would be Obama's inability to fight Republican obstructionism and the party's fierce attack machine. Sadly, I was 100% right.

It's easy to understand Obama's appeal in 2008. He was indeed exceptionally bright, a master campaigner and fundraiser, and able to move tens of thousands of his progressive disciples, moderates and independents through rousing, messianic oratory. But I never drank the Kool-Aid, and had heated battles with many friends who couldn't understand how I didn't "get" Obama's second-coming status. And while I was thrilled that a black man could come so close to the Oval Office and ultimately win the election for the first time in history, I didn't get caught up in the whole liberal guilt trip. What I personally hoped for for America was that the best candidate win, not the darkest.

To be sure, Obama showed passion and a deeply personal vision for America, but he lacked something much more important: the fire in the belly and the cajones to battle the ruthless GOP warriors to see his vision through to law. The man with the sanctimonious professorial lectures who loves to stay above the fray while being 'the only adult in the room' has learned the hard way about the ugliness of modern partisan politics. Watching him these past three years it's as if he's fighting against the Republican bazooka while merely holding a gladiator shield. He's been outwitted, outmatched and out of touch. This is hardly the change anyone believed in or hoped for. He now looks like Jimmy Carter on a bad day.

Where did Obama go wrong? To begin with, he squandered huge majorities in both the Senate and the House, wasting over a year fighting for health care reform while caving on the critical public option. Can you imagine how much the GOP would've accomplished in the same period had they controlled the White House and Congress? Can you imagine how ravenously they would've rushed through their ideological agenda and changed America as we know it? Obama's also caved on the economy, on gay marriage, on the Bush tax cuts, on Guantanamo, on Afghanistan and on debt ceiling/deficit reduction bill. And we still have 14-million people out of work with a 9.1% unemployment rate. What happened to jobs, jobs, jobs? Where's the jobs bill?

Obama simply seems neutered, unlike his predecessor. Like him or not, look what Bush was able to do to further his conservative agenda. He didn't care what anyone thought..not voters, the media, Democrats or members of his own party. He, Cheney and Rove saw their vision through, whether it was right or wrong or good for the country. The point is, they acted. They led. Where's Obama's leadership?

I'm not gonna say Hillary Clinton's perfect or baggage-free, but I firmly believe she'd have fought much more effectively for Democrats. She knows first-hand how ruthless Republicans are when they're in battle. She would've calculated her battle strategy day-one. To the contrary, three years later, Obama still appears like the proverbial deer caught in the headlights.

My Conversation with Jesus

2011-08-08T08:38:00.008-04:00

In the wake of Texas Gov. Rick Perry's God-apalooza gathering on Saturday down in Houston, Jesus Christ himself actually came to me in one of those mystical moments of spiritual revelation, sharing his principles and extremely passionate views about humanity and the state of religion today. So many times we hear how Jesus talks directly to people like George Bush, Sarah Palin, Michelle and Marcus Bachmann and Gov. Perry...so I feel terribly grateful and blessed to have had this incredible experience of God talking to me. Here's an excerpt from our conversion:

Me: Mr. Christ, or can I call you Jesus?.... I gotta ask you this question before anything else. Is it true that you're a Republican?

Jesus: What!? Where did you get that ridiculous notion from, my dear Jewish atheist child. Have you not actually read my book, I mean the Bible?

Me: Well, it's just that Republicans are constantly hiding behind the cloak of religion as if somehow they have you on their side. They constantly equate faith with judgement, intolerance and even bigotry. They proudly claim that to be God-fearing you must be against everything that helps the poor, the sick, the elderly, the needy, and minorities. Is that what you taught them?

Jesus: No, In fact, just the opposite. I fought for justice. You can't just put money in a tin at church on Sundays and think you're doing God's work. Sure, you can feed the poor, but if you're not fighting to better their existence on a systemic level then you are not in line with my teachings.

Me: Jesus, what are you talking about?!

Jesus: It's simple. I am a manifestation of the the most disenfranchised human beings. I am black. I am homosexual. I'm a paraplegic. I am a woman. I'm an old, sick man. I belong to the meek. Remember them? Remember what I said? I didn't say "the rich and the corporations shall inherit the Earth," did I? What is mankind doing today to truly help those in need? Or do the rich simply want to get richer while the poor suffer? Remember Luke 14:13 & 14...But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just. And Luke 12:15...Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions. Or how about this..how about Deuteronomy 15:7 & 11...If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land. Do you see what I'm sayin' here? For Pete's Sake, does this sound like the teaching of a Republican? I'm a liberal! There, I've said it! Look at my sandals, my hair...duh!

Me: What about Rick Perry's 'prayer rally' in Texas on Saturday? He was talking to you. Told you "you are our only hope." Were you listening to him? Did you say anything back?

Jesus: First off, let me say neither I or anyone in my family was at that event. That's not my kind of prayer rally. As for me being the only hope, that's quite sad. Perhaps Mr. Perry would be better served to look in the mirror and judge his own narrow-minded, divisive behavior. How he and his conservative brethren prey on the weak, the meek, the needy. Remember Proverbs 14:31...He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. Ok, gotta run...I have a bris in Great Neck I have to get to...

Me: Thank you Jesus, thank you for setting the record straight on a few things.

Are There Bigger Skeletons in the Bachmann Closet?

2011-07-18T07:58:00.007-04:00

Michelle Bachmann has spent the better part of the last two months trying to convince everyone that she's not a crazy extremist but rather a mainstream candidate who moderates and independents can embrace in the 2012 presidential election. This despite many outrageous comments over the years about gays, immigrants, abortion, evolution, global warming, President Obama, members of Congress and American history...all the while padding her resume (being an IRS tax collector is not quite the same as being a "federal tax litigation attorney.") and downplaying her and her husband's batshit crazy Christian counseling center which cruelly performs "reparation therapy" on gays in an attempt to turn them straight.

As comedian Marc Maron brilliantly posited last week, "It does seem like their whole marriage is one prolonged experiment in this type of therapy." Maron was echoing the suggestions made earlier in the week by Jon Stewart that Marcus might be, er, how you say, in need of a little reparation therapy himself. Certainly wouldn't be a shocker, as it's always the most vehement anti-gay activists who end up caught with their closeted pants down.

It seems that little ole Marcus just might be to Michelle what Billy Carter was to brother Jimmy (worse even, as Billy's embarrassing antics never prevented Jimmy from becoming Leader of the Free World. Marcus could very well derail Michelle's campaign if his bizarre antics lead to scandal). Last week a radio interview clip from 2010 was released in which Marcus referred to homosexuals as "Barbarians." But he's now pulling a Weiner, claiming that the segment was "doctored." Actually, he claims he was "referring to children" and not gays. Apparently Marcus thinks it's ok to call children Barbarians? What is it about these loony Tea Baggers who, despite audio and video which captures their gaffes and lies, continue to deny, deny, deny as if this evidence didn't exist? It's like the classic Richard Pryor bit about his wife walking in on him in bed with another woman: "Are you gonna believe me or your lyin' eyes!?"

But there's another potential scandal I want fully investigated. And in fact, I want Michelle and Marcus Bachmann to immediately provide the information that would clear them, just as she demanded that President Obama release his long-form birth certificate to prove his U.S. citizenship. Bachmann claims she and Marcus "took 23 foster children into our home, and raised them, and launched them off into the world." This foster parenting took place in Minnesota between 1992-2000, but unfortunately the state destroys all such records after seven years, so nothing Bachmann claims can be proven publicly. Interestingly, while Bachmann claims that the fostering involved unwed mothers, some of the children suffered from eating disorders, and according to George Hendrickson, CEO of PATH Minnesota, the private agency that placed the children with the Bachmanns, none of them were in fact pregnant.

Bachmann herself has refused to provide details about her foster children, and for privacy reasons their names have never been disclosed. But given Bachmann's penchant for exaggeration and truth-stretching, in particular about her resume, don't we have a right to know more about her foster parenting and just how many children this actually involved? Are we to take a face value her claim of twenty-three when she seems to embellish other important details about her past? No, we should demand that the Bachmann's provide the same kind of concrete legal proof as they demanded of Obama. Until then, we should assume that her claim is as bogus as her work as a "tax litigation attorney."

And one more thing: the pastor at her church, Rev. Marcus Birkholz, said Bachmann's "a lady with energy and a heart' whose uncompromising "support for the unborn" is more than just about fighting abortion. "She sees the whole picture. It’s not just bringing a child into the world; that child has to be nurtured and educated."

Really? Bachmann "nurtures and educates" America's children? I'm just curious about a few things. Does the small government that Bachmann and her fellow Tea Party faithful fantasize about drastically cut or eliminate funding for foster parent programs? Education and health care for children? Does her "whole picture" include "nurturing and educating" the children of gays, immigrants, minorities and the poor, who so desperately need government assistance, the kind of assistance Tea Baggers dream of vaporizing from the budget?

Twenty-three kids, huh Michelle? We'll be waiting for the proof.....

What Parents Can Learn From the Leiby Kletzky Tragedy

2011-07-14T08:20:00.014-04:00

When to let your child out the door alone--to walk to school, camp, a friend's
house or to the park--is a distressing decision over which every parent struggles. And what happened this week to 8-year-old Lieby Kletzky is the gruesome realization of every parent's worst nightmare. The Brooklyn boy, walking home alone from camp for the first time, was abducted, killed and dismembered by a local man with a sketchy past and an ex-wife who'd taken out a restraining order on him.

Lieby's killing is as unfathomable a tragedy as there is. My own family has experienced brutal murder, and I understand the overwhelming shock and grief they're dealing with. It won't be easy to recover from something so horrific, and my heart goes out to them. And as the Kletzy family struggles to reconcile this senseless, random act of violence, parents in both suburban and urban areas nationwide are grappling with what to do with their own children's desire and need for independence. "Can I go by myself?" is a parent's most dreaded question. To be sure, Lieby's death has reignited the debate over the "when to" question more than anything in the last forty years since 6-year-old Etan Patz disappeared off a Soho street and, still missing, is presumed to have been killed.

The world can be a very cruel, ugly place sometimes, and there are predatory monsters who walk among us, undetected, until they commit heinous acts. Somehow, it is our job to stay out of their way and to protect our children from them. When our children are young we take them everywhere. They are never out of our sight or control. And then they hit that magic age, somewhere between eight and eleven, when an innate sense of independence takes over and they want to be alone and to go places by themselves. It's as natural and necessary a part of growing up as attending sleepaway camp, dating, driving and going away to college. In some very real sense, it's the precursor to those organic milestones.

As much as we'd like to shield our kids from harm, we can't. We can't lock them in the house or walk them everywhere until they're sixteen simply because we fear deviants who attack, rape and kill. We can't prohibit our children from dating because date rape exists. We can't keep our kids from driving because there are drunk drivers who could harm or kill them. We must let our little ones leave the nest at some point so they can mature into happy, emotionally healthy, confident adults. Smothering them and denying them their critical independence can have lasting emotional ramifications. We have to wince, cross our fingers and simply hope for the best.

But what we can do as parents is be smarter, and help our children be safer as they begin navigating the world by themselves. The biggest question is, 'What is the right age to let a child go out alone?' That's a very difficult question to answer, as every child is different. Size, maturity, street smarts all play a role. The bigger concern should be what happens when they go out alone. Do they know their neighborhood inside out? Have parent and child done multiple test runs of the various routes a child will be taking? Has a child been indoctrinated with the realities of the street, and the potential harm he or she faces? Do they know their local safe havens? Have they been instructed how to physically defend themselves? Do they carry a whistle? Do they carry a cell phone? Have they been told never, ever, ever go with a stranger under any circumstances, even if they're told their mom or dad is in serious danger and only they can save them...or that their mom or dad has sent this stranger to retrieve them? Do they know how to scream? Do they know what 911 is?

As a society, we have to make some sense out of little Lieby's death or we've learned nothing from it. Something good has to come from it or he will have died in vain. His murder should give pause to every parent across America whose pre-teen child is venturing outside alone. It's a sad reality check and wake-up call, yet one which might allow us to make things a little safer for our kids.

The Real Casey Anthony Verdict

2011-07-07T07:21:00.004-04:00

Casey Anthony may have escaped the death penalty and life in prison, but she no doubt will receive a sentence perhaps even worse: life of scorn. There aren't many people in America who believe Anthony isn't responsible for the brutal death of her 2-year-old daughter Caylee. She simply benefited by the greatest legal system in the world. She may have gotten away with murder in a court of law, but she won't escape the court of public opinion.

Anthony is the new O.J. Simpson. She's the demonic object of our hatred and our frustration with our criminal justice system. It seems that at least once every decade we stand stunned, outraged and nauseated as the verdict is read in an audience-gripping, sensational murder trial as the killer walks free. But that's where the similarities end. In the 1995 O.J. trial, the prosecution not only had bodies--O.J's ex-wife Nicole Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman--but clear evidence that they were murdered. There was also motive: O.J.'s tumultuous, violence-marred relationship with Nicole. And there was DNA evidence. Blood everywhere. O.J's, hers, Goldman's. At her place, his house, his car, and on a glove found at his residence. But that wasn't enough. The jury in this case could've had actual videotape of Simpson committing the murders and they likely would have acquitted him still.

In the Anthony case the prosecution had nothing. Nothing but reams of circumstantial evidence. Sure, if you stepped away from it all and looked at it in its totality with a rational, intelligent, common sense perspective, she's as guilty as sin. What loving mother fails to report her toddler missing for 31 days, then lies about it, creates imaginary people whom she blames the death on and, in the process, gets a "Bella Vita" ("Beautiful Life") tattoo and is out partying? We have every reason to believe she killed Caylee and we have every reason to hate her. But unfortunately, the prosecution did not have a motive, witnesses or a cause of death, and you can't convict someone of murder if you can't prove a murder took place. The burden of proof rested solely on the prosecution, and it simply could not prove Anthony's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. No matter how upsetting and painful, no matter how infuriating and sickening the verdict, the system worked. In America, we don't send people to jail because we don't like them or because we're emotional and angry.

But time will not be kind to Casey Anthony. Like O.J. Simpson, she'll face constant animosity, ostracizing and public ridicule. She'll find everyday tasks like grocery shopping filled with vitriol. She'll find it hard to get a job. She'll probably never have a normal, healthy relationship. Perhaps she'll sell a book and do some interviews and make a few bucks, but she'll spend it just as quickly and probably end up destitute. She'll party hard and crash harder. And just like her partner in criminal history, Casey may ultimately end up in jail for some other heinous, despicable act. To be sure, Casey Anthony is not someone who's going to contribute to society in any meaningful way.

Jon Stewart is Definitely a Comedian. Chris Wallace Admits Fox's Bias

2011-06-21T07:31:00.004-04:00

The Daily Show
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

In the wake of the now-famous televised showdown between Jon Stewart and Chris Wallace Sunday morning there's lots of chatter from pundits on both the left and right that Stewart, as Wallace charged, is dodging his true role as a 'journalist.' To paraphrase Stewart from the interview, anyone who believes this ridiculous assertion is "insane."

I'm not exactly sure where all the confusion lies. Stewart was a stand-up comic for years and now has a comedy show. On "Comedy Central." And like many a legendary humorist before him--Mark Twain, Will Rogers, Mort Sahl, George Carlin and Lenny Bruce to name a few--his material consists of politics, politicians and American culture. You will never see anything on "The Daily Show," Stewart's nightly program, that is delivered with a serious tone. You will never see Stewart himself analyze and comment on anything unless his set-ups have wickedly funny punchlines. He's a satirist. And probably the best there ever was. But that's all he is. To paraphrase the late Texas Sen. Lloyd Bentsen's famous smackdown of Sen. Dan Quayle in their 1988 vice presidential debate, "Mr. Stewart, I know journalism. I studied journalism for many years. I have a journalism degree. Mr. Stewart, you're no journalist."

It's pretty sad when, as Rogers said, "People are taking their comedians seriously and the politicians as a joke." A society which considers Stewart and people like Bill O'Reilly "journalists" is a society that's in deep trouble. To label Stewart a journalist is offensive to journalists and non-journalists alike. I don't get my news from Stewart. I save that for the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, CNN, MSNBC, The Huffington Post and other outlets. I watch Stewart for the same reason I watched/watch Johnny Carson, David Letterman, Carlin and a zillion other comics: to get a biting, funny take on the days' news. Because Stewart makes us laugh about the news doesn't make him a newsman. That he makes us laugh about politics doesn't make him a political activist. He's simply doing his job as a comedian.

Now on the other hand, as Stewart pointed out to Wallace, there are millions of very "misinformed" people who watch Fox News and actually think they're watching an objective news network. They listen to people like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and think they're getting the truth. They're not. In an astounding admission of his network's true bias, Wallace, while discussing other networks with Stewart, said "I think we're the counterweight. I think that they have a liberal agenda, and I think we tell the other side of the story." Wow. So much for "fair and balanced."

Stewart is a true genius. But he's a comic genius. And without even being a true journalist he brilliantly managed to do what no one else has done: get Fox to admit that it's a politically biased television network. I bet Wallace didn't have that outcome in mind when he invited Stewart on his Fox "News" Sunday program.

Why Blooberg's Taxi Proposal is Unfair

2011-06-20T07:37:00.002-04:00

Mayor Michael Bloomberg is attempting to get a bill pushed through Albany, bypassing the City Council, that would in effect allow New York City's livery cabs to legally pick up passengers in certain areas of the city. This type of proposal has come up at other times over the last forty years and was always killed. As it deserves to be again now.

My father was a "hack" for over 50 years. He began in a post-war era when many young Jewish men like himself could make a decent buck behind the wheel if being behind a desk didn't appeal to them. It was an era where you could eke out a living, perhaps buy a starter home, and in some way live the American dream.

There's a certain misguided nomadic glamour that's associated with the job. You're out on the road, your own boss, making your own hours, working if and when you want to, and meeting all sorts of interesting people. You're like jack Karouac with a coin changer, right?

Wrong. Driving a taxi is an utterly miserable way to make a living and don't let anyone tell you differently. The job practically killed my dad. I remember the long, 15 hour days. I remember the robberies at gunpoint. All the accidents and tickets. And the literally backbreaking nature of being sedentary for so long each day. I still have in my head the disturbing image of my dad exiting his cab as I sat eating dinner by the window one night, watching his grossly contorted body clinging to the fence as he made his way toward our building, hunched over so far he looked like he was staring at the ground. He and his brethren were, and remain, some of the least appreciated workers in New York. He was often cursed at, spit at, threatened, tip-stiffed and generally disrespected.

In 2011, gone are the local, home grown Jewish, Irish and Italian drivers. Most of the more than 46,000 cabbies are immigrants from countries such as Pakistan, India and China. The economics of the job are nearly impossible to get around. Medallions, of which there are about 13,200, cost upwards of $700,000 and mostly it's the wealthier investors who can afford them. The average driver leases his medallion for as much as $200 per day from these fleet-operating barons, and whatever they make beyond that, after paying for gas, food, and other expenses, is theirs to keep. It's an untenable situation, which is why these poor guys literally just sleep and work, some even seven days a week. There's no job security, no benefits, no safety and definitely no glory. But it's an honest living.

Bloomberg's measure is flat out wrong. It will impact the value of medallions and allow for unfair competition. Sure, there are problems with the taxi system. Ever try hailing a cab between 4pm-5pm? Maybe it'd make more sense to require taxi fleets to change shifts at 8pm and not right smack in the middle of rush hour. But permitting gypsy cabbies to reap the legal and economic benefits of medallion drivers without having to pay into the system the same way is grossly inequitable and not the answer.

Assessing the First GOP Debate

2011-06-14T07:19:00.006-04:00

It was a motley cast of characters that would make the 2006 California Gubernatorial hopefuls proud. Monday night's GOP presidential debate in Manchester, NH was also a real snoozer, with more talk of God, gays and Obama than each other. Apparently these folks forgot that before they get to run against Obama they need to battle amongst themselves.

Mitt Romney, the presumptive front-runner, was largely treated with kid gloves. The one time he could've really taken it on the chin was when CNN host John King pressed Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty to address Romney directly over the "ObamneyCare" phrase he coined on Sunday's morning's news programs. "He's right there, ask him about it" King challenged. Pawlenty predictably went into his human Ambien mode and avoided appearing too negative.

Pawlenty also repeatedly touted his blue-collar, union roots. I love when Republicans boast of their blue-collar roots as proof that they'd know how to screw the little guy better than anyone.

Newt Gingrich, whose candidacy recently imploded like a Sicilian volcano, was the angriest, most-defiant and most defensive. He disingenuously described Obama's economy as a "depression" on multiple occasions, and skirted the fact that virtually his entire senior strategy team deserted him last week. Talk about depression. And Gingrich also back-peddled yet again about his comments over Rep. Paul Ryan's MediScare plan. Yet he basically repeated his words of caution--first offered on NBC's "Meet the Press" a few weeks ago--that his party not overreach on health care:

"If you’re dealing with something as big as Medicare and can’t have a conversation with the country where the country thinks what you’re doing is the right thing, you better slow down."

While Michelle Bachmann didn't get into any trouble by inaccurately discussing American history, I must say that she comes off as rather scholarly and substantive when compared to her Tea Party co-Queen Sarah Palin. Although there were a couple of instances where someone really needed to give the Minnesota Congresswoman a civics lesson. Speaking to an audience member she vowed, if elected, to immediately repeal ObamaCare, apparently unaware that it is only Congress, not the president, who has the power to enact such legislation. And on the subject of repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell, Bachmann promised that she'd confer with "our commanders in chief" in the military to hear their opinions.

On the subject of gay marriage, all candidates except Cain and Paul hypocritically said they'd support a Constitutional amendment outlawing it despite all firmly believing in states' rights. I guess when it comes to gays, government knows best.

Probably the most bizarre moment of the debate occurred when former Godfather's Pizza CEO Herman Cain, the only black candidate in the race (and apparently the only black person in New Hampshire), tried to explain his past comments that "a lot of Muslims are not totally dedicated to this country" and that he'd refuse to appoint a Muslim to his cabinet without first conducting a loyalty Litmus test based on dedication to the U.S. Constitution. Cain was visibly uncomfortable in his response, lamely explaining that "because you have peaceful Muslims and then you have militant Muslims, those that are trying to kill us." He added, "I was thinking about the ones that are trying to kill us, number one." Like he would really be appointing someone to his cabinet who might actually be a Muslim terrorist?

Cain's ludicrous supposition gave Romney an opportunity to toss some sanity into the conversation. "Obviously I would only be appointing someone to my cabinet who I knew and was comfortable with."

Cain also fear-mongered over the prospect of Sharia, or Muslim law, being applied in U.S. courts, which he and other ignorant conservatives charge is a growing threat to our legal system. "I don’t believe in Sharia law in American courts. I believe in American laws in American courts, period." He continued: "There have been instances in New Jersey, there was an instance in Oklahoma, where Muslims did try to influence court decisions with Sharia law. I was simply saying, very emphatically, American laws in American courts." He happens to be 100% wrong, as Romney, again, took the chance to sanely point out:

"Of course, we're not going to have Sharia law applied in U.S. courts. That's never going to happen. We have a Constitution and we follow the law."

Little could be said about the other candidates on stage--Rick Santorum and Ron Paul--who provided voters a further glimpse into their Christian fundamentalist and Libertarian views respectively. Neither has any more of a chance of winning the nomination than I do.

As far as picking a winner, Romney was the only candidate to appear presidential. He was intelligent, rational and highly confident and composed. The only adult in the room. Did he shamefully run from his own RomneyCare program while governor of Massachusetts? Absolutely. But that was expected. It's his albatross, and he needs to distance himself from his own policy, which is essentially the same health care program Obama pushed through Congress. But just as Romney injected some levity into the evening by announcing that the Boston Bruins were up by four goals in the Stanley Cup Hockey game, I suspect come the GOP convention he'll lead the pack by at least that many delegates....assuming that pack stays the same and doesn't include any of the party's rock stars like New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

What is Palin Hiding in the 2000 Missing Emails?

2011-06-11T11:25:00.008-04:00

Back in early April Sarah Palin was interviewed on Fox News about the then-mounting controversy over President Obama's refusal to show his long-form birth certificate. The Wasilla Wonder applauded Donald Trump's "investigation" into it, cagily reinforcing the charge that Obama's citizenship was in question:

"Obviously if there's something there that the president doesn't want us to see on that birth certificate that he...ya know, he's going to great lengths to make sure that it isn't shown and that's kind of perplexing for a lot of people. But, ya know, again, Donald Trump, he may get to the bottom of it because he's spending the resources that probably will be necessary to do some investigation."

Trump's persistent attacks continued unabated until Obama released the document later that month, finally killing the Birther movement and, ultimately, Trump's own candidacy.

And now the focus is on Palin herself, as journalists sift through over 24,000 pages of Mama Grizzly's emails released Friday from about the first twenty-one months of her term as Alaska governor. But she's refused to release 2000 remaining emails from September 2008, while she served as Sen. John McCain's vice presidential running-mate, through her resignation the following July.

But let's remember Palin's arrogant charge that Obama's "going to great lengths" to conceal his birth certificate from the public. Well it sure seems like she's going to great lengths to keep her emails from the public. Where's her respect and appreciation for full-disclosure and transparency now? Where's The Donald's "investigation" of Palin?

Palin's decision to withhold these emails raises several critical questions, especially as she's apparently contemplating a run for the White House: what's contained in those emails? Do they expose unethical or illegal activity? What is she hiding? And why won't she release them if there's nothing questionable in there? Isn't this as important as demanding to see Obama's birth certificate? If she expects to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate, don't Americans have a right to know what's in those 2000 emails?

Until the emails are released, it's fair to assume that there's possibly something very incriminating in there that Palin's running from. The public owes her no less scrutiny than she afforded our nation's president.

What Advice Would Rangel Give Weiner?

2011-06-10T07:14:00.002-04:00

Given embattled Congressman Anthony Weiner's Custer-like stand on Capitol Hill, I wonder if the randy Representative's refusal to resign might be inspired by the plight of his fellow Congressman from New York, Charlie Rangel, who dug his own scandal-plagued heels into the ground and went on to win re-election in 2010:

Rangel: Weiner, it's Rangel.

Weiner: Oh, hey Charlie, what's up?

Rangel: Weiner, I feel for ya, brother. I know what it feels like to have your world come crashing down on you so unjustly after dedicating your life as a public servant. It's just so wrong.

Weiner: Yeah, it's pretty rough right now. I feel like my world's falling apart and I've lost control.

Rangel: You know I love ya, but I think you lost control the first time you sent pictures of your johnson over the Internet. But that's something different. Something for you and your shrink to work out. I wanna talk business. Politics. And nobody knows more about NY politics than I do.

Weiner: Get to the point Charlie. In case you haven't noticed, I got a lot on my plate right now. Plus, I gotta head to Best Buy to get a new digital camera...so I'm in a bit of a hurry.

Rangel: Ok, here's the thing. Guys like you and me...we're warriors. We fight to make America a better place. So, we're entitled to a few little treats now and then, right? The public even wants us to have that stuff. Except you and I do it in different ways. I like to amass lots of real estate, skip taxes, park my car for free, and take Caribbean trips. You like to act like a horny 16-year-old on Twitter. Jeez, man, I gotta say as an aside, you didn't even get laid in this mess! All this hullaboo and no booty?! You're pathetic! If I'm gonna possibly lose my job over a sex scandal it's because I'm bangin' Halle Berry!

Weiner: Charlie, please, get to the point, I have to also get over to the Jewelry Exchange to get Huma one of those big ass honkin' Kobe Bryant-style 'I'm sorry' diamond rings.

Rangel: Listen, people said I had to step down. That I was finished. And I said, 'screw that...I ain't goin' nowhere!' And I showed 'em. Won the primary and kicked my Republican opponent's ass with 80% of the vote. And you can do the same, Weeny. I got the blacks, you have the Jews, Italians, Irish and all those Asian, Pakistani, Indian immigrants and such. They love you..just like the blacks love me. You think these folks, these hard working middle class New Yorkers, give a rat's tucchus whether I have a house in the Dominican Republic or whether you Tweet dick shots? They care about their schools, their health care, protecting their self-interests...which is what they know we do for them. You stay in that seat, Weiner, and you refuse to be bullied by Pelosi, Reid, the media or anyone else, and you hang onto your job. I can tell you first hand...it's the voters who will decide your fate. And besides, no one in DC liked you before, so whattya got to lose by staying? It's not like you're gonna lose any friends, ya know! Just stick it out...stay the course. Don't get rattled, no matter how ugly it seems. I'm living proof of that...

Weiner: Ok, thanks Charlie. You're my only friend.

Rangel: Um, not really. Don't really like ya. Never did. Shit, no one does, man! You're an asshole! But I do love underdogs.....

Explaining Weiner

2011-06-08T07:11:00.002-04:00

The rise and ultimate fall of Rep. Anthony Weiner's once-brilliant political career has many elements of a classic Greek tragedy, where the highly ambitious, competent, powerful protagonist suffers a horrible fate. In Weiner's case, there are many avenues through which to explain his self-destructive behavior. Any one of them, or all of them, might shed light on why men like Weiner work so hard to achieve the pinnacle of success yet repeatedly and willfully throw away their spoils through scandalous actions.

Let's start with power. Power corrupts, they say. Do men like Weiner think their unique position in business or government insulates them from the same legal and/or moral standards heaped on the rest of society? Do they think they're above the law? Above reproach or prosecution? Has their power so corrupted them that they don't even think their actions are unethical or illegal, or even subject to scrutiny or criticism? Discussing Watergate with David Frost, Richard M. Nixon infamously claimed "When the President does it, that means it is not illegal." The Bushies also used a variation of this when defending the use of torture.

Dovetailing from power is entitlement. These guys may believe that they deserve to abuse the law and engage in all sorts of illicit activity because of their patriotic service to country. That their dedication and devotion, and myriad personal sacrifices they're making, somehow entitle them to monetary and/or sexual 'treats' as a trade-off. Perhaps these guys think their role in government excuses and//or justifies the extras.

Narcissism plays a key role as well. This behavior, according to FreeDictionary.com, can be defined in several ways: (1) Excessive love or admiration of oneself; (2) A psychological condition characterized by self-preoccupation, lack of empathy, and unconscious deficits in self-esteem; (3) Erotic pleasure derived from contemplation or admiration of one's own body or self, especially as a fixation on or a regression to an infantile stage of development. In Weiner's case, one could argue that all three conditions apply. His wanton disregard for his wife's feelings; his unabashed use of social media websites to transmit sexually charged text and lewd photographs; and his obvious insecurities and clear exaggerated desire to be desired are classic traits of a narcissist. There are even elements of his raging narcissism in his bizarre press conferences this week where he seems so enamored of the mike and camera still, rambling on and on as if he's loving all the attention, whether it's been good or bad.

But Weiner's behavior might simply be the result of an overpowering compulsion. I suspect that over the years he's sexually 'chatted/texted/emailed' with many more than the six women he's confessed to contacting. I suspect that he's probably kissed his wife Huma Abedin goodnight on most nights, and then repaired to his home office to 'work' into the wee hours all the while trolling the Internet for women to cyberplay with. By his own admission, he's been committing e-adultery for years, even before he met and married her. It's hard to believe therefore that his 'virtual' sexual escapades involve just six women. I suspect that Weiner simply couldn't help himself. Like most addicts, he probably hated what he was doing, knew it was highly improper, immoral and possibly illegal and could cost him his family and his career, and that he needed to hit rock-bottom in order to begin contemplating seeking help.

Given the sudden shock and awe of WeinerGate and its bigger implications politically, about social media and to society in general, there's been a lot of questions raised these past few days. One of them is, how could he be so stupid in doing the same sort of thing Rep. Chris Lee did just months ago? The married Lee resigned immediately after posting a half naked photo of himself on Craigslist to attract women for sex. His behavior cost his party a historically solid Republican seat in his upstate New York district.

But listen, you can take a drug addict down to the morgue and show him 5 other addicts who just OD'd. He'll say, 'wow, that's too bad,' and then walk out and score some more dope. Merely seeing dead addicts won't make him stop. He has to want to stop. He has to want a better life for himself and be willing and committed to taking the necessary steps do so.

To be sure, Weiner is not alone. The list of adulterous politicians, and those who've engaged in risky sexual behavior, is quite long. In recent history alone there's Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston, George H.W. Bush, Bob Barr, Henry Hyde, Mark Foley, David Vitter, Larry Craig, John Ensign, Mark Sanford, Elliot Spitzer, John Edwards, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Dominique Strauss-Kahn and others, and there'll certainly be more to come. The internet's become a real game-changer. It's redefining 'adultery.' Sex scandals no longer need actual, physical sex. Will social media and its expansive access unleash a torrent of future scandals as the boundaries and floodgates of cheating have opened wide? Is the temptation from this access so great, and the draw of a perceived comfortable, secure, sit-at-home anonymity while 'cheating' so alluring, that even those who might never stray in traditional ways are now susceptible to 'infidelity'?

Time to Tuck Weiner Back Into the Nation's Pants and Move On

2011-06-07T08:12:00.005-04:00

Let's be very clear: Rep Anthony Weiner's bizarre sexual journey through Cyberspace, and subsequent lies to cover it up, is irresponsible, reprehensible and deserving of all the shame, embarrassment and public humiliation he's now experiencing since his admission of guilt Monday afternoon. Most important, his sleazy behavior is profoundly hurtful to his wife, Huma Abedin, his bride of less than one year. I can't imagine a marriage so new surviving so many adulterous escapades (virtual or other), but that will be for the Weiner's to assess and decide. But the big question is, is what Weiner did unethical as it relates to his job as a Unites States Congressman?

I'm sure this is a point both parties will argue vehemently over the next many months as the 2012 election nears and Republicans wish to take Weiner down and as his fellow Democrats try to get away with a mere wrist slap. To the left, Weiner's been a fierce warrior, full of righteous rage and not afraid to bully his opponents. In fact, he's just the sort of Democrat the party needs. So now he wears a bulls eye on his back as a result. But are the offenses Weiner committed illegal? Worthy of prosecution? Do they merit his resignation?

The right will argue that Rep. Chris Lee, the former Congressman from New York's 26th District, immediately resigned after a photo appeared of him bare-chested as he was trolling for chicks on Craigslist while married. His resignation opened the door for Democrats to win the historically Republican seat in a special election held last month. They'll also point to former Rep. Mark Foley (FL), who immediately resigned in September 2006 over the scandal involving his sexually suggestive emails and texts to underage teenage boys who had served as Congressional pages. They'll be demanding that Weiner and the Democrats live up to these standards.

But what they won't discuss is how David Vitter, the Louisiana Senator, still serves despite his call-girl scandal. Or how South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford served the remaining two years of his term following his admission of an affair with an Argentine woman and his misuse of state funds. Same for former Nevada Sen. John Ensign, who stayed in office until last month following the disclosure in November 2009 of an extramarital affair and possible abuses of power in an attempt to cover it up. And they won't talk of Newt Gingrich's cheating or political scandals.

What it boils down to is that each case is different than the next and has its own distinct characteristics. And each politician has to decide for himself whether or not his offenses are serious enough to merit resignation, and whether or not he can withstand the media scrutiny and public excoriation that may haunt him throughout the remainder of his term and during a re-election campaign.

To be sure, Foley deserved to go. His actions were not only perverse but illegal. He broke the law. But when a man cheats on his spouse, that should be between husband and wife, not Congress. While people like Weiner violate their marriages and abuse the trust they have with their wives, they've broken no laws. Their fates belong to their wives, families and to voters.

If what Weiner claims is true, there's been no actual physical sexual contact with any of the six women he's confessed to emailing, texting or calling during the past three years. While his randy acts are certainly despicable, will Weiner be the first politician to lose his job over a sex scandal that had no actual sex involved? Welcome to the age of anti-social media.

"I'm Paul Revere, and You Know Nothing of My Work!"

2011-06-06T08:14:00.006-04:00

There's a brilliant scene in Woody Allen's Annie Hall where Allen and girlfriend Diane Keaton are standing in line at a movie theater in front of an arrogant, pompous know-it-all whose misinformed pontifications about the writer Marshall McLuhan's work are driving Allen crazy. He admonishes the blowhard and tells him he doesn't know anything about McLuhan:

Man: "Oh, really? Well, it just so happens I teach a class at Columbia called "TV, Media and Culture." So I think my insights into Mr. McLuhan, well, have a great deal of validity!
Alvy Singer (Allen): Oh, do ya? Well, that's funny, because I happen to have Mr. McLuhan right here, so, so, yeah, just let me...
[pulls McLuhan out from behind a nearby poster]
Alvy Singer: come over here for a second... tell him!
Marshall McLuhan: I heard what you were saying! You know nothing of my work! You mean my whole fallacy is wrong. How you got to teach a course in anything is totally amazing!
Alvy Singer: Boy, if life were only like this!

Well, if only we could present Paul Revere to Tea Party queen Sarah Palin he'd surely echo McLuhan in telling her she knows nothing of his work. And, he'd probably be standing with the Statue of Liberty because she apparently knows nothing about either of them, or of most of our nation's history for that matter.

Up in Boston last Thursday The Wasilla Wonder was asked about Paul Revere’s famed ride and she said he "warned the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms. By ringing those bells and making sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free."

Palin's blunder, captured on video, quickly swept through the Internet. Taking a break from her "There's-No-Way-I'm Running-For-President-But-I'm-REALLY-Digging-All-This-Attention" bus tour, she appeared on Fox News Sunday and was asked by host Chris Wallace, "You realized that you messed up about Paul Revere, don’t you?" And as only Sarah Palin could do, given her outsized ego and intellectual denial, she replied in her defense:

"You know what? I didn’t mess up about Paul Revere. "Part of his ride was to warn the British that we’re already there. That, hey, you’re not going to succeed. You’re not going to take American arms....Here is what Paul Revere did. He warned the Americans that the British were coming . . . and they were going to try take our arms and we got to make sure that we were protecting ourselves and shoring up all of ammunitions and our firearms so that they couldn’t take it,’’ Palin said yesterday. But remember that the British had already been there, many soldiers for seven years in that area. And part of Paul Revere’s ride — and it wasn’t just one ride — he was a courier, he was a messenger. Part of his ride was to warn the British that we’re already there. . . . You are not going to beat our own well-armed persons, individual, private militia that we have. He did warn the British."

As my grandmother used to say, oy vey! Too bad the Fox-friendly Wallace let her off the hook too easily and didn't press her on the facts. Had she been on a real network, not the GOP Softball Channel, she would've earned the public embarrassment and humiliation she so rightly deserved.

Will someone please get this poor woman a history book?! Just a week earlier she gave a convoluted explanation of the Statue of Liberty's origin and significance. I'm not sure who's more ignorant of American history, Palin or her Tea Party nemesis Rep. Michelle Bachmann, who a few months ago claimed the "Shot heard round the world" was in New Hampshire, not Massachusetts. What is with these Tea Baggers? Is being dumb a requirement?

To set the record straight for Grizzly Mama, here's what PaulRevereHouse.org has to say about the historic ride: "On the evening of April 18, 1775, Paul Revere was sent... to ride to Lexington, Massachusetts, to warn Samuel Adams and John Hancock that British troops were marching to arrest them... On the way to Lexington, Revere "alarmed" the country-side, stopping at each house, and arrived in Lexington about midnight. As he approached the house where Adams and Hancock were staying, a sentry asked that he not make so much noise. "Noise!" cried Revere, "You'll have noise enough before long. The regulars are coming out!" After delivering his message, Revere was joined by a second rider, William Dawes, who had been sent on the same errand by a different route. Deciding on their own to continue on to Concord, Massachusetts, where weapons and supplies were hidden, Revere and Dawes were joined by a third rider, Dr. Samuel Prescott. Soon after, all three were arrested by a British patrol."

So what's next for Palin as she glides her giant PalinMobile-of-Truthiness across America? Perhaps she's preparing for her next speech entitled The Gettysburg Address: Gen. Robert E. Lee's Finest Virginia Speech.

Here's How/Why Chris Christie Will Enter the Race

2011-06-02T07:40:00.001-04:00

Despite his insistence to the contrary, I believe New Jersey Gov. Chris Chris is certain to enter the race for the Republican presidential nomination. And I'm sure it'll go something like this:

GOP Insiders: Gov. Christie, we want you to run. We need you to run. You must run. You're our only hope.

Christie: Guys, I'm flattered. I'm just a kid from Jersey and you're beggin' me
to run for president. I'm speechless. But I'm not your man.

GOP Insiders: Yes, you are.

Christie: Seriously, I'm not. Don't you read what I've been saying for months now? I don't want to run. I don't have any intention of running. I'm happy with the job I have.

GOP Insiders: But you're not going Sherman on us. You haven't said you won't run, nor be drafted to run, under any circumstances. Is that what you're now telling us?

Christie: Like I said, I'm not running. I'm not even qualified for the job. I'm not ready for the job!

GOP Insiders: That's precisely why you should run. Why you need to run. And why you'll win! It's time an 'outsider' fills this job. An everyman who just happens to also be a very successful governor of one of America's largest states. Chris, you're a lean, mean, straight-shootin' cost-cuttin', budget balancin' family-values guy who keeps income and property taxes low...and is funny too! Ok, maybe not so lean, but they'll love you just the same. You'll be the new guy they want to have a beer with. Kinda like a smart Bush. You'll appeal not just to conservatives, but independents and Reagan Democrats too. Not even Obama can score that hat trick!

Christie: Keep talkin'....

GOP Insiders: Forget about what you've said in the past. Everyone knows politicians go back on their word. You'll say you're running because of a love of country. That you've been called to serve. That you're being told that America needs you. That, get this, this is a totally selfless move on your part!

Christie: But I...I

GOP Insiders: You'll win, man! You'll be that kid from Jersey who becomes president...of the United friggin' States! Look us in the eye and tell us you really don't want that!

Christie: Well I....

GOP Insiders: C'mon, you don't think you can beat.......Palin?!

Christie: Of course I can. She's batshit crazy.

GOP Insiders: Bachmann?

Christie: Even crazier.

GOP Insiders: Ron Paul?

Christie: See above...

GOP Insiders: Herman Cain?

Christie: Ok, now you're just wasting my time. But, I do like pizza!

GOP Insiders: Gingrich?

Christie: More skeletons in his closet than in a college anatomy lab.

GOP Insiders: Pawlenty?

Christie: (yawns) Human Ambien.

GOP Insiders: Santorum?

Christie: He's even too right wing for me!

GOP Insiders: Romney?

Christie: You mean Mr. Mormon RomneyCare?

GOP Insiders: Perry?

Christie: C'mon, that rogue cowboy wants Texas to secede from the Union!

GOP Insiders: Huntsmann?

Christie: Who?

GOP Insiders: Exactly! That's what we're trying to tell you! You can kick these losers' asses all the way home from Iowa and New Hampshire!

Christie: You're right. This is the sorriest pack of hopefuls I've ever seen. You guys are making this sound easy.

GOP Insiders: That's because it is. Listen, there's plenty of time till Iowa. Seven months. We'll immediately ready the ground troops, line up the big donors, get Rush, Sean, Beck and O'Reilly on board and start making this happen just as soon as you say Oval Office!

Christie: What about Obama?

GOP Insiders: Seriously? Can you say 'unemployment and housing crisis'?

Christie: Can you say 'Osama bin Laden'?

GOP Insiders: Oh c'mon, Chris! Don't you know how dumb most Americans are? Bush convinced them that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, and Rudy tells 'em that there were no terrorist attacks on Bush's watch. You can't make this shit up! Don't worry, our guys will effectively spin that bin Laden was tracked and killed because of Bush's aggressive policies and tactics....the very same measures Obama and the fairy libs want to dismantle and put America at grave risk again. Hell, maybe we'll even bring old "Turd Blossom" Rove back to lead that charge.

Christie: You guys really do think we can do this.

GOP Insiders: We do. And we will. This is your chance Chris. We're talking the White House, dude! State dinners! Air Force One! The history books! It's all within your grasp, big man.

Christie: Wow. I gotta say, I do feel like the hot chick at the dance! Ok, I'm in! Say it....

GOP Insiders: Say what?

Christie: 'Mr. President'. I wanna hear it. Call me Mr. President...wanna hear how it sounds.

GOP Insiders: Well of course...Mr...Mr President!

Christie: Sweet...

Too Drunk to Remember, Not Too Drunk to Be Raped?

2011-06-01T07:44:00.005-04:00

Two New York City police officers, Franklin Mata and Kenneth Moreno, were acquitted last week of rape charges brought on by a woman in 2009 who claimed they abused her while on patrol and she was highly intoxicated. The high profile case dominated the news for months. The officers were convicted of three counts of official misconduct for entering the woman's apartment. They were immediately fired by the Police Department and face up to a year in jail on each count when sentenced June 28th.

Afterwards, Moreno stood on the courtroom steps and said the woman, who's suing both cops and the city for $57 million, was "mistaken and confused," and that "she made the whole thing up." And over the weekend Moreno's wife Julia, in a colossal state of denial, expressed outrage at the accuser as well, saying she "should go to jail for this" and should "go to hell....From the beginning of time, this is what girls do -- young girls, inexperienced. They're not mature. They get drunk. They do these things and, you know, they want sympathy. In his case I believe she wanted sympathy from her friends because they threw her out of her own party."

Moreno's wife is obviously standing by her man regardless of how obvious his guilt. But she's angry at the wrong person. It was her husband who admittedly picked up the very drunk woman, took her to her apartment and then over the course of several hours re-entered her apartment three times, using her keys. He "flirted" with her, "snuggled" beside her in bed while she wore only a bra, kissed her head, and sang to her. What's more, there is a recording of a fake 911 call they made to justify returning to the apartment, and, the victim had later confronted Moreno outside his precinct while wearing a recording device. After insisting that nothing had happened, he then admitted that they "had sex" and that he had used a condom. And Ms. Moreno's angry at the victim? (By the way, she started dating Moreno when she was 18 and he was 33. I'll let you draw your own conclusions on that one...)

At the core of the defense was its claim that she was too drunk to be a credible witness, but it is precisely that state of debilitating intoxication that served as the very invitation for the officers to make their highly inappropriate and illegal entry into her apartment where she was supposedly just 'comforted' as opposed to raped. Furthermore, there was no DNA. But if she showered, or if he used a condom, that could explain the lack of physical evidence.

Moreno claimed that, as a recovering alcoholic, he was merely "counseling" her about her drinking. Did you ever watch MSNBC's "Predator" series? It investigates sexual predators as they find their underage victims (as young as 12) in online chat rooms and then travel--often driving for several hours--to meet them. Inevitably, once host Chris Hanson's sting operation nails them, they claim to be there to "mentor" these poor, vulnerable underage teens. It's crazy to think these guys want sex with children just because they engage in very graphic online chats and then show up at the door with alcohol, drugs and condoms, right?. Why is it that the bad guys are always "just there to talk?"

Are we as an intelligent society really expected to believe that Moreno simply lay aside her in her bed, innocently caressing her as he sang Bon Jovi's "Living on a Prayer" gently in her ear? It's pretty safe and fair to assume that the officers' behavior was anything but altruistic given the highly unethical nature of their presence in the her apartment in the first place. And given this suspicious backdrop, it's easy to accept the accuser's account as the truth. Don't tell me a red-blooded adult male who makes repeated trips into a drunken young woman's apartment does this with the sole intent of taking care of her. If that were the case, and she was so sick that she required professional attention, he could've and should've called paramedics to the scene or driven her straight to a hospital. I'm sorry, but Moreno wasn't there to nurse or croon. It's very unfortunate that there was no physical evidence to conclusively prove what happened.

The verdict just reinforces the ugly truth about what women will face if they accuse a man of sexual assault, especially if they're drunk and the man is a cop and he'll conveniently claim that she was too wasted to remember anything or to be taken seriously.

Democrats Win NY's 26th. Does Gingrich Have it Right?

2011-05-25T07:51:00.008-04:00

Imagine a Red Sox fan walking into a Bronx bar on game night and walking out an hour later having convinced the Yankees fans inside to root for the Sox. Pretty unthinkable, right? Well that's essentially what happened yesterday in New York's 26th Congressional District where the Democrat, Kathy Hochul, defeated her Republican opponent, Jane Corwin, in a special election in one of the state's most conservative bastions.

To give some perspective, the district, which spans from Rochester to Buffalo, has 27,000 more Republicans than Democrats, voted for John McCain over Barack Obama in 2008, and has had just three Democrats represent it in the last 150 years. The 26th is about as red as they come. In last Fall's midterm elections, the GOP incumbent, Chris Lee, won the district with 76% of the vote. The only problem for Lee was that a few months later he was caught in a cheesy shirtless pose on Craigslist trolling for babes. Gov. Andrew Cuomo then called for the special election to fill the randy Republican's seat.

Jump ahead to April when Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), Chairman of the House Budget Committee, released his controversial proposal to eliminate Medicare and replace it with a voucher system. While virtually all Republicans voted for it, most Americans are against the plan. So what Hochul shrewdly did up in Western New York was scare the bajeesus out of voters with: 'My opponent and her party will take away granny's Medicare and put her on the street with a tin cup.' And it worked, big time.

If Democrats were smart (I'm not so sure sometimes), they'd co-opt Hochul's strategy and aggressively run with it nationally all the way to November 2012. This is the absolute perfect bumper-sticker issue for them, and with it they could win many critical seats. The truth is, Americans dislike crafty politicians messin' with their large entitlement programs. And it ain't just granny and grandpappy that's pissed off. Voters, whether they're 20, 30 or 50, likely have several people in their families benefiting from Social Security and Medicare. What Ryan's plan did therefore was to commit political suicide for the Republican Party (sshhh...do you hear that sound? It's Ryan being pushed under the bus this morning by his conservative colleagues....)

So was Newt Gingrich right to come out strong two weekends ago on NBC's Meet the Press where he criticized Ryan's plan as "Right wing social engineering?" Well, the proof is in the puddin.' The Democrats' astounding victory Tuesday should not just give great pause to House Speaker John Boehner (OH), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (KY) and every other Republican (incumbent or hopeful), but should be an indication to Gingrich that maybe, just maybe, he's on the right side of a hot populist movement. My opinion? I'd say it's time to pull out that fork that so many stuck in him these past two weeks. It would be very foolish to count Newt out just yet. While he may have pissed off every Republican politician in Washington, his position seems to resonate among the majority of Republican voters. Call me crazy, but that's what matters on election day.

Some Tough Love for Dog Owners

2011-05-24T07:48:00.005-04:00

Let me first say that I am the proud owner of the most adorable German Shepard/Rottweiler mix. Priscilla's 10-years-old (or the cutest 70-year-old, depending on your choice of math) and sweet as pie. Two years ago I had to put down my Yellow Lab Elvis Pawsley (yes, I guess that makes me Colonel Tom). I've had dogs my whole life, including Ralph and Barney. I'm a dog lover. What I don't love is most dog owners. Living in a big, densely populated city like New York requires a certain level of consideration for others, yet it is dog owners who are some of the biggest violators.

Dog owners are just like parents of small children. In fact to them, their dog is their child. Instead of playgrounds they go to dog parks and stand around with other dog owners and talk about their "kids" the same as parents do. They ask meaningless questions like "What's her name?" How old is she!? "Did ya get him from a breeder?," as if they really care. I mean, do they really care if Buster is 6 and hails from Beacon, NY? And they believe that we think everything their dog does is utterly fascinating, just as parents think everything their kid does is mind-numbingly interesting. "Hey, wasn't that awesome how my kid just punched your kid in the face!?" Um, not really....

But I really don't mind any of that behavior, no matter how odd it may be. What I do mind is when, outside of a dog run, owners act as if their dog can do anything it wants, anywhere it wants, and we're still supposed to think it's phenomenal. So to enlighten you dog owners who remain clueless as to how to behave amidst your fellow New Yorkers, here's a few tips:

1. Please don't let Oscar piss on the sidewalk three feet from my table at an outdoor cafe. I know your pooch's urine has an incredibly artistic yellowishness to it, and the muscle definition when he lifts his leg is Shwarzenegger-like, but I'm eating my freakin' lunch and don't want to see it. Any of it. Same goes for pooping. News flash: merely picking up your dog's crap doesn't mean you haven't left behind a nice little sidewalk souvenir for the rest of us. Walk past the cafe next time and then let your dog relieve himself.

2. Please curb your dog, or at least walk on the edge of the sidewalk closest to the street. It never ceases to amaze me how people walk down the middle of the sidewalk with their dog and then it urinates or poops right there as people almost step in it. The city's streets are filthy enough. We don't want animal waste on the bottom of our or our kids' shoes, on the wheels of our kids' strollers, shopping carts and bikes.

3. Please keep your dog on a leash. We all know you're the Dog Whisperer and deserve major props for training your dog to wander down Broadway untethered, but there's lots of little kids who are terrified of dogs. And besides, it's against the law.

4. Please be mindful of where your dog is going when you use one of those 20-foot extension leashes. I almost tripped and cracked my skull the other day when your little buddy's leash got wrapped around my legs when he was doing his sidewalk gymnastics.

5. I don't mind you bringing your dog to sit with you at any outdoor cafe. But, if he's gonna yap and scream like a toddler, then please leave. If I wanted to eat my pancakes while dogs bark their heads off I'd go to a kennel. News flash: your dog's not cute when he yelps non-stop. He's annoying.

6. I am not amused when your horny Dominique Strauss-Kahn of a beast mounts and humps my Priscilla. When you see that look on my dog's face like "This ain't consensual," that would be a great time to yank him off her.

Daniels Out. Time for Scarborough?

2011-05-23T07:45:00.006-04:00

Back in September 2009 I wrote a piece on why MSNBC's Joe Scarborough would be a viable threat to President Obama in the 2012 election:

"Scarborough's been smartly playing the moderate card lately, which is not what we can say for some of the other 2012 "front-runners" like Palin, Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee. These guys are so fringe in their ideology that they could never appeal to the all-important middle."

Those words ring even truer today as the pack of Republican hopefuls still primarily comprises either the most radical group of Tea Baggin' loons like Gingrich, Palin, and Michelle Bachmann or snoozers like Tim Pawlenty. Mike Huckabee, Donald Trump and Mitch Daniels are out of the race, leaving the supposed front-runner status to Mitt Romney. But he has several major obstacles to overcome, including his Mormon faith, his own ObamaCare-like program while Massachusetts governor, and the fact that he's already lost once before. And while the GOP is desperate to have "attractive" candidates like New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie or former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsmann Jr. run, the ground clearly remains quite fertile for an outsider like Scarborough to toss his fleece into the ring.

The word on the street is that Huntsmann's the GOP's best bet. Also a Mormon, he was appointed by Obama and served as U.S. Ambassador to China from 2009 to April of this year. He's a fiscal conservative who backed Obama's economic stimulus, and has moderate views on civil unions, immigration and the environment. But the mountain he has to climb is quite steep. He has zero name recognition, lacks major charisma, worked for Obama and is seen by many in the party as too "liberal." As the Conservative Daily News wrote, "What did Jon Huntsman, Jr. forget, you ask? Simple, he forgot conservatism. Huntsman has mastered the art of pandering to his inner liberal. He maintains a sterling record in fiscal matters but has a nasty habit of straying from conservative principles."

This tepid support from the right to the current GOP pack should convince Scarborough that the party faithful is waiting for a skilled politician with personality and name-recognition to enter the race. Someone who is centrist enough to attract independents without offending the base, and tough enough to face an incumbent president whose popularity is growing.

When Did the Truth Become 'Gotcha' Journalism?

2011-05-19T07:49:00.002-04:00

Tina Fey recently hosted Saturday Night Live and resurrected her brilliant impersonation of Sarah Palin in a 2012 Republican presidential debate skit in which The Wasilla Wonder incredulously declares "I just hope the lamestream media won’t twist my words by repeatin’ em verbatim."

SNL and Fey were of course spoofing the real Palin, who has made many such accusations of media foul-play, including over her most embarrassing encounter when famously asked by Katie Couric what books and magazines she reads. That interview was the beginning of the end for Palin's 2008 vice presidential bid.

And just this week, as his 2012 presidential candidacy appeared to be imploding, the real Newt Gingrich, when asked by Fox News' Greta Van Susteren about his $500,000 Tiffany credit card balance, refused to answer and claimed he won't play "gotcha games."

Gingrich also this week defended his disastrous "Meet the Press" interview Sunday morning--in which he attacked the GOP, Rep. Paul Ryan and his Medicare plan--by claiming "I didn't go in there quite hostile enough, because it didn't occur to me going in that you'd have a series of setups. This wasn't me randomly saying things. These were very deliberate efforts to pick fights." Poor Newt. He maintains he was blindsided by the very crafty David Gregory and had no idea what to expect from this liberal attack show. You'd think that after appearing on the program 35 times he'd know what he was walking into.

When the proverbial shit hit the fan and his campaign appeared to be detonating after just one week, Gingrich, after telling Van Susteren he "made a mistake" in attacking Ryan's plan, then arrogantly declared "on the record" that any ad that an opponent might use against him which includes his actual "Meet the Press" comments will therefore be a lie. Jon Stewart summed up Gingrich's convoluted philosophy this way: "If you quote me directly utilizing videotape of my comments in context, you're lying!"

The Daily Show - Fast Dive
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

What is it with these Republicans and the truth? What exactly is "gotcha" about being held accountable for the idiotic things that come out of their mouths? We live in a digital age of 24/7 news coverage. Where anything and everything will end up on YouTube. But it's not the media that's responsible for making people like Palin, Gingrich, Donald Trump, Michele Bachmann and countless others look foolish. They do that all by themselves simply by speaking. To quote my late father Sol, the master of the malapropism, I say to these Republican dummies...If ya don't like the truth, get outta the kitchen.

Still Think Schwarzenegger's Not a Serial Groper?

2011-05-18T07:10:00.008-04:00

He's a liar, a cheater, a home-wrecker and a predator. No, I'm not referring to the 1987 sci-fi action pic he starred in, but more likely a sexual predator. After the explosive revelation this week that former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger fathered a love-child with a household employee about 13 years ago, it should erase all doubt about whether he in fact was guilty, as accused in 2005, of groping many women over the course of his 30-year bodybuilding and acting career.

Schwarzenegger's newest bombshell is not much of a shock in political circles, especially those out west. Rumors of affairs and children swirled around him during the 2005 campaign against incumbent Gov. Gray Davis. But those rumors were quickly dwarfed by the groping scandal in which fifteen women came forward with allegations of sexual attacks against them at gyms, movie sets, production facilities and elsewhere. Schwarzenegger and his camp vociferously denied the charges, and his wife Maria Shriver went to bat for him as well in what many experts believe was a campaign-saving defense. He went on to win the election and served two terms until 2011 when Jerry Brown became governor again after first serving in that office from 1975-1983.

So here's what happened: somewhere around 1988 Arnold had sex with the worker, Mildred Baena, now 50, and she became pregnant with his baby. She recently left the job after serving twenty years with the family. The affair, pregnancy and eventual birth of their son was kept secret from Shriver--who was said to be pregnant with her son Christopher at the same time as Baena--and the rest of the family until Schwarzenegger's recent revelation. He and Shriver officially announced their separation last week after twenty-five years of marriage. Apparently, this tawdry episode was chief among the reasons for the split.

It's easy to feel sympathetic towards Shriver, who's clearly dealing with a highly emotional, humiliating public scandal. No one likes to see anyone suffer like that, and my heart goes out to her and her five children. But I also can't help feeling for those fifteen women who her husband allegedly molested. Women whose reputations were attacked and whose lives were forever changed by the man Shriver so loyally defended as they both sought even more fame and power than they already had. You can't tell me that on some very visceral level Shriver did not know of or at the very least suspect the sort of lewd behavior of which Arnold was likely guilty. I'm not at all saying she's responsible for this new love-child scandal, but she certainly helped feed the beast. What goes around comes around.

Donald Trump Announces He's Not Running for President and Will Be Going Back to Simply Annoying Business People

2011-05-16T07:21:00.001-04:00

On April 15th I wrote: "But let's be very clear about one thing: Trump has absolutely no desire or intention of becoming president. His ego is too grandiose, and his appetite for money too rapacious, to forfeit the self-serving spoils of his capitalistic kingdom to serve the little people for a mere peon's wages while having to answer to anyone other than himself....So what Trump's campaign boils down to is a charade. It's a game he's playing, which is serving to feed that massive Id of his while affording him an even greater soapbox from which he can regurgitate his narrow-minded, inane bile."

With little fanfare and certainly to no surprise here, Trump on Monday officially announced that he will not be running for president. Here's a snippet from his press release:

"After considerable deliberation and reflection, I have decided not to pursue the office of the presidency," Trump said in a statement. "This decision does not come easily or without regret; especially when my potential candidacy continues to be validated by ranking at the top of the Republican contenders in polls across the country. ... Ultimately, however, business is my greatest passion and I am not ready to leave the private sector."

Apparently, even he's grown tired of the self-aggrandizing hoax through which he's flung enough ignorant, racist bile to fill 100 KKK meetings. But to be sure, Trump got what he wanted: he was able to have the spotlight shine on him for months as he flirted with a possible candidacy and was able to spew all sorts of mania-driven garbage. But in the process he caused serious, irreversible harm to his political standing and overall reputation. It was simply delicious to watch him squirm in anger and humiliation at the recent White House Correspondents dinner. God bless you Seth Meyers.

Trump, who has the dubious distinction of making Charlie Sheen seem calm, cool and collected, attempted to take President Obama down through a relentless, race-baiting "birther" and "schooler" campaign designed to delegitimize him and his presidency. Had it not been for the killing of Osama bin Laden, who knows how far Trump's reprehensible charade would have gone. Timing is everything, right? With Obama's approval ratings nearing 60%, and with the release of his birth certificate which served to embarrass and prove Trump wrong, it would seem that only the business world, and those who watch "The Apprentice," will have to put up with his massive ego going forward. Thankfully, he's been run out of Washington and the nightly news...

Hey Newt, Can We ask You Sex Questions Under Oath?

2011-05-12T08:17:00.000-04:00

Newt Gingrich took to his smart phone Wednesday with the following message on Twitter: "Today I am announcing my candidacy for President of the United States. You can watch my announcement here." He included a link to his website video message, thus becoming the first politician to use the 143-character medium to announce a run for the White House.

The 67-year-old serial philanderer apparently thinks that Tweeting makes him cool somehow, or that he hopes the audience it reaches is under the age of thirty and clueless as to his cheating, race-baiting ways....and will see him simply as a wise old grandfatherly Republican Party stalwart who still brags of family values despite his extra-marital affairs, kinky sex fantasies, married-man-stealing wife and multiple political corruption scandals.

When asked recently by Fox News host Chris Wallace whether or not he's a hypocrite for leading the 1990's charge to remove Bill Clinton from office over his marital transgressions at the same time he himself was having an affair, Gingrich's reply was that it wasn't about cheating per se but of lying under oath, which Clinton did about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

Let's get this straight: Newt wasn't attacking/judging Clinton for cheating, but merely asked him about the cheating, which then boxed him into a humiliating corner over it, and then zapped him with legality when he lied about it under oath. Pretty convoluted justification, if I must say.

So now that Gingrich has announced his candidacy for president, I say he should agree to be held to the same standards as those he imposed on Clinton. He should be subjected to a hearing where he is sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth...so help him god. A lie-detector test should follow. In both, he should be asked the following:

-how many times have you cheated on your first wife?
-how many times have you cheated on your second wife?
-have you cheated on your current wife, Callista?
-Is there anyone on your staff you'd like to have sex with?
-Have you ever had a homosexual fantasy or any kind of sexual encounter with a man?

Wouldn't we just love to see the answers. Whattya say, Newt? What's good for the goose is good for the Gingrich...

Gingrich to Portray his Serial Philandering as a Political Asset

2011-05-11T07:16:00.010-04:00

So the man who crucified Bill Clinton over his cheating in the 1990's is about to announce that he will run for president despite having enough skeletons in his closet to fill a college anatomy lab. Newt Gingrich, the former House Speaker who never met a vagina he didn't like, the man who said he's previously cheated out of patriotism, will officially announce his candidacy Wednesday, planning to turn a lifetime of tail-chasing into a political asset.

I for one am thrilled that Gingrich is running, as I promise to be on him like a Republican Congressman on a House page. We'll relentlessly hound him for cheating on and shamelessly dumping two ailing wives. For having an affair with his much older high school teacher and his 22-years younger aide. For asking wife #2, Marianne, to "tolerate" his tawdry affair with future wife #3 Callista in some sick, kinky open-marriage fantasy. We'll resurrect the 1982 House Banking scandal and his 22 bounced checks. We'll remind everyone of the 1984 and 1995 book scandals and dust off the GOPAC scandal and illegal use of non-profit funds for political purposes. We'll expose his family-values hypocrisy 'round the clock like a McDonald's drive-thru, and slap him so hard with his lewd past that he'll feel like he went 15 rounds with Mike Tyson.

Gingrich, who now wants America to forgive and forget his multiple selfish marital transgressions and political scandals, is re-casting himself as a God-fearing, devout Catholic pillar of family-values who intends to pimp out his trophy wife Callista as proof that his once-roving shmecky has also found God.

As he attempts to portray himself and Callista as some sort of modern-day wart-plagued Ozzie and Harriet, Gingrich is either very stupid or thinks we are. The man who over the last three years has helped lead the chorus of "Obama's a radical" is himself as radical as they come, and his wife intentionally had sex with another woman's husband; a very sick woman, no less. Not exactly presidential and First Lady material.

Gingrich's cavalier attitude and delusions of grandeur borders on the pathological. When Marianne once accused him of being a hypocrite because he was cheating on her with Callista while grandstanding on family values, Newt replied: "It doesn't matter what I do. People need to hear what I have to say. There's no one else who can say what I say. It doesn't matter what I live." Au contraire Romeo, I think you're soon gonna find out just how much it does matter how you've lived.

While Gingrich may suffer from a colossal case of short memory and hypocrisy, I suspect conservatives in general will laugh, even scoff, at his pathetic fantasy of occupying the White House. Redemption's a bitch, Newt.

9 Years, 234 Days Later: What bin Laden's Death Means to America

2011-05-03T07:23:00.003-04:00

Make no mistake: the death of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, is a monumental military and psychological victory for our great nation and for all Americans. It marks the end of the biggest criminal manhunt in history, presents us with an opportunity for unity, and to experience some sense of satisfaction as we continue to mourn the loss of 3000 victims and heal the still-open wounds.

Much has been said and written about the reaction here at home as news began to spread late Sunday evening that a Unites States mission led by Navy Seals killed bin Laden at his $1-million fortress/mansion in a suburb just 35 miles outside of Pakistan's capital (quite contrary to the belief these past ten years that he'd been desperately living like a hunted animal in a remote cave). Hundreds of people, largely college students and young people, immediately descended upon the White House, Times Square, Ground Zero and other locations throughout the country. While they rallied and cheered in jubilant celebration of the death of this monster, others have decried such revelry and likened it to the shameful dancing and glee that took place on the streets in middle eastern countries following the attacks ten years ago.

It's hard to make comparisons between then and now, as the deaths that were celebrated back in September 2001 were of innocent people, while bin Laden was a mass murderer who deserved to die. Additionally, it's unfair to judge anyone under these trying circumstances. Those who've lost loved ones to violence view life, and death, through a much different lens. It's easy to understand how victims of deadly crimes could desire vengeance and vindication. It's easy to understand their celebration over the death of those who kill. It's the biblical "eye for an eye." That other Americans who have indirectly been affected by the 9/11 attacks also joyously celebrate bin Laden's death is understandable as well.

To be sure, bin Laden and his actions forever changed the U.S landscape in so many ways. His impact can be felt in virtually every aspect of American life, from politics and finance to travel and homeland security. Since the 9/11 attacks, we've been forced to live in fear when we fly, board a train, stand in the subways. That the architect of this terror had half his face blown off is justice served to many. Like Hitler during the 1930's and 40's, bin Laden was responsible for mass death and atrocities, and was our #1 enemy. It's ok to cheer and celebrate his death. We killed our enemy before he could kill us. The joy is more like a collective sigh of relief that maybe this reign of terror, if not over, will abate somewhat. And if our great nation, which has been royally kicked in the ass since the 9/11 attacks--made worse by the worst financial crisis in over 80 years--has a brief opportunity to feel victorious and proud, what's wrong with that?

But it's also completely understandable to view such revelry as uncouth and un-American. Celebrating the death of anyone is not supposed to be something which causes elation and high-fives. We are supposed to be above that. Civility and the rule of law is what really makes America great. But things are very complicated in the post 9/11 world. Grief comes in many different flavors, and everyone experiences it differently. So we must understand and accept the myriad reactions to bin Laden's death without judgement, and at least agree that America and the world is a better place without him.

"The Motherf**ker with the Hair"

2011-04-30T11:11:00.008-04:00

No, its not the new Broadway play starring Chris Rock and Bobby Cannevale. Rather, its the new horror show starring Mr. Dreadful Hair himself, Donald Trump.

The megalomaniac buffoon with the urine-colored mane, whose recent manic antics have made Charlie Sheen look sane (poetic, right?), took his Violent Torpedo of Bullshit Tour to Las Vegas Thursday and spoke before an audience of Tea Baggin' Troglodytes who cheered and applauded as His Royal Doucheness spewed more of his race-baiting rhetoric, this time about China:

"Listen you motherfuckers, we're gonna tax you 25%."

Nothing says White House like "motherfucker", right? Not that I thought for one minute that Trump was actually going to officially run for president, but it should now be clear, even to his most loyal batshit crazy supporters, that he's got about as much chance of announcing his candidacy as Sheen.

To be sure, what we've seen this week is a man whose ego is so boated, his head so massive, that it literally exploded in a fit of narcissistic mania. Trump's image and precious brand, let alone his business interests, will suffer as a result. I and others have called for a boycott of his TV show, casinos, hotels, condos and clothing line, and we're already starting to see the fallout from advertisers over his despicable vitriolic racist attacks on President Obama. Internet couponer Groupon announced it's pulling its ads from "The Celebrity Apprentice" website. I suspect, and hope, there'll be more to follow. Payback's a bitch.

Boycott Trump

2011-04-29T07:12:00.002-04:00

As a big fat thank you for his relentless attacks on Barack Obama, for disrespecting the office of the presidency and for his despicable accusations regarding Obama's citizenship and college records, we should boycott anything and everything Donald Trump. It's time to send a clear message to this race-baiting, arrogant, self-aggrandizing fool that what he's been doing in his attempts to delegitimize Obama's presidency is not only irresponsible and reprehensible, but unpatriotic as well. For that there must be a price to pay. And what would hurt Trump most is a swift kick to his ego and his wallet.

So what I propose is this: if you've been offended by the unconscionable claims Mr. Dreadful Hair has made regarding Obama's birth certificate and his Columbia and Harvard degrees, stop watching Trump's reality show "The Apprentice." Let the show fail. Show him and NBC that it's not ok to do and say anything to attack our president, especially in such a manner intended to stoke the flames of hatred and racism.

Stop going to Trump's casinos in Atlantic City, which are listed here. There are plenty of other casinos which are owned and run by decent people who probably don't question Obama's citizenship or whether he's properly earned his degrees.

Stop buying Trump's Signature Collection clothing line. Do you really want the brand of ignorance and anti-Americanism stamped on your back now?

Stop staying at Trump Hotels in New York, Chicago, Las Vegas and Hawaii. There are so many respectable hotel chains who'd happily take your money while not claiming that President Obama's an illegal alien who cheated his way through college and grad school.

Take a stand, America, and let Donald Trump know that there are consequences to his shameful actions. Let's see how proud and honored we can really make him.

Obama Releases his Birth Certificate, and America Loses

2011-04-27T20:39:00.007-04:00

April 27, 2011. Mark it down in your calendars as the day the racists and the crazies in America won. A day that should embarrass anyone with human decency and love of country. The day the office of the United States Presidency lost some of its respect and prestige. The day Barack Obama acquiesced to the radical Republican fringe lunatics and released his long-form birth certificate to conclusively prove his citizenship and hopefully put an end to the despicable campaign, led by Donald Trump, to deligitimize him.

It's a shame and a disgrace to our great nation that the Birther movement existed in the first place, as it is little more than a thinly veiled disguise for the obvious racism behind it. The ignorant, narrow-minded bigots fueling this campaign simply refuse to accept the outcome of the 2008 election; that there's a black family in the White House and a black man in the Oval Office. Anyone who thinks differently is incredibly naive and in denial. But what's more disheartening and quite frankly shocking than the movement itself is that Obama, while commanding three wars and battling a still-struggling economy, felt compelled to dignify these loons with the release of the document. If the president truly believes the Birthers will now be quieted, then, incredibly, he's the one in denial.

When asked in New Hampshire Wednesday about the release of Obama's long-form birth certificate (the short form is the official version in Hawaii and which the president released 2 1/2 years ago), Trump signaled that the controversy is far from over:

"I have done a great service to the American people...I'm really proud of myself. I was able to get something accomplished that no one else was able to get accomplished..." and that he still needs to "look at it" to determine if its genuine. Trump then ignored requests by reporters, including CNN's John King in a later interview, to review a copy of the document. He chose to sign autographs instead. And what's he so proud of, that he orchestrated a smear that was proven utterly unfounded?

To be sure, Trump does not want this conspiracy theory to go away, even when presented with the document which should have resulted in one simple response: 'Great, it''s over. Now let's move on to much more pressing matters facing the country today'...and followed by an apology. But that would mean he'd have to now start answering to voters, the media and his GOP counterparts in addressing Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, the Middle East crisis, the economy, jobs, housing, Medicare/Medicaid and other critical subjects instead of relentlessly and shamelessly attacking Obama while stoking the fires of hatred. Do you honestly think Trump's reprehensible rhetoric will now stop? If you do, I have a timeshare in Syria to sell you.

So what's next for Trump? Besides a likely continuance of this Birther crap, expect an amped-up attack on Obama's college credentials. And don't be surprised if Obama's Christianity comes into question again as well. No, Trump's scam won't end, because he simply can't be wrong. His outsize ego won't allow him that human quality. This narcissistic blowhard will continue to spin the release of the document as his victory, much in the same way the Bushies spun the absence of WMD in Iraq as proof that they once existed and were therefore obviously moved or destroyed.

I hate to say it, but on April 27, 2011 Donald Trump, the King of the Racist Crazies, won while Obama and America lost. While some will claim the opposite, the truth is, Trump succeeded in getting the President of the United States to respond to his outlandishly offensive accusations. The office should be above that.

I'd also say it's time to turn up the heat on Trump. Let's demand to see his his tax returns, college records and birth certificate. It's time we learn just how rich he really is, or not. I suspect that Fred Trump's kid, who was born on 3rd base and thinks he hit a triple, might not be as wealthy as he portrays himself. It's time for him to put up or shut up.

What Do Donald Trump and Charlie Sheen Have in Common?

2011-04-26T07:25:00.010-04:00

Dear Mr Trump:
Have you gone mad? Your behavior lately is very disturbing. It seems as though your brain has crossed a very critical line between common decency and insanity. And it's becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish between you and Charlie Sheen. You're the Manic Episode Twins.

Can we please have the old Donald Trump back? You know, the pompous, arrogant, showboating, self-promotion whore with the alien hair and ego so large that it makes you say things like "I would get beautiful women even if I had no money" (I'm still chuckling at that one). Where is the highly annoying but harmless buffoon who simply craves attention but is rational, intelligent, patriotic, pro-choice and a former supporter of many of President Obama's policies ? Where did that guy go?

What we have today instead is the new-and-not-improved Donald Trump who's barreling down the road to the White House at 120 MPH, crazy yellow hair flappin' in the wind, screaming all sorts of hyperbolic, irrational and despicable slurs out the window at the president.

First is was the Birther nonsense, with your shameful race-baiting attacks concerning Obama's citizenship. Though I never thought it possible, this
relentless campaign has made you even more of an unlikeable creep than ever before.

And now comes your latest missive, demanding to see Obama's Columbia and Harvard records because you have reason to believe (100% unfounded, of course) that there's some funny business with his degrees.

"I heard he was a terrible student, terrible," Trump said Monday in an Associated Press interview. "How does a bad student go to Columbia and then to Harvard? I'm thinking about it, I'm certainly looking into it. Let him show his records...we don't know anything about this guy."

Really? We don't know anything about Barack Obama? Not from his two books detailing his character, philosophies and life? Not from his years at Columbia and Harvard, where he was the first black editor of the prestigious Law Review? Not from his years as a community organizer? A law professor? Or from his time in the Illinois State Senate? The U.S. Senate? President? Through his Nobel Peace Prize? Tell us, Mr. Dreadful Hair, what exactly do you not know about Barack Obama?

Trump, how could you steep so unfathomably low? Is your ego so bloated and your appetite for the spotlight so insatiable that you'll say anything to tear down and delegitimize Obama no matter how hurtful, untrue and disgusting your accusations? Don't you ever wonder why you get booed at Knicks games or when you walk down the street? I've personally witnessed that. A normal person would be embarrassed and humiliated. You don't seem to give a shit. It's like you have ice water running through your veins. You personify the mantra, 'there's no such thing as bad publicity.'

You are acting like a very bad, mean, nasty man. An insecure man with something to prove. A crazy man. Like Charlie Sheen crazy. Neither of you seems to know right from wrong these days, and you're both on very self-destructive paths.

Donald Trump Doesn't Know Reality From Reality TV

2011-04-15T07:21:00.010-04:00

Donald Trump ought to be ashamed of himself. The apparent front runner for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination has given new birth to the wacko "Birther" movement and is reprehensibly stoking the flames of racism in America. The man who claims "I have a great relationship with the blacks" is doing everything in his power to piss off blacks as he despicably tries to tear down and delegitimize the only president they've ever had (and, just who are "the blacks" anyway? That he could even choose these words to make his point shows a supreme lack of judgment and perhaps something more telling).

By demanding at every turn to see Obama's birth certificate--despite his citizenship having been confirmed by Hawaii's Governor and other state officials countless times--Trump is playing a very dangerous race card and is masterfully avoiding having to talk about jobs, the economy and every other critical issue facing voters today. And not surprisingly, his reward for doing so is his leading position in the polls among all other GOP presidential hopefuls, including the supposed front-runner Mitt Romney.

But let's be very clear about one thing: Trump has absolutely no desire or intention of becoming president. His ego is too grandiose, and his appetite for money too rapacious, to forfeit the self-serving spoils of his capitalistic kingdom to serve the little people for a mere peon's wages while having to answer to anyone other than himself. No, public servant is not what Donald Trump aspires to on any conceivable level.

So what Trump's campaign boils down to is a charade. It's a game he's playing, which is serving to feed that massive Id of his while affording him an even greater soapbox from which he can regurgitate his narrow-minded, inane bile.

But this is no game. The 2012 election is very serious business, and Trump is making a mockery of it. The nation struggles to fight three wars and put 14-million people back to work while reducing its tremendous debt. But Trump's a one-trick pony. Obama's lineage is the only thing he'll talk about, and he'll figure out a way to dwell on it regardless of the question. Ask him 'what time it is' and he'll tell you 'it's time for Obama to show his birth certificate.'

Trump's personal attack on Obama has been relentless and full of sweeping accusations: "He's been a horrible president. I always said the worst president was Jimmy Carter. Guess what? Jimmy Carter goes to second place. Barack Obama has been the worst president ever. In the history of this country, Barack Obama is number one." Really? Worse than James Buchanan? Warren G. Harding? Richard M. Nixon? Perhaps what Trump really means, what he really wants to say, what he may deep down think a majority of Tea Baggers believe, is that Obama is not the worst president per se, but certainly the darkest. And that's precisely the lowest common denominator that he's playing to.

Trump is clearly a man who cannot distinguish reality TV from reality. He's a first-rate carnival barker who craves attention and injects himself into every public story possible. The New York Mets are in trouble? Trump announces he'll buy the team, only to disappear after the headlines do. Controversial Muslim Community Center near Ground Zero? Trump announces he'll buy the building, yet disappears again once the news fades. Tavern on the Green bankrupt? Trump briefly to the rescue again. Announcing his candidacy for president simply follows this narcissistic, exploitative pattern. And there's no human being with a more fitting name. The man is simply a self-aggrandising publicity addict who must out-trump even himself with each new disingenuous announcement. Trump sees a camera and microphone the way most men see a woman. It's what he lusts after.

Trump was recently asked if he'll show his financials. "When Obama shows his birth certificate," he snapped. Yet recently he bragged about his wealth and said he would show everything:"I look very much forward to showing my financials, because they are huge. Far bigger than anyone knows. Far bigger than anyone would understand." But perhaps those very financials aren't as impressive as he boasts, and to the contrary, might offer a glimpse into why there are multiple bankruptcies on his corporate resume. Just sayin'...

To be sure, what Trump wants and what Trump is getting from this illegitimate presidential flirtation is free press, for himself and for his empire, which he's vehemently denied doing despite his clear attempts at self-promotion: ..."The fact is, a lot of people in the polls don't vote for me, because they think I'm just having a good time. They think that I'm promoting "Celebrity Apprentice" which I'm absolutely not. And you just told me how good the ratings are in "Celebrity Apprentice." I don't need this...I am thinking of saying on the live finale of "The Apprentice" on May 22 that in a few days I will be making an announcement about my decision."

Of the sitting president he so shamelessly vilifies, Trump said: "I want him to do well. ... I love this country, but this country is going to hell. ... The world laughs at us. They won't be laughing if I'm elected president." Sorry Donald, they're already laughing at you, and you haven't even officially stepped into the ring yet.

Newsflash: What Comes Out of a Politician's Mouth is Not to Be Considered "Factual!"

2011-04-14T07:34:00.010-04:00

The Daily Show
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

In a speech last week on the Senate floor as the deadline to avoid a government shutdown neared, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) argued the case for ending federal funding of Planned Parenthood:

"Everybody goes to clinics, to hospitals, to doctors, and so on. Some people go to Planned Parenthood. But you don’t have to go to Planned Parenthood to get your cholesterol or your blood pressure checked. If you want an abortion, you go to Planned Parenthood, and that’s well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does."

The problem with Kyl's point is that it's entirely wrong. Abortions account for just 3% of Planned Parenthood's overall activities, most of which involve performing critical cancer screenings, HIV tests, family planning and general health care for millions of women. But what's 87 percentage points among friends, right?

When this fact was pointed out to Kyl, his office issued the most astonishing BS ever to hit DC: the Senator's 90% figure "was not intended to be a factual statement but rather to illustrate that Planned Parenthood, an organization that receives millions in taxpayer dollars, does subsidize abortions."

I'm not sure what's more unbelievable: that they're attempting to wave off this humiliating misstep this way, or that they're disingenuously continuing to claim that federal funds are used to pay for abortions at Planned Parenthood, or anywhere else for that matter. The Hyde Amendment of 1976 clearly prohibits such funding, and Republicans, especially Kyl, know that.

In the days since Kyl's now-infamous gaffe he's been criticized and mocked within political circles and the media. In Thursday's NY Times, columnist Gail Collins writes that Kyl's colossal error and then lame attempt to explain it will be the most significant thing he's remembered for after he retires next year. She might be right, much like future Hall of Famer Bill Buckner, the Golden Glove former first baseman for the Boston Red Sox, will forever be remembered for allowing the Mets' Mookie Wilson's grounder to pass through his legs in Game 6 of the 1986 World Series. History can be a cruel mutha sometimes.

But here's the thing: is anyone really surprised by Kyl's remarks? By his gargantuan inaccuracy? By his whitewashing of it all? Given how the political landscape has been so duplicitously manicured for the past forty years or so, is it really that shocking that a politician would blatantly lie and then feebly attempt to cover it up? Honestly, what's all the fuss about?

Perhaps I'm just different from most folks. Maybe I just expect all politicians to lie and deny. So when they do, rather than be upset I'm actually happy...for they've not let me down.

An Open Letter to Hillary Clinton

2011-04-13T07:54:00.011-04:00

Dear Madam Secretary:
I'm gonna cut right to the chase. Everyone knows you've always wanted to be president. You campaigned ferociously in 2008, and I faithfully supported you, as did 18-million other Democrats. In fact, you garnered more popular votes (48%) than your rival Barack Obama (47%), who beat you by amassing more delegates. So now you're faced with a huge dilemma: enter the 2012 race or wait until 2016. I think I speak for millions of Democrats in saying your time is now.

Democrats, especially the progressive Obamacons who were the president's most loyal supporters on his road to the White House, are extremely frustrated and angry with him and his administration. They were promised and expected "change you can believe in" and instead got "change that never came." They were told to "hope" and now they're being told how awesome it is that we have "the largest spending cuts in history" as if that is a fulfilled campaign promise. They thought they were buying a new model of Democratic leadership and were instead sold a used version of centrism and ideological abandonment. And now they want change, alright, and it's in the form of someone else.

For Democrats, it's no longer "change we can believe in," but "a candidate we can believe in." Democrats want someone who has a vision for America. Someone who knows what he or she believes in. Someone who is ready to fight like an animal to push that agenda through. Someone who isn't afraid of Republicans.

The world has changed drastically since 2008. Our nation's economy still struggles, as do the 14-million people who are unemployed. The global economy is no better. Oil and gas prices are at record levels, as is America's budget deficit. While corporate profits are sky high, consumer confidence is anemic. We're now embroiled in three wars, and there's unprecedented volatility in the Middle East and elsewhere. And now we have a Republican-controlled House of Representatives that seeks to decimate funding for Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, Planned Parenthood, the Environmental Protection Agency, energy, the arts, education, scientific research, fuel efficiency, technology innovation and other critical programs and investments in our nation's future....while they preserve substantial subsidies to corporations and tax cuts for the rich. Now more than ever we need a president who can protect America's interests abroad while protecting the elderly, the children, the sick, the poor, the environment and culture here at home. We need a passionate, effective leader.

To be sure, many Democrats have lost faith in Obama's ability to be that leader. Campaign promise after campaign promise has been broken, and the president's decisions seem more designed to ensure his re-election--by making independents happy--than by delivering on his promises to those who put him in office the first time around. Even Republicans are surprised to see the supposed "most liberal president in history" embrace the center so comfortably. The only real thing this president seems to stand for is his own legacy. That's why he wasted a year of precious political capital on health care reform (in which he caved under pressure and abandoned its central element, the public option) instead of job growth and the economy, and is now bragging about budget cuts.

In the process, Obama's turned off those he will need most in 2012. Progressives. Seniors. Blacks. Young people. Gays. Teachers. Union workers. Artists. All those once-loyal Obamacons who gave their hearts, their souls, their money, their time and ran to the polls to give him the delegates he needed to occupy the Oval Office. Millions of them will run no more for Obama. They've grown dejected and disillusioned, as evidenced by the president's low approval ratings which average in the mid-40's. All of this could spell disaster for Obama, and the party, in 2012.

But they're not ready to give up hope just yet, Secretary Clinton. Not ready to give up on the Democratic Party. There's at least 18-million people out there who'd passionately support you yet again. And the truth is, there are many of those 17-million Obama voters who'd shift their votes to you in a heartbeat should you challenge him in next year's primaries. If you run, Democrats will run right behind you.

Secretary Clinton, fate is knocking on your door. Your time has come. And that time is 2012, not 2016. If a weakened Obama should lose to a Republican next year, and that incumbent Republican benefits from a strengthening economy and jobs market, 2016 may be a fait accompli for the GOP. That would mean 2020, when you'd be 72, would be your next real opportunity. While I think being the first woman president would be an amazing historical feat to accomplish--just as Obama became our first black president--I don't think being the oldest elected president is as appealing to you or to voters.

Your best shot at the White House is now. And it's when your party, and your country, need you most. I understand and appreciate that it's not customary for a top politician, especially such a high-profile cabinet member, to run against her party's sitting president. But this is about country. It's about doing what's right for Democrats and the agenda we so desperately need to protect from further erosion and Obama sell-outs. Hillary, America needs you. Please consider our urgent call for 2012. Thank you on behalf of Americans everywhere.

Andy Ostroy
Editor & Publisher
The Ostroy Report
New York, NY

The GOP's Pro-Abortion Stand

2011-04-08T20:28:00.008-04:00

As evidenced by the budget showdown that took place last week in Washington, the Republican Party is doing everything in its power to ensure that there are more abortions than ever in the years to come. In its effort to slash billions in what it calls "government waste," the GOP's been fighting to end funding to Planned Parenthood on the duplicitous grounds that federal money should not be used to pay for the controversial procedure. What their fiery rhetoric doesn't include is the fact that no federal monies have been spent on abortions since the Hyde Amendment was passed in 1976 prohibiting such funding. So when House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (VA) goes on television, as he did on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, and says that the fight over Planned Parenthood is because federal funds shouldn't be used for abortions, he's outright lying. This debate is not about abortion, but birth control. It's the Republicans' war on women.

The GOP's position makes absolutely no sense. For decades, conservatives have decried abortion, yet remain vehemently against sex education and family planning. They're steeped in religious ideology and insist on playing morality cop, sanctimoniously telling the rest of us what we should do with our bodies and in our bedrooms. MSNBC's Chris Matthews incredulously asked Friday night on his "Hardball" program, "How did they get on this bus?" The truth us, they never got off the bus. In fact, they were born on that bus. And no matter how deep of a political grave their values dogma historically digs them, they keep coming back to the hole. They simply can't help themselves. As Matthews said about the Planned Parenthood fight, "It's Schiavo-country," referring to the 1990's legal and Congressional battle over life-support which severely hurt the GOP and effectively killed the political careers of former GOP Senators Bill Frist and Rick Santorum.

To be sure, to end funding for Planned Parenthood is to stop providing critical health care to millions of needy women. Through 800 nationwide locations, the organization provides cancer screening, HIV and STD tests, contraceptives, education and empowerment. Planned Parenthood estimates it prevents over 620,000 unintended pregnancies and 220,000 abortions each year. Seventy-five percent of its clients are at or below the poverty line. Abortions account for just 3% of its overall activities.

But while rich Republican hypocrites rabidly strive to strip the poor and middle classes of their right to choose, they'll be the first to take little Muffy for an abortion the nanosecond there's a bun in the oven. And it'll continue to be justified with, "She's got too promising a life ahead of her to throw it away on a baby" and "It's the boy's fault."

It's a damned shame that in 2012 we're still arguing about abortion, and that funding for health care, family planning, education, the environment, seniors and the arts is considered "government waste." Congratulations 2010 voters. I hope you got what you wanted with your new Republican pals.

MSNBC's Morning "Dysfunctional" Joe

2011-04-05T07:03:00.008-04:00

I am a big fan of MSNBC's "Morning Joe" program. The three main on-air personalities, host Joe Scarborough, Willie Geist and Mika Brzezinski, generally have engaging panelists as they cover, with humor, the ever-changing political landscape in a non-partisan manner. But there's something about the show that's been bugging me for a long time now, and that's how Brzezinski is treated, or shall I say mistreated.

The daughter of former U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski is often demeaned, condescended to and bullied by the typically all-male panel, who summarily dismiss and disrespect her and her opinions as if she was a '50's suburban housewife. They mock her, interrupt her, talk over her, and even shout her down. The biggest brute of all is Scarborough, who orders her around like an intern and frequently looks at her with disdain, as if she's just uttered the most idiotic thing imaginable. And throughout all this Brzezinsky rolls her eyes, winces, frowns, pouts, gasps, sighs and smiles demurely as she tolerates this overtly chauvinistic behavior while desperately fighting to speak. That her producers likely also require her to flirt with them all, especially Scarborough, only serves to objectify and marginalize her even more.

Now don't get me wrong. I personally think Mika is terrific. She's a brilliant, accomplished 20-year news veteran with spot-on views and lots of integrity (as evidenced by her refusal in the 2007 video above to report on Paris Hilton). But her exasperated "boy's will be boys" girly-girl persona does an extreme disservice to her and to women news broadcasters everywhere. She either needs to grow some cajones and demand the respect and airtime she deserves or let her contract run out and get her own show somewhere. She's way too smart and talented to be subjected to this blatant sexism, and relegated to being Scarborough's bimbo.

Leaving Obama

2011-04-02T07:29:00.005-04:00

If Michelle Manning's frustration and disappointment is any indication of what's in store for President Barack Obama in 2012, he may be in very serious trouble. Obama, who made his re-election bid official in a video message released Monday morning, is struggling to retain his most loyal supporters. And Michelle was one of his fiercest devotees.

Back in 2008, a very pregnant Michelle, who's little brother was fighting in Iraq, protested the war and rallied hard for Obama. She took part in out-of-state get-out-the-vote campaigns. She produced the above video at her own $8,000 expense. And she sent the maximum contribution allowed by law. She was one of those people who were ridiculed as Obamacons. She took the Kool-Aid pitcher right up to her face and guzzled until she was drunk on "Change We Can Believe In." No doubt about it, Michelle was hard-core.

And then something happened after the election. There was change, alright, but not the kind that Michelle, and millions like her, expected. The president they loved and fought for was letting them down. He hadn't ended the war, as promised. He escalated the war in Afghanistan. Dropped health care reform's public option. Didn't support gay marriage. Took forever to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell. Folded like a $2 lawn chair on repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. They grew angrier as he seemed to care more about placating Republicans than the die-hard progressives who put him in office. And now they're upset that he's gotten the United States embroiled in a third war, in Libya. For the Obamacons, this is not how "Hope" was supposed to look.

Michelle explains why she can no longer support and accept the inevitability of a second Obama term:

"I can't anymore. I worked too hard for him. I gave too much. I stood out in the freezing rain on Super Tuesday in Union Square holding a sign seven months pregnant begging for votes all day. I knocked on doors in Pennsylvania for two days begging for votes while I was nursing my new newborn baby, taking breaks to pump milk with a portable breast pump and a cooler in my car every three hours. I was a maxed out donor. I made two videos I put up on YouTube at my own production expense. He owes me. He needs to at least keep his promises, and he hasn't. I haven't wanted to say anything so as not to betray my party, but I am an American first, and a Democrat second, and keeping my mouth shut is wrong. We need another option in 2012. I'm afraid Mr. Obama is a one term president, and the sooner we recognize that and start working on Plan B, the better off we will be when the time comes. Pretending he's doing a good job isn't helping anyone, and I'm afraid the "give him time" grace period is over. It's reelection time already. I want another option."

To be sure, defections like Michelle's could be devastating to Obama's re-election bid. His approval rating continues to be stuck in the low-mid 40's, if you believe recent polls like Gallup. And half of those surveyed don't want him re-elected. Yet his advisers say that time is on his side. That the economy will improve enough to win over a majority of voters. That may be true. But the opposite may be true as well. Unemployment remains unacceptably high near 9%, and about 14-million Americans are still searching for work. The budget deficit is at a record high, and the economy, while recovering, isn't recovering fast enough. The military engagements in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya won't help him either. People are fed up. They're dissatisfied with the political system and the politicians who've failed them. The Michelles of the party gave their heart to a new lover. Someone who promised an entirely new kind of relationship. They put their trust and faith in Obama, and there's no mistaking that he broke those hearts.

Democrats should be scared. They should start praying that someone like New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie doesn't enter the race. He 's wildly popular among moderates and independents, and many believe he'd trounce Obama. And while all eyes seem focused on human Ambien pills like Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, don't be surprised to see a dark horse like Sen. Scott Brown (MA) toss his truck into the ring. He'd be quite the formidable opponent for Obama. Considering the aggressive, calculating and often ruthless campaign tactics of the GOP, 2012, for all of the reasons stated above, could be a truly horrible year for Obama.

Given this fertile landscape, would someone like Hillary Clinton recognize this reality, and opportunity, and run against her boss? One thing's for sure: Michelle Manning would drop Obama and throw her mighty weight around the Secretary of State in a nanosecond. And so would millions of others. Considering that Clinton actually won the popular vote in the 2008 Democrat primaries, is this such a far-fetched scenario? The conventional wisdom places Hillary atop the 2016 Democratic ticket. But, if Obama were to lose next year, her chances of toppling a potentially popular Republican incumbent in 2016, especially given a very likely, and strong, economic recovery these next few years, would be extremely diminished. As politically incorrect as it may seem, going head-to-head against Obama in 2012 may just be the strategically better bet for her.

Gingrich's Hypocritical Stand on Values

2011-03-28T17:51:00.006-04:00

It's becoming painfully clear that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is so desperate either for attention or the Oval Office, or both, that he'll do and say anything to further his cause. A few months back he made outlandish, racist comments about President Obama's heritage and "Kenyan, anti-colonial" worldview. He's recently blamed his extramarital affairs on long work days and love of country. He's flip-flopped on the no-fly-zone in Libya. And this past weekend his sanctimonious, self-righteous arrogance was on full display in Iowa, where he preached morality to a bunch of preachers.

At the Rediscovering God in America gathering, Gingrich said he ranked values as the the top U.S. priority above the economy and national security.

"Some people may say we should stay away from values, stay away from social issues. I'm here to tell you that if you don't start with values, if you don't start by saying who we are as Americans. the rest of it doesn't matter."

Seriously, is he kidding? Here's a guy with a despicable record of cheating on his first two wives (when they were quite ill, no less) and cavorting around D.C. like a horny drunken sailor with a weekend pass, and he's lecturing us on morality? I'm not sure what I'm most incredulous of: that he has the balls to stand before a a group of clergymen and preach about values, or that they actually take him seriously.

The audacity of people like Gingrich to indiscriminately cheat and hurt people and then hide under the cloak of God or, more ludicrously, patriotism, is both astounding and reprehensible. Even Fox News' Chris Wallace said to Gingrich on his Sunday morning program that his excuses for his infidelity were "lame" and "hypocritical," especially given how Gingrich vehemently targeted Bill Clinton back in the 1990's over his marital indiscretions. "You love your country and you’re working hard and so you strayed. That wouldn’t work with my wife!," Wallace quipped sarcastically.

Wallace then asked Gingrich, more rhetorically than not, if he ever thought to himself back then about Clinton, "I’m living in a really glass house, maybe I shouldn’t be throwing stones?" Bravo Wallace. I knew there's a reason I liked this guy.

I'm convinced that there's something pathological to Gingrich's lying and delusional perceptions of self. He's ruthless and cunning and devoid of reality. He personifies the Richard Pryor character who says to his wife as he's literally caught in bed with another woman, "You gonna believe me or your lyin' eyes?" As for potential-candidate Gingrich, I suggest he heed his own words and "stay away from values." That's a giant skeleton-crammed closet door he'd be smart not to open.

What Young People Can Learn From UCLA Student Alexandra Wallace's Video Rant Against Asians

2011-03-23T07:23:00.014-04:00

By now mostly everyone in America has seen or heard of the reprehensible and racist video a female UCLA student made recently in which she disparaged and mocked Asians.

The video, which was released on YouTube and targeted against Asian students following the earthquake and Tsunami in Japan, not only has angered millions of people the world over, but it's raised the typical First Amendment questions, even prompting a NY Times editorial last week which both condemned it and defended it on free speech grounds. The student, Alexandra Wallace, has since issued an apology for her "inappropriate" behavior. "I cannot explain what possessed me to approach the subject as I did, and if I could undo it, I would," she said.

Wallace, who has since decided she will leave UCLA despite the school's decision not to discipline her, said she's leaving because of the "the harassment of my family, the publishing of my personal information, death threats and being ostracized from an entire community." All because she was trying to be "humorous," she said regretfully.

But Wallace's infamous video points to the bigger problem in our country today, and one which explains why she and countless others do irreparable damage to themselves and others with their humiliating, virally-spread diatribes. The answer is simple: young people today are so seduced by the power of social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube in giving them an outlet through which to share every dumb thought, ignorant rant and embarrassing photo. Give them a webcam and all hell can and will break loose. They're desperate-for-attention show-offs who want to be perceived as funny, cool and relevant. Instead, they appear stupid, foolish and irresponsible.

What's most troubling is that the Internet has created a generation of reckless cowboys and cowgirls. They post constantly, nonsensically and without any concern for the future. They never stop to think about those who might one day see their moronic rantings, photos and videos, i.e college admissions counselors, potential employers, future business associates. These days, when we can search Google and get an instant window into a person's entire public profile, this sort of behavior is very dangerous and can have lasting impact.

To be sure, Wallace has likely screwed herself out of further college opportunities, future jobs and probably lost some friends, her dignity and brought shame on herself and her family. All because that cigar-chompin' webcam was bellowing, 'Kid, I'm gonna make you a star!'

To be sure, kids will be kids, and they will do dumb things and actually need to be a little reckless and irresponsible. It's a part of growing up and learning how to eventually behave like adults. But the problem today is that, unlike a generation ago, when we could make our mistakes in relative private with only our close pals and family knowing it, the Internet creates a 24/7 worldwide stage where every misstep can be viewed by millions in a matter of seconds. Young people today live in a goldfish bowl, and when they fall, as Wallace has, it spirals out of control and there's no place to hide. The Internet is a very unforgiving place. Once you land there, there's no going back.

So I say to our nation's youth, be very careful about what you say, write and post on these sites. And that includes pictures. No future college admissions department or future employer will be impressed with your drunken pics and your filthy language. Rather, they'll want to see you as smart, mature and responsible. But if you must exercise your freedom of immature expression without having to worry about self-censorship, then at least minimize your risk by being less public. Change your Facebook and Twitter names so that your last name is not included, and therefore won't appear in Google searches. Also, don't use your Facebook email address on resumes or school and work applications. You can be searched that way as well. Create a separate email address just for "official" business. And for God's sake, the next time you to find the urge to act out foolishly on YouTube, grab a few friends and play Charades instead.

Is Hillary Planning a Run at Obama in 2012?

2011-03-21T07:30:00.009-04:00

Call me a cynic, but I've never bought into the public love-fest between
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama. I think their pairing was borne out of mutual need: For Obama, it was clearly all about, "keep your friends close and your enemies closer." And for Hillary, taking the top diplomatic job would serve to repair her election-loss image and quickly make her appear presidential again. It was and is a marriage of convenience, and one that is likely full of residual contention and resentment from 2008.

Fueling speculation is the fact that last week Clinton abruptly announced that she would not serve in a second Obama administration. Is that because she intends to pursue a Clinton administration in 2012? Her announcement comes amid the violence and political turmoil in Libya in which the United States, Britain and France have begun a massive air strike, following the passage of a United Nations resolution authorizing a no-fly zone and the use of military force designed to end Col. Muammar Gaddafi's brutal repression of opposition protesters.

It was Clinton, not Obama, who's been front and center through this crisis, swiftly threatening Gaddafi with military action if he didn't stop the killing. To the contrary, the president's been criticized for not taking a strong enough stand against the Libyan dictator. To be sure, it was Hillary, not Obama, who had the bigger cajones. And that's no great surprise to this blogger, who wrote many pieces during the 2008 campaign that questioned Obama's inability to fight the tough fight, unlike his former rival.

It's no secret that Obama, the much heralded 'Agent of Change', has hugely disappointed those who euphorically supported him and whose mantra is now "change we can't believe in." Progressives and mainstream Democrats alike seethe over his move to the center and for failing to deliver on the issues on which he campaigned and were important to them, from the public option to repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and for caving to Republicans.

So with his base disenchanted, his approval rating hovering near 50, and the
economy and job growth still stuck in a painfully slow recovery, do these domestic challenges, especially when combined with questions over his handling of world crises, create fertile ground for Clinton to toss her pantsuit into the ring?

It's rare for a prominent member of a sitting president's party to challenge him in the primaries for the nomination. In fact, the last time it was done was 1968 when Minnesota Sen. Eugene McCarthy took on a weakened, unpopular Lyndon B. Johnson. But the Clintons are not your typical deferential, passive politicians. If anyone could trade protocol for self-interest it's the uber-ambitious Hillary and her rock star hubby Bill. Both would like nothing more than to be back in the White House. And if for a second they smell Obama's vulnerability and a potential defeat by the GOP, don't be surprised if she pulls a McCarthy. It's a longshot, but these days in politics anything can and will happen. I can tell you one thing though: I've spoken to many Democrats who'd drop Obama and vote for Hillary in a heartbeat.