I laughed all the way through Thursday's Wall Street Journal editorial on the repeal Wednesday of health care reform by rabid, over-zealous Republicans. The venerable financial bible's take on the measure is a prime example of how politics is a witch's brew of smoke, mirrors, spin and delusion...with a pinch of disingenuousness tossed in for extra flavor.
The piece begins with comical chest-thumping that the Obama administration's landmark legislation was "repudiated by a majority of one chamber of Congress only 10 months after it passed. This sort of thing never happens." It then states that more House members, 245, voted for repeal than the 219 who voted for it last March. Really? Is this a surprise? I suppose more Congressman will vote against something than for it if they also happen to belong to a party who just won the majority, and whose leadership puts making Barack Obama a one-term president as its top priority over everything else, as Senate Leader Mitch McConnell and others have enthusiastically declared. Ever since it's passed, Republicans have literally been salivating at the thought of repealing health care reform. Did the Wall Street Journal's editorial page editors turly think anything else would happen? Repeal was as predictable as John Boehner crying every other day on the House floor.
The Journal, in a major stretch, also said the three Democrats who supported rescinding the bill "confirmed the bipartisan opposition" to this kind of "vast social program." All of this proves, according to the Journal, that "many Democrats are now bowing to the public mood."
What's funny is that the Journal also published Thursday the results of its new poll with NBC News, in which more Americans (46%) are opposed to repeal than not (45%). And a very strong case can be made that of those who favor repeal, their reasoning is that the law didn't go far enough. Perhaps the Journal should read its own data before commenting on the "public mood."
Republicans campaigned on the theme of "repeal and replace." No one with an ounce of intelligence ever doubted that the first thing they'd do when they took power was rescind "ObamaCare." That's the easy part. They dislike Obama, they hate the bill, they now have control, they said they were gonna do it, and they did it. Yawn. It's almost juvenile in its mere symbolism. The Senate will never take up the repeal measure, and even if they did, Obama would veto it.
But the more important aspect of it all is "replace." Just what do Republicans now plan to offer Americans instead? How will they improve on the bill? What incremental benefits will they propose? So far, all they've talked about is limiting malpractice suits and deregulating interstate commerce by the insurance companies. Sounds like more giveaways to the rich and corporate America than to the poor and middle class. And that is quite predictable as well.
Almost a week after the release of her disastrous Tucson shooting video, Sarah Palin stepped off her usual Twitter and Facebook platform and into the relative comfort of Sean Hannity's softball field. On the Fox News host's Sunday night "Hannity" program, the Wasilla Wonder returned to the public stage to once again deny any culpability whatsoever regarding the toxic political discourse in America today and, more so, how her behavior on the video was justified and appropriate.
In the video, which history will remember as her "I am not a witch" moment, she continued to blame the media for her public relations woes and in a very over-simplified way tried to excuse the "blood libel" reference she made. She was stilted and calculated, and extremely defiant as she vociferously defended her timing of the video, her choice of words, and her ability to denounce who or whatever she opposes.
"I will continue to speak out," a clearly agitated Palin said. "They're not going to shut me up. They're not going to shut you up (Hannity), or Rush or Mark Levin or Tea Party Patriots."
When Hannity asked her to explain her timing of the video's release the same day as the Tucson memorial, and then the use of "blood libel," she came across as a flip 15-year-old who obviously memorized the answer to impress us with her knowledge of the subject matter. It was contrived and insincere.
"I don't know how the heck they would know whether I did or didn't know' the term blood libel, nobody's ever asked me. Blood libel obviously means being falsely accused of having blood on your hands. In this case that's exactly what was going on. And yes, the historical knowledge that people have of the term blood libel goes back to the Jews who were falsely accused back in the medieval European times of using the blood of children and...ya know...(snickers)...The criticism of even the timing of this statement is being used as another diversion."
She then fell into some lame spin about liberals wanting to sidetrack voters from Congress not doing its job to combat the "trifecta" of growing debt, the "looming energy crisis" and weak national security policies. Talk about diversion.
Palin also remains highly delusional about her prospects for 2012. "I am not ready to make an announcement about what my political future's going to be, but I'll tell ya Sean, I'm not gonna sit down, I'm not gonna shut up. I'm going to hopefully be able to help empower others who believe that, one of the things that makes America so exceptional is our right to free speech. Is our right to vigorously yet respectfully debate ideas and intentions in this country. I'm gonna continue down that path, and if that leads to being a candidate for a high office then I will announce that at the appropriate time. But for now, ya know, I want to join others who are saying, no, peaceful dissent and discussion about ideas, that is it what makes America exceptional and we won't allow that to be stifled by a tragic event that happened in Arizona...one that we should all..er... gather around if you will to condemn violence but not to stifle debate in America."
Only Sarah Palin could consider calling Obama a terrorist and targeting Gabrielle Giffords with rifle cross hairs "respectful" debate. She thrives on confrontation and conflict, and then plays the victim card when she's excoriated over it. But if she really believed what she said she'd come out from her social networking web rock, leapfrog over the friendly Fox News, and start talking to the mainstream media, of whom she's clearly terrified.
To be sure, after her self-imploding video performance, Palin has about as much chance of running for president, or winning, as I do. In fact, I'd say my chances are better.
The takeaway from President Obama's brilliant, poignant speech at Wednesday night's memorial at the University of Arizona in Tuscon was, "We may not be able to stop all evil in the world, but I know that how we treat one another is entirely up to us," The tone of his message, his raw emotion, the compassion for the victims and their families, and the genuine concern he showed for the nation exemplified great leadership, and was in stark contrast to the bizarre, self-serving video that his potential 2012 opponent, Sarah Palin, released earlier in the day.
"At a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized - at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do - it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds," the president said.
To be sure, the 2012 presidential election will indeed be about healing. There'll be much focus on how Obama united the nation in the aftermath of Jared Loughner's murderous rampage, and how Palin's true character prevented her from doing the same. It it is precisely this sanctimonious, defiant and soulless video sermon that history will one day point to as the end of her legitimate political career.
Palin was right about one thing: it's unfair and inaccurate to blame her toxic political rhetoric for the Tuscon shooting. But this week she quite foolishly and voluntarily gave us something we can 100% blame her for. Her behavior, tone and overall message in the video was beyond comprehension. Not only does it demonstrate a pathological narcissism, but a supreme ignorance of history (the unfortunate "Blood Libel" reference); a shocking lack of empathy, sensitivity and compassion; a reprehensible use of the words "blood," "pistols" and "shooting" to accent her points; and outrageously offensive timing in terms of releasing it on the same day as the memorial. One has to ask, just what on Earth was she thinking? Did she really expect this 8-minute diatribe to show humility and repair her image? To help heal a shocked and grieving nation?
Over the past three years, many have suggested that Palin's odd behavior and statements constitutes a train wreck. But in a train wreck there first needs to be the actual crash. To date, despite moments of near-derailment, Palin's stayed on track. But with this video she has finally crashed, and crashed for good. She cannot and will not recover from this politically. Oh sure, she will continue to be a national hero to the ravenous, ignorant right-wing fringe crazies who account for a minuscule percentage of the Republican Party, but on a serious national level, as a presidential candidate, she just imploded.
It took three days, but Sarah Palin has directly responded to accusations that her incendiary political rhetoric was partly responsible for the deadly shooting rampage in Tuscon that killed six and wounded fourteen people, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. With her usual dose of arrogance, sarcasm and defiance, the ever-caustic Palin issued a video statement Wednesday, which included the following:
"Like many, I've spent the past few days reflecting on what happened and praying for guidance. After this shocking tragedy, I listened at first puzzled, then with concern, and now with sadness, to the irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event...Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them.....If you don't like a person's vision for the country, you're free to debate that vision. If you don't like their ideas, you're free to propose better ideas.... But especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence that they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible....No one should be deterred from speaking up and speaking out in peaceful dissent. And we certainly must not be deterred by those who embrace evil and call it good."
Does Palin really think she's contributed to a political discourse based on "peaceful dissent?" Is she so arrogant and/or in denial of her own "irresponsible statements" and actions? Does she not truly understand that what is "reprehensible" is to call for "reloading" and to use rifle cross hairs over an opponent's name and then with righteous indignation scoff at the widespread criticism after that individual, and nineteen others, are shot in an assassination attempt? Is she so clueless as to not see any connection, and any responsibility therefore, however indirect, to her words and actions?
Even in this video she resorts to using the centuries-old highly anti-Semitic phrase "blood libel", which is a false accusation that Jews murder Christian children to use their blood as part of various religious rituals and holidays. One has to seriously question Palin's overall judgment, and note her obvious inability to understand the raw insensitivity of her own words.
To be sure, Jared Loughner did not go that parking lot Saturday with Palin's inflammatory rhetoric as his driver. He very likely never heard any of her speeches or seen her website. So to blame her directly is nothing more than partisan vitriol, no matter how much some may dislike her or condemn those words and actions. Yes, she and others like Glenn Beck, Michelle Bachmann, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh indeed contribute to the toxicity that consumes Washington politics these days, and that situation is no doubt worsening. But there is a much bigger issue here, and one which Palin is guilty of.
While a shocked nation mourns the loss of so many vibrant people, including a 9-year-old girl, and while it attempts to debate and reconcile why it happened and what measures can be taken to prevent a recurrence, Palin continues to feed the toxic beast. She squandered a major opportunity to not just repair her own image but to help heal a nation. In this video statement, what would it have cost her (and to the contrary she'd likely have much to gain) to say something conciliatory and uniting like she recognizes that words and actions may sometimes be deemed offensive and irresponsible to some people and that now, especially in the wake of the Tuscon shooting, she understands the need for everyone, including herself, to demonstrate greater sensitivity and be much more judicious in choosing the words and images to punctuate political points? Wouldn't this have been a more thoughtful and prudent strategy? Would people not be rallying behind her instead of continuing to criticize her?
Palin could've used the Tuscon tragedy as a mechanism to chart a new, more effective course for herself. Instead, her message to America is, 'My toxic rhetoric is here to stay. Deal with it.'
Kudos to MSNBC's Joe Scarborough. On Tuesday's "Morning Joe" broadcast, the co-host pulled no punches in pointing a finger at conservatives in both politics and the media over the toxic rhetoric that many believe to be partly responsible for Saturday's tragic shooting at a Tuscon, AZ Walgreen's parking lot. The deadly rampage took the lives of six innocent victims, including a 9-year-old girl, and critically wounded Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and thirteen others.
Scarborough, who especially criticized Fox's Glenn Beck for his relentless incendiary attacks on Obama, said "conservatives do themselves a disservice if they don't look in the mirror" regarding the increasing vitriol coming from the right." He added that "conservatives need to call out, yes, Sarah Palin for putting gun sights" on target lists on her website and that they "need to call out Michelle Bachmann for telling Minnesotans to be armed and dangerous."
When he was asked why he's not condemning liberals for allegedly making the same type of inflammatory statements, Scarborough said "I'm conservative...I'm a Republican...I am responsible for holding my side accountable." Unlike Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and other right-wing rabble-rousers in the media whose ratings seem inextricably tied to the level of toxic rhetoric they spew, and who've spent the last 24 hours aggressively defending Palin, Bachmann, Beck etc, Scarborough understands the impact of this relentless hate-speak and the need for it to stop. It's nice to have an adult in the room.
It's been quite disconcerting to see how lamely the mainstream news media has been handling the aftermath of the tragic shooting spree in Tuscon Saturday which killed six people (including a 9-year-old girl) and wounded fourteen others, including Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords(D). There are those, like me, who seek to place the blame squarely where it's deserved: on the backs of right-wing hate-mongering radicals like Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. But there's a growing politically-correct chorus of "let's not blame" hitting the airwaves that is both shocking and extremely disappointing.
During his press conference following the shootings, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, the 75-year-old lawman with balls as big as they come, attributed the violence to "the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business." He went even further and criticized his state's aggressive anti-immigration fervor: "The bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous. And unfortunately, Arizona, I think, has become sort of the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry."
Kudos to Dupnik for being a true American hero who said what so desperately needed to be said. Saturday's violence must be a much-needed wake-up call for America. The inflammatory rhetoric that's risen to dangerously heightened levels by conservative politicians and talk show hosts has to stop. Was it not just a matter of time before violence like this occurred? Why shouldn't we place blame where it's so obviously deserved?
Can we not blame Glenn Beck for his constant hateful rhetoric against the Obama Administration and Democrats, who he accuses of subverting the Constitution and the rights of "god-fearing Americans?" For "calling for a revolution?" For recklessly joking about "killing Michael Moore?" Or what about Bill O'Reilly, who incited his listeners by relentlessly referring to Kansas doctor George Tiller as "Tiller the baby killer" in the months leading up to his murder? Or Sean Hannity, who so disrespectfully and disdainfully refers to President Obama, who was elected by a majority of voters, as "the anointed one?" And in the most reprehensible, dangerous display of this vitriol, what about Sarah Palin's hit list last March which targeted Rep. Giffords and nineteen others, using cross hairs to mark the districts of these Democrats she was taking political aim at over health care reform? Or how she irresponsibly encouraged her followers "don’t retreat, just reload."
Giffords herself offered this chilling warning after Palin's hit list appeared: "We’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list. But the thing is the way that she has it depicted has the cross hairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they’ve got to realize there’s consequences to that."
Is it not fair or accurate then to connect the dots to these reckless rabble-rousers and put the blood of the Tuscon victims on their hands? Given the political rantings on his website and in YouTube videos, are we to be so naive as to think that 22-year-old mass murderer Jared Loughner, who took his glock to that supermarket parking lot with the clear intent to assassinate Giffords, was not at all influenced by this steady stream of hate-speak from Palin, Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly and others? Or worse, have we become so dominated by political correctness that we fail so miserably to directly place blame where it so rightfully lies?
If we simply sit back and pretend that Loughner was nothing more than a deranged young man with no political influences or motivations, then we are sticking our collective heads in the sand and allowing for future violence. If we don't demand an end to the inflammatory rhetoric and the use of code language and images describing and depicting weapons and acts of violence, when demonizing those we disagree with, then Giffords will surely not be the last victim.
We also need to stop all the pretending that this dangerous behavior is as pervasive on the left as it is among right-wingers. To lump everyone into the same bucket of guilt is to ignore the root cause of these despicable acts and fail to demand responsibility from those who perpetrate them. The truth is, it is not liberals who blow up buildings, crash airplanes into them, kill people, threaten violence, step on women's heads, question our president's citizenship, or use bulls-eyes and cross hairs to punctuate their opposition and rile the masses.
Welcome to 2011. A new year, and a new Republican led United States House of Representatives. And what it all means is that one body of Congress will now attempt to overturn every single measure enacted during the last two years by President Obama and Democrats. Health-care reform is the first pig on the legislative rotisserie for the new House Speaker John Boehner and his merry band of rapacious repealers.
Republicans have been on the warpath over Obama's historic health care bill, and campaigned in the recent midterm elections on both repealing and replacing it. They're out there spinning their disingenuous rhetoric, trying to convince Americans that guaranteed insurance, no caps, no exclusions for pre-existing conditions, donut-hole coverage for seniors, extended care for children to age 26 are bad for them. And they're promising to replace it with something "better".
But the truth is, Republicans have no ideas. No plan. No intention to replace anything. Their goals are simple: strip away as much social services and entitlement programs for the poor and middle class as possible while putting that savings, through tax cuts, into the pockets of the rich and corporate America. It's the same old trickle-down, supply-side voodoo economics that didn't work for Ronald Reagan and failed miserably under George W. Bush. It's based on the myth that if you give all the money to the "producers" (business owners, corporations, the wealthy) and deregulate them then, unrestrained and richer, they will create jobs and growth for the masses. "You allow the private sector to have some Oxygen," as Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) pleaded on MSNBCs Hardball Monday.
But some perspective is necessary. Bush was president for eight years and Republicans controlled both houses of Congress for twelve years, from 1994-2006. During this period the GOP put forth not one single health care measure. There is no reason to believe this Republican led House will be any different. "Repeal and replace" is the biggest scam to hit Washington in years. And what's even more of a scam is how Republicans are sucking up to their newly-Tea-Party-infused irrational, radical right-wing base despite knowing there's no way on this planet they can ever repeal health care reform. No matter what the House crazies do, it'll never get past the Senate or an Obama veto.
What's with John Boehner and all the crying? It seems the Republican Party's new Speaker of the House can't seem to talk about anything these days without an uncontrollable emotional outburst. He's an unhinged sobbing mess whether he's on the House floor arguing a bill; talking about his childhood during a victory speech; or reacting to his wife's praise during Sunday night's "60 Minutes" interview. Jeez, the guy cries more than my 6-year-old daughter.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm all for men showing their emotions, and crying is a big part of that. I actually have a lot of respect for Boehner and his obvious comfort in expressing himself this way. He's clearly secure enough with himself and his masculinity, and he should be considered a terrific role model for young boys who need to know it's ok to show their emotions and cry.
But when it comes to Boehner, what should be noted is the free pass Democrats have given him for these emotional outbursts. Can you imagine if he were a liberal? Can you imagine how the Republican attack machine would mock and denigrate him and besmirch his character? How they'd portray him as a sissy and weakling, unsuitable to handle the intense pressures and stress of one of the most important, powerful jobs in Washington? Too emotional and fragile to be second in the line of succession for the presidency? You can be sure the attacks would be vicious and relentless.
Just remember how the GOP media thugs attacked and questioned John Kerry's war record during the 2004 election. Or the nonsense earlier this year about how Harry Reid and other Democrats need to "man up." In a political landscape where the rhetoric and vitriol spews incessantly and the smears over one's masculinity is about as common as a Tea Party attack on "big government," you can bet that the homophobic vituperation and character-assassination of Boehner would be certain if he sat on the other side of the aisle.
There's a growing rage among air travelers against the Transportation Security Administration's new measures to prevent acts of terrorism. The public outcry centers on the 400 new full-body scanners at 70 of the nation's airports, over what some believe is an invasion of privacy, and inappropriate physical contact during the more extensive pat-downs for those who opt out of the scanning. As one irate flyer warned TSA officers during a pat-down last week in San Diego, "If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested."
But is this outrage representative of how a majority of Americans view the new anti-terror tactics or is all the fuss coming from just a very small band of protesters who are exaggerating the frustration and opposition of everyone else?
I can only speak for myself. After the horrific 9/11 attacks and the failed missions of both the shoe and underwear bombers, as well as the general daily threats we face from those who wish to blow us out of the sky, I say do whatever the hell you want to me if it means I get to go home alive at the end of the day. And if that means stripping me naked, so be it. Truth is, we're all half-naked at the X-rays now anyway. No jackets, no belts, no shoes...it's just a short hop to no pants or shirt. If you need to put a hand down my pants to check for explosives, grope away. In fact, dim the lights and serve me a glass of Chardonnay and I just might even enjoy it. When you consider all the indignities we already suffer at airports, a little groping is actually a fitting reward, no?
To be honest, I don't get all the outrage. I think it's quite foolish, actually. Have these Americans forgotten about the carnage of 9/11? Have the images of planes crashing into buildings, of bloodied dust-covered New Yorkers running for their lives, been erased from their collective brains? Are they so arrogant and in denial that they're gonna now stage boycotts and other planned disruptions at airports to protest the new measures? Like there's not enough frustrating inconveniences and delays as it is? What are they protesting against anyway, safety?
Listen folks, I have some distressing news for you. You're not that attractive and no one cares to see you naked. Seriously. Please put your narcissism in check. This ain't about you. Have you seen what most air travelers actually look like? It's not like a bunch of randy TSA cops are sitting in some dark room behind the scanning monitors going, "Oooh, here comes another fat 60-year-old, fellas!"
This is about safety and security. Mine, yours, and that of everyone who travels. It's about the safety and security of those working in office buildings, who don't want planes crashing into them. It's about winning. Winning the war against those who wish to destroy us wherever and whenever they can. And that includes the skies. I'm getting sick of hearing about how the new scanners and pat-downs "have gone too far." Funny how no one said that on September 12, 2001. How quickly some forget.
Glee, the hottest show on television, gives us a bunch of self-absorbed bratty high school kids, a deliciously snarky cheerleading coach, a doe-eyed Gene Kelly-wannabe Glee Club director, divorce, teen pregnancy, homosexuality, Jew jokes and Down Syndrome.
And if that wasn't enough juiciness for prime-time it also gives us something rare and unusual: music. Lots and lots of wonderfully arranged and choreographed song and dance renditions of both classic and contemporary hits. A prime example of this genius is Tuesday's absolutely brilliant fusion of "Singin' in the Rain" with Rihanna's "Umbrella," which featured a radiant Gwyneth Paltrow in a surprise television role. This hip-hop mash-up literally got me off the couch dancing like a fool with my 6-year-old daughter, who thinks the Emmy-winning Jane Lynch's Sue Sylvester is the coolest person since Elmo.
If Hollywood had a brain in its collective Jose Eber-coiffed head it would take note of the show's ginormous success and understand why 13-million viewers each week flock to their TVs like stray cats to a bowl of milk. It's the music. Americans are starving for musicals, the long-lost art form. While this genre continues to thrive on Broadway, it's all but disappeared in film and television.
Somewhere along the line the arrogant nincompoops who run Hollywood decided that they knew best what audiences wanted, and it wasn't musicals. You can also throw westerns, another dying genre, into this bucket of near-extinction The moguls decided that what viewers wanted was big budget comic book superhero movies and reality shows. 'Just give 'em more Spiderman and Housewives.' And so began the colossal dumbing-down of film and television programming.
Despite experiencing the tremendous success of simple pleasures like My Big Fat Greek Wedding, High School Musical and Deadwood, the industry just falls right back into its pattern of cookie-cutter offerings. It sees the success of these projects as an anomaly, not a trend-setting barometer. It's as if they're saying to us, "It's just a fluke that you like this stuff. We know that what you really want is more Batman and Survivor."
And then there's Glee. Huge kudos to its creators for being truly creative and innovative. For giving people across all generations spectacular, intelligent original entertainment. The program delivers on every conceivable level. It makes you laugh, cry, think, get angry, sing out loud and, well, dance like a fool in your living room. So why isn't there more ground-breaking programming like this on television?
What Glee shows us is that viewers still hunger for quality. For originality. For something different. For shows that break the mold and succeed in turning old-fashioned into new-fashioned. I'm not saying it's easy, but that's why they're sitting on the studio lot and I'm sitting on my couch. They get paid way too much dough to give us so much brainless fare like the Kardashians.
Another distressing sign came this week as CBS announced the canceling of its long running show Medium, another terrific program with almost 7-million viewers. My money's on some cheaply produced reality show taking its place.
Congratulations, voters. Your newly victorious Republicans are already starting to deliver to you. That is, if unparalleled obstructionism and inertia is what you expected.
One of the first measures to be killed in Congress's lame duck session is the so-called New Start treaty which would force the United States and Russia to pare back their nuclear stockpiles and resume mutual inspections; inspections that took place every year since the Cold War except last year. Sounds like a good thing, right? Well, not to Sen. John Kyl (AZ), the GOP's point man on the issue. That New Start is President Obama's top foreign policy goal clearly makes it The Party of No's top priority to defeat it. Nice of Kyl to put partisan politics before the nation's safety.
Imagine if it were Democrats blocking this bill. Imagine the incendiary rhetoric and fear mongering that would follow. Imagine the chorus of, "Democrats cow-tow to Russia and allow them to out-Nuke us!" We'd hear how the "Socialist Obama regime empowers its communist ally!" The Republican spin machine would be operating in overdrive spitting out the message and talking points about how "Americans are threatened by Obama's inability to protect the U.S. from Nuclear attack!"
So why is that Kyl and his Nattering Naybobs of Negativity will be given a free pass on this? It's because Democrats are spineless. It's because the left lacks a potent spin machine. It's because the much hyped "liberal media" is in truth nothing more than Keith Olbermann and his one million viewers. When it comes to defining the issues and, more importantly its opponents, the Democratic Party is simply neutered.
Nuclear proliferation is a very serious issue. It impacts the war in Afghanistan, the threat from Iran and the risks to America posed by terrorists. But apparently it's not as important to Kyl as helping Sen. Mitch McConnell make sure Obama is not re-elected in 2012.
In the days and weeks following the horrific 9/11 terrorist attacks there was unequivocal support for the United States on the world stage. "We are all American" became the global rallying cry. At home, partisan bitterness disappeared, and red and blue America became red, white and blue America. Chants of "USA! USA! USA!" dominated sporting events, and the nation hadn't seen such uniform patriotism since World War II. They say events make the man and, to be sure, this was George W. Bush's moment to transcend his dubious past and go down in history as one of the country's greatest presidents.
The release this week of Bush's memoir "Decision Points" has put the focus once again on his presidency and his legacy. He's on a whirlwind image re-defining campaign, hitting the talk show circuit in a desperate attempt at redemption and to prove his wisdom and relevancy.
It's easy to reflect back and consider just how close Bush came to historical greatness, yet how far he swung away from that unparalleled opportunity to instead be considered one of the worst presidents ever. 9/11 was his defining moment, just as WW II was for Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Americans forgive and forget an awful lot in times of war and national tragedy and it was, for Bush, a missed opportunity of epic proportions, and one that shaped the world for many years still to come. It was the proverbial fork-in-the-road, and Bush took the wrong turn....with catastrophic consequences.
This week we've been shown countless times the photo of Bush atop the mountain of rubble at Ground Zero, his arm around that shell-shocked fireman, megaphone in hand, highly emotional yet projecting calm and steely assurance that America will recover and roar back stronger. Even after eight miserable years of his administration's militaristic and economic carnage, it's still hard to look at the picture and not feel a connection to him, even a respect for his leadership at that very tumultuous time. But that reverence passes quickly, and we are left with a great sense of loss knowing that for him and the country, that moment was a critical turning point in both his legacy and the fate of the nation. For both, it was all downhill (pun intended)from there.
It was easy on that fateful day to forget how Bush, James Baker and the Supreme Court stole the 2000 election. Our anger dissipated, and we rallied around our president and countrymen. We were one nation. But we lament that Bush wasn't able to build off of that moment on the rubble. The decision to invade Afghanistan and hunt and kill the Taliban, which sponsored, housed, funded and trained al Qaeda, was the right one. No one balked. Not Democrats, Republicans, Congress, the media, Wall Street or Main Street. The action received the full support of the country.
But one has to wonder how history would've changed for Bush, America and the world had he stopped there; had he focused 100% in Afghanistan on destroying the Taliban and al Qaeda, and tracking and capturing or killing Osama bin Laden. His popularity would've gone through the roof, and history would judge him as favorably as FDR. He would've presided over America during one of its absolute darkest days, providing leadership that would've restored not just national security, but Americans' collective sense of pride and patriotism. Instead, he saw a different path for himself. One that would drive a serrated wedge right down the heart of America and amongst our overseas friends and enemies alike.
His decision to invade Iraq in March 2003 sealed his fate. This was an unnecessary war. An unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation under false pretenses and manufactured/misrepresented evidence. Iraq, as we now know, did not, as the Bush propaganda claimed, possess WMD nor had it any connections to al Qaeda. It simply posed no threat whatsoever to the United States. Yet the Iraq charade was where Bush was overrun by neocons like VP Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who turned the once-promising leader who commandingly stood on that pile of 9/11 rubble into a manipulated puppet who exhibited an astounding lack of intellectual curiosity.
Unfortunately for him and the country, Bush ultimately would not be viewed as the wartime president who protected America and its people, lifted the nation's spirits and restored America's greatness. He did not tap the monumental international post-9/11 currency and use it to his or the country's advantage. He did not become a healer and uniter who rallied the world behind us as we fought the terrorist enemy. Instead, he sent thousands of troops to die in an elective war which took the U.S.'s military and intelligence focus off Afghanistan and al Qaeda, allowing bin Laden to escape into the treacherous northern mountains of Pakistan. He squandered $1-trillion fighting this unjust war of distraction, and together with an unregulated Wall Street and massive tax cuts to the rich, sent the country's economy into a tailspin that we're still digging out of. On the political front, he became the great divider, allowing Karl Rove and Dick Cheney, with help from despicable propagandists like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, to foment unprecedented partisan vitriol, which today paralyzes Washington.
Especially this election cycle, heightened by the controversy over the planned Islamic Center two blocks from Ground Zero, we've seen animosity and hatred of Muslims consume millions of ignorant Americans. We've seen fear-mongering Conservatives attempt to conflate Islam with terrorism much in the same way the Bushies conflated Iraq with 9/11. In retrospect, by invading Iraq and sending the country into a bigotry-fueled feeding frenzy, Bush ultimately allowed the terrorists to win. As we recovered from those horrific attacks on 9/11, what should've been America's brightest days as a nation have become our most embarrassing. It was not just the Twin Towers that came down that day, but the towers of tolerance and American values. And that's the real Bush legacy. A few folksy hours of Today Show and Oprah damage-control cannot and will not change that.
They ran on a platform almost exclusively about shrinking government and America's $14-trillion debt. And they got elected, sweeping the House with 63 seats and six Senate pick-ups. But since election day, ask any Republican in the House and Senate exactly which government programs they plan to cut in order to cut the $1.3-trillion deficit and they become back-peddling rambling idiots, offering more spin than the washer/dryer section at Sear's.
Sunday morning's news shows, the first since Democrats received what President Obama called a "shellacking," were awash with partisan rhetoric about swollen debt, angry voters and "taking the country back." But substance was in short order.
On NBC's Meet the Press, host David Gregory hammered South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint to be specific in detailing the programs Republicans would slash, in particular, whether they'd touch defense and/or entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare. DeMint was clearly uncomfortable with being put on the spot, and after repeated dodging and regurgitating endless talking points, Gregory persisted in pressing him for specifics. Again, DeMint fidgeted and cleared his throat so much I thought they'd wheel in an oxygen tank.
It's like a disease. I've not seen one Republican leader, from DeMint to Rep. John Boehner to Rep. Eric Cantor to Sen. Mitch McConnell, answer the "which specific programs would you cut" question with a straight answer. That's because their campaign platform was based on smoke and mirrors and disingenuous politicking. All designed to dupe a frustrated, angry and desperate electorate. The truth is, they won't cut defense spending, they won't touch Social Security and Medicare, and they won't touch veterans benefits, which they all admit.
Let's put the numbers in perspective: the Unites States budget is $3.6-trillion. Approximately $2.2-trillion, or 61%, goes to fund Social Security, Medicare and defense. The remainder is split between the following: 14% to safety-net programs that aid struggling Americans (i.e. food stamps, child-care assistance and unemployment insurance); Vets/federal retirees 7%; transportation infrastructure 3%; education 3%; scientific and medical research 2%; and 5% misc. Another 6% goes toward interest payments on the debt. So if you take the major entitlements, defense and veterans off the table, as well as the debt service, that leaves about 16% in discretionary spending, or $576-billion available for cuts. Not a lot to work with especially given all the fiery campaign rhetoric about the GOP's magical fix on the economy through reduced spending and big cuts.
Now here's the kicker: throw in a loss of $700-billion over 10 years which the government would lose in revenue if the Bush tax cuts are extended for those earning over $250,000--which the GOP is aggressively pushing for--and that's a whole lotta fuzzy math.
To be sure, Republicans are quite good a spin. Much better than Democrats. After eight years of runaway spending during the Bush years, where the GOP controlled both the House and Senate for most of that time, they quite successfully convinced voters last week that they were the fiscally-responsible party who should again be given back the controls to reign in Obama's and the Democrats' excessive spending. Voters apparently have very short memories. And as the above numbers prove out, Republicans' promise of smaller government and cutting the deficit and debt is a promise they won't be able to keep.
It was a great night for the Republican Party, with remarkable House, Senate and gubernatorial victories across the nation, as well as impressive state and local wins. And it was a terrible night for voters, whose bipolar behavior may cause the worst political gridlock these next two years that Washington has ever seen.
Republicans and Tea Party braggarts are beaming that voters have spoken. But have they? The truth is, I don't think they've said much of anything. Rather, what they did Tuesday instead was grunt and groan, letting out unintelligible gasps of exasperation. These schizophrenic voters, with their short memories and misguided rekindled love affair with Republicans, demonstrated what an angry, impatient and uninformed electorate is truly capable of.
To be sure, the economy still faces many challenges and unemployment remains unacceptably high, as it was in 2008 when Barack Obama and Democrats were swept into power. Yet while we give our presidents four year terms, these voters expected a miracle fix in just two, utterly ignoring the progress he did make and the fact that the GOP opposed him virtually uniformly on every single measure he tried to pass for them. So they punished Obama and sent him an even more obstructionist body of Republican opponents, ensuring that even less gets done for them these next two years. And who does that hurt the most? The poor, the middle class, the sick, the unemployed, the elderly, and everyone else the Republican Party traditionally hurts. It hurts those who are most impacted by the struggling economy and slow-moving jobs recovery. It makes no sense at all. Voters simply brought back to power the very same people who screwed things up for them in the first dang place. Hey voters, are ya forgetting why you gave controlling victories to Democrats in 2006 and '08? Apparently so.
Voters' inexplicable, illogical and counter-intuitive shift back to the right is without question the over-riding takeaway from Tuesday's midterm elections. As NBC's Tom Brokaw marveled, "There's a wild bull loose in the arena, and it's the electorate." But there's so much else to comment on that I'll just list a few key thoughts and observations in no particular order:
-The super-rich trio of Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina and Linda McMahon proved that pouring GOPzillions of your own money into a campaign won't buy you victory. And, it's borderline criminal that they spent $200+-million on such selfish, ego-fueled pursuits. Think of all the good that money could've been used for.
-A delusional Christine O'Donnell declaring in her concession speech: "We have won! We were victorious because the Delaware political system will never be the same....The Republican Party will never be the same." I guess that's what you say when you were literally embarrassed out of an election because of your bizarre comments about evolution, mice-cloning and masturbation. This witchy nitwit then arrogantly gave advice to her winning opponent Chris Coons, the New Castle County Executive and Yale Law School grad, to listen to Delawareans and to watch her moronic 30-minute campaign video so he can get in better touch with voters' needs. Get on your broom and leave us alone already.
-Although it was way too close for comfort, thank heavens that that other cracked Tea Potter Sharron Angle in Nevada lost to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Had she won, I think I'd have moved to Canada with Alec Baldwin.
-Tuesday's results, for sure, badly damaged Sarah Palin's stock. Her biggest failure was in her home state of Alaska, where her personal, vitriolic hate campaign against incumbent Lisa Murkowski, the write-in candidate, and her support of lying Tea Party loon Joe Miller, appears to have backfired. Angle's and O'Donnell's losses are a huge embarrassment to her as well.
-Tea Party favorite Ken Buck's loss in Colorado is a major win for Democrats and another solid repudiation of Palin-esque radicalism.
-A cocky, arrogant Rand Paul declaring "There's a Tea Party tidal wave" and that "We've come to take our government back." Get ready, as the new Senator from Kentucky who claims we are "enslaved by debt" will, as MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell warns, likely kill any effort to raise the debt ceiling, currently around $14-trillion, which would result in America's default and cause a global depression. Something chilling to think about.
-During MSNBC's election coverage, a frustrated Chris Matthews to an evasive Rep. Michelle Bachmann, who responded to every question with the same mindless partisan spin: "Are you hypnotized? Has someone put you under a trance tonight?"
-How one of the smartest, most dedicated most honest politicians with unparalleled integrity like Wisconsin's Russ Feingold can lose his Senate re-election bid. Utterly disheartening, and devastating for his state's residents and, quite frankly, for America.
-The GOP's impressive gubernatorial wins will now strongly favor Republicans in the redistricting process and hurt Obama in 2012.
-After Miller, Angle, Buck and O'Donnell's losses, is Tea Party extremism dead? Has the "Keep your government hands off my Medicare" crowd been marginalized? And let's not view Paul's Kentucky win, where he replaced the retiring conservative Jim Bunning, or Florida's victory, where Democrat Ken Meek and independent Charlie Crist's boneheaded strategy to give newcomer Marco Rubio a split ticket gift, as an indication of Tea Bagger success. These two guys got lucky.
-Happy that Bill Owens retained his NY 23rd Congressional seat in the district that hasn't seen a Democrat win in over 125 years.
-Frustrated that the Republican Revolution of 1994 gave them 12 years of Congressional rule while Democrats imploded after just two years (or four, if you count the small majority after the '06 midterms)
-With all their talk of "listening to the people" (as in, 'most Americans don't want health care reform'), you can bet the first thing Republicans will try to do is extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, which costs the government $700 billion, despite the fact that most Americas are firmly against it.
-The new House Speaker John Boehner so overcome with emotion over his long-awaited ascent to the top spot that he sobbed uncontrollably through his victory speech. Hey, I thought Democrats were the wussies? First Glenn Beck and now Boehner...is this the new and improved sensitive Republican Party? The guy literally came unglued with glee.
-And as Boehner was feigning humility by saying that Tuesday's victories are not a cause for celebration, GOP chairman Michael Steele and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, along with other giddy right wingers, were reveling in their new found success and literally getting drunk with power. "Get ready for a big ride," Barbour boasted. Yeah, a frustrating, gridlocked road-trip filled with Republican arrogance, elitism and staunch opposition to everything Obama seeks to accomplish. Strap on your seat belts, America...
With the midterm elections just days away and bloated predictions of a massive Republican victory sweeping the nation, President Obama has been pulling out all stops to get out the Democratic vote, including an unprecedented appearance Wednesday night on Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, the self-described "fake news" show. It was a last-ditch strategy to reach young people, and I seriously question the wisdom of this decision.
Obama's now being chastised by the right for denigrating the office of the presidency by appearing with Stewart. But that's not the issue for me. In fact, I believe invading a sovereign nation like Iraq using false and manufactured evidence, or trampling on the Constitution with illegal spying, are much more egregious disrespects to the office. By comparison, these same Bush-supporting conservatives are therefore a tad disingenuous in their criticism of Obama.
My biggest problem with Obama's Daily Show appearance was that it was a dreadful performance. The president was unattractively defensive, and at times rambling, humorless, pleading and frustrated. He seemed exhausted. I'm not sure whose decision it was to put Obama on this program--let's assume his top advisor David Axelrod concocted this desperate scheme--but I suspect he's regretting it.
Obama desperately tried to convince the studio and home audience that his administration, given the Bushevik shitstorm it inherited, has done a pretty good job, especially with the economy, jobs and health care. I don't disagree. It/he has brought the nation back from the precipice of disaster. But his closing-argument prowess left much to be desired. He was not presidential. He was not convincing. He was not assuring. And he let Stewart best him, on several occasions. The most notable being "I don't think you wanna use that phrase, dude!" when the president said his former chief economic advisor, Lawrence Summers, "did a heckuva job." Stewart was referring to Bush's infamous misguided praise of former FEMA head Michael Brown, who notoriously botched the government's Hurricane Katrina rescue and relief effort (not exactly sure though how I feel about Stewart calling the president "dude," but I lean towards an apology being in order).
Another solid moment for Stewart came after Obama was seeking recognition for his accomplishments. "...We have done things that people don’t even know about." Stewart slyly shot back, "What have you done that people don't know about? Are you planning a surprise party for us? With millions of jobs and health care?"
And when a clearly disappointed Obama said "Jon, I love your show...and I don't want to lump you in with a lot of other pundits" before admonishing him for not cutting him some slack on the economy, Stewart deftly returned with "Not to lump you in with other presidents" before reiterating voters' frustration with the slow pace of the recovery. It was one of Stewart's patented "Oh, snap!" moments and the primary reason he is so loved by his viewers. There is no one in the media who can be so biting in such a non-threatening, nice guy way.
To be sure, appearing off teleprompter is not one of Obama's strengths. He's awful off script and is equally uncomfortable in one-on-ones. He speaks in a slow, measured monotone and comes off dispassionate and unconvincing, which is in total contrast to his unparalleled soaring oratory skills when addressing mass audiences. And when one assumes he was virtually preaching to the liberal Daily Show choir, the decision to appear, after being semi-admonished by its iconic host, let alone exposing himself to subsequent Republican ridicule, seems quite counter-intuitive.
Ok, you're pissed off. Really pissed off. Especially you young folks, and blacks, and progressives. We get it. You feel your party has let you down. And you feel that President Obama, who you historically elected two years ago and who you expected to magically lift America from its economic abyss, has disappointed you as well. You're angry about your jobs (or lack thereof), you're angry about your dwindling home values, you're angry about your disappearing 401K/IRA/savings accounts and you fear for the future. And rightly so. The country is experiencing the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression eighty years ago, and desperation and despair has set in for many of you.
Tuesday of next week there will be an election. A very, very important election. An election that will critically alter the political landscape for many years to come, and greatly impact the health, economic, social, environmental, legislative and judicial policies of our nation, many of which affect you and your families. At stake, among other things, are decisions about your health, your Social Security, your Medicare, your civil rights, your children's education, who you can marry, who you can have sex with, a woman's right to choose, how and when you can buy a home, when you can retire, protecting your retirement savings, whether we govern under the Separation of Church and State, whether we respect science, fund stem cell research, fight global warming, and whether your children are sent to fight unjust wars.
To be sure, this election is like no other in American history. It represents the cruel irony of potentially reversing 200 years of American progress just two years after electing the first black president. Just two years ago we thought, look how far we've come, America! Two years later we're now thinking, look at how little we've truly progressed. The Republican Party, re-branded as the Tea Party, would like to "take America back" to the days when older, rich white men had all the money and power. Their policies are self-serving and elitist, and they'd love nothing more than to strip you of everything that government provides you, your family, your parents. And if they win on November 2nd, that's what they'll immediately start doing.
The truth is, while the economy still struggles, it is without question much better than it was when Obama took office. Gross domestic output (GDP) has grown from -6% to +3%, a nine point swing. We went from losing 750,000 jobs per month to now experiencing seven straight months of private sector job growth. We went from having Wall Street, banking, hotel, airline, retail, housing and the automotive industries on the precipice of bankruptcy to now experiencing solid recovery and, in some sectors, record growth and profits. Credit, previously frozen, now flows again to business and consumer borrowers alike.
The policies of President Obama and the Democrats have worked. Now is not the time to toss out the guys who kept America from another Great Depression and hand the controls back to those who sent it there. You must remember the nearly unprecedented financial crisis Obama inherited in January 2009, and the solid economic progress that's been made since. While we still have a long ways to go in this recovery, we can just as easily, and quickly, sink right back into that abyss. A place where only the rich, the corporate fatcats and the special interests benefit. And that's exactly what will happen if you allow your frustration and anger to result in Republicans winning control of Congress next week.
So this is your choice, Democrats. You can take your anger out on your own party or you can take it out by supporting your party and keeping from power those who seek to harm you. Yes, it's a lesser of two evils choice, but a choice nonetheless, and one you must make. The stakes are way too high not to. Don't do what the Ralph Nader-ites did in 2000 when they cast their protest vote against Al Gore and in doing so rolled out the Red Carpet for eight years of George Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove tyranny. No, the way to protest is to vote against those who threaten your own interests, not those who seek to protect them, however frustratingly slow that may be taking.
Your party and your leaders are like family. You don't always like them, and you don't always agree with what they say, what they decide, or how long it takes them to deliver. But you always support them. And that's what you must do next Tuesday. Give President Obama and the Democratic Party the chance to continue re-building America for you and your families. You cannot stay home on Tuesday. You must get out and vote, and tell everyone you know to do so as well. The consequences of not doing so will be devastating.
There. I've said it. And it feels damn good. I'm sorry, but I'm sick and tired of watching the mainstream media, and seemingly everyone else for that matter, give legitimacy to this cabal of embarrassingly under qualified non-intellectuals who seek to reverse the social, educational, scientific and economic progress America's made since the Founding Fathers put pen to paper and drafted the U.S. Constitution...ya know, that little document which Tea Baggers like Delaware Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell like to refer to ad nauseam despite not having a clue as to what the hell's actually in it.
Yes, I'm sick and tired of the sheer stupidity of this movement called the Tea Party. I'm aghast at the stupidity of both its candidates and its constituents. They decry and denounce everything modern, logical and rational. They're against everything and think government should stand for nothing. And what's truly stupid is that they don't even understand the very principles for which they stand. Just witness the level of ignorance in the following video at a D.C. Tea Party rally:
These uninformed lost souls vehemently shout for "small government" and "less government handouts," but ask them if they'd like to lose their Social Security and Medicare and they smile and say, "Oh no, that stuff I like!" They don't know what the hell they want, yet that hasn't stopped them from being really, really angry anyway. And they support candidates who stand for nothing and are against everything. They mock science, think evolution is "a myth,", claim President Obama is an illegal alien, are against stem cell research, the Department of Education, the EPA, Social Security and Medicare, health care reform, financial reform, cap and trade and other environmental protections.
Just consider the sheer lunacy of some of the statements found in a NY Times article Thursday by several Tea Party supporters interviewed about their denial of global warming:
"It’s a flat-out lie," said Norman Dennison, a 50-year-old electrician and founder of the Corydon Tea Party. He added that he had based his view on the preaching of Rush Limbaugh and the teaching of Scripture. "I read my Bible. He made this earth for us to utilize."
"This so-called climate science is just ridiculous," said Kelly Khuri, founder of the Clark County Tea Party Patriots. "I think it’s all cyclical. Carbon regulation, cap and trade, it’s all just a money-control avenue." She added: "Some people say I’m extreme, but they said the John Birch Society was extreme, too." (um, that's because it is)
And yet another Tea Baggin' genius: Lisa Deaton, a small-business owner in Columbus, Ind and founder of Tea Party affiliate We the People Indiana, said "They’re trying to use global warming against the people. It takes way our liberty. Being a strong Christian, I cannot help but believe the Lord placed a lot of minerals in our country and it’s not there to destroy us."
Even worse are the certifiably loony candidates that these dopes are supporting. Let's take a look at the Tea Party's "A Team:"
Consider O'Donnell, who's cheated on her taxes, lied about her education, defaulted on her mortgage, defaulted on her college tuition, reportedly used campaign funds for personal use, campaigned against sex and masturbation, and admits to "dabbling in witchcraft." She has also made a series of very bizarre statements about scientists cloning humans with animals which produce "mice with fully functioning human brains;" and believes homosexuality is "an identity disorder" and that having women in the military "cripples the readiness of our defense." Her latest embarrassment involves her complete, utter lack of knowledge about the Separation of Church and State and the U.S. Constitution's 1st Amendment establishment clause which protects it:
Or Harry Reid's Senate opponent in Nevada, Sharron Angle, who during an interview about abortion, when asked hypothetically what a 15-year-old girl who was raped by her father should do, Angle suggested that she "turn lemons into lemonade" and find a solution. She also wants to repeal health care reform; is against financial reform; seeks to cut Social Security benefits; and scoffs at global warming. Just this week she told a group of Hispanic students that they look Asian.
Or how about Joe Miller up in Alaska, who thinks that unemployment insurance is unconstitutional, and who had his goons assault a reporter this week simply for asking a question? Or Rand Paul in Kentucky, who doesn't believe in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Or Colorado's Ken Buck who thinks "this global warming is the greatest hoax that has been perpetrated." Or the "refudiatin" Sarah Palin, who Tweeted her followers this week urging them to support Pennsylvania Senate candidate John Raese. Only problem: Raese is running in W Va. Can you say, airhead?
And what about Newt Gingrich, who's blatant racist comments about President Obama last month were shocking let alone moronic: "What if Obama is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together his actions? That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior."
To be sure, what we're witnessing with the Tea Party is politics at its stupidest best. This is a dumb party, with dumb ideas, dumb candidates and even dumber voters. Someone just has to say it, and I'm fine with it being me.
On another subject, we can use your help at The Adrienne Shelly Foundation. The The Adrienne Shelly Foundation is a 501 c 3 tax-exempt, non-profit organization dedicated in my late wife's honor, and with a simple mission: supporting women filmmakers. Adrienne, who wrote, directed and starred in the hit film WAITRESS, was killed November 1, 2006. Through the Foundation, her commitment to filmmaking lives on. Our mission is simple: to support women filmmakers. Since then we’ve awarded over 20 grants and scholarships through our partnerships with Sundance Institute, Tribeca Film Institute, American Film Institute, Columbia University, NYU/Tisch School of the Arts, IFP, Women in Film and the Nantucket Film Festival. Our grantees include Cynthia Wade, who won an Oscar in '08 for her documentary, FREEHELD, which we helped fund. If you visit our website you’ll see the many faces of the very talented women from around the world who’ve benefited from our assistance. Your generous contribution will go a long way towards helping us achieve this very important mission. Please click here to make a donation. Thank you.
I admit it. I'm a certifiable political junkie who will literally watch two Chicago Aldermen debate if I have the time. I simply love the dance. It's pure theater. The ultimate reality show. And sometimes it can be like watching Snooki and Angelina slug it out, except in business suits, behind a podium, and trading political barbs instead of expletive-laced Guidette-isms. Which is exactly why the process is broken and desperately in need of fixing.
Politicians today lie more than ever, because they've come to learn that the mainstream media cares little to prove them wrong. So they will say anything, to anyone, at any time if they think it strengthens their standing, weakens their opponents and demonizes them. And this disingenuous behavior is no more prevalent than on televised debates, where lie after calculated lie is hurled between the combatants, to the moderators and to voters watching at home. The recent Meg Whitman/Jerry Brown, Chris Coons/Christine O'Donnell, Harry Reid/Sharron Angle and Rand Paul/Jack Conway debates are prime examples of this truthiness epidemic.
But do debates have to be such truth-starved spectacles? Should politicians be allowed this forum to summarily dupe and deceive? Are the parties expected to just sit there like a bunch of saps as accusations are presented as fact without any verification whatsoever? How are voters supposed to make educated decisions about whom to vote for if candidates' lies go unchecked? Without such verification these political debates are useless. Unless of course it's the Snookiness of it all you're looking for.
Which brings us to the fix; how to make debates truly meaningful in the election process. It's really quite simple: research and verify, right there on the spot. Why can't the sponsor/host, whoever it may be such as CNN, PBS, Fox or some University, have a bank of fact-checkers in the studio, sitting like telephone operators at a telethon, next to the moderator's table? With online research tools available like Google and Lexus-Nexis, how difficult would it be to spend a few minutes digging for the truth each time there's a material dispute about a candidate's record? In Jerry Seinfeld's new show "The Marriage Ref" a reputable journalist fact-checker sits on-stage and does just that. Does our political process not deserve the same respect for the truth?
Here's how the revised debate system would work: let's say candidate A claims candidate B voted for or against a critical bill. Or perhaps candidate B claims candidate A made a controversial position statement in the past. Or one accuses the other of having some sort of embarrassing skeleton in the closet. Rather than listening to several minutes of he-said/she-said accusations and denials, without it ever being conclusively proven, how about conclusively proving it? At the beginning of each debate the moderator would announce a format such as this:
"In the first 75-minutes of tonight's debate, each candidate will have two minutes to answer a question, which will then be followed up with a 30-sec rebuttal by the other. The candidate will then have 30 seconds to answer the opponent's rebuttal. The final 15 minutes will consist of the findings of our fact-checking team, seated to my right, of each disputed item, at which time you will have an opportunity to address the results and acknowledge any mistakes and clarify them as well. You will then each get a one-minute closing statement. So we urge you to pay close attention to accuracy, as we will be uncovering the truth behind any controversial statements and accusations. Now let's begin..."
Imagine a debate where politicians knew going in that they'd be caught red-handed with their hands in the bullshit jar if they operated business as usual. Imagine a debate where the media actually did it's job in digging for the truth rather than play marginalized ringmaster in a political sideshow.
On another subject, we can use your help at The Adrienne Shelly Foundation. The The Adrienne Shelly Foundation is a 501 c 3 tax-exempt, non-profit organization dedicated in my late wife's honor, and with a simple mission: supporting women filmmakers. Adrienne, who wrote, directed and starred in the hit film WAITRESS, was killed November 1, 2006. Through the Foundation, her commitment to filmmaking lives on. Our mission is simple: to support women filmmakers. Since then we’ve awarded over 20 grants and scholarships through our partnerships with Sundance Institute, Tribeca Film Institute, American Film Institute, Columbia University, NYU/Tisch School of the Arts, IFP, Women in Film and the Nantucket Film Festival. Our grantees include Cynthia Wade, who won an Oscar in '08 for her documentary, FREEHELD, which we helped fund. If you visit our website you’ll see the many faces of the very talented women from around the world who’ve benefited from our assistance. Your generous contribution will go a long way towards helping us achieve this very important mission. Please click here to make a donation. Thank you.
Once again, Fox's Bill O'Reilly has put his giant Republican foot in his blabbermouth. On ABC's The View Thursday O'Reilly, during a heated exchange with the ladies about the proposed Islamic Community Center two blocks from Ground Zero, spewed the sort of ignorant, race-baiting venom that's become all-too familiar among conservatives: "Muslims killed us on 9/11!" Moments later, the program's most reliably outspoken libs, Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar, got up and angrily walked off the stage, only to appear minutes later after O'Reilly sucked it up and apologized, pathetically trying to rationalize and spin his racist garbage into something less offensive.
There's a reason why most Americans oppose the Center, as O'Reilly cited from a CNN poll. It's the same reason why a third of Americans believe President Obama is an illegal alien. It's because rabble-rousing lying racists like O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, in partnership with flame-stoking lying pols like Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, dominate the media and control the message the right-wing vomits to its equally ignorant racist base.
So Muslims killed us on 9/11? Was it Jews who killed innocent New Yorkers in the Son of Sam murders in the 70's? Was it blacks who killed 29 Atlanta children in the early 80's? Was it Christians who blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City in 1995?
O'Reilly and his fear-mongering cohorts know very well what they're doing as they regurgitate their incendiary rhetoric to the masses. There's nothing like a little good old fashioned racist propaganda to scare the bajeesus out of the blissfully unaware and bolster one's position. And for those despicable ignoramuses who oppose the building of the Islamic Community Center, that includes demonizing an entire religion.
Once upon a time, not long ago, voters actually voted with their best interests at heart. Oh sure, there were Democrats and Republicans and even some of those pesky little independents who now seem to be the pivotal block in almost every major election. Heck, some people even voted communist. But what all of the candidates had in common was intelligence. They were always smart, highly educated and experienced. All voters needed to do was choose which ones best represented their economic, social and foreign policy interests.
Not today. And in particular, not in today's Republican Party. What we're witnessing today is a monumental dumbing down of GOP politics. The lowering of the standards and qualifications bar so low that only candidates appealing to the lowest common denominators stand a chance. Intelligence, education and experience is out. Ignorance, inexperience and nauseating folksiness is in.
Which leads us to two seminal figures in today's GOP: Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell, the Tea Party queen and princess respectively, who have helped redefine grass-roots politics, and not in a good way.
Palin, who helped put the Tea Party on the map, and her protegee O'Donnell, best personify the new breed of Republican: charming, attractive, angry non-intellects who mock education, science and logic, while claiming "I am you" in an effort to identify with average voters. It's Mrs. Smith Goes to Washington, except without any ideas, vision or intelligent things to say.
But give them some credit. These two empty-suited frauds have accomplished the unthinkable: by historic comparison, they've actually made George W. Bush seem smart and qualified. Say what you will about old Dubya, but at least he served two full terms as Texas Governor. And, contrary to O'Donnell's proud claim for herself, he went to Yale. Stacked up against these two colossal lightweights, he's Lincoln.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying there's no place in Washington, no place in the GOP, for the likes of Palin and O'Donnell. But rather than be considered serious contenders for the White House and Senate, perhaps a job where their qualifications are better matched might be in running out to get Mitch McConnell's or John McCain's lunch or fetching John Boehner's martinis and tanning cream.
What's happening to the GOP should be of grave concern to Republicans, who are watching their party become hijacked by the unintellectual elite. The dummies have taken over, and the old guard--McCain, McConnell, Boehner and other establishment Republican leaders--may find themselves powerless if the Tea Baggers get their way in three weeks.
In today's GOP, the dumber candidates are and the more they project themselves that way, the more they think they'll identify with the common voter. Who needs experience? Who needs a solid education? Who needs to be able to stand before the press and not sound like an absolute, substance-lacking moron? If Palin, O'Donnell, Angle, Rand Paul, Joe Miller, Michelle Bachmann and others in the Tea Party Army represent the future of the Republican Party, then the Republican Party has no future.
On another subject, we can use your help at The Adrienne Shelly Foundation. The The Adrienne Shelly Foundation is a 501 c 3 tax-exempt, non-profit organization dedicated in my late wife's honor, and with a simple mission: supporting women filmmakers. Adrienne, who wrote, directed and starred in the hit film WAITRESS, was killed November 1, 2006. Through the Foundation, her commitment to filmmaking lives on. Our mission is simple: to support women filmmakers. Since then we’ve awarded over 20 grants and scholarships through our partnerships with Sundance Institute, Tribeca Film Institute, American Film Institute, Columbia University, NYU/Tisch School of the Arts, IFP, Women in Film and the Nantucket Film Festival. Our grantees include Cynthia Wade, who won an Oscar in '08 for her documentary, FREEHELD, which we helped fund. If you visit our website you’ll see the many faces of the very talented women from around the world who’ve benefited from our assistance. Your generous contribution will go a long way towards helping us achieve this very important mission. Please click here to make a donation. Thank you.
Need a good laugh? Take a little trip over to Delaware's Tea Party Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell's website and check out her positions on fixing America's most pressing problems like jobs, the economy, taxes, spending, health care, energy and national security. It's chock full of all the creative, ground-breaking, thought-provoking political and policy insights you can cram into a whopping 265 words. That is of course if the thoughts it provokes, and the insights it offers, are that O'Donnell is woefully lacking in knowledge and substance.
Wanna fix the jobs problem, you say? Well, O'Donnell has an incredible plan: "Believes jobs are created when businesses are freed from endless taxes and bureaucratic red tape." That's it. All of it. Word for word. The entire plan in a nutshell. Can't you literally hear the stampede of people headed back to work now...
Wanna reign in spending? O'Donnell has the solution: "Believes unrestrained government spending is eroding our freedom, destroying our economy and ceding our sovereignty to foreign debt-holders like China." I think the deficit just dropped a trillion bucks as we speak...
Wanna make America more energy efficient? O'Donnell "Supports a market-based approach to energy solutions that will keep competition high and energy prices low." Wow! Why didn't Al Gore think of that?
Or how about taxes? O'Donnell "Will fight to remove the crushing tax burden faced by American families and businesses and dramatically simplify the tax code." Dang, if anyone can untangle this intricate and complicated tax code it's Christine O'Donnell! Didn't she major in Tax Law at Oxford?
Ya think Delawareans would be fortunate to have representing them in Washington such a brilliant thinker and policy innovator? Let's hope they make the right decision on November 2nd..
In the meantime, I know a Senate hopeful in Delaware named Chris Coons who could use a few bucks. Click here to donate.
