What Lebron's Decision Says About Lebron

They booed him in New York, they burned his jerseys in Cleveland and they went berserk with glee in South Beach. In the TV circus that was the Lebron James "Decision" show Thursday night on ESPN, the 25-year-old basketball phenom announced his long-awaited, more-dramatic-than-a-soap-opera choice of where he'll be playing this Fall: the Miami Heat. And this surprising decision tells us an awful lot about James and how he feels about himself, or more so, how he doesn't.

The second-coming of Michael Jordan has curiously chosen instead to be the second fiddle of Dwayne Wade, the Heat's one-man offensive machine who'll now also be joined by former Toronto all-star forward Chris Bosh (Gotta hand it to Miami president Pat Riley for bagging the top three free agents of all time). But as anyone with an ounce of basketball knowledge will tell you, Wade is not going to change his style of play for Lebron. It's his team, his town ("Wade County") and his game. Which begs the question, why on Earth would James take a back seat to Wade?

The truth is, James, who was feeling the pressure to live up to the "the greatest of all time" label, does not see himself the way fans or the media does. He does not believe he's the caliber of player of Jordan and Kobe Bryant, who've won six and five NBA championships respectively. His decision to cede top-dog status to Wade is a de facto admission that he cannot carry a team and win it all on his back; that he's not "the man" like Jordan and Kobe, and now clearly, Wade. But while he says he'd rather be a Magic Johnson than a Jordan, can we really believe him? Will he really thrive as Wade's second banana? Will he really be ok with Wade getting the ball in the key final seconds of a critical game? Will the "Miami Thrice," as they're now being called, truly jive as a team--the way the Celtics' stars Paul Pierce, Ray Allan and Kevin Garnett do--and deliver instant, dynasty-level championship success, which is what everyone expects from this half-billion-dollar megastar collective? Will Riley, who now needs to sign eight more players under minimum-salary contracts, be able to attract quality support players or is the Heat destined to be a trio of disappointingly over-talented ball-grabbing egomaniacs who never bring home the trophy? To be sure, there's gonna be more pressure on this Dream Team to win, win quickly, and win big than on any other team in professional sports history.

In an open letter to fans, Cleveland Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert wrote about James' departure this way: "This was announced with a several day, narcissistic, self-promotional build-up culminating with a national TV special of his decision unlike anything ever witnessed in the history of sports and probably the history of entertainment." Gilbert's right. The event screamed, "Me, me, me." It was not the action of a humble superstar ready to run the floor in Wade's shadow. And that could be a foreshadowing of what's to come from King James in Miami more than than anything else.

Who's the Elitist Now?

While subbing for Fox News Radio's Tom Sullivan Monday, Spencer Hughes--not exactly a household name, mind you--spent much of his show guilty of classic Freudian Projection and Republican hypocrisy.

Conservative spinheads like Hughes love to bash President Obama and liberals for being "elitists," out of touch with the needs of the average American in this difficult recessionary period. But it is Hughes who clearly demonstrated his colossal lack of compassion and insight into the economic, health and racial struggles people are facing all over the country.

One frustrated, distraught female caller said she's been unemployed long-term and is finding it near impossible to get a job. Hughes berated her, stating that anyone who wants work can find it. As an example he cited his wife's budding online apparel and jewelry business. "I can't afford to buy gas," she countered. Hughes then arrogantly bragged to his listeners that "I can look around her apartment and garage and guarantee you she can afford $9.99 a month for Internet." He reiterated that, just like his wife (who, it should be noted, has a gainfully employed husband for support), anyone can start a business.

Hughes then suggested that out of work people write E-Books. "One of the best ways to make money on the Internet," he said. Is this guy for real? With a straight face he's suggesting to the millions of unemployed workers--most with little or no higher education--that they write books? A laid-off factory worker living in Ohio with three hungry kids is supposed to sit around and pen a novel? Or maybe these poor folks can write books about what it's like to be kicked in the ass during the worst economy in 75 years.

Hughes praised another caller for "going into my own practice" when things didn't work out with his "associates." I don't begrudge this particular guy, but an obvious professional like him is not representative of the typical poor shlep who's lost his job at the plant.

When he was done with his jobs diatribe Hughes then shifted to obesity, claiming that people are fat because they're lazy and don't want to exercise. And because they eat too much junk food (ignoring studies that show that poor people eat junk food because it's cheap). He suggested they go jogging. Yes, jogging, apparently the official sport of the low-income, inner-city unemployed. I guess, to Hughes, when you've been out of work for a year and you worry about putting food on the table for your kids, the best thing is to simply go for a run. And working white folks like Hughes can vouch for how freakin' Zen this activity is.

Hughes then railed against law enforcement, attacking cops and highway patrolmen for handing out summonses to innocent people like his wife, who was ticketed for doing 88miles per hour when he claims she was within the speed limit. "They got the badge and the gun," he lamented. Hughes vented anger over how cops sit and wait for people like him "to go three inches past the stop sign" so they can pull him over. And this is a guy who, like so many conservatives, supports Arizona's tough new immigration law on the grounds that the law protects people from discrimination, and that cops will do the right thing. Hughes is an angry white man who feels bullied by police. Does he ever stop to think how a Mexican feels in Arizona? Talk about being out of touch.

James Taylor and Carole King Rock the Garden

Entering the storied Madison Square Garden Wednesday night I had a distinct moment of uncertainty; of feeling I was in the wrong place. I was there to see two pop legends perform, yet judging from the median age of the crowd it looked more like a "Golden Girls" convention. It was also a very white crowd. In fact, it was the oldest, whitest audience I had ever watched a concert with. We could've been at a nursing home in South Carolina.

But the truth is, at 68 and 62 respectively, Carole King's and James Taylor's fans are as old if not way older than the two rockers who bounced around the stage for 2 1/2 hours like teens on Red Bull. With an astounding 130 years between them, Taylor and King still have more talent, charm, energy and relevance than performers half their ages. It was an incredible evening of some of the best pop songs in music history.

Performing in the round on a slow moving stage, Taylor and King took turns singing their iconic hits with a duet thrown in every now and then. Shortly after the open, to rousing applause and repeated standing ovations, Taylor mirthfully acknowledged that this is what they meant by "we've got to get back to the Garden," referring to the classic lyric from Joni Mitchell's "Woodstock, made famous by Crosby, Stills Nash & Young. His easy charm and wickedly dry sense of humor--qualities almost as appreciated as his music--was evident throughout the performance. While relating the meaning behind his lovely lullaby "Sweet Baby James," written for his brother's newborn, he told of being away when his nephew was born. "I was a broad for a year. Wait, that didn't come out right. That's how rumors get started."

Taylor later recalled how he and King got together last November to work on their set list. They had a hard time choosing, he said, because there was just too many songs between them and they wanted them all. "Would've been a 6-hour show," he said, as the adoring crowd shrieked their approval. "Oh you say that now," he jokingly warned. But the crowd was loving every minute, and surely would've stayed six hours had Taylor and King indulged them.

Taylor went through his greatest hits with the precision of a master, his voice still hitting the highs, and largely staying true to the songs' Top 40 radio execution, but injecting just enough blues and soul to keep them from getting tired. And when he crooned "Fire and Rain"--a song he's so identified with that he's surely at some point in his career resented having to perform it--he seemed to comfortably embrace this classic and truly appreciate that, at 62, he still has 20,000 people absolutely ga-ga to hear him sing it. After a brief intermission, JT traded in his suit and blue dress shirt for some chinos, a brown polo and an Irish cap; a wardrobe change which made him look more like his 70's self.

King was amazing as well. Remember this woman's age. At 68, she was adorable, sexy and playful, with boundless energy. At one point she sidled up to legendary guitarist Danny Kortchmar, and in a back-and-forth vocal tease she sensually mimicked his elongated guitar licks. Hard to imagine any one of today's young pop stars pulling something like that off at almost 70, and looking so natural doing it. Not sure I'd even wanna see them do it today. When King belted out "Natural Woman," she brought the house down. A rendition so soulful and emotional that you'd have to be dead not to have felt its raw power and beauty.

To be sure, it's truly astounding how many incredible songs these two giants have written between them. And seeing them perform them together was as joyous for the audience as it was so clearly for them. Their trust, love, respect and appreciation for each other shined throughout, and was infectuous. Watching King buoyantly dance around to "I Feel the Earth Move," matched by Taylor bouncing up and down as he rocked "Up on the Roof," you felt fortunate to be in the presence of ageless greatness, witnessing something very, very special.

The only beef was the mile-long bathroom lines. But I suppose that's what you get when you throw 20,000 old folks under one roof.

Obama Finds Cure For Cancer. Republicans Attack Him For Putting Oncologists Out of Work

The bitter partisan climate in Washington just got nastier and more irrational as Republicans attacked the Obama administration for discovering the long-awaited cure for cancer, the deadly disease that kills millions of people all over the world each year.

In what should be a celebration of this incredible medical and science breakthrough, it's business as usual on the Hill as the Party of No seeks to obstruct the administration's agenda and downplay its accomplishments.

"I said it earlier in the year and I meant it," said Arizona Sen. John McCain. "We will not support anything this president does, and that includes curing cancer. We'll find a way, as always, to point out how that's bad for America."

And it seems the GOP leadership has found its theme: jobs. "The country is already facing historic unemployment levels," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky). "This cure is going to put 200,000 oncologists, chemo labs and funeral homes out of business. It's just another slap of the Obama recession on the face of the American worker."

Jumping on the attack wagon was Sarah Palin, who accused Obama of another government takeover. "It's Socialized Life," she said, coining yet another brilliantly crafty soundbite. "It's Marxism. It's exactly what The Marx Brothers warned about in all their movies."

Mirroring the GOP's strategy during the 2008 presidential campaign, middle-American working stiffs are being used again as the face of the debate. "I'm just an average guy tryin' to make a living and this left wing cure's gonna ruin me," said Joe the Hospice Worker. "Obama is just so out of touch with the needs of the little guy....the healthy little guy."

As predicted, the response from the White House has been swift and aggressive. An incredulous vice president Joe Biden said, "Wait a second. This is fucking huge. We're talking about the cure for cancer, for Pete's sake. It was unconscionable for Republicans to defend BP against the interests of suffering Americans, but this? Are they fucking kidding?"

And in a brief call to Chris Matthews' Hardball, a visibly frustrated and exasperated Obama lamented, "Aww, what's the use. I can't win. I can't even get the right behind me after finding the cure for cancer. Republicans just won't get behind anything I do. Not even if I sucked up all the Gulf oil with my own lips; banned abortion; tossed every immigrant out of the country; or flew to Iran and personally kicked Ahmadinejad's ass."


On another note, we could use your help at The The Adrienne Shelly Foundation. We're 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. We've established scholarships, grants, finishing funds, screenwriting fellowships and living stipends at NYU's Tisch School of the Arts/Kanbar Institute of Film; Columbia University; American Film Institute; Women in Film; IFP; the Nantucket Film Festival; the Tribeca Film Institute; and the Sundance Institute. 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.

Spill, Baby, Spill! How the Left Can Win the PR War

Let's face it. Republicans are pretty masterful at creating catchy, effective soundbites to define the issues, frame the debate and sway public opinion. Case in point, "Taxpayer Bailout," "Death Panels" and "Drill, Baby, Drill." And while they're making things simple for voters, Democrats bore them to death with long-winded, over-intellectualized, nuanced explanations. If the left's ever gonna take back control of the message, they'll need to start dumbing-down their rhetoric so that it's clearly understood by the little guy. Because, unfortunately, the little guy doesn't want, need or understand all the details. It is possible for Democrats to start winning the public relations war. They just have to start thinking like Republicans.

For example, the ubiquitous Sarah Palin has become even more infamous in coining the Drill, Baby, Drill mantra. While it lacks substance and sneers at the inherent dangers of unregulated offshore drilling, it sticks. It's repeated incessantly like the best propaganda, and has become part of the current political lexicon. So why can't Democrats counter this gibberish with "Spill, Baby, Spill" to drill its own powerful message into the heads of voters? You'd think the catastrophic BP oil spill would provide the perfect setting for Dems to own this debate, right? Two months into one of the worst environmental disasters in American history, there's 60,000 barrels of oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico each day with no end in sight and months, if not years, of costly cleanup ahead. You'd think voters in the region and throughout the U.S. would be outraged to the point of being very sympathetic to a crafty little soundbite like Spill, Baby, Spill, especially as the disaster is ruining people financially, damaging marshes and killing wildlife.

We have a boneheaded New Orleans District Court judge this week overturning President Obama's 6-month moratorium on offshore drilling. And we have myriad Repubs in and around Washington like Palin, Rep. Joe Barton, Rep. Michelle Bachmann, Rand Paul and Rush Limbaugh serving as apologists and defenders of BP at every turn. Clearly, no matter how horrific the damage and despair caused by BP's spill, Repubs continue fighting for more unregulated offshore drilling as if nothing's happened. They're still ramming their extremist right-wing pro-business ideology down the throats of Americans while the left appears impotent in the PR war. Why? Why can't Democrats turn this situation into political currency? Why aren't they ramming "Spill, Baby, Spill" down these same throats? And here's a few others I thought of in less than a minute: "Protecting Big Oil," "No More Apologies," "Taxpayer Shakedown" and "Fighting for Fisherman." Where's the left's propaganda like this? Sometimes, especially in politics, less is more. Sarah Palin's teaching us that right now. Democrats would be wise to follow suit. Two or three very powerful, debate-framing, issue-defining words repeated ad nauseam go an awful long way these days...


On another note, we could use your help at The The Adrienne Shelly Foundation. We're 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. We've established scholarships, grants, finishing funds, screenwriting fellowships and living stipends at NYU's Tisch School of the Arts/Kanbar Institute of Film; Columbia University; American Film Institute; Women in Film; IFP; the Nantucket Film Festival; the Tribeca Film Institute; and the Sundance Institute. 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.

Republican Campaign Slogan: "Screw You Voters, We Care More About BP"

Ever since President Obama convinced embattled oil giant BP last week to put $20-billion into an escrow account for claims arising from the company's catastrophic spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Republicans have become the company's apologists and defenders instead of fighting for the victims facing financial ruin as a result of the environmental disaster.

As boneheaded a political miscalculation as possible, Republicans have let their extremist pro-business ideology win out over common sense, political expediency and patriotism. Their mantra has become, screw Americans who've lost their jobs, their businesses, and their hopes...it's BP we care about, not you.

This right wing foot-in-mouth-disease surfaced last month when Tea Party king Rand Paul, Kentucky's GOP primary winner, criticized Obama's tough talk: "What I don’t like from the president’s administration is this sort of, ‘I’ll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.’ I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business."

The reprehensible rhetoric ratcheted up last week during the Congressional hearing over the spill: "I’m ashamed at what happened in the White House yesterday," said Rep. Joe Barton (Tx), the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. "I think it is a tragedy in the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown -- in this case a $20 billion shakedown...I apologize." That's right, he apologized to BP. Voters should know that, if Republicans recapture the House in November's midterms, Barton would become chairman of the committee that serves as the watchdog for the environment. The proverbial fox would be guarding the hen house.

Rep. Tom Price (Ga), chairman of the House Republican Study Committee, echoed Barton's concerns in criticizing the administration's handling of the BP escrow fund. "BP’s reported willingness to go along with the White House’s new fund suggests that the Obama administration is hard at work exerting its brand of Chicago-style shakedown politics."

Regurgitating more disingenuous talking points, Tea Party co-queen Rep. Michelle Bachmann(MN) called the $20-billion a "redistribution-of-wealth fund." She added that the fund is "yet one more gateway for more government control." She also said that BP "shouldn't have to be fleeced" for the fund. Bachmann's partner in Tea Party gaffery, Sarah "Drill Baby Drill" Palin, believes "We can't afford to demonize" BP. Ya gotta hand it to these two: it's getting harder and harder to tell who's dumber.

On Sunday's Meet the Press, host David Gregory asked Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, "What's worse, the moratorium (on offshore drilling) or the effects of this spill on the region? Incredibly, Barbour replied, "The moratorium....It's not only bad for the region but it's bad for America." It doesn't seem to phase Barbour that there's still no explanation for the Deepwater Horizon explosion which killed 11 workers and is spewing 60,000 barrels of oil into the Gulf each day with no end in sight, killing off wildlife, destroying marshes and wreaking financial havoc on oil riggers, fisherman and local businesses. Barbour, like his neighbor to the West, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, just wants to keep drilling. More drilling, with less regulation. Jindal, in fact, is part of a lawsuit to end Obama's moratorium.

The unconscionable Republican defense of BP continued Monday with media blowhard Rush Limbaugh charging that "This is just another bailout fund called something else, and we'll see who gets it....This is going to be used as a little miniature slush fund."

Democrats owe a big fat thank you to Limbaugh and his Republican Party. Because in what was shaping up to be a very challenging election year, the GOP's made the decision a whole lot easier for voters, especially residents of Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Florida, whose lives have been upended by the spill. Voters will have a clear choice between the party of BP apologists and defenders or the party that's fought for them and secured $20-billion for claims. It's Big Oil vs. the little guy. And Republicans have clearly shown who they stand with.

As White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said on ABC's This Week Sunday, "Elections are about choices...I think what Joe Barton did is remind the American people, in case they've forgotten, this is how the Republicans would govern."




On another note, we could use your help at The The Adrienne Shelly Foundation. We're 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. We've established scholarships, grants, finishing funds, screenwriting fellowships and living stipends at NYU's Tisch School of the Arts/Kanbar Institute of Film; Columbia University; American Film Institute; Women in Film; IFP; the Nantucket Film Festival; the Tribeca Film Institute; and the Sundance Institute. 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.

The Nattering Naboblicans of Negativism

I have this friend out in LA. We'll call him Brad. Brad's a 100% narrow-minded, lock-steppin', self-serving, gated-community livin' Republican business owner (started by his dad) without an ounce of compassion for those less fortunate. All of which I can easily accept. I'm all for capitalism, political diversity and nepotism. I can even accept the wanton disregard for those in need. But what I can't accept about Brad is his shameful anti-Americanism. And there are plenty more Republicans just like Brad, lemmingly led by Rush "I want Obama to fail" Limbaugh.

Accusing someone of being anti-American is a serious charge, and I don't take it lightly, whether I am referring to Brad or whether the charge is hurled at politicians by the opposition simply over policy differences. So what makes Brad anti-American? It's simple. Brad is rooting for our president to fail. He is rooting for the economy to fail. He is rooting for the stock markets to fail. All because, to Brad, this failure translates to partisan victory in November. Brad, like so many Republicans, cheers with celebratory glee whenever there's bad news on Main Street or Wall Street. And there's nothing more unpatriotic than to want your government and financial system to fail, particularly for political reasons.

Brad's America-hating takes the form of gloating, sinister, "See! I told ya so!" emails every time there's a big drop in the Dow. Never mind that preceding this drop could've been a six-month rally where the Dow climbed 60%. He'll also email when the monthly jobs report comes out, but only if it's bad. Back in April, when 290,000 jobs were created, not a peep from Brad. Rather, he just sits and waits for the negative news, and then pounces. And quite happily, in some perverse, disingenuous manner. "Yay, the market tanked!....Yay, there are no jobs being created!.....Yay, things are bad and are getting worse!"

What I don't get though is that Brad owns a successful business, a beautiful home and has a fat retirement account and two great kids. But you'd never know this judging from his sheer delight at even the slightest prospect of economic weakness. It's as if he'd rather be destitute, so long as Republicans regain power in November. And that's un-American, let alone just plain moronic.

But Brad is merely a symbol. He personifies today's highly charged, vitriolic partisan landscape, where one's misguided political passions often dwarf his own self-interests and those of his family. Is it possible that we can just be American on some issues? We all have a vested interest in seeing the economy recover. We all want to protect American's interests, both here and abroad. We all need improved health care coverage. We all breathe the same air and drink the same water. Does everything have to go through some convoluted partisan lens that turns bright, otherwise rational people into rhetoric-spewing automatons who root for failure?

Appearing on Fox News.com's Strategy Room Today

I'll be joining the political roundtable today on Fox News.com's Strategy Room at 3pm. We'll likely tackle the hot topics of the day, including the BP oil spill, the recent elections and the upcoming midterms, the economy and more. You can stream/watch live at http://live.foxnews.com/strategy-room.

Bush's White House Ethics Lawyer Criticizes Obama Administration's Ethics. Are You F**king Kidding!?

In his NY Times op-ed piece Monday entitled "The Separation of Politics and State," Richard Painter shines a spotlight on what he suggests is the Obama administration's unethical conflating of partisan politics and policy. And he ought to know a thing or two about ethics, or a lack thereof, as he served from 2005-2007 as George W. Bush's chief White House ethics lawyer.

"It’s unfortunate," Painter writes, "that his (Obama's) White House staff remains so deeply immersed in partisan politics, as demonstrated by the administration’s offering a presidential appointment to try to dissuade Representative Joe Sestak from running in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary against Senator Arlen Specter. There were similar discussions with Andrew Romanoff, a former speaker of the Colorado House, who is challenging Senator Michael Bennet."

First, there is nothing illegal or politically ground-breaking in Obama's supposed job offers to Sestak and Romanoff. Presidents from John Quincy Adams to Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan allegedly did the same (as I'm sure every other president has in one fashion or another), and so did the Bushies in 2004 in purportedly dangling the Secretary of Agriculture post to Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson if he agreed not to run for re-election.

But more critical to point out are the many truly ethical transgressions, and perhaps illegal acts, committed by the Bushies between 2000-2008 (and I'm not even talking about the robbery of Al Gore's presidency). A few episodes below:

Back in 2006, Bush's Justice Department engaged in the unprecedented midterm dismissal of seven United States Attorneys. The firings prompted a Congressional investigation into whether the Bushies fired these lawyers in an effort to obstruct the investigations of Republican politicians, or, because they failed to initiate investigations that would damage Democrats.

Another example is Bush/Cheney/Scooter Libby's despicable, unpatriotic act of outing CIA agent Valerie Plame because her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, wrote a NY Times op-ed piece refuting the Bush administration's claim that Saddam/Iraq was seeking to purchase yellowcake uranium in Niger. In his piece, "What I didn't find in Africa," Wilson concluded that the Bushies sought to "exaggerate the Iraqi threat." As punishment for his actions, his wife, Plame, was exposed as a covert operative. Her CIA career was therefore over, and her life put in danger, as well as the lives of her fellow operatives at "Brewster, Jennings & Associates", her front company.

And as "Bush's Brain" Karl Rove so cavalierly demonstrated for eight years, no administration in history blatantly used its political apparatus to influence policy more than the Bushies. This includes sending U.S. troops to die in an unjust war; illegal wiretappings and domestic spying; and obstruction of 9/11 commission investigations.

So it's a bit dubious and unsurprisingly hypocritical for Painter, who was in the thick of some of this political chicanery in Rove's West Wing, to attack Obama and use his administration as the poster-child for partisan opportunism. Funny what short memories the Bushies have.

Ay Carly! Meeeoooowww!

What do California Senate candidate Carly Fiorina and "Maude" star Bea Arthur have in common? The same goofy 70's hairstyle. But that didn't stop the sharp-tongued former Hewlett-Packard CEO from mocking her Democratic opponent, Sen. Barbara Boxer: "God, what's with that hair? Sooooooo yesterday!" The gaffe was made Wednesday as Fiorina was prepping for a television interview in Los Angeles and thought the mic was off. Catty is as catty does...

Fiorina should know better than to attack someone's appearance. Her own short, choppy hair is the result of chemotherapy following a bout with breast cancer. If anyone should be sensitive to personal groomimg issues it's her. But Fiorina, whose snarky comment recalls her brash HP days, is guilty of the standard Republican hypocrisy. Yes, Republicans can even be hypocrites about their own hair. Politically, they're nasty, derisive and divisive. Their motto? "Do as I say, not as a I do." Which explains why Fiorina feels comfortable criticizing Boxer's hairstyle when, in my opinion, Babs' 'do looks a helluva lot nicer than her own. But Repubs are colossal hypocrites. That's what they do. Kinda like 90's Crusaders Newt Gingrich, Bob Barr, Bob Livingston and Henry Hyde crucifying Bill Clinton over marital indiscretions as they're bangin' their own mistresses. They apparently never got the "Republicans in glass houses shouldn't thrown stones" memo.

Come November, voters in California will have a choice to make: a 5-term Congresswoman and high-ranking 3-term U.S. Senator, or, a catty former corporate CEO (of dubious performance) who seems more concerned about her opponent's hairstyle than two wars, the economy and the BP oil spill. Fiorina's comments about Boxer weren't just about hair, they were harebrained...

Thank You Sarah Palin!

Sarah Palin has that magic touch. Three of the four candidates she endorsed in Tuesday's Republican primary elections were victorious: California's Carly Fiorina, who'll be running against Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer; South Carolina's gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley; and Terry Branstad, who seeks Iowa's governor's mansion. But just as John McCain learned in 2008, these victors will discover in November that Palin's magic is like Cinderella's carriage: Just when the party's getting hot it's pumpkin time.

Somehow, somewhere, someone ordained Palin the new head of the GOP, with special Tea Bag honors, and have deluded themselves into believing that who and what she touches today will mystically turn into November 2nd gold. Truth is, it'll be just the opposite. She's gonna single-handedly bring down the party's chances of winning back power. Just ask ole Johnny Boy.

Case in point Nevada, where Tea Party darling Sharron Angle won the GOP's nomination and will take on the highly vulnerable Majority Leader Harry Reid. Angle, widely believed to be the weakest of the three Repubs who vied for the spot, just handed Reid a gift; his best chance yet to retain his Senate seat. Reid's campaign, in an email Wednesday, is already painting her as the radical Lipton Loon she is: She wants to repeal health care reform; is against financial reform; seeks to cut Social Security benefits; and scoffs at global warming. Thank you Sarah Palin.

Over in South Carolina, Palin is betting that voters want to trade in their outgoing philandering Gov. Mark Sanford with the allegedly twice philandering Haley. Again I say, Thank You Sarah Palin.

Sarah and The Tea Baggers can crow all they want, and the mainstream media can stir this hyperbolic pot and make her out to be the Great Annointer, but her arctic awesomeness will last only as long as the primaries will allow. This is exhibition baseball folks, not the regular season. Just ask ole Johnny Boy. He got a firsthand dose of reality in terms of what mainstream Republicans and independents want. And...um....er....it wasn't Palin's brand of dim-witted, snarky, polarizing politics.

On the morning of November 3rd, Democrats across the country will be saying Thank You Sarah Palin. They might even toss in a heartfelt gracias as well to Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, Newt, Bachmann and the inimitable tea-totin' team of Rand and Ron.

Oh, and here's a little vintage Palin to remind everyone just who we're talking about....

Helen Thomas's Sad New Legacy

Back in Journalism school in the early 80's I had many 4th Estate idols, chief among them Edward R. Murrow, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, and the venerable Helen Thomas, who was still with UPI at the time. I greatly admired and respected the feisty and fearless old gal who put many a president on the hotseat. The lady had balls.

But Thomas's much revered news career came to an abrupt halt this week. The iconic 89-year-old journalist, who's covered 10 U.S. administrations and whose career dates back to 1943, on May 27th was asked by a rabbi outside the White House during a Jewish heritage month celebration if she had any comments to make about Israel. She said "Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine... Remember, these people are occupied, and it's their land; its not German, its not Poland's." Asked where they should go, she said "they should go home" to "Poland, Germany... America and everywhere else." Her remarks were shocking, and would've been the equivalent of hearing Larry King, Tom Brokaw or Barbara Walters telling blacks to go back to Africa.

Since then, Thomas has 'retired' from Hearst and was dropped from her speaking agency. So what happened? Why did Thomas so recklessly put a humiliating final chapter to such an illustrious career? Are we to assume that this Kentucky-born Christian of Lebanese descent is a life-long anti-Semite, especially given her often pro-Arab comments in the past? Are her controversial remarks the result of old age and the onset of dementia? Regardless, her remarks are reprehensible, and a sad reminder of how much racism and anti-Semitism still exists in America today, even among the intelligentsia and the media.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Helen Thomas
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

James Cameron? Really? Seriously...Really?

An astonishing thing happened this week. The U.S. government brought in Messianic movie producer James Cameron to help figure out how to stop the oil from gushing from BP's catastrophic well a mile deep in the Gulf of Mexico. And why Cameron? Because he made a monster hit movie where he used some nifty equipment and technology to film the sunken Titanic. Apparently that makes him an expert in fixing the worst environmental disaster in our nation's history. Within 24 hours of Cameron's 'investigation,' the megalomaniac self-proclaimed "king of the world" was already calling everyone "morons." Only in Hollywood, folks.

But this got me thinking. Why stop at Cameron? If his movie -making experience makes him infinitely qualified to tackle extraordinary environmental clusterfucks like the Gulf spill, there's certainly other entertainment icons with the oceanic expertise to perhaps find a solution as well.

How about Ouji-boarding Richard Basehart, star of the 1960's hit show "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea?" I'm sure 'Admiral Harriman Nelson' would know a thing or two about well-kills, no? Or "Waterworld's" Kevin Costner? He battled the evil forces that engulfed the Earth in water. Can't he plug up a little ole oil well with his various rusty junk and grimy debris? And then there's SpongeBob. Can't he just gather his entire species and simply soak up the oil? Or how how about the Little Mermaid's King Triton? For Pete's sake, he's the boss of the entire ocean. If he can't fix this mess no one can.

In the meantime we have the utterly inept BP, the impotent Obama administration, and Cameron. Somewhere Bush and Cheney are smiling.....

Here's Why Selig Should've Reversed Ump's Call

Ever since we're little we're told that baseball is our national pastime. As American as apple pie. So it's no great surprise that in upholding the integrity of this great institution Commissioner Bud Selig refused to reverse what is now known as "the worst call in baseball history," umpire Jim Joyce's unintentional robbery of Detroit Tiger Armondo Galarraga's perfect game Wednesday night, which would've been just the 21st such pitching phenomenon in the sport's 100+ year history. Videotape replay shows that Joyce's controversial "safe" call at first base was incorrect. Cleveland Indians runner Jason Donald was clearly out. Galarraga was about to celebrate his extraordinarily rare feat when he saw the ump's call, and just stood shell-shocked with a frustrated what the fuck smile. Since that moment, the guy has shown nothing but grace and class in accepting his historic fate. If I were Galarraga, the top of my skull would've shot off. We're talking a perfect game here, folks.

So why should Selig have overturned the call? Because it'd have been the right thing to do. Period. For Pete's sake, we let death row inmates out of prison when DNA or some other conclusive evidence proves their innocence. But we cannot overturn an umpire's call? Are baseball records, and the overall sanctity of the game, any more or less deserving of scrutiny and appeal than our criminal justice system? Isn't the point here to simply right a wrong? It's done in football and basketball, and other sports, all the time. Is our national pastime above reproach? Held to a higher standard? Everything in life should have exceptions to the rules. No one or no situation is perfect. But this game was, and this young pitcher deserves to not be a record-books asterisk for accomplishing something so incredible that only 20 before him in 100+ years have done so. Joyce was wrong. He admitted it. And despite what Tom Hanks shrieked in "A League of Their Own," there is crying in baseball, as a teary, post-game Joyce demonstrated. Selig should have shown the same humility and compassion.

In Defense of Israel

I read with great dismay and frustration the NY Times op-ed Wednesday by Amos Oz, an Israeli writer, journalist and professor with a history of often switching parties and positions regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and his country's use of military force. The piece is a harsh critique of Israel's controversial raid on a Turkish flotilla Monday, in defending its blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza in which nine "passengers" were killed. His position is misguided, to say the least.

Let's not be apologists for terrorists or call them anything but what they are. These passengers were not on some "humanitarian" mission, as Oz claims. They were there simply to provoke Israel and bring about conflict. As the Times states in its editorial Wednesday, "The Gaza Freedom March made its motives clear in a statement before Monday's deadly confrontation: A Violent response from Israel will breathe new life into the Palestine solidarity movement, drawing attention to the blockade." And in preparation for that confrontation these militants were armed with metal pipes, sticks, bats and knives and other weapons. So when Israeli commandos rappelled from helicopters onto the ship's deck, the situation exploded into the desired violence.

Oz writes that "Hamas is not just a terrorist organization. Hamas is an idea, a desperate and fanatical idea that grew out of the desolation and frustration of many Palestinians." But it is a terrorist organization, and one that is hellbent on the destruction of Israel. When Oz writes of "Israel's siege of the Gaza Strip and Monday's violent interception of civilian vessels carrying humanitarian aid there..." it becomes quite clear that he's cherry picking his incidents to bolster his bias.

I don't profess to have the answers here, but I also take issue with those who in an over simplified manner believe they do. The current Israeli-Palestinian conflict dates back at least 63 years to Israel's formation. Since then there have been several wars, violent outbreaks, and attempts at peace, must notably during 2000's Camp David summit when then-Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat rejected Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak's offer of Gaza, virtually all of the West Bank, and Palestinian control over Eastern Jerusalem, to be the capital of the new Palestinian state. This is essentially what Oz believes Israel should "quickly" offer up to the Palestinians yet again as a means of solving this complex political, military, religious and cultural conflict that's spanned more than six decades (or thousands of years, depending upon how you view it). There is no quick fix. And as demonstrated by the world's swift, harsh and uniform condemnation of Israel's actions Monday, Israel and it's people are once again alone in this not-very-Jew-friendly world. How come the condemnations aren't that swift when Jewish children are blown to smithereens by Palestinian terrorists?

For the record, I am not a 100% unconditional Israeli loyalist and defender. I believe there needs to be a Palestinian state, and I've often been critical of Israel's actions in working towards that end. And I am also critical of Palestinian leadership, which for decades has failed its people miserably. But the truth is, throughout history and all the horrific persecution that goes with it, no one defends Jews but Jews. Israel must decide for itself how best to combat enemies who wish to "wipe it off the face of the Earth"--including Hamas, Al Qaeda and Ahmadinejad's Iran--and accept the strategic, diplomatic and military consequences.

In his Times piece, Oz exhibits both a naivete and arrogance that recalls that of the German Jews seventy years ago as they stuck their collecvtive heads in the sand even as they were thrown into trains bound for the camps and their eventual deaths. Incredibly for someone raised in Israel and who's served in the IDF, Oz appears to misjudge this enemy and its intentions. What Arafat's ideological miscalculation showed in 2000 is that with any negotiation, it takes two equally motivated, logical, reasonable partners at the table. It's virtually impossible to negotiate with an enemy who's only intention is to destroy you. And that's the point Oz seems to miss.

For a more practical assessment of the conflict, Times readers can hop a couple of inches to the right and check out Tom Friedman who, as usual, provides analysis, common sense and an even hand regarding this very complicated part of the world. If only life, and a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, were as simple as Oz suggests.

The Randy and Dicky Show

Thank you Rand Paul and Dick Blumenthal. As if 2010 wasn't an exciting enough election year for political junkies like me, you two sideshows leaped onto the national stage for our entertainment pleasure.

By now, you'd have to be living under a rock not to know that Paul, the Libertarian's Libertarian, longs for the good ole days when "private" corporations like F.W. Woolworth could do whatever it wanted without government intervention--even if that meant banning blacks from its lunch counters--while Blumenthal, the walking G.I. Joe fantasy and candidate for a GPS system if ever there was one, apparently doesn't know the difference between Vietnam and South Carolina, where he did his Marine Corps Reserves boot camp.

So imagine my excitement when I obtained access to some hand-written notes of both politicians as they hashed out their controversial positions.

Here's the first excerpt, from Blumenthal's records, as he mulled over how to best articulate his military service through confusing, ambiguous, albeit catchy soundbytes:

-"I love the smell of napalm in the morning" (Nah, that's already taken. I'm a liar not a plagiarist)

-"The Vietnam War was hell (true). I saw the horrors up close (on TV). The enemy I faced was fierce and brutal" (YOU try dealing with a bunch of greedy little brats when they're ripping into your Toys for Tots bags!)

-"I'm a veteran. Back then...Vietnam-ish times...wore the uniform....boot camp was tough" (Jeez, even I'm confused by this one). "Just the mere mention of the name 'Charlie' sets me off" (Dramatic...good)

-"My bad skin? Agent Orange." (Powerful, but might offend my adult acne base)

-"My nights are racked by horrible 'Nam flashbacks." (True, except these nightmares involve my deferments being denied)

-"I served during the Vietnam era as a proud Marine Corps Reservist" (I like this one a lot. It's all true. Can always throw this one out there every now and then just to confuse 'em and balance out the lies. My staff will say, 'Look, he told the truth on many occasions!')

-"When we came home, we were disrespected." (Will use this now and then. Just the right amount of ambiguity. For example when "who" came home? And from "where?" See? Gotta go with my instincts here)

"When I served in Vietnam...." (Bingo! A direct lie! I'm sure I can use my crafty legal skills to explain it if I get nailed. Won't apologize...I'll just say "I misspoke" and have the staff show 'em the times I told the truth)

And here's a few early soundbyte options from Paul's notes:

-"I believe blacks should be able to go anywhere they want...just as long as it's not a privately-owned business."

-"Why would blacks want to eat at Woolworth anyway? The food sucked there!"

-"My Bowling Green country club is not racist. Almost all our caddies and kitchen staff are colored."

-"I was for the Civil Rights Act before I was against it."

Stay tuned. I suspect The Randy and Dicky Show has lots more in store for us between now and November.

Is the Tea Party the New Republican "Brand?"

Ever since Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, and right through their 2008 widening House and Senate majorities and Barack Obama's presidential victory, much has been said about the fate of the Republican Party and its "brand."

"The Republican brand is badly damaged," said Mike Huckabee in 2008.

"The Republicans realize that their brand is badly damaged and that there's no heartthrob out there," said George Will in 2007.

"The Republican brand has been so badly damaged that if Republicans try to run an anti-Obama, anti- Reverend Wright, or (if Senator Clinton wins), anti-Clinton campaign, they are simply going to fail," said Newt Gingrich in 2008.

"It takes time to damage a brand," said South Carolina's Republican governor, Mark Sanford in 2007. "It takes even longer to rebuild it." And as we now know, Sanford's a firsthand expert at damaging a brand. The missing philander with the bizarre camping trip story, proved once again that history has one helluva sense of humor.

So what does the GOP with its "damaged brand" do? It rebrands. Which is exactly what the Tea Party movement represents. The Tea Party is the GOP's unofficial beard. As recent polls have demonstrated, Tea Baggers are little more than Republicans in wolves' clothing. And what's most interesting is how these rapacious wolves are eating their own; anyone not a card-carrying member of the far right wing has been purged (see Bob Bennett, Charlie Crist, Trey Grayson).

Under this rebranding, the party's hardline conservative leadership--Sen. Mitch McConnell, Rep. John Boehner, Rep. Eric Cantor and Rep. Mike Pence--have been deemed not conservative enough and have been replaced with rabble-rousing, narrow-minded extremists like Sarah Palin, Rand Paul, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, who represent the smallest yet most influential faction of the party.

Perhaps the Republican Party ought to rethink this new strategy. Rebranding doesn't always work. Remember "New Coke?" If Rand Paul's self-destructive behavior last week is any indication, "New Republicans" will be just as big a marketing disaster.

Rand Paul the Tea Party-Pooper

For anyone who doubts that the Tea Party is nothing more than a radical right-wing fringe of the GOP and will self-implode, take a gander at Rand Paul. Just 48 hours into his self-described "huge" Tea Party victory Tuesday, the Kentucky Senate primary winner and loose-lipped Libertarian has already demonstrated the sort of reckless, election-sabotaging behavior that mainstream Republicans like Sen. Mitch McConnell (KY) and Sen. Jon Kyl (AZ) have feared.

The latest Tea Party brewhaha involving Paul is his convoluted views of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in which he believes private businesses should have the right to bar from their premises whoever they choose. On MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show Wednesday night, Maddow asked if those establishments had the right to refuse service to blacks. "Yes," Paul astonishingly replied. Since then, he's taken a lot of heat from party officials shaking in their boots over his self-destructive views. Radical positions that include raising the Social Security retirement age to 70 and questioning the legality of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Rand's bizarre civil rights stand this week illustrates just how loony this movement is and how politically dangerous its candidates will be. McConnell, Kyl and others have good reason to be afraid. They've allowed the smallest faction of their party--led by rabble-rousing blabbermouths like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin--to become the loudest, most influential voice in the room. This renegade band of populist impostors have hijacked the party and redefined it, purging its roster of anyone not of the extreme right wing fringe. You know the GOP's in some serious trouble when the likes of McConnell, Kyl and John McCain appear like the party's moderates.

As I wrote earlier this week, all Paul's victory showed is that the squeaky Tea Bag wheel got the Republican oil. He was victorious only in a Republican-on-Republican feeding frenzy. And in just two days he's demonstrated what an absolute joke his candidacy can and will be come November when facing a Democrat. A Democrat, mind you, who sees nothing at all wrong with blacks eating at a luncheonette counter with whites. Hard to believe we're still actually debating this racist shit in 2010. For that we can thank Mr. "Huge Victory" Paul and his narrow-minded Tea Bag bigots...

One thing's clear: the hypocrisy that permeates the Republican Party also can be found in the "grass roots" Tea Party movement. Case in point, Paul's decision to hold his victory celebration at an exclusive, tony country club in Bowling Green. White men--even the populist Tea Bagger kind--sure do love their golf, don't they.

PA's 12th Loss Shows Tea Party What's Really in Store for November

Let's get something straight: Rand Paul's "Tea Party" victory in Kentucky's GOP Senate primary Tuesday only proves one thing: that Republican voters are sick of establishment GOP candidates. It's right vs right. The Tea baggers can beat their chests and crow all they want about the "hugeness" of their movement's big victory, as Paul boasted last night, but all it portends for the party in November's midterm elections is Republican-on-Republican bloodletting. We're seeing it among the likes of Kentucky's Trey Grayson, Utah's Bob Bennett, Florida's Charlie Crist and others like Arizona's John McCain, who's facing a fierce battle for his political career from Tea Party favorite J.D. Hayworth. I say, let 'em eat their own and we'll step over the carcases in six months.

What should make Tea Baggers and the GOP shake in their over-caffeinated boots is their disappointing loss in Tuesday's only Democrat vs Republican contest, where Tea Party supporter Tim Burns lost by a wide margin to former John Murtha aide Mark Critz in Pennsylvania's 12th District to fill the deceased Murtha's Congressional seat. What makes this loss significant is that the 12th is the only district McCain carried in 2008 that John Kerry had carried in 2004, and which had tilted right leading up to the election. Will this be a foreshadowing of things to come in November for Republicans, especially those banking their campaigns, like Burns, on the Tea Party's anti-Obama/Pelosi/Reid, anti-big government, health care repeal platform? Does Burns' loss signify that the Tea Party's pot is running out of steam?

PA's 12th is not the only right vs left special election where Democrats were victorious. For example, New York's 23rd saw Tea Party favorite Doug Hoffman whipped last November by Bill Owens in this heavily Republican district. In Florida's 19th to fill Robert Wexler's seat, Ted Deutch beat Edward Lynch by almost 30 points. Certainly not the sort of head-to-head results that merit much chest-thumping.

Tea Party and GOP officials are already downplaying Critz's victory, but that's not the song they sang leading up to Tuesday. This was a contest that the Party was clearly banking on:

On the Washington Post's conservative Right Now blog, David Weigel had written: "PA-12 is the only district in the country that Senator Kerry won and President Obama lost. According to non-partisan political independent analysts, PA-12 is exactly the type of district that House Republicans need to win this cycle."

Tory Mazzola, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), predicted: "This is a seat where Democrats hold a two-to-one registration advantage, yet the race is competitive and coming down to the wire. The fact that we have a strong GOP candidate, Tim Burns--committed to job creation and repealing ObamaCare-- combined with a favorable Republican environment has turned this historically Democratic seat into a swing district."

Brian Walsh, NRCC political director: "...one thing is clear – Republicans are close in this traditionally Democrat-dominated district, and Nancy Pelosi and her liberal allies are running scared."

And Charlie Cook, Cook Political Report: "Republicans have no excuse to lose this race. The fundamentals of this district, including voters' attitudes towards Obama and Pelosi, are awful for Democrats."

"For all of their bluster about building a national wave this year...Republican policies were once again rejected when it came time to face the voters," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

At a time when the economy and jobs show continued signs of a major recovery, and with six months to grow even more robust, the Tea Party and GOP's anti-Obama/Pelosi/Reid health-care repeal message just might find their candidates playing golf with Burns come November.

Check Blumenthal's Citizenship!

For an extremely bright and accomplished politician, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal can't seem to remember something so monumental as to whether or not he actually served in the Vietnam War. Sometimes he gets it right, and many times he hasn't, as demonstrated in this video from a 2008 speech to military families, where he labeled as "unforgivable" the shameful treatment of returning veterans "...since the days when I served in Vietnam."

But what's truly unforgivable here is that Blumenthal never served in Vietnam. He received three educational deferments and two rare occupational deferments. And only when then-President Richard Nixon sought to abolish the occupational deferments did the highly privileged and connected Blumenthal pull strings to land a coveted spot in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserves. There's also the claim that he was the captain of Harvard's swim team, but records show he was never even on the team. There's certainly been a lot of truth stretching going on in Camp Blumenthal. Should we demand to see his birth records too?

What makes this memory lapse significant is that Blumenthal's vying for the open Senate seat being vacated by the retiring Chris Dodd. So far facing minor primary opposition, his main rivals are both Republicans: former World Wrestling Entertainment executive Linda McMahon and former Rep. Rob Simmons. Polls consistently show Blumenthal solidly leading both, and Connecticut remains a heavily Democratic state. But everything could change with this new scandal. The state's filing deadline is next week, and party officials could urge a more viable, controversy-free candidate to enter the race. Perhaps Blumenthal may decide to quit. But one thing's certain, these next seven days are going to be toughest of his career.

To be sure, Blumenthal is not a man who makes casual mistakes, especially when language and media are involved. He's a Harvard, Oxford and Yale-educated lawyer who's worked for Washington Post publisher Katherine Graham; former Sen. Patrick Daniel Moynihan in the Nixon White House; as law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun; served in the Connecticut House of Representatives; and as the state's attorney general. It's unfathomable that Blumenthal could simply forget whether or not he's "served" in Vietnam. For that matter, is this something anyone could possibly forget?

Yes, this is a hotly contested election year, and yes, Democrats across the country are extremely vulnerable. And yes, retaining Connecticut's Senate seat is utterly critical for Democrats. But the Blumenthal offense is not about politics. It's about human decency. A violation of morality and ethics. It's about what's right and wrong, not right and left. Nothing is more despicable than dishonoring the brave men and women who proudly serve our military and who've died in battle by pretending to be one of them while having used every lever of privilege possible to have avoided serving. This sort of reprehensible, self-serving conduct is why most Americans are absolutely sick of politicians. Blumenthal ought to be ashamed of himself.