What Do Donald Trump and Charlie Sheen Have in Common?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donald Trump Doesn't Know Reality From Reality TV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Open Letter to Hillary Clinton

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The GOP's Pro-Abortion Stand

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

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

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

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

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

MSNBC's Morning "Dysfunctional" Joe

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

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

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

Leaving Obama

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gingrich's Hypocritical Stand on Values

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Hillary Planning a Run at Obama in 2012?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michele Bachmann's First Official Campaign Speech?

Michele Bachmann. You know her, you love her, hell...some even want her to be president, for Pete's Sake. That she thinks slavery was abolished by John Quincy Adams and "our Founding Fathers" 89 years before it actually was, or that she thinks the Revolutionary War started in Concord, N.H., doesn't matter to her loyal groupies. To them she's the modern version of what a Republican candidate should look like. To the rest of us, she's the dumbed-down candidate for the Tea Party masses: arrogant, combative and woefully ignorant of history and world affairs. So what would her first major 2012 campaign speech look like once she officially announced her candidacy?:

"My Fellow Americans. As I stand before you today in the great city of Williamsburg, our nation's capital, I am as excited as ever about our future. When our Founding Fathers decided back in the 1600's to create America, the vision they had for the initial 22 states was to live as a free people. That is, free, heterosexual, church-loving people. When they used the word gay in the Constitution they meant happy, not fashionably stylish and catty. And, our great inspirational thinker Sarah Palin is right when she says that nowhere in the Constitution is there anything about this crazy liberal concoction called "Separation of Church and State." Our Founding Fathers were men of faith and they intended for God to be a major force in our lives. Why else would they have put "In God We Trust" on our Euros? Booyah!

In the 400 years since these great United States were created, we've come along way. And we can thank Republicans for that. We can thank Sam Quincy Adams for giving women the right to vote back in 1776...and for inventing beer. We can thank Ronald Reagan for defeating the Japanese and Hitler in World War I. We can thank George Wallace for abolishing slavery back in the 50's. We can thank George Bush--the young one not the smart one--for liberating Iran and finally making it the 51st state. And today is no different. It's Republicans who can and will proudly and successfully lead America into the 20th Century! It's the Tea Party who will bring greatness to the nation again! We need to take America back. Back from all these stinkin'...well....you know what I mean. As John F. Kennedy famously said, "Do unto to others before they do unto you."

Today America suffers. Its White House leadership is corrupt and bankrupt. Hussein Obama, who was born in Guam, raised in Tijuana and only got his GED, has no idea what it means to be an American. The great Newt Gingrich was right: Obama went to Kenya on a Safari and came back a radical community organizer. And no one is more patriotic than Newt, as evidenced by his willingness to work long hours and bang lots of chicks... all in the name of country. And make no mistake: Newt is a man of character. He married his mistresses. Thank you Newt...thank you! We all owe you a giant debt of gratitude. I'm sure it was very hard to cheat on your wives like that, but that's what being a Great American means! That's what love of country means. Those are exactly the kind of ideals and values the Tea Party stands for!

So today I set out on this journey to become the first women president of the United States! I will soon travel to Iowa and Austin, the two states to hold the first primaries...caucuses...or whatever the heck they're called. I promise to serve all people, not just Tea Party people. White people, rich people, very rich people, business people...did I mention White people already? We must make America free again! As Reagan famously said to the Russian president's wife at the NY Fashion Awards in 1966, "Mrs. Gorbachev, tear down that shawl!" I have no idea what that even means, but he was The Gipper...so it must be great!

My fellow Republicans, on October 31st you will go to the polls to elect your next nominee for president on the GOP ticket. I hope you will vote for me. I hope you will (at this point her aide whispers in her ear that New Gingrich has also just entered the race)....not vote for that cold, heartless, philandering, morally bankrupt New Gingrich! God bless you...and God bless America!"

Emanuel Ruling is a Travesty of Justice

Rahm Emanuel was born in Chicago. He was raised in Chicago. He got married in Chicago. His home is on the North Side of Chicago. His synagogue is in Chicago. He votes in Chicago. He pays taxes in Chicago. He served six years as a U.S. Congressman representing Chicago's 5th District. When two U.S. presidents came calling, Emanuel left Chicago temporarily to serve his country, with Bill Clinton from 1993-1998 and Barack Obama 2009/10. And when he left his most recent post as White House Chief of Staff in October to make a run for Mayor of his beloved city, a Cook County court and the Chicago Board of Elections both ruled that he was indeed a Chicago resident.

But an Illinois Appellate Court on Monday ruled differently and ordered his name be taken off the ballot for the February 22nd election. Illinois state code requires that mayoral candidates reside for at least one full year prior to the election in the city they seek to lead. The court states that the law requires physical presence and claims that Emanuel's White House service requires no special attention. Emanuel's camp is arguing that his "intent" was to always live again in Chicago after his Washington stint was over, and that serving Obama should qualify as national service and be exempted as an exclusion. He's appealing the case in Illinois Supreme Court. When and if the court hears the case is unknown. The clock is ticking for Emanuel. Ballots may be printed as early as today.

The court's ruling is not rooted in anything partisan. The judges who made the decision ran as Democrats. No, it's not about politics. It's about stupidity. Their decision is just plain wrong and un-American.

This is a very serious issue not just for Chicagoans who, according to the latest polls, overwhelming support Emanuel's candidacy, but for the entire country. How is it possible that someone as patriotic as Emanuel, who selflessly heeded the call of duty, who faithfully and tirelessly served his country and two presidents, is punished for his service?

To be sure, Emanuel knew the rules, and that there'd be possible questions as to his residency. He knew going to Washington was a risk to his future political aspirations in his hometown. But he went anyway. Should he have said no to Obama? "Sorry Barack, old buddy, but I want to be Mayor someday and this could really screw things up for me!" He didn't do that. He took the job. He served his country. And now the Appellate Court says "thanks" by holding up his candidacy on a completely irresponsible and irrational technicality, and one that may not even be legal.

What does this say to others who are asked to leave the comfort, security and spoils of hometown politics to serve their country and president? How does this ruling help bring brilliant, highly ambitious, dedicated, patriotic citizens to serve D.C. in the future? It doesn't. And that's a damn shame.

Republicans Obsessing Over Health Care While Ignoring Jobs, Jobs, Jobs

Republicans don't seem to be learning their own lesson from the November midterms. After accusing President Obama in a heated election year of ignoring the economy and unemployment while too focused on health care reform, they're falling into their own partisan trap by obsessing over the landmark legislation and its repeal. What happened to jobs, jobs, jobs? What happened to, 'vote for us, America, and we'll fix the economy and put you back to work!?'

Just a month into their new majority in the House, the GOP's uber-manic focus is exclusively on health care. Republicans rushed to vote for repeal earlier this week and Speaker John Boehner (OH) has directed his members to come up with alternatives that include strict new limitations on abortion coverage. While Boehner & Company promised America a laser-like focus on the still-sputtering economy and its 9.4% unemployment rate, all they're offering is the same tired, self-serving right-wing agenda. They simply can't help themselves.

To be sure, what the GOP is really obsessing over is Obama himself, and a rapacious hunger to undermine him and the Democratic agenda anywhere and everywhere possible. "We're going to do everything — and I mean everything we can do — to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can," Boehner said just before the election, which ushered in a Republican House majority and gave him its highest post.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (KY) at the same time said, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

Do Boehner and McConnell think this is the kind of call-to-action that voters bought from them on November 2nd? Where are their economic proposals? Where are the jobs creation bills? What's the GOP's plan for sustainable GDP growth? The Republican leadership is filled with such partisan vitriol, and is so rabid in its desire to undermine Obama, that it's ignoring its own campaign rhetoric and failing to deliver on its #1 promise. As such, it's undermining itself in the process, as evidence by a slew of recent polls showing that voters are fast losing confidence in the GOP's ability to do anything other than obstruct Obama.

The Wall Street Journal's Unintentionally Funny Editorial on Repeal

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.

Palin Remains Defiant

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 Political Implosion of Sarah Palin

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.

Palin Defiantly Feeds the Beast

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.'

Scarborough Criticizes Right-Wingers Over Toxic Rhetoric

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.

The Tuscon Shooting: We Must Place Blame Where It Belongs

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.

Repeal, Replace...Ridiculous

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.