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

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

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

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

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

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

"Jobs Bill Killers!!"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Romney and Perry and Cain, Oh My!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Herman Cain's Fuzzy Math

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why this Democrat is Rooting for Jon Huntsman Jr.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The "Occupy" Movement Should Follow the Tea Party Playbook

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

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

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

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

"Eat the elite"

"The American dream is a pyramid scheme"

"Break up big banks"

"End the fed"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Occupy Wall Street Movement Needs a Clear Set of Demands

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Legacy of Steve Jobs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is It Palin Time?

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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts on the GOP Debate

(note: not my voice at beginning!)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama Finally Gets Tough

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You Bet It's Class Warfare

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still Think Obama's Job Speech Was a Success?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Obama's Jobs Speech Failed to Deliver

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ostroy on MSNBC Wednesday Morning at 11:30

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