The GOP Has Never Before Seen Liars Like Gingrich and Romney

Make no mistake: politics is dirty game. To play, and to play to win, you have to sell your soul to to the devil. You're on a 24/7 spin cycle. You disparage your opponents. You stretch the truth. And you lie. Every candidate is guilty of these tactics. And none in the history of the Republican Party have done it better or more blatantly and consistently than Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. They've taken the art of lying into a whole new stratosphere.

Romney and Gingrich are different in the sense that, while most politicians tell the truth most of the time and toss in a bit of truth-stretching, with a few lies here and there, these two lie all the time. Their entire candidacies are built on the re-writing of history. It's a waste of time for voters to listen to anything either of them have to say because it's likely every single thing they claim about themselves, and each other, is a lie.

The picture each candidate has painted of himself is utterly laughable. Romney, the 1%'er with the Swiss bank accounts and 13.8% effective tax rate, portrays himself as the economic steward most able to help the little guy. This despite a business career at Bain Capital, and myriad political positions, that exist solely to line the pockets of rich folk like him at the expense of said little guy. He's lied about his views on abortion, gay marriage, immigration, climate change, health care and practically everything else on which he's ever staked an opinion.

Gingrich, the consummate K Street Washington insider with the ethics-violations monkey on his big-spending earmark-lovin' serial-philanderin' back, has been running as the "anti-establishment" values candidate, leading a "rebellion" against the amoral "elites." But if we judge him by his political career, his academic accomplishments or his wealth, he's as elitist as they come. And while Newt whines about the "unfairness" of Romney's attacks, he's been responsible for more invective and extremist rhetoric than anyone in D.C. history, single-handedly changing the overall tenor of political discourse since he emerged in the late 1980's. Then there's the colossal hypocrisy of his personal life. Newt never met a mistress he didn't like...or married.

These two presidential hopefuls, as evidence by their many debate performances, lie so much it's virtually impossible to distinguish between their reality and fantasy. Neither can remember what commercials they've produced, what investments they have, what they've said in the past, what they currently believe or anything factual about each other. They'll literally say anything to become elected. Anything. And the debates themselves have become a spectacle that we watch just to see which one will catch the other in the biggest lie.

One thing's certain: one of these political Pinocchios will be running against President Obama later this year. So strap on your seatbelts, because the ride's gonna get a whole lot bumpier. The Mitt/Newt Traveling Lies Show is just the warm-up act...

Why I'll Be Watching Yet Another Republican Debate Tonight

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

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

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

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

So I wait...

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

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

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

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

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

The GOP's Massive Problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Hypocrisy of South Carolina's Conservatives

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

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

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

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

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

Why I'm Endorsing Rick Santorum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Huntsman May Pull Off a Huge Upset in New Hampshire

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Those Hands Dug Freedom For Me"

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Our Young Folks Need to Know About Ron Paul

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-A bill to end farm subsidies to NYC landlords

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

-A bill prohibiting ObamaCare from applying to pets

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

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

-A bill to secure our borders from space aliens

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

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

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

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

Democrats For Newt!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donald Trump's Irrelevance Must Be Killing Him

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

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

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

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

This is Why Romney Won't Win the GOP Nomination

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Romney: You’re wrong, Bret.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Cain Mutiny

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Gingrich Lying Over Freddie Mac Involvement?

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Brooks is Wrong About the Penn State Rape

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

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

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

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

How Jon Huntsman Jr. Could Be the GOP Nominee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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