Republicans Gone Wild!

It’s been a hellish week for Republicans. First it was revealed that Rep. Kevin Yoder (KS) had skinny-dipped during a drunken frat-like frolic with about 20 other representatives, staff and families in Israel’s sacred Sea of Galilee last year just two weeks after nearly paralyzing the nation’s economy over the debt ceiling crisis.

Then Ohio GOP election official Doug Priesse told the Columbus Dispatch: “I guess I really actually feel we shouldn’t contort the voting process to accommodate the urban -- read African-American -- voter-turnout machine.” He was referring to the state’s early voting procedures. He also voted against the weekend voting rules that made it easier for thousands of low-income and minority voters to get to the booths in the 2008 election.

And then there’s the mother of all gaffes from Missouri Congressman and Tea Party loon Todd Akin, who’s running against Claire McCaskill for Senate: “If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” Akin was explaining his strict views on abortion to a local television news reporter. Akin does not support abortion even in cases of rape and incest.

Where is the outrage among Republicans? Since when is rape a political wedge issue? How would Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Mitch McConnell and Akin himself feel if it was their mother, wife, sister, daughter or granddaughter who was sexually brutalized? And just what the hell is a “legitimate” rape? Maybe it’s akin (pun intended) to “forcible” rape, another favorite Republican term. Apparently these imbeciles never looked at a dictionary, which defines rape as “forcing another person to have sexual intercourse.”

While Priesse’s and Yoder’s offenses are despicable, it is Akin's utterly ignorant, misogynistic, insensitive, empathy-deficient remark that’s beyond the pale. These radical ultra-conservatives like Akin have nothing but contempt for women. Their philosophies are Neanderthal and their behavior unconscionable.

And get this: Ryan has co-sponsored not one but two bills with Akin: The Sanctity of Life Act, informally known as the “Personhood” bill, and another which would allow for abortion exception in cases of "forcible rape" only. Is this the guy we want just a heartbeat away from the Oval Office? Someone who sanctions terms such as "legitimate rape" and "forcible rape?" Someone whose views on women's rights and issues mirrors that of a radical extremist like Akin. But the bazillion dollar question really is, What woman in her right mind would vote for Romney and Ryan?

The Romney/Ryan MediScare

Paul Ryan was out on the stump Saturday defending his controversial plan to end Medicare as we know it. Speaking Saturday to supporters at The Villages, a sprawling retirement community in central Florida, Ryan presented his mother, Betty Douglas Ryan, on stage with him in an effort to convince the crowd that (a) he likes old people and (b) they somehow trust him on the Medicare issue.

“You learn a lot about life. Medicare was there for my family, for my grandma, when we needed it. And Medicare is there for my mom when she needs it now, and we have to keep that guarantee.”

The only problem with this sugary rhetoric is that it's patently untrue. Ryan and his presidential running mate Mitt Romney would gut the 47-year-old government health care program and send seniors packing for VoucherVille, where the subsidies for private coverage would trail inflation and result in an average additional cost to seniors of $6400 annually, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget.

"Our solution to preserve, protect and save Medicare does not affect your benefits,” Ryan assuredly told the crowd. “It’s a promise that must be kept. But in order to make sure we can guarantee that promise … we must reform it for my generation.”

And of course, by preserve, protect, save and reform, Ryan and Romney really mean dismantle. You’ve got to hand it to Republicans. Only they could look seniors in the eye and promise to save Medicare as they’re drafting plans to destroy it.

It’s outrageous how the GOP ticket is portraying itself as the great protector of Medicare while painting Obama and Democrats as the ones cutting it. If the administration doesn’t squarely get in front of this debate and define Romney and Ryan as the Medicare Killers they are they just might succeed with this propaganda, just as Bush and Cheney, the AWOL and Deferment Twins, successfully convinced voters that they were the great warriors while the Vietnam hero with the five medals, John Kerry, was weak and incapable of defending America.

Soledad O'Brien's Amazing John Sununu Interview Should Be Taught in Journalism School

CNN's Soledad O'Brien did something which is extremely rare in television news these days: she actually did her job. And it was the best example of truly awesome journalism I've seen since Katie Couric so deftly gave Sarah Palin the opportunity in 2008 to destroy herself. Perhaps, given the unprecedented polarization and partisan vitriol in politics today, coupled with the right-wing's propaganda campaign of lies and distortion, we just might see a return of the mainstream media as a potent force in this heated election.

The action took place Tuesday afternoon, as O'Brien was interviewing former New Hampshire governor and George W. Bush Chief of Staff John Sununu. With the actual documents in hand, O'Brien pointed out the striking similarities between the Medicare plans of Mitt Romney and his controversial vice presidential running mate Paul Ryan, who seeks to change the government guaranteed health care program into a voucher system.

“But it’s very different,” Sununu insisted. “For example, when Obama gutted Medicare by taking $717 billion out of it, the Romney plan does not do that. The Ryan plan mimicked part of the Obama package there, the Romney plan does not. That’s a big difference.”

O’Brien essentially accused him of lying:

“I understand that this is a Republican talking point because I’ve heard it repeated over and over again. These numbers have been debunked, as you know, by the Congressional Budget Office. … I can tell you what it says. It (Obama's Medicare plan) cuts a reduction in the expected rate of growth, which you know, not cutting budgets to the elderly. Benefits will be improved.”

At this point Sununu, clearly agitated, became nasty and indignant, angered by O'Brien's insistence on fact over fiction:

“Soledad, stop this!” Sununu replied, raising his voice. “All you’re doing is mimicking the stuff that comes out of the White House and gets repeated on the Democratic blog boards out there.”

O'Brien continued reading from the Romney and Obama plans verbatim, and cited Factcheck.org, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office and CNN's own independent analysis in refuting Sununu's deceptive rhetoric.

“Put an Obama bumper sticker on your forehead when you do this!” Sununu barked.

And here's where O'Brien, following a heated exchange where she demanded "Let me finish...let me finish!," demonstrated that she has more balls than anyone in television news right now:

“You know, let me tell you something. There is independent analysis that details what this is about. … And name calling to me and somehow acting as if by you repeating a number of $716 billion, that you can make that stick with that figure as being ‘stolen’ from Medicare, that’s not true. You can’t just repeat it and make it true, sir.”

In punctuating this incredible interview, O'Brien closed by reminding Sununu of how Romney has called Ryan's plan "brilliant."

Imagine an America where the political discourse is not shaped solely by lying, duplicitous surrogates like Sununu but by honorable journalists who serve as a beacon of truth in holding politicians to a higher standard.

How Ryan Just Sank Romney's Campaign

Saturday afternoon Mitt Romney excitedly introduced his vice presidential running mate, Paul Ryan, as "the next president of the United States!" It was more than just the usual Romney verbal gaffe. In putting the Wisconsin Congressman on the ticket, the presumptive Republican nominee signaled a supreme lack of confidence in his campaign and simultaneously broke two cardinal rules of presidential politics: never name someone who has more juice than you, and whose positions are more radical than yours. Positions which will dominate the debate. As a result, August 11th will long be remembered as the day Romney unofficially lost the election.

Ryan's got the juice alright, but it's the kind which makes only the party's base salivate. He's a star, but given his extremist views it's more porn than rock. His controversial budget would end Medicare as we know it, turning it from a government guarantee to a voucher program which, as the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office analyzed, would shift about $6400 in health care expenses to the average senior citizen.

Ryan's voting record in Congress is enough to make independents run for the hills of Obama Mountain. He's voted for steep educational cuts involving Head Start and college aid; for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage; for school prayer; against gay adoptions; against a hate-crimes law; against abortion; against gun control; against raising the minimum wage; and against the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill.

BarackObama.com, the president's official website, accuses Ryan of "taking us backward" on women's health and equal rights issues: "Ryan co-sponsored a bill that could ban in-vitro fertilization, as well as many common forms of birth control, including the pill. It could also ban all abortions, even in cases of rape or incest. He supported letting states prosecute women who have abortions and doctors who perform them. Ryan voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which helps women fight for equal pay for equal work. He voted against repealing the discriminatory policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and supports writing discrimination into the Constitution by amending it to ban gay marriage. "

As a Congressman, Ryan has been a faithful rubber-stamp of the reckless economic policies of the Bush administration. We've seen how, from 2000-2008, the combination of deep tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations along with less government regulation led to the worst financial crisis since The Great Depression. Policies which failed miserably yet are the backbone of the GOP and in particular, the Romney/Ryan campaign. If Ryan has his way, there'll be huge, debilitating cuts to everything including education, the arts, law enforcement, libraries, food inspections, Amtrak and other transportation, highway construction and other infrastructure projects. Romney has just taken ownership of a budget with an attack on Medicare which Newt Gingrich referred to as "right-wing social engineering" and which House Speaker John Boehner fears could have wide political ramifications....as evidenced by the polls which show that a majority of Republicans, and 70% of Tea Party voters, do not support Ryan's Medicare plan. When Gingrich calls you radical you know you're in trouble.

But get this: before he was elected to Congress Ryan worked in his family business, Ryan Inc. Central, a construction firm his great-grandfather founded in 1884. It's always the sons of privilege like Romney and Ryan who lack empathy for those in need and who abhor government spending which helps those who don't have rich daddies to give them jobs. It's always the silver-spooners with the biggest family handouts who resent government aid the most.

But back to the ticket.. The real issue, the only issue, that truly matters is whether Paul Ryan is Sarah Palin 2.0: an arrogant, self-proclaimed "Young Gun" who's a too young, too brash, inexperienced, foreign-policy neophyte who's simply not ready to be president should something happen to his boss.

Obama has spent the Summer successfully beating Romney to a pulp as the rich, out-of-touch elitist with the dubious tax history and offshore shelters, and recent polls show it's worked. Romney's approval numbers have tanked, while Obama's pulled appreciably ahead in several key swing states and grown his overall lead. And now Team Obama will spend the next two and half months hammering Ryan and his radical positions, and I suspect the outcome will be exactly the same.

Unfair and Imbalanced

Why does Fox News even bother to portray itself as anything but the overtly biased right-wing propaganda machine it is? The self-proclaimed "Fair and Balanced" network is so in the tank for Republicans it's laughable. Oh, they strike a fair balance alright, and it lies somewhere between batshit crazy Bachmannia and heartless, detached Romney Hood.

The Faux News Network wouldn't know objectivity if it smacked it in the Hannity. And in a hotly contested presidential election year, it's been offering up campaign drivel so slanted that it seems written by RNC head Reince Priebus himself.

Speaking to unabashedly biased Stuart Varney on Tuesday's "Your World with Neil Cavuto," NY Post writer Josh Margolin cited unnamed Democratic campaign officials supposedly in a panic that they won't fill Bank of America Stadium during President Obama's big convention speech in Charlotte, NC next month.

Margolin, allowed unchallenged to assert unsubstantiated nonsense as fact, claimed the liberal excitement over Obama four years ago has disappeared and that Democrats are resorting to contests, blanket give-aways and other desperate means to ensure a full house. When asked by Varney to describe "the type" of sources he's quoting, Margolin unconvincingly said "high-ranking campaign officials, top convention people." So what we have here is this: some no-name hack for the Murdoch-owned Post (which also owns Fox) makes public an unsupported claim and then immediately provides the convenient explanation for when his manufactured non-story will ultimately be proven unfounded.

And in a brilliantly comical segue to the next story about a controversial new Priorities USA Action super-pac ad attacking Romney and Bain Capital, Varney rhetorically asked: "Has the campaign stooped to a new low? We turn to key political strategist Karl Rove...." I guess when seeking insight on "stooping to new lows" what better expert is there than the man his former boss, George W. Bush, appropriately nicknamed "Turd Blossom."

I'm a "Taxer"

You've heard of "Birthers?" Those relentless, ubiquitous conspiracy zealots who insist that Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen and therefore not eligible to be president? Well, I'm a Taxer. I believe Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, has failed to pay his fair share of taxes for the past ten years or more and I demand that he release his returns to prove otherwise. Just like Obama has had to show his birth certificate to prove he's as American as Michele Bachmann.

Romney has released just two years' tax returns in what we Taxers suspect is a deliberate attempt to conceal his dubious offshore and domestic investments which have provided him valuable tax havens, resulting in little or no taxes paid, especially as compared to the rates of average working Americans.

"That’s all that’s necessary for people to understand something about my finances,” he's said in his defense.

There's been much speculation over the amount of taxes Romney's paid, or hasn't paid, relating to, for example, Swiss bank account(s), Cayman Island investments, 401K, and gift taxes on transfers to a trust he set up for his sons in 1995 which is now valued at $100 million.

Last week Democrats amped up the rhetoric surrounding Romney's alleged tax avoidance. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said that an investor with Romney's old private equity firm, Bain Capital, told him that Romney didn't pay any taxes for 10 years.

"When it comes to answering the legitimate questions the American people have about whether he avoided paying his fair share in taxes or why he opened a Swiss bank account, Romney has shut up," Reid said. "But as a presidential candidate, it's his obligation to put up, and release several years' worth of tax returns just like nominees of both parties have done for decades."

Speaking amid the safety of the Sean Hannity radio show, Romney refuted the charges:

"Well, it's time for Harry to put up or shut up. Harry's going to have to describe who it is he spoke with because of course, that's totally and completely wrong....It's untrue, dishonest, and inaccurate. It's wrong."

But even several prominent Republicans including Ed Rollins, George F. Will and Bill Kristol have said Romney needs to release more returns. So what exactly is Mitt hiding? Is he a flat-out tax cheat or simply paying embarrassingly low rates which would further cast him as a privileged elitist who's even more out-of-touch with the average voter than previously believed? What's really behind his unyielding refusal to release several more years of financial data, as every other presidential candidate in modern history has done except John McCain but including his own father George, who provided 12 years of tax returns? We Taxers demand to know the truth behind what appears to be a carefully orchestrated campaign of deception.

Is Mitt Romney On the Spectrum?

Mitt Romney's recent overseas trip was designed to present the presumptive Republican nominee as a statesman, but to the contrary portrayed the candidate as an narrow-minded, insensitive, race-baiting, war-mongering, uber-pandering buffoon whose foreign policy and diplomatic skills make Sarah Palin seem downright Kissingeresque. It also served to reinforce the belief among many that Romney's issues stem from a more serious problem.

In the wake of yet another embarrassing episode of foot-in-mouth disease, I'm beginning to suspect that there just might be something psychologically wrong with the man who wants to be Leader of the Free World and Commander in Chief.

Rick Santorum was right when he said Romney lacks a core. To be sure, the man wouldn't know integrity or sincerity if it whacked him in the head. Everything about him is fake...from his unnaturally black hair and forced smile to his constantly changing beliefs. But his issues go much deeper than a mere lack of authenticity and conviction. Romney seems devoid of simple human characteristics and emotions such as empathy and compassion.

Romney's primary problem is not, as Democrats charge, that he's an out-of-touch elitist who can't "connect," but rather that he's a seemingly programmed robot painfully bankrupt of social skills and an ability to recognize the inappropriateness of his behavior. The man who believes that "corporations are people" is woefully deficient in his ability to detect the obvious frailties and vulnerabilities common among people. If Bill Clinton was "I feel your pain," Mitt Romney is "I feel nothing."

Romney has difficulty reading people, a room or the tone of a political event. His lack of empathy is why he's unable to understand why putting a dog carrier on his car roof is inhumane; why chasing, tackling and cutting off the hair of a high-school classmate might be cruel or bullying; or why he seems so baffled when called out on these offenses and can't muster a heartfelt apology. It's because his heart isn’t feeling it. It's because he isn't feeling anything.

So just what exactly is wrong with Romney? I’m not sure, but he certainly demonstrates some of the characteristics of someone with Asperger syndrome (AS), albeit one who is extremely high functioning. According to Wikipedia, "AS is characterized by abnormalities of social interaction and communication...The lack of demonstrated empathy is possibly the most dysfunctional aspect of AS... This failure to react appropriately to social interaction may appear as disregard for other people's feelings, and may come across as insensitive...An individual with AS typically demonstrates obsessive interest in a single topic or activity. Other symptoms include repetitive routines or rituals, peculiarities in speech and language, inappropriate affect or social behavior, problems with non-verbal communication, and clumsy or uncoordinated motor movements… Some may choose to talk only to people they like."

On many levels, the above traits aptly describe Romney's often odd and inexplicable behavior and statements. But is he “on the spectrum?” I'll leave that to the psychologists to figure out. One thing’s certain though: his consistent verbal gaffes, populist disconnect, and diplomatic impotence make him unfit for the Oval Office.

Get Rid of the Damn Guns

There's been so much said since the horrific shooting deaths in Aurora, CO Friday. But our nation's leaders, in particular President Obama and the presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney, have been woefully silent on the one subject that counts: gun control. Not one word one about the need for new legislation from the two men who wish to be president for the next four years. Quite frankly, it's shameful and infuriating, and demonstrates the unstoppable power of the NRA and the gun lobby in our country today.

We've heard all the requisite yet meaningless nonsense about the need for "prayer" and "strength" and for Americans to "come together" during this time of tragedy. But several dozen people 'came together' in that Aurora movie theater, and unfortunately so did a murderous psychopath armed like Rambo with various semi-automatic assault weapons. When the hell are we going to actually do something, other than regurgitate empty sermons, to ban these weapons and get them off the streets and out of the hands of these violent monsters who commit such diabolical acts? Both Obama and Romney referred to the killer and his heinous act as "evil," yet both resorted to the same old tired compassion-speak about 'coming together' and prayer.

On the Sunday talk shows it was no different, as surrogates from both parties spewed their political rhetoric. While calling for action on Fox News Sunday, California Sen. Diane Feinstein cautioned about the timing: "I think this is a bad time to brace a new subject." Seriously? Is there a better time to push for gun control legislation than after a horrific shooting like this one? Feinstein, like so many of her colleagues in Congress, lives in mortal fear of the NRA and its influence on millions of voters.  

Speaking on the same program, Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson (R) spun the standard conservative rhetoric: "I really would hate to see a tragedy like this used to promote a political agenda to reduce Americans' freedom. Enough of our freedoms have already been taken away. We don't want to lose anymore." I'd like to know exactly which 'freedoms' he speaks of that have been "taken away" from him or anyone else. And, mind you, his very statement is just the sort of politicizing of the tragedy that he purports to be condemning. Johnson also suggested that if someone else was armed in that theater then maybe the killer would've been shot before he committed his carnage. This is another typical gun lobby spin. Yeah, that's exactly what we want. Let's have Old West-style gunfights in movie theaters, malls, parks, schools, offices, stadiums, supermarkets, libraries, etc. That'll reduce the body count, right?

This is a simple issue, people. It's a choice between allowing serial killers to easily purchase assault weapons and ammunition or not. We can stick our collective heads in the sand and "come together" to talk about God, prayer, healing and sing Kumbaya, but none of that--let me repeat...none of that--will stop the blood from spilling again. Have we learned nothing in the past thirteen years from the deadly massacres at Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tuscon etc? Unless, as New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg (the only nationally prominent politician with balls) demanded, our elected officials pass new legislation outlawing assault weapons, our streets will continue to be littered with innocent dead bodies.        

Who is the Real Mitt Romney?

Mitt Romney's biggest problem is not that he's uber-rich. His problem is that he tries to pretend he's not. To be sure, Romney is not an everyman. He's a son of privilege, born on 3rd base yet arrogantly thinking he's hit the proverbial triple. He's a have with a capital H. But his real offense is in his clear and utter disdain for the have-nots.

Rick Santorum was right: Romney has no core. He will do and say anything to win favor and votes. He's redefined political expediency. The thing that voters hate more than a politician is a politician who doesn't own his own truth. And Romney's truth--be it his wealth, his questionable global investments, his dubious record at Bain Capital, or his record as Massachusetts governor--is precisely what he's been running from faster than Michael Johnson chasing another Olympic gold medal. 

To be president of the United States means having principles, values and a vision for America. Romney lacks all three virtues. I may disagree with everything former president George W. Bush stood for, but I have much respect for him, especially afforded the luxury of hindsight. I'm sure that sentiment will arouse ire in many of my liberal pals, but those folks can't see the forest through the partisan trees. Objectively speaking, Bush lacked many things, but what he had was conviction. Love him or hate him, you always knew where he stood. And as president, he executed his vision, albeit with the most controversy perhaps of any president in modern history.  
 

Barack Obama frustratingly falls somewhere in the middle of ineffective waffler and provocative visionary. He has a solid core and a strong moral compass. He's been a slow yet astute student of presidential politics, and I don't think we've come even close to seeing what he could ultimately deliver. While those who read this blog know I've been an extremely vocal critic of his over the years, I suspect that, if given a second term, he will rise to a level of accomplishment and greatness that will be an appreciable return on the Hope and Change investment. 

The danger in a Mitt Romney presidency is that Americans are in a conviction-vacuum, lacking any meaningful insight into his true beliefs and vision. The billion-dollar question is, would he lead as a moderate, as he did in Massachusetts, or is the real Mitt Romney, the 2012 Tea Party-poisoned automaton, the candidate whose current rhetoric is so far to the inflammatory right that he makes Bush seem like the compassionate conservative he set out to be.

Rep. Joe Walsh is a Coward

Rep. Joe Walsh is a coward. Not because he's never served in the U.S. military, but because he's so egregiously picked on a woman who did, and who lost both her legs defending America's freedom. Freedoms which have given Walsh the inalienable right to attack a true hero like Tammy Duckworth.

Duckworth is a 20-year veteran, earning the rank of Lt. Colonel. In 2004 her legs were amputated after the Blackhawk helicopter she was co-piloting in Iraq was shot down with rocket-propelled grenades by insurgents. The attack almost destroyed her right arm as well. She'd chosen to pilot helicopters because few other combat roles are open to women. It Her service earned her multiple military awards including a Purple Heart, an Air Medal and an Army Commendation Medal. She currently serves in the Illinois National Guard along with her husband, Major Bryan W. Bowlsbey, also an Iraq War veteran. She hails from a military family. She's a Daughter of the American Revolution and her father is buried at Arlington National Cemetery. Upon her return from combat she embarked on a mission to improve benefits for servicemen and women, serving as the Assistant Secretary for Public and Intergovernmental Affairs in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and as director of the Illinois Department of Veterans Affairs.

Walsh, who Duckworth is now battling for his Illinois 8th Congressional district seat, has never served in the military and has never done a single thing for veterans. But that didn't stop this Republican blowhard chicken-hawk from attacking her patriotism and impugning her record.

The Tea Party freshman, speaking at a Town Hall meeting in Elk Grove this week, called Sen. John McCain a "noble hero" because he was reluctant to discuss his military service while campaigning in 2008, unlike Duckworth: “Now I’m running against a woman who, my God, that’s all she talks about. Our true heroes, the men and women who served us, it’s the last thing in the world they talk about.”

"I have so much respect forwhat she did in the fact that she sacrificed her body for this country,” he continued, as he lowered his voice and leaned in dramatically. “Ehhh. Now let’s move on....What else has she done? Female, wounded veteran … ehhh."

This sort of ugly, reprehensible attack on Democratic veterans is nothing new for these Republican cowards. Remember Georgia Rep. Saxby Chambliss's despicable smear of his opponent, Rep. Max Cleland, a decorated war hero and triple amputee? Saxby never served either. He dodged Vietnam through student deferments and a medical deferment for bad knees caused by a football injury. And remember the swift-boating of John Kerry in 2004? His five medals and two volunteer tours in Vietnam's treacherous Mekong Delta was apparently less patriotic than George W. Bush's missing year in the Texas Air National Guard or Dick Cheney's five deferments.

There was a time when the uniform of the American soldier was simply green, not blue or red. Military service was sacred; highly revered, respected and 100% of-limits from political attack. But sadly that's changed. Politics has become such a filthy dirty business that nothing is off-limits anymore. It's in that now-acceptable framework that a coward like Walsh feels entitled and empowered to attack a hero like Duckworth. What's even more reprehensible is the fact that many Americans condone this shameful behavior and reward it with their votes.

Having recently celebrated Memorial Day, where we honor those who died serving in the U.S. Armed Forces, and in a week where we're commemorating America's independence, Walsh's smear of Duckworth is an especially cheap, detestable, contemptible attack not just on her but on the entire U.S. military and anyone who's honorably served and bravely defended our great nation.

Thank You Republicans!

Since he took office, Republicans have accused President Obama of squandering the first year of his administration on health care reform instead of focusing like a laser on creating jobs and fixing the economy. And now Republicans are doing the exact same thing. When it comes to their intemperate ideology, they simply can't help themselves. And it will cost them the election.

Rather than fixate on the nation's economic challenges, offering voters a substantive alternative plan for getting America's employment and growth back on track, Mitt Romney, the GOP leadership and Republicans in both the House and Senate are making ObamaCare, Attorney General Eric Holder, immigration, abortion, contraception and gay marriage the campaign centerpieces of this election.

Where's the Republican jobs bill? Where's the Republican plan to stimulate economic growth? Where's the resolution on college loans, as interest rates are set to double July 1? They've got nothing. What they do have is a deep, intense hatred of Obama and that trumps the obligation of acting responsibly and with civility. As Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell infamously declared in 2010, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." Their motivation has been crystal clear. Oh, they're focusing like a laser alright, but it hasn't been about what's best for America.

So I say, thank you, Republicans. Thank you for being unyieldingly stubborn, monumentally petty, manically obsessive, irrationally dogmatic, divisively partisan and, most of all, woefully transparent. See you in November.

"Send Him Back Home to Kenya?"

 
As a kid growing up in blue-collar Queens in the 1960's and '70's it wasn't uncommon to hear some bigoted fool say "If they don't like it they can go back to Africa" when referring to black peoples' frustration and anger over racial inequality. And now here we are some forty plus years later listening to the same sort of ignorant, racist crap from people who are seeking election to the U.S. House of Representatives.

In North Carolina's 11^th District runoff scheduled for July 17th, Republican candidates Mark Meadows and Vance Patterson spoke at a Blue Ridge Tea Party Patriots forum this week and, while denying they were 'birthers', made outrageous comments that clearly contradicted that claim and demonstrated just how little we've changed in over four decades.

Asked by a member of the audience if they, if elected, would investigate Obama’s birth, Patterson, with a smirking Meadows seated to his left, replied: "I hate the thought of being led by somebody who is not an American.... There's something there that’s not right. Yes, he's produced a birth certificate but it’s not the one that I’ve got and that most of us here in the room have as far as proving our origin. I don’t know where he is from. Chicago, which bothers me enough just in itself."

And if that wasn't offensive enough, it was then Meadows' turn. He simply answered “yes” and slid the mic away to laughs from the crowd, before continuing with:  "If we do our job from a grassroots standpoint, we won’t have to worry about it. We will send him back home to Kenya or wherever it is."

Yup, just like the '60's.  Let's send Blackie back to Africa. It's unconscionable that statements like these are made in 2012 America. What's even more incredible is that they're made as open, unapologetic campaign speeches. 

Time for a New Kind of Gay Pride Celebration?

In the forty or so years since the initial Gay Pride parade in Manhattan, the event has mainly become associated with raunch: public, often times drunken displays of nudity, kink and camp so high you'd need a satellite to photograph it. And that's the problem. At this annual parade and others in Los Angeles, San Francisco and elsewhere, gay "pride" has been co-opted by the wild and crazy and has become synonymous with promiscuity and debauchery.

Maybe I'm just an old fart, but virtually every gay person I know leads the same sort of life I do: hard work, family, kids, good times. No one I know who's gay took to the streets this past weekend. They took their kids to parks, saw movies, ate at restaurants, sat around pools, BBQ'd and/or got together with close friends to celebrate. And I don't think any of them condone the kind of Sodom and Gomorrah-like revelry that fills our nation's streets each June.

I'm not gay, so I don't know what that sort of "pride" feels like and perhaps therefore don't understand the need to let loose like Rip Taylor and Grace Jones on Ecstasy. But I'm just not so sure that a large segment of the homosexual population wants their pride symbolized this way either. They don't share in that form of celebration, and many have told me they feel as alien from this annual event as I do.

Maybe it's time for a new kind of gay pride celebration...one where gay and lesbian couples could feel safe, comfortable and honored to attend with their small children. As the nation increasingly moves toward accepting homosexuals into the mainstream, maybe a more mainstream celebration would be more fitting as well.

The Perfect Stump Speech for Obama

Back in early Spring, gas prices in many parts of the country hit $4.50 per gallon. The Republican attack machine warned  of imminent $5.00 per gallon prices which would destroy America's fragile economic recovery and push the nation back into recession. And, it was all President Obama's fault. The fact that no president can control the price of fuel didn't matter. It made for a great soundbite. So with gas prices down to an average $3.48 per gallon, with prices dropping $.15 in just the last two weeks alone, why isn't Obama, and his Democratic surrogates, taking credit for this precipitous drop in price? As Obama's GOP challenger would say, "Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." .

The prevailing wisdom should be that, if you cause the price of gas to rise, then you also are responsible when it drops. And with just four months until the election, and with the economy still the number one concern of most voters, why the heck isn't Obama giving this speech ad nauseum:?

"Several months back my opponents on the right accused me of causing gas prices to climb near $5.00 per gallon. Well, under my watch, prices have now fallen below $3.50 a gallon.  That's right...I've worked with my Democratic peers in Congress to help you fill your gas tanks for a third less cost. That's money that goes right back into your pockets. We did that. My opponent said you'd soon be paying five bucks a gallon. Shows you how much he knows about how to fix the economy. And that's why you should keep me as your president for another four years..."

Of course, he could go on about the 4-million jobs he's created, the turnaround in GDP growth, the historically low interest rates, growth in housing, the auto industry recovery, record corporate profits, the doubling of the Dow, yada, yada, yada...

So why are Obama and Democrats so inept at spin? Why can't their rhetoric be as effective as the GOP's? Why would they stand by and let Obama be accused of driving up gas prices and not create a media blitz when they fall? This would seem like a no-brainer. A gift-horse. Rhetoric handed to him on a silver platter.

If Obama's to renew his lease for the White House this Fall he better start figuring out a simple, bumper-sticker-effective way to tout his accomplishments or he'll be handing over the keys to Romney. 

What is Mitt Romney's View of Government?

What do you think the political impact would be like for Mitt Romney if his central campaign narrative went something like this:

"Hello, I'm Mitt Romney, and I want to be your president. My father was head of an automobile company and was governor of Michigan. And that afforded me an incredible start in life. A start which gave me a Harvard education, an influential network and a powerful career in business. I am very grateful for that. But I realize that not everyone gets such a start in life. In fact, very, very few people do. Most Americans are not born into wealth and privilege. They have to work...sometimes two jobs or more...just to house and feed their children. For them, education and good health care are luxuries not a right of passage. And as president, I will fight to help those who've been less fortunate than the wealthiest Americans like me. It's time for America to take care of it's own..."

Just imagine the appeal of a Republican who demonstrated genuine compassion for the little guy. In the current climate, imagine Romney embracing his elite stature and using it to his advantage rather than sounding like the proverbial rich kid born on 3rd base who thinks he hit a triple. George W. Bush took a stab at "compassionate conservativism" but it was half-hearted and short-lived. Unfortunately, today's conservative politician seems to care as much about the poor, the sick, the elderly, the needy, education, immigrants and minorities as Kevin Durant would like to help Lebron James win his first NBA title.

Republicans rail against "big government" and any sort of assistance or program designed to help the 99%'ers. Which begs the question, just what is government for? I'd like to ask Romney what exactly he thinks government does? And who is supposed to benefit from it? Is there anything that government does that he believes is good? Is there any money that government spends on the poor and middle classes that he thinks is important? Does government have an obligation to help those who can't help themselves? Or is all government spending, save for Defense, wasteful? Is government designed to benefit only the rich? Does government exist solely to keep taxes low and regulations few...except when those regulations are intended to control women's bodies, who people marry and who they sleep with?

Who needs government, right? Forget building roads, highways, tunnels, bridges, hospitals and schools. Forget protecting the environment. Forget controlling air traffic. Forget the Centers for Disease Control. And garbage collection. Or cops, firefighters, teachers and other public servants (ya know, all those lazy, hand-out grabbin' folks Romney doesn't include in his "helping Americans" speeches).

And job creation. Where would our economy be if President Obama hadn't injected $787 billion into it three years ago? Romney would like voters to believe that it is business, and in particular his brand of private equity experience, that creates jobs. But that's the furthest thing from the truth. Businesses exist for one reason: to create profit and wealth for its owners and investors. They do not exist to create jobs. Just the opposite, in fact. I'm sure many small business owners and corporate CEO's would readily admit that their ideal scenario is one where productivity and profit increases without having to hire additional staff. Which is exactly the problem with the employment landscape in post-recession America. Earnings are at record levels, and there's an estimated $2-trillion in cash sitting in corporate bank accounts. So why should businesses hire more people if they can achieve record profits without it?         

I somehow think the Founding Fathers would have a very serious problem with Mitt Romney's idea of government. I don't think they'd subscribe at all to conservatives' mantra of screw the little guy and protect the rich.  In Mitt Romney's simple, self-serving view of government the rich get richer, government is essentially an ATM, and only the wealthiest 1% get a debit card.          

I Hate Facebook Part II

Three years and several hundred million users ago I wrote a critique of the #1 social networking site called "I Hate Facebook." Since then, my feelings about Facebook have not changed. In fact, I hate it even more.

Once again, I will, in the interest of full disclosure, cop to having two Facebook accounts.As a writer and political pundit I promote my blog, OstroyReport.com, and my pieces that appear on HuffingtonPost.com. Yes, shameless self-promotion. The other account is for brand awareness and communication for the non-profit I founded and run, the Adrienne Shelly Foundation, named after my late wife who was murdered in 2006. More promotion, yes, but I think that's Facebook's real value.

Facebook began in 2004 as a site for nerdy Harvard boys to check out the campus girls who offline wouldn't give them the time of day. Its popularity quickly spread across the country to other colleges and universities and then expanded into the mainstream worldwide. It now has over 900-million users. But getting inside the statistics reveals a company facing major hurdles:

-Half of its users have migrated to mobile devices, and Facebook has no clue how to monetize them
-Major advertisers like General Motors have pulled $10-million+ campaigns citing little or no return
-Growth has slowed precipitously; monthly unique U.S. visitors have been on the decline
-A recent Reuters/Ipsos Public Affairs survey showed that a third of users were spending less time on the website than six months ago, while just 20% were spending more. 80% never buy from an ad on the site; 1 in 3 users say they've grown bored of the site
-The threat of privacy legislation hangs like a dark cloud
-Teens are defecting to other, hipper social networking sites like Twitter and Tumblr (who the hell wants to be 'friends' with mom, dad and the grandparents?). It's losing its grasp on the critical 18-34 segment
-It's stock, valued at 100 times earnings, is down a third from its IPO last month     

I won't go into the main reasons why I hate the site. You can read my original piece for that. But what I will say is the rampant narcissism that dominates Facebook now threatens to infect children under 13, as the company seeks ways to attract them, according to the Wall Street Journal.  Will we soon be subjected to endless photos of Mac n Cheese? Status updates of "Kaitlyn is cranky?" Will our little ones brag that they have 5000 friends? And will some of those friends be 50-year-old guys living in their mothers' basements? 'LittleFacebook' seems like a pedophile's dream come true.

Yeah, let's do away with playdates and playgrounds and just have the kiddies sitting at home sharing their every underdeveloped thought on Facebook. Just think of how it will also improve communication with their parents. "Mommy wishes Jack would clean his room," he'll see on his Facebook. "In a minute, mom," he'll reply. "We're so sorry you have to clean your room, you poor thing, we're here for you!" his 'friends' will comment.

Marketing Advice For Obama

President Obama, if he's to boost his chances of winning re-election, needs to take off the gloves and start swinging. He's got five short months left, and statistics indicate that Americans will spend more time during the first part of this period worrying more about BBQ's and swimming than they will politics. Come Labor Day many will have already made up their charred-meat-filled minds.

Obama needs to do two things: prove he's the most qualified steward of the economy and shore up support among women. In both cases he must swiftly and deftly define Republicans as obstructionists who care more about defeating him than working earnestly to fix the economy, putting people to work and championing the rights of women. He needs to put the GOP's back to the wall so that he can more clearly and effectively draw distinctions during the campaign's 11th hour.

Obama needs to think like a brand marketer and act like a Republican. As such, he needs to immediately rename his Jobs Act the "Jobs Creation Bill." Sounds like a minor change? Hardly. One simple word will change the entire tenor of the debate. The president is being relentlessly attacked by the right for not creating jobs. While re-branding won't get House Speaker John Boehner, Whip Eric Cantor and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to act responsibly in America's best interest, it will afford Obama a killer soundbite: "How do they expect me to create jobs when they kill my Jobs Creation Bill?

Next, Republicans had their Defense of Marriage Act. Obama should put forth his Defense of Women Act, which would protect women from acts of violence, pay inequality, and reproductive intrusions. When defeated, Obama would have yet another killer soundbite: "Republicans voted against defending women."

And if he's successful in this effort he will, by default, appeal to the highly coveted independents as well.

It's the branding, stupid.

Democrats, Be Afraid...Be Very, Very Afraid

I've talked to a great many Democrats who are 100% convinced that President Barack Obama will be re-elected. They very intelligently, and almost to the point of arrogance, site electoral maps, the gender polls and the youth, black, Hispanic and senior votes. It all makes perfect sense. But these folks are in denial. Obama could be in serious trouble, especially if Friday's horrible employment report is a precursor of things to come.

While analysts expected at least 160,000 jobs created in May, the economy added just 69,000, while the unemployment rate ticked up to 8.2%. There was a significant downward revision in April's jobs number to 77,000 from the initial 115,000. That's three months in a row of tepid job growth. Lastly, labor force participation remains near 30-year lows; the unemployment rate that counts discouraged workers increased as well; and long-term unemployment also rose sharply. Not very good news for the administration.

Yes, Obama inherited a colossal mess from George W. Bush. And yes, the economy has pulled back from the precipice of disaster. And yes, there's been strong signs that the economy is in a sustained recovery. But Summer is right around the corner, and July and August have historically been challenging months, so there's little reason to expect that much will change. And right around the corner after that is the election. There's simply not a lot of time between now and November to expect a serious uptick in the economy's metrics. And that's precisely Obama's problem.

When it comes to voters, it's perception over reality. The key question is, will voters believe the economy has turned positive enough to keep Obama at the helm for four more years or will they believe that the economy's stalled and that it's time for change? He will need something positive to point to; a reason why voters should stick with him. The enthusiasm factor is critical. But with the kind of numbers we've been seeing these past few months it may be difficult for him to create excitement about another term. The fact is, no sitting president has been re-elected with unemployment as high as it is.

To my very confident fellow Democrats I say, be afraid. Be very, very afraid. I remind you of how certain you were in 2004 that, with a challenged economy and the nation fighting two wars, John Kerry would win and you were shell-shocked when he didn't. Be afraid that Mitt Romney could win. Do not discount the the power of his narrative: the fiscally conservative business guru who built Bain Capital, saved the Olympics, successfully governed the liberal state of Massachusetts and is just the guy to turn around America's economy. That most Democrats know he's a moderate in conservative's clothes--evidenced by his former positions on health care, gay rights and abortion--doesn't hurt. And, let's not forget he's white which, sadly, could be a huge factor this time around.