The GOP's Benghazi Witch Hunt: A Solution in Search of a Problem

The Republican feeding frenzy masquerading as an investigation into the Benghazi, Libya terror attack is nothing more than a shameless witch hunt manufactured to derail Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. Prominent right-wingers are rapaciously devouring this alleged scandal in the hope that it not only tarnishes President Obama's counter-terrorism record but keeps his former Secretary of State out of the Oval Office in four years. The cries of "cover-up" is partisan politics at its worst.

"I think this is, Sean, one of the worst cover-ups, probably in the history of the republic," said Liz Cheney to Fox's Sean Hannity. Let's not ignore the irony in that it is Cheney's father, former vice president Dick Cheney, who prosecuted one of the most ill-conceived, ill-advised, unjust wars in American history. "We are not talking about a policy that went awry here, we are talking about an ambassador and three other Americans who were killed. We are talking about a nation under attack."   

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) wrote an op-ed in The Washington Times last Friday that said Clinton should “never hold high office again.”

 
Karl Rove's American Crossroads has an incendiary television spot charging that the attack occurred "on Hillary Clinton's Watch." 

The over-the-top rhetoric is targeted to Obama as well, with Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) suggesting that the president could be impeached over what he alleged was the “greatest cover-up in American history. People may be starting to use the I-word before too long. Of all the great cover-ups in history — the Pentagon papers, Iran-Contra, Watergate, all the rest of them — this ... is going to go down as most egregious cover-up in American history.” 

And former GOP presidential candidate and talk-show host Mike Huckabee said last week that Obama "will not fill out his full term."

The truth is, the average American likely knows more about Ben Affleck than it does Benghazi. And three years is an awful lot of time in politics. House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), who's heading the probe into the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Embassy, is delusional if he thinks voters will ultimately hold Clinton personally liable for the death of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. For this narrative to play out, and given the tightness of recent elections, it would require a critical amount of Democrats, not just Fox-friendly conservatives, to move the needle from her. Not very likely.   

Leading the charge with Issa is Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz, who's accused Clinton of putting politics before the nation's security needs...saying the country was "misled at every step." Putting politics before security is something Chaffetz knows a lot about. If he really wants to talk about what is misleading, he can start with the fact that it was he and his fellow House Republicans who've critically cut funding for U.S. embassy security since 2010.

 
As the Washington Post's Dana Milbank wrote last fall: "For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department's Worldwide Security Protection program -- well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration's request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. ...Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans' proposed cuts to her department would be "detrimental to America's national security" -- a charge Republicans rejected."

When pressed by former CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien about whether he pushed for these cuts Chaffetz replied: "Absolutely. Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have…15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army there, for President Obama, in Baghdad. And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things.”

Which makes Chaffetz's role in the current "investigation" mind-numbingly hypocritical and contemptible. It's an insult to the intelligence of every American and an unconscionable abuse of the political process. 

Not political theater you say? From 2002-2008, when George W. Bush occupied the White House, there were at least ten other terrorist attacks on U.S. embassies, consulates and compounds abroad in which sixty Americans were killed. I don't recall the righteous indignation and outrage from Republicans then.

Most reprehensible is how conservatives since last September have relentlessly attacked Obama during this time of national crisis. This runs counter to how the entire nation, including Democrats, rallied around Bush after the 9-11 attacks. Republicans used Benghazi before the last election for political purposes and are now setting the stage for the next one.

If only the GOP would've conducted such an aggressive investigation into the Bush administration's manufacturing of WMD evidence to justify its craven rush to war in Iraq. If they had, perhaps Bush, Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the war's chief architects, would be in jail. Some perspective is important here: a terrible tragedy, for sure, but four people died in Benghazi. In the Iraq war 4500 American soldiers died, not to mention the tens of thousands of others, including Iraqis, killed or maimed. Yet Washington never witnessed such outrage and a quest for the truth from Republicans, whose disingenuous motives on Benghazi are now utterly transparent.

There's no question that Obama believed the Benghazi attack was the work of terrorists. In a Rose Garden speech the day after the violence, alongside Clinton, he very pointedly referred to it as "an act of terror."  (For the record, during a visit to Washington Hospital Center on September 13, 2001, just two days after the World Trade Center attacks, Bush described the incident as an "unbelievable act of terror."). 

And in her now infamous, State Department career-ending interview on Meet the Press September 16, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice stated it was the administration's early belief that the Benghazi attack was a "spontaneous reaction" and the the result of a "hateful and offensive video that was widely disseminated throughout the Arab and Muslim world." 

But when pressed further by host David Gregory, she added: "First of all, there’s an FBI investigation which is ongoing.  And we look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired...What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding.  They came with heavy weapons which unfortunately are readily available in post revolutionary Libya.  And it escalated into a much more violent episode.  Obviously, that’s-- that’s our best judgment now.  We’ll await the results of the investigation."

Excuse my righteous indignation, but what the fuck is wrong with waiting a couple of weeks for an investigation to more fully flush out the details before a rush to judgement? Especially after the country was  lied into a devastatingly costly 8-year war by Republicans who were so quick to judge and place blame (wrongly, I might add), even in the absence of evidence? Between Obama, Rice, the State Department, the CIA, the FBI and others, no one was denying the role that terrorists played in the Benghazi attack. Rather, the Obama team responsibly chose to reserve drawing conclusions as to the specific who, what, where, when and how of it all until the facts could be determined.   

On September 19, three days after Rice's Sunday morning television appearances, Obama dispatched the head of the National Counterterrorism Center, Matt Olsen, "up to Capitol Hill and specifically said it was an act of terrorism and that extremist elements inside of Libya had been involved in it....Who executes some sort of cover-up or effort to tamp things down for three days? So the whole thing defies logic.” 

Exactly. It defies logic. But what it doesn't defy is reality....which is that Republicans remain angry and frustrated after two bruising elections and a loss of power, and are rabid in their quest to undermine and take down this president and Hillary Clinton at any and all cost, regardless of the toll it takes on America.

The Republican Party is Dead

The United States has a two-term black president. Gay marriage bills are passing all over the country. A majority of voters support sweeping immigration legislation. Organized religion is facing more challenges than ever. And most Americans favor stiffer gun laws and a hands-off abortion policy. Yet the Republican Party appears more racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and religiously fanatical than during the McCarthy era.

The GOP remains stuck in the '50's. They desperately cling to their over-romanticized version of "Mad Men" America, when rich white men ruled the day, when blacks knew their place, Hispanics were household servants, women were barefoot and pregnant, and gays were closeted. A time when it was ok to call a black man "boy," a gay man "fag" and a woman "sweetheart,"...accompanied, of course, by a harmless pinch or slap of the ass.

Despite the country's rapidly shifting demographics and social attitudes--a healthy move towards racial, religious and sexual tolerance--the GOP has boxed itself into a corner. There are patterns they simply cannot break. Ideals they can't divorce from. Rhetoric they can't  stop espousing. They just can't help themselves.

Evidenced by the results of the last couple of elections, the GOP, whose voice has been hijacked and whose platform has been dictated by its extreme right-wing Tea Party fringe, has become totally irrelevant. Yes, through fervent intransigence and obstructionism they've been a potent force for President Obama and Democrats to reckon with, and they've successfully thwarted his ability to carry out his agenda. As Senate Minority Leader proclaimed in 2010, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."  But it's precisely this toxic partisanship and single-mindedness that's losing them elections and making them obsolete in the long-term. They may be winning some battles, but they're most definitely losing the war.

It's not difficult to imagine a few years from now a political landscape controlled by a Democratic dynasty, where the only Republicans left in office come from states and districts where the small minority of folks who voted for them share their ignorant, intolerant 1950's ideals. And when that day comes the party will have "visionaries" such as Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Joe Wilson, Sarah Palin and Todd Akin to thank.

South Carolinians: WTF!!??

A funny thing happened on the way to the polls in South Carolina Tuesday. Voters in what Gallup cites as the sixth most religious state in the country re-elected Republican Mark Sanford, an Episcopalian, to the congressional seat he held from 1995-2001. If you don't follow politics too closely this wouldn't seem unusual. But this was no ordinary election, and no ordinary victory, because Sanford is the disgraced, nearly impeached, former governor of this apparently amnesic and/or hypocritical state.

For a week during June 2009 Sanford disappeared...about as AWOL as National Guardsman George W. Bush in '72 Alabama. Ostensibly hiking the Appalachian Trail, which is what he told his family, staff and security detail, he was incommunicado for days, even failing to call home on Father's Day. But when he was discovered by a reporter at the airport in Atlanta returning to the U.S. from an overseas flight, the story became a national sensation. Hours later he confessed that he'd in fact flown to Argentina to be with his mistress, María Belén Chapur, in what he characterized as a passionate, loving relationship with his "soul mate"...unlike the many other "line crossings" he had engaged in with other women during his 20-year marriage. The affair was a humiliating blow to his wife Jenny and four young children, and a crushing disappointment to voters.

But it apparently wasn't that upsetting to Sanford's very forgiving constituents, who handed him a 10-point victory against Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch, sister of television's political satirist Stephen Colbert, in the state's special election. And there's something very troubling about how quickly his abhorrent, deceitful, selfish behavior has been absolved by the very same people who vehemently attack the morals and ethics of President Obama, a deeply religious, faithful family man who, unlike Sanford, lives his life according to the principles they piously embrace, and who doesn't just talk the talk as do hypocrites like Sanford. What's wrong with this picture?

Judging from the outcome of Tuesday's contest, it seems that Sanford, South Carolina's devout citizens and God herself surely work in very mysterious ways.... (Anthony Weiner and Elliot Spitzer, are you listening?)  

Is America, and Pro Sports, Really Ready for Active Gay Players?

So Jason Collins, the 7-foot NBA center, is gay. His ground-breaking declaration came in a Sports Illustrated article published Monday. And yes, it's 2013 and times have changed, as the jubilation across the country, and among several prominent players, has demonstrated. But once we get past the hoopla and the effusive praise for the pioneering 34-year-old currently with the Washington Wizards, the real question remains: what does his historic coming-out mean for him, the NBA, pro sports and society as a whole?

First let's get the good stuff out of the way. Many of the league's biggest stars, including Kobe Bryant, Dwayne Wade, Steve Nash and Jason Kidd, quickly came out in support of Collins. Social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter were abuzz with viral praise over his courageous decision. Michelle Obama  tweeted "So proud of you Jason Collins! This is a huge step forward for our country. We've got your back!" It's hard to ignore the powerful symbolism behind America's first black First Lady rallying behind the nation's first openly gay, and black, active pro athlete. 

But as Ms. Obama knows all too well, while her husband Barack has broken through tremendous racial barriers in becoming the country's first black president, it certainly did little to erase the ugliness of prejudice and racism. In fact, there are those who'd argue that his presidency has fanned the racist flames for many, perhaps as evidenced by the unprecedented partisan gridlock in Washington and by the most blatant disrespect ever shown a sitting U.S. president (see Rep. Joe Wilson's "You Lie!" shout during Obama's September 2009 speech to Congress).

While there indeed were those welcoming the newly minted gay Collins with open arms, ignorance and intolerance surfaced as well. On ESPN, NBA analyst Chris Broussard called homosexuality "an open rebellion to God" and implied that gay people can't be Christians."I'm a Christian. I don't agree with homosexuality. I think it's a sin, as I think all sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is. If you're openly living in unrepentant sin ... that's walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ."        

And Mike Wallace of the NFL's Miami Dolphins tweeted "All these beautiful women in the world and guys wanna mess with other guys."  Wallace's and Broussard's comments--like Karl Malone's ignorant rant in 1992 when Magic Johnson announced he'd contracted H.I.V--differ in definition and motivation, but they echo the common thinking among many Americans.  Wallace and Broussard are just two jerks dumb enough to voice what millions more in the silent minority are no doubt thinking. The truth is, professional sports is but a microcosm of the nation, and the social patterns that exist in society overall will be on display as the Collins story continues to unfold.  

To be sure, religion is going to play a key role as Collins' coming-out takes shape, as players (many of whom pray on court before games) and coaches' (Golden State Warriors coach Mark Jackson is a pastor with his own ministry) personal faith muddies the debate...just as it does outside professional sports. Ignorance, fear and machismo will surely continue to permeate locker rooms. It would be incredibly naive to think that the majority of professional athletes, many of whom come from poor, uneducated, deeply religious and intolerant environments, won't look at Collins' with a jaundiced eye, or believe that he's looking at them with a lascivious one. There's simply way too much nudity in locker rooms for that not to happen. The 'catching Aids from a toilet seat' mentality isn't disappearing simply because Collins decided to come out.

The real test of America's true progress, and the NBA's acceptance, will be in whether Collins, who becomes a free agent July 1, will be suiting up for a team come opening night next season. "If he's not on a team, he's just another guy who did it at the end of his career, and he retired," said Jim Buzinski, co-founder of Outsports, an online site covering gays and sports. 

True Change Requires More Than Belting Out the National Anthem

Let me begin with full disclosure: My wife was brutally murdered in 2006, so I know first-hand what devastating shock and grief feels like. As such, the horrific tragedy in Boston this week conjures up my own profound sense of loss and anger. Besides, my daughter lives there. Perhaps by luck or fate she was thankfully nowhere near the deadly Marathon bombings.

I have nothing but sadness and empathy for the city, its citizens and for the families of those who lost their lives, their limbs, their innocence. That America once again has fallen victim to such reprehensible, violent acts of pure cowardice is yet another painful reminder of our new reality. Like New York, Washington and Pennsylvania in 2001, I suspect Boston, and it's tough, gritty, proud residents, will bounce back strongly and with great patriotic fervor.

I watched the incredible demonstration of such patriotism at Wednesday's Boston Bruins game as 20,000 emotional fans delivered a roaring rendition of our national anthem...sending goosebumps, chills and tears throughout TD Garden and living rooms everywhere. Americans, in time of such great  tragedy, can be truly awe-inspiring in their unity and resolve. But is that enough? Is it enough to belt out the national anthem for a few days and then return to business as usual? Is that the best. most meaningful representation of patriotism we can harness?

It's been four months since the horrific Sandy Hook school massacre and, as shamefully evidenced in the U.S. Senate this week, we're still without any new gun control measures. Furthermore, we live in a country where certain groups still seek to deny rights to minorities, women and gays. Our national anthem stands for freedom. Our Pledge of Allegiance promises with liberty and justice for all. To voice these words should be to believe them.

To be sure, it's terribly easy for any of us to get swept up by emotion, frustration and anger and voice it all through these patriotic verses....and then be done with it. But the real commitment, the real effort, the real showing of empathy and concern for our fellow citizens must come the next day, the day after that, and the days, weeks, months and years that follow. It can't be done in one 90-second chorus. If, as a people, we truly believe in the words behind our national anthem and Pledge, then perhaps, when the game's over, we should do whatever is humanly possibly to protect our citizens from further violence and discrimination by pushing for meaningful legislation and outreach. 

What the Boston Attack Means for America

As of this writing there have been no arrests made, no persons of interest announced by authorities and no terrorist organizations claiming responsibility for Monday's Boston Marathon bombings which killed three people (including an 8-year-old boy) and injured more than 100. The powerful blast left Boylston Street resembling a bloodied, limb-strewn war-zone, and sent shockwaves through this New England city and across the nation. The carnage, even for seasoned first responders, was horrific.

The attack was a stunning surprise. No prior warnings had been received nor had the typical pre-attack  terrorist cell chatter been evident, according to law enforcement and homeland security spokespeople. The two devastating explosions quickly turned the city's annual Patriot's Day celebration into a tainted landscape of shrapnel, fear and death. The city, the marathon and Americans everywhere have been dealt a terrible blow, which brings right back to the surface the chilling events of September 11, 2001.

It's been twelve years since the horrifying 9/11 attacks which killed 3000 in New York City, Washington, DC and Pennsylvania. Since then the country's been lulled into a false sense of security. With no further attacks, the intense fear and anxiety of that period subsided after a few short years, leaving Americans feeling relatively safe and secure. To be sure, Monday's attack in Boston serves as a tragic reminder of our collective vulnerability. It's making us painfully aware of the risks we face in this ugly new world simply by being a runner, a Marathon watcher, a parade-goer... or perhaps by one day being in a grocery store, movie theater, nightclub, sports arena, school, office building, subway or airport when a terrorist--domestic or international--will decide to send a sick, ghastly message.

We now must accept the reality that more bombings are likely. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but in the not-too-distant-future. Those who commit acts of terror don't need much to bring a neighborhood, a city and even the nation to its knees. Will America eventually become like Israel, whose hardened citizens face each day knowing it could very well be their last at the hands of a terrorist and his explosives-filled backpack? While it certainly doesn't lessen the impact of Monday's tragedy, let's hope that it was an isolated, non-political crime committed by a lone-wolf wacko who was off his meds and angry at his former employer. Maybe that will be easier to accept. But it doesn't change our new reality of how some people now vent their hatred and rage. In the end, while it doesn't matter whether it's a Taliban-supported al-Qaeda cell or an unaffiliated malcontent, our ultimate fear and loss of innocence, is just the same.    





 

Making the Case for Anthony Weiner

New York. The greatest city in the world. It deserves a mayor with spunk, moxie, chutzpah, balls (pun intended)....who might even be a bit of a dick (intended pun #2). A colorful character in the tradition of Wagner, La Guardia, Koch, Giuliani and Bloomberg. Someone not afraid to speak his mind and stand up for what he believes in, regardless of popularity or political expediency  And that's why Anthony Weiner should be the city's next mayor.

Ok, so there's that little Twitter problem. We get it. The man did something incredibly stupid and texted photos of his e-shlong to young women. But ya know what? Show me a married New Yorker who hasn't flirted in some fashion or another with a member of the opposite sex. If we're to trust Weiner (I still marvel at the symbiosis of his name and scandal) and believe that he never actually had sex with any of these women, then his crimes are not as onerous as, say, those of former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, who resigned in 2009 after he went AWOL in Argentina chasing his mistress while his aides claimed he was hiking the Appalachian Trail. And how did that state's deeply religious voters ultimately punish him for his lying and cheating? They handed him a Republican primary run-off victory earlier this month in his bid to win election to Congress. I suspect New York's less-than-perfect, non-judgemental voters will forgive and forget Weiner's virtual indiscretions as well. And it appears Weiner believes so too. He's been out there polling to gauge his chances, which he's intimated are strong.  

The other Democrats in the race, including front runner and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, are respectable, decent, well-credentialed people. But are they the bright lights of the big city? In many ways, New York city is like a circus, and its mayor the ringmaster. Weiner would wear that costume well. With his big brash personality, dogged persistence, congressional resume and millions in the bank, he could easily leap to the front of the pack should he make his announcement by the June 10 deadline. If he does, I suggest the following campaign slogan: Anthony Weiner: He ain't dickin' around...    
      

Want to Really Protect Heterosexual Marriage?

The United States Supreme Court this week heard arguments on two critical cases that will either be a devastating setback or a landmark victory for gay
marriage: a challenge to California's Proposition 8 which overturned a lower court's ruling allowing same-sex marriage; and a case involving provisions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Rulings are expected no later than June but could come at any time.

It's unconscionable that in 2013, we're still arguing over whether some and not all Americans should have the same right to love and marry. And it's also unfathomable that Clarence Thomas, a black Justice, would willfully condone such discrimination when similar Draconian laws, if still in existence today, would deny him the right to marry his white wife. He more than any jurist on that court should be an unflinching advocate of the freedom to marry whoever one chooses.

The main argument against gay marriage--that it undermines the great institution of heterosexual marriage--is not just weak but laughable. Consider the fact that 50% of all such marriages end in divorce. If conservatives really want to protect the sanctity of marriage perhaps the prohibitive measure that should be enacted is not a ban on gay marriage but a ban on heterosexual divorce. 

Further, how about challenging the hypocrisy of anti-gay-marriage Republican legislators and right-wing justices by having them sign personal guarantees that they themselves will never divorce. Because we all know from our Grover Norquist 101 class that Republicans love to sign sweeping pledges.

The Seinfelding of Comedy: In Defense of Seth MacFarlane

Jerry Seinfeld made a decision early on in his wildly successful career never to use profanity in his routines. That decision obviously worked out very well for him. It wouldn't have worked so well for Lenny Bruce, Richard Pryor, George Carlin or Chris Rock. The truth is, some people like jokes about dicks, tits, lesbians, Lincoln's assassination, race, religion and "two priests and a rabbi walk into a whorehouse" ...and there are those comedians who are brilliant at telling them. Welcome to America, land of the free.

By now you'd have to be living under a rock to not know the "outrage" over Oscar host Seth MacFarlane's "hostile, ugly, sexist" performance, as the high-brow New Yorker charged. His main "offenses?" The jokes he made about "Django Unchained" being "the story of a man fighting to get back his woman, who has been subjected to unthinkable violence. Or as Chris Brown and Rihanna call it, a date movie;" that "Zero Dark Thirty" was about "every woman's innate ability to never ever let anything go;" and a tongue-in-cheek number called "We Saw Your Boobs."

But let's get something straight: Seth MacFarlane is a comic. He doesn't pretend to be anything else. He's an edgy, irreverent, off-color satirist who clearly doesn't give a shit what anyone thinks. The producers knew exactly who they were buying when they hired him, and viewers knew what to expect when watching him. It's a bit absurd to hire Seth MacFarlane, watch Seth MacFarlane, and then be offended because he's, well, being Seth MacFarlane. That people are now drowning in a sea of self-righteous indignation over his performance is laughable and frightening at the same time.

Comedy, like art in general, is incredibly personal and subjective. We have a right to voice our opinions (key word "opinions") as to what's funny and what isn't. But the criticism becomes dangerous, and takes on a whole new ugliness, when entertainers are attacked for being "offensive, sexist and racist" simply because some folks may dislike the content and/or fail to see the humor. That sort of mass condemnation typically leads to censorship. Are we going back to the days when Lenny Bruce was arrested for using "obscenities" on-stage? Has our culture not evolved in fifty years? Or are we simply witnessing the PC-ification of America? What one person finds "offensive" another finds brilliant art (see Pryor, Carlin, Elvis, The Beatles, Mapplethorpe, Bertolucci, et al).

Hollywood and the New York literati is full of self-righteous, self-important hypocrites who constantly sit in judgment of others while they themselves churn out like a factory the very same "offensive" material they thumb their noses at. Hollywood, which is so ridiculously aghast over MacFarlane's bit, produces more films about child abuse, gang rape, incest, hookers, strippers, 3-ways and horrific violence against women than he could ever imagine. And the publishing world has no problem feeding us mega-hits like Fifty Shades of Grey which is full of sexual degradation, bondage and sadomasochism directed at women.

If women are going to bare their boobs on film, then comics like MacFarlane have every right to spoof it. And the parody certainly goes both ways. I don't recall such a groundswell of outrage when Harvey Keitel and his naked ass in "The Piano" were repeatedly mocked.

Deep breath, America. It's truly going to be ok. It's just a song and dance about some harmless little tits...

Why Don’t Republicans Promote ‘Gun Abstinence’?

Teen pregnancy. It’s a problem for which Republicans have historically argued a common-sense solution, and it’s not contraception or sex-education. Their fix is simple and straight-forward: abstinence. Just keep the penis out of the vagina. So how come the same philosophy doesn't apply to gun violence?

In the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre the nation's attention has once again shifted to gun control and the need to ban semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines as well as enact tighter restrictions overall. Most agree that the level of gun violence in America has risen to epic proportions. But the National Rife Association and virtually all Republicans contend that the last thing that needs to be factored into the gun control equation are the actual guns. Instead, their focus has been almost exclusively on background checks, registrations, mental health screening, video games and anything else that can take the gun out of gun control.

It's terribly contradicting that conservatives don't support contraception and sex-ed as a means of reducing unwanted teen pregnancies. How come, when it comes to a 15-year-old getting knocked up, it's the weapon, in this case the penis, that's to blame? If the same philosophy is applied to guns, i.e. taking away the actual instrument that does the damage, that would result in a dramatic reduction in gun violence, right?

But the problem is that when it comes to guns and sex, Republicans cannot think rationally. Ironically, their "abstinence" philosophy has terrific merit if applied to guns, but completely convoluted when the subject is teen pregnancy. If only they believed in education and mental health when and where it truly mattered. 

Haggling for Hagel

In a Benghazi-leverage-fueled power-play that is both shameful and unsurprising, Senate Republicans Thursday filibustered President Obama's nomination of Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense. In a 58-40 vote, Democrats lost their bid to call a vote on Hagel, the decorated Vietnam War vet, a Republican, who used to be besties with Sen. John McCain and who Majority Leader Mitch McConnell once called one of the Senate's most respected foreign policy experts.

Some perspective is needed here: only twice in modern history has a cabinet nominee been filibustered (Reagan’s second-term Commerce Secretary C. William Verity and George W. Bush’s Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne) and never has there been one in the case of a Defense Secretary. So this week's action, or inaction, is just more of the same old partisan vitriol coming from a bunch of angry old rich men still pissed about the election (and I mean the one in 2008, not just last November's trouncing). They hate Obama, hate Democrats, and continue to "just say no" to everything the left puts forth.

Defending his party's opposition, McCain said: “There’s a lot of ill will towards Sen. Hagel, because when he was a Republican, he attacked President Bush mercilessly — at one point, said he was the worst president since Herbert Hoover — said that the [Iraqi troop] surge was the worst blunder since the Vietnam war, which is nonsense. He was very anti-his own party and people. People don’t forget that. You can disagree, but if you’re disagreeable, then people don’t forget that....Further, Chuck Hagel does not have the qualifications — in the view of many of us, particularly me — to serve. He’s has no managerial experience. His view of the world is very different. His answers on Iran were troubling. His opposition to the surge, saying it would fail. You can only judge people on what they’re going to do by what they’ve done in the past — and that record is not a good one.”

Well for one thing, if by his "record" McCain's referring to Hagel's opposition to the Iraq War, then I'd say his record is stellar, given that engagement's cost in terms of dollars and human life, let alone its uncertain outcome. And if by "troubling" McCain finds Hagel's caution against more Neocon tough talk on Iran, then I'd say "his answers" show exactly the sort of restraint and diplomacy the U.S. needs in a Defense Secretary. Lastly, McCain's blistering, personal-vendetta against Hagel is rooted in the contention that all Republicans are expected to march in lock-step with the party, acting as a rubber-stamp for anything and everything the leadership calls for. Disagreement, or dissent, is about as welcome to these myopic spoiled brats as a Barney Frank lecture on gay marriage.

Whatever happened to the House and Senate being about diverse ideas and opinions, both within a caucus and across the aisle, in protecting America's best interests? What happened to "putting country first," which was McCain's '08 campaign theme? As the undeserved witch-hunt against Hagel painfully demonstrates, it's tow-the-line or else with this current crop of Republicans. And as Obama charged Thursday, they now expect every Democratic bill in Congress to need a filibuster-proof majority in order for passage. Fuck compromise.

Hagel, who had no involvement in the administration's controversial handling of the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. embassy is Benghazi, Libya, where four Americans including Ambassador Chris Stevens were killed, is being used as a pawn in the GOP's rapacious quest for "answers" on the terrorist attack.  This malicious, spiteful, defamation of Hagel's character has less to do with his overall qualifications than it does Republicans simply acting like a bunch of nasty dicks because they can.

But after all the vituperative crowing and chest-thumping is over, Hagel's nomination will likely pass, but not before more taxpayer time and money is wasted and voters' approval of Congress sinks lower than McCain's trumped-up standards. 

Have Marco Rubio's Presidential Hopes Drowned with that Water Bottle?

Well, it couldn't have happened to a more deserving guy, right? There he was, Marco Rubio, the Republican Party's boy wonder and Great Latin Hope, imploding right before the nation's very eyes as he gave the GOP's rebuttal to President Obama's State of the Union speech Tuesday night.

To be sure, the words Poland Spring will never be the same again to Rubio. In what has become his very own bizarro Bobby Jindal moment, Rubio will be remembered not the way he hoped--for a searing, provocative response to Obama's big government expansion speech--but rather for a humiliatingly awkward episode with a very little water bottle.

Plagued by an obvious case of cottonmouth, and in the middle of an attack on Obama's "false choices," Rubio suddenly and quickly bent down, leaned to his left and desperately reached for the  bottle all the while strangely darting his eyes back and forth between the bottle and the camera (like he was hastily picking up his dry-cleaning while eyeing his double-parked car). After an awkward gulp and swish, you could almost hear the stampede of big donors running for the door. You may recall how Jindal, in his 2009 State of the Union rebuttal, swiftly killed his own presidential buzz with one of the most forced, awkward deliveries in the history of politics. 

Rubio attempted damage control Wednesday morning, poking fun at himself on ABC's Good Morning America. “I needed water, what am I going to do? God has a funny way of reminding us we’re human." Well, if this is God's way of looking out for Rubio I'd suggest he try Atheism.

But let's not give Poland Spring all the credit here. Rubio's stilted, robotic manner and uber-boyish appearance did little to boost his presidential capital. BottleGate simply put a punctuation on these weaknesses.

Karl Rove's Back and He's Pissed!

Gentlemen...let the civil war begin! Karl Rove, the former Bush operative-turned-superPACman, is creating a veritable shitstorm in the Republican Party with his new Conservative Victory Project, an offshoot of his American Crossroads super PAC. The project is squarely taking aim at the Senate, vowing to support conservative candidates it deems more electable in an effort to win back GOP control.  It's the establishment crazies versus the Tea Party crazies. What could be more fun for a raging lib than to see right-wingers eating their own?

You have to admire Rove. After getting his ass pummeled in the 2012 election dispensing hundreds of millions of big-donor bucks to Mitt "Remember Me?" Romney and countless House and Senate hopefuls--with an ROI so low it's unfathomable how he could raise another nickel--he's back trying to steer the party's future once again.

"Hello, I'm Karl Rove, the guy who almost single-handedly destroyed the modern Republican Party with my devious, race-baiting, vitriolic, polarizing antics. And now that the party's lying in a pile of obliterated rubble, who's better to straighten out this clusterfuck than the guy responsible for it?!

The guy who put the crazy in GOP crazy has now decided the GOP's too crazy to win elections anymore. Enter the Conservative Victory Project, which believes candidates who more resemble ousted moderates like Richard Lugar (IN) and Bob Bennett (UT) are the future saviors of the party. It's back to old school for Rove.

Perhaps Rove's right this time, and the Tea Party wackos must go if the current irrelevant rape-obsessed, homophobic, xenophobic, anti-science Republican Party is to ever become relevant again. But the biggest question is, does anyone give a shit what Karl Rove has to say anymore?

Gay Boy Scouts: What Are Conservatives So Afraid Of?

Here's the thing that I find fascinating about conservatives: they think that simply banning the things that terrify them actually make them go away. Of course, logic and reality dictate otherwise. This phenomenon is most prevalent when the subject is homosexuality...be it relating to gay marriage, gays in the military or gays in the Boy Scouts.

The Boy Scouts of America this week announced that it's delaying until may a decision on whether to lift its ban of gay scouts or scout leaders. This comes on the heels of recent buzz that the organization was very close to ending the ban as early as this week.  As expected, the specter of such a decision has been met with intense opposition, rooted in a frustrating and unsurprising cocktail of ignorance, intolerance and religious fanaticism.

So let's get right to the chase then. Banning gays from the Boy Scouts doesn't mean there'll be no gays in the Boy Scouts. Just like there's no way for conservatives to keep gays out of the military (fighting for your freedom), the schools (teaching your kids), hospitals (keeping you healthy/alive), politics (making your laws), police and fire stations (keeping you safe), television and film (entertaining you) and yes, your beloved sports teams (fueling your machismo). All a ban does is give these narrow-minded fools a false sense of security: "if I don't actually see gays then they're not there, right!?"

Get over yourselves already. It's 2013. It's time to stop the discrimination.    

Chuck and the Chicken Hawks

What's worse than a Republican chicken hawk wolfishly extolling the virtues and necessity of war with reckless abandon? A Republican chicken hawk who arrogantly attacks decorated war heroes with whom they disagree. That's exactly what's happening in President Obama's fight to appoint former Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense.

At issue are Hagel's 2002 views on the Iraq invasion (said it would be a mistake), Iran (he urges caution, military restraint and direct dialogue) and his use of what some call a derogatory term regarding Jews.

Prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 Hagel, concerned that some of his fellow Republicans were rushing to war, claimed they lacked the perspective of veterans like him who've "sat in jungles or foxholes and watched their friends get their heads blown off." These same Republicans, none of whom ever donned a military uniform, had the audacity to call Hagel weak and an "appeaser." But what does Hagel, a Vietnam combat vet with two Purple Hearts, the Combat Infantryman Badge, the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry and the Army Commendation Medal, know about war, right?

The charge of anti-Semitism is equally offensive. Hagel has come under fire for once using the phrase "Jewish lobby" during an interview. This is a cheap shot; a reprehensible, egregious charge which is unfair and patently false. The phrase "Jewish state" has been a common term since the establishment of Israel, used by prominent officials from President George W. Bush and former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell to President Obama and even Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Pardon me for being logical, but if it's completely acceptable to refer to Israel as the "Jewish state" then it would seem reasonable for Hagel to have referred to its advocates as the "Jewish lobby" without the anti-Semite label hurled at him by a bunch of pathetic cowards who'd just as soon send someone else's kid off to die in battle than ever serve themselves.  

I'm not saying that military service is a prerequisite for being hawkish. But on the other hand, having served and bled in battle certainly earns one the right to speak out against war and to caution against its ravaging consequences. Condemning Hagel for doing so is an unconscionable affront to every soldier who's ever worn the uniform.

What's happening here is simple: we're witnessing the residual affects of the GOP's humiliating defeat in November and its recent loss in the Fiscal Cliff tax battle. Republicans are back and they're pissed!. They're trying everything in their power to obstruct Obama and Democrats on every conceivable front, even if that means shamelessly indicting a decent, rational, thoughtful patriot like Hagel whose oasis of diplomatic and military reason in a sea of sabre-rattling war-mongers is so desperately needed right now at the highest levels of government.

How Obama and Democrats Can Win Passage of An Assault Weapons Ban

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Back in 2001 following the horrific 9/11 terrorist attacks, President George W. Bush, in greasing up his and Dick Cheney's war machine, declared to other nations that "You're either with us or against us." In the wake of another historic murderous rampage, the Newtown, CT school massacre, President Obama and Democrats would be wise to frame the gun control debate in a similar fashion: "You're either protecting children or you're not."

Newtown, the sleepy little burg an hour north of Manhattan that will never be the same, has been burying dead children and adults all week. Twenty-six victims in total who died a horribly brutal death at the hands of a demonic monster with a Bushmaster AR-15 assault rifle. And following the bloodshed Republicans have been throwing up all sorts of diversions and excuses in the hope that they, fearing the NRA and it's 4-million weapons-obsessed members, can once again duck and hide from the subject of an assault weapons ban and stricter overall gun regulations. "Now is not the time," they say, to discuss such legislation. Stricter gun laws "won't stop crime" they claim. "It's time to mourn, not argue," they disingenuously suggest.

On MSNBC's "Morning Joe" Friday the convoluted rhetoric soared to new heights as Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) accused those seeking stricter gun laws as politicizing the shootings. Like most in his caucus who refuse to budge on the issue of assault weapons, Huelskamp then pointed instead to violent video games and the need for more "parental control" despite the fact that statistics disprove any direct correlation between gun violence and computer gaming.  

An incensed Joe Scarborough, the show's conservative co-host who's lately been an outspoken proponent of gun control measures, snapped back: "Do you dare come on my show and say I am using the slaughter of twenty little 6 and 7-year-old children...for political purposes?" Scarborough also accused Huelskamp of political double-talk by saying discussion of gun control is politicizing the tragedy while talking about video games is not.

Even after last week's unfathomable violence, Huelskamp had the audacity and temerity to declare "It's not a gun problem, it's a people problem."  But guess what? Take away the shooter's Bushmaster and give him a knife instead and we'd likely have one or two funerals at most, not twenty-six. That's not a gun problem?

It's time for Obama and Democrats to get smart and crafty, pinning against the wall the backs of Huelskamp and those ignorant, intransigent buffoons like him. In galvanizing support for an assault weapons ban and tighter gun laws they must make this debate all about the children. "A vote against a ban is a vote against children," is what the main talking point should be. And it should be repeated ad nauseam. It should be what "death panels" was to Republicans.

I believe we're at a critical tipping point. The sickening horror of the Newtown massacre has touched an empathetic nerve in all Americans, regardless of their political affiliation. Most of us are parents and grandparents, and the thought of sending our children off to kindergarten only to be slaughtered like animals by a ravenous diabolical maniac is beyond comprehension.

Conservative politicians don't want to think of little children's bullet-riddled bodies lying dead in blood-soaked classrooms. And at the end of the day I suspect few of them will want to be linked to this sort of carnage by their own unyielding inaction. That's why Obama and Democrats must inextricably connect the two at every turn. They have to guilt and shame Republicans into finally challenging them to cut ties with the NRA which, as its leadership continues to demonstrate, is woefully out of touch with the realities of modern days violence. This must be done all in the name of protecting children and working to save their lives. "You're either with the kids or you're against them..."    n

The Newtown Massacre: Time For Legislation Not Conversation

After a horrific bloody week of multiple massacres, the latest at an elementary school in Newton, CT where twenty 6-10-year-olds and six adults were killed, the tipping point has arrived. We need action. What we don't have the time, patience or stomach for is more stonewalling and can-kicking in the form of meaningless "conversation."

There's no rational or Constitutional basis for Americans to own military-grade weapons. Period. The Founding Fathers had Flintlocks, Muskets and single-fire rifles in mind when they drafted the Bill of Rights not 100-round Bushmaster AR-15's, Kalashnikovs or AK-47's. There's plenty of room in a civilized society for people to protect themselves, their homes and still shoot helpless deer if they so choose without allowing deadly combat-style assault weapons to end up in the hands of demonic, psychotic monsters.

There's no merit to any of the standard arguments made by gun enthusiasts to maintain the status quo. We are the most civilian-armed nation in the world, and not surprisingly the country with the most gun-related deaths as a result. We don't need more guns.  And if the shooter had a knife instead of a Bushmaster--as gun enthusiasts argue would happen if there were no guns--most of the twenty-seven Newtown victims would still be alive. What's more, increasing background checks won't really make a dent either considering that 75% of mass-murders in the United States obtained their weapons legally. What we need is legislation. And now.

As expected, we're once again hearing calls for improved mental health care--which could identify and treat these unhinged individuals before they kill--yet the Republican Party, which uses this topic as a convenient diversion from the issue of gun control, has vehemently fought against ObamaCare and any efforts to increase funding for health care. It's a convoluted philosophy akin to how they staunchly oppose abortion yet cut funding for sex education and contraception.

The solution to gun violence in America can be simple and quick, but it's made very complicated by a disproportionately powerful gun lobby that spends millions of dollars annually to hold lawmakers hostage while riling up their constituents with deceptive, purist propaganda.

After Friday's massacre, an extremely emotional and visibly shaken President Obama addressed the nation and called for Americans to "come together and take meaningful action." White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters after the shooting that there'd be time to discuss gun control but that he didn't believe that "today is that day." Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) said on Fox News Sunday that we need "thoughtful, calm reflection" on gun control and the Second Amendment.

This is weak and ineffectual leadership in a time of national crisis. I'm sorry, but now is precisely the time to call for gun legislation. I'm sick and tired of hearing politicians talk about how "now is not the time" or that we need to have "meaningful conversations" or "thoughtful, calm reflection." Enough. We don't need anymore damn conversation. That's all we ever have is conversation. Every time some psycho sprays a mall, business, movie theater or a school with bullets we spend days and weeks talking about it and then it quickly becomes a forgotten subject until the next massacre. Then the go-nowhere conversations begin all over again.

And just what exactly do these "conversations" look like? Do they have a timeline? A clear objective? Or are they merely more of the same empty chatter designed to make politicians feel good about themselves...as if they're actually doing something to stop the barbarism? It's time to stop talking. No more conversations.

Consider what New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said following the massacre:  "With all the carnage from gun violence in our country, it's still almost impossible to believe that a mass shooting in a kindergarten class could happen..We heard after Columbine that it was too soon to talk about gun laws. We heard it after Virginia Tech. After Tucson and Aurora and Oak Creek. And now we are hearing it again. For every day we wait, 34 more people are murdered with guns...President Obama rightly sent his heartfelt condolences to the families in Newtown. But the country needs him to send a bill to Congress to fix this problem. Calling for 'meaningful action' is not enough. We need immediate action. We have heard all the rhetoric before. What we have not seen is leadership - not from the White House and not from Congress. That must end today. This is a national tragedy and it demands a national response."

And now we have twenty dead children. Twenty families that have to face each morning with the unimaginable sight of an empty bed where a sweet child once slept. Twenty-seven families who'll be putting their loved ones in caskets as they attend the saddest funerals imaginable. The Newtown families have lost wives, husbands, mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters. As one who's wife was brutally murdered, I have a sense of the horror they're all going through. When will this unnecessary carnage end? That we can't pass laws that protect even our children at school is unconscionable.

It's time to bombard politicians with emails, letters and calls demanding they take immediate action in addressing gun violence. It's time to threaten them with the 2014 election if they fail to pass meaningful assault weapons legislation. It's time to stop talking. No more conversations.

And it's time to stop sugar-coating the details of this massacre in an effort to be politically correct. I want the the gun-rights crowd to clearly understand the huge cost of their intransigence. As these Rambo-wannabe's lay their heads down to sleep each night I want them to first hear the chilling screams of those helpless terrified children. I want them to see the images of those precious faces as they cowered at the feet of the devil-incarnate, as their innocent little bodies were riddled with bullets. I want them to see the blood-spilled classrooms. This is the price they must pay for their colossal selfishness.   

California Sen. Dianne Feinstein Sunday on "Meet the Press" announced she will introduce an assault weapons bill in the Senate, with the same bill to be introduced in the House, on the first day Congress returns in January. The odds are it will fail. And until our elected officials grow some balls, and can stand up to the NRA the same way some Republicans are now telling Grover Norquist to take his "no tax pledge" and shove it, the likelihood is that nothing at all will change. Maybe it'll take a deranged, diabolical maniac to shoot up the U.S. Capital, or the offices of the NRA, in order for the conversations to end and the legislation to begin.

An Open Letter to Gov. Chris Christie

When I witnessed how you handled the post-Hurricane Sandy devastation in your state, and in particular how closely you worked with President Obama on disaster recovery and relief, several thoughts came to mind: (1) here's a truly effective governor reacting to a crisis; (2) here's a prominent Republican putting aside party politics for the good of his state's residents; (3) here's a guy who's his own man and doesn't care what the GOP elite thinks; and (4) all of which is exactly why so many people like and respect you.

Then came Rupert Murdoch's November 3 Tweet: "...Now Christie, while thanking O, must re- declare for Romney, or take blame for next four dire years."  And as the New York Times reported Tuesday, you've been taking it on the chin ever since from party leaders, fellow governors and large donors who, like Murdoch, hold you partly responsible for Obama's victory over Mitt Romney.

At a time when the nation is recovering from the most brutal presidential election in history and years of unprecedented partisan vitriol, and while your state, as well as several parts of New York, are still suffering the horrific impact of the storm, it's an utter shame that you have to expend any time whatsoever on further explaining your motivations and behavior during a time of catastrophic destruction.

Furthermore, given the results of the election and in particular your party's humiliating defeat in all of the critical swing states, it seems terribly counter-intuitive for Republicans to be pounding the partisan drum in your ear. What the election clearly demonstrated is that Americans are fed up with the bickering in Washington and the virtual deadlock it's created. Voters affirmed their desire to elect leaders who've demonstrated that they can reach across the proverbial aisle and get the job done. They want politicians who can enact meaningful legislation to grow the economy and provide funding for healthcare, education and clean energy while addressing immigration and protecting and preserving Social Security and Medicare. They also made it clear that they want politicians out of their personal lives...especially where it involves marriage, contraception and religion.

To be sure, the Republican Party, with its radical, intolerant, unyielding, stubborn base, is headed off a cliff unless it heeds the loud warning voters sent it on November 6th. Regardless, and more important, it is politicians like yourself who are your party's future. Men and women who can return Washington to the days when Democrats and Republicans disagreed, discussed, compromised, legislated, shook hands, had a drink together and then came back to the Hill the next day to do it all over again.

What you did during and after the storm was demonstrate true leadership, class and rarely seen political gravitas. Voters will remember that showing of solidarity with your fellow New Jerseyans and your president, whose response to the storm you hailed as "outstanding," "incredibly supportive" and deserving "great credit." In 2016 should you decide to run for president, you'll surely be able to tap that well of goodwill and capital. As for now, let the sore-losing, tone-deaf party crazies whine all they want about how you "sold them out" or became an "Obama surrogate."   They're dinosaurs headed for extinction.

Romney's Binders Full of Gifts

Two things were confirmed this past week: that Mitt Romney truly despises the poor and middle class, and that most Republican leaders despise Mitt Romney.

Now that the election is over, some of the long-lost truth is returning to politics. In a conference call Wednesday with campaign donors, Romney blamed his humiliating loss on what he implied were the bribes President Obama used to buy 51% of the electorate “especially the African-American community, the Hispanic community and young people....In each case, they were very generous in what they gave to those groups...What the president's campaign did was focus on certain  members of his base coalition, give them extraordinary financial gifts from the  government, and then work very aggressively to turn them out to vote, and that  strategy worked."

He continued: "With regards to the young people, for instance," Romney told his big fund-raisers, "a forgiveness of college loan interest was a big gift. Free contraceptives were very big with young, college-aged women. And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents' plan, and that was a big gift to young people."

This latest embarrassing diatribe from the nation's whiniest sore-loser unequivocally proves what we knew all along: that when he delivered his now-infamous, campaign-sinking "47%" comments at a closed-door fundraiser in May he was speaking from his core. That despite spending the next six months desperately trying to convince voters that he didn’t mean to disparage almost half the population and that he represents "100%" of them, he last week demonstrated once again his utter disdain for the working class, veterans, the sick, the elderly, minorities, immigrants, women and college students. 51% is the new 47%. 

Romney's reprehensible outburst was swiftly denounced by many top  Republicans including Tim Pawlenty, Haley Barbour, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (NH), Gov.  Bobby Jindal (LA), Gov. Scott Walker (WI), Gov. Susana Martinez (NM), strategist Ana Navarro, Newt Gingrich and New  Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. All of whom regrettably lined up to endorse him before the election. But his latest outrageously offensive statements gave these reluctant supporters the opportunity to finally and publicly demonstrate what they couldn't throughout the campaign: how much they dislike him.

The truth is, Romney will go down as perhaps the worst Republican candidate in history, which is why so many of the party's prescient voices behind closed doors clamored for anyone but Mitt, but it was Mitt with whom they got stuck after the rest of the primary crazies imploded (’ceptin’ Jon Huntsman who, if the GOP base wasn’t so radical, might’ve actually become president). Now they get to distance themselves from him like a dreaded plague.

Some sage advice for Romney: don’t go away mad, just go away...  

My Rockaways in Ruins

I spent Friday afternoon in Far Rockaway, a little burg along the coast in Queens, NY where I grew up in the beachfront Wavecrest Gardens apartments. It was an idyllic place in the 1960's and '70's. The sea air. The sound of crashing waves. The boardwalk. The arcades. The Good Humor ice cream truck stationed all Summer in the circle. 9pm fireworks. Riding my bike all over town like Fred Savage in The Wonder Years. That was a long, long time ago. And now, because of Hurricane Sandy, my beloved Rockaways is in a state of disaster.

The extent of the crisis can be felt soon after crossing the Gil Hodges Bridge, traveling along Beach Channel Drive through Belle Harbor, a seaside community that’s been ravaged by the storm. There’s a palpable sense of the devastation as piles upon piles of housing debris become visible along the road, as bulldozers clear the washed out, burned out neighborhood. Further down the peninsula, in Arverne, there’s a convoy of National Guard armored vehicles that pass.

There's abandoned cars, damaged homes and cops at every corner. Even in the daylight the loss of power is stark, as all the stores, except for the rare bodega with a generator, are shut and the people's faces, as they mill about trying desperately to figure out when and where their next meal will come from, are full of anger, frustration and fear. In many ways the place more resembles war-torn Afghanistan than a borough of New York.

At the East end, in Far Rockaway, we dropped off food at several makeshift relief centers. At our first stop, God’s Pentecostal Church on Cornaga Avenue, we were greeted like family. Tables were set up for both clothing and food distribution. Within seconds of placing a dozen trays of hot food in front of the volunteers, a line of thirty people formed.

“Where you from?” one organizer asked me, smiling at me, my girlfriend Phoebe and my daughter’s Emily and Kim.

“Manhattan.”

“Who are you with?

“We’re here on our own” I said.

“Thank you, man. We really appreciate you helping us.”

“I grew up here,” I told him, pointing to the recreation center next door. “I used to play basketball there.” His eyes lit up and he high-fived me.

“Alright man, so you know what we’re going through here. Welcome home bro.”

“You’re not alone,” I assured him.

We asked where another center might be, and he told us to head to St. Mary’s Church on Central Avenue. We arrived there in 3 minutes, but they weren’t as organized as the last site and, surprisingly, passed on our offer for hot food. I stood for a second staring across the property at the lawn where, over forty years ago, I used to play tackle football.

Back in our two-car caravan we headed out in search of another center, winging it this time. We stumbled upon a little outpost off Beach Channel Drive on Nameoke Avenue. It was starting to get dark, and the folks there were hurrying to shut the small operation. It, like many others, sits behind tall metal gates that are quickly shut once the sun sets. No one wants to be on the streets after dark, and I can understand why. There’s been looting, mugging and robberies, and people are afraid. It’s a scary place and getting scarier by the minute.  

A few people there said they needed food, so we dropped of some baked ziti and soup. Phoebe had been out in the Rockaways earlier in the week, and as she passed out food a sad little boy of about seven looked up and asked her, “Do you have any cupcakes?” Within two days she and our friend Daniela had gotten several Manhattan cupcake establishments-- Billy's Bakery, Molly's Cupcakes, Butter Lane Cupcakes, Buttercup Bake Shop and Georgetown Cupcake NYC—to donate dozens of boxes.  There were several small children hovering as the adults hurriedly packed up before complete darkness fell. We put the cupcakes down and the kids grabbed them with a fury.

A few blocks up Nameoke we came across what would be the most organized of the centers we visited, The Church of the Nazarene on the corner of Central. It occupies what used to be the Mel Chevrolet dealership where my parents bought their new yellow 1969 Impala station wagon for a mere $3500. There’s a FEMA presence there but the effort’s been organized and is run by the church's Orlando, Fl-based disaster relief team...a small army of committed folks who piled into a command trailer and mobile kitchen and drove 1000 miles to help. It’s run with the efficiency of the U.S. Army. They were thrilled to receive the grub and cupcakes. The hot stuff went right into the food line and the sugary treats were gone in a matter of minutes.

“Do you mind if I grab one of these for our volunteers?” the food director asked, holding a cupcake box. These volunteers deserve a helluva lot more than cupcakes for the incredibly selfless work they're doing.

There's talk that power and water may be out until Christmas. That's six weeks away. I can't fathom how the people of the Rockaways can handle that. They’re already terribly hungry, cold and unbathed. They’re afraid for their children, and at night, for their own lives. The elderly, many of whom are sick and needing medical care, risk dying if conditions don't improve fast.

It’s an absolute disgrace. The federal government isn’t doing enough. The City of New York isn’t doing enough. Relief organizations, like the Red Cross, aren’t doing enough. LIPA, the Long Island Power Authority, isn’t doing enough. Thankfully, there’s been an army of volunteers who’ve been filling the void as best they can. But it could be a very long, hard, cold and perhaps violent Winter if people’s lives aren’t restored, along with their electricity and water, back to normal soon.

The Real Takeaway From the Election

By now everyone in the world knows that President Barack Obama handily beat Mitt Romney to win re-election. The final electoral tally: 303-206. Obama took all the swing states. Independents apparently flocked to the Democratic incumbent. As they say, the fat lady has sung.

So what is the real takeaway of the most expensive, vitriolic, polarizing election in political history? Last night wasn't just a victory for Obama and Joe Biden. It was a victory for all of America and the world. It was a huge win for the poor, the sick, the needy, the middle class, and yes, the rich, even if they don't see it this way. It was a victory for education, for the environment and for decency. But most important, it was a victory against ignorance, intolerance, racism, misogyny, reproductive extremism, religious fanaticism, birtherism, homophobia, xenophobia, war-mongering and partisan obstructionism. A victory against the kind of ugliness that defies logic, reason and everything that our great nation truly stands for.    

As the above video so painfully illustrates, the biggest loser Tuesday was stupidity and fear. Let's hope the next four years shines a brighter light on America. 

Will We Hear THIS Speech From Moderate Mitt Before Tuesday?

The presidential election is Tuesday, giving Mitt Romney just four more days to convince voters that he actually has a core. That's no easy task given that he's been changing his positions as often as I change my socks.  Case in point: in the past week the formerly "severely conservative" Romney, in an effort to appear much less so, has unleashed Uber-Moderate Mitt, who’s shifted so far to the left he makes Barney Frank appear like a Tea Partier. 

For example, by embracing FEMA, teachers, single-mothers and bi-partisanship ("Democrats love America too!"), it's impossible to predict what could come out of his fork-tongued, co-opting mouth next. Perhaps, in the final hours of the campaign, as he gets even more desperate, we'll hear the following stump speech:

“Hello Florida! I love Jews! No, I mean that, seriously! I really love you guys! So much so that just this week I got a circumcision. That’s right, I lopped off a sizable chuck of my adult penis for you…and I’ll tell ya, I didn’t have much to start with! That’s the kind of president I’ll be….one who sacrifices his foreskin for Israel!

“And I love Rosie O’Donnell! She’s my favorite lesbian! And I love Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn and Alec Baldwin too. Why, just yesterday Ann and I were singing Kumbaya on the bus and we were saying how much we’d love to have those groovy liberals over to one of our homes for dinner sometime. But this election isn’t about hot lesbians…it’s about hot single mothers! (insert awkward Romney laugh). Hey, I’m kidding! It’s about the economy, and jobs and getting America back on track.

We’ve got to help the crack ho’s, the gang-bangers, the unemployed and those who don’t pay any taxes yet deserve the widest government safety net we can provide.  And it’s time our government starts paying for abortions! That’s right…I love abortion so much I’ve basically aborted every single position I’ve ever had. I want to merge Planned Parenthood with FEMA and the EPA and double its budget.

“And let’s get something straight: I love homos too! I love show tunes, flashy clothes and Tim Gunn. And I promise you this: if Ann and I ever divorce I’m goin ‘ gay! Me and my new little streamlined penis will tear up West Hollywood like Liberace on a drunken binge!

“Now let me talk foreign policy for a second. I’m not sure who this Ben Ghazi guy is, but we need to stop talking about him and start strengthening our armed forces. We need more cannons! In 1917 we had 2000 cannons and now we have none. And we need more horses. Have you seen ”War Horse?” Love that show. And we need to start talking with Iran. Maybe have Ahmadinejad over with Baldwin and those guys and smoke some weed. Loosen him up a bit.

“Lastly, I want to talk to you old folks about Medicare. You’ve got nothing to worry about. If my running mate Paul Ryan mentions his voucher program again I’ll smack him upside his head. That’s a black expression! (insert awkward Romney laugh). I love black people! Repeal Obamacare? Gosh, heck no!  I’m gonna expand that sucker! Lower the eligibility age. Increase the benefits. Think of me as Mitt Medicare!

“So please go out and vote…and vote for me! Because I’ll give you everything you ever wanted and make all your dreams come true. Just don’t hold me to it because I may need to change positions again…”