Chris Christie to NJ Taxpayers: Screw You!

Gov. Chris Christie on Tuesday proved his detractors right: that his personal political ambitions trump the needs of New Jersey's citizens.

Following the death Monday of his state's U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg, Christie caused ire on both sides of the aisle with his decision to call a special election for October 16--just three weeks before the regular November election--at an estimated cost of $24-million to taxpayers.  A primary will be held August 13.

Christie's hypocrisy is astounding. Less than a month ago he vetoed an early-voting bill saying its $23-million price-tag was too costly. But now he's justifying spending a million more to hold an unnecessary special election. And with good reason. Newark's Democratic Mayor Cory Booker, who's seeking Lautenberg's seat, is extremely popular with blacks and young people, neither of whom tend to appreciably vote in midterm elections. Considering that New Jersey is a solid blue state with 700,000 more registered Democrats than Republicans, Christie's fear is that a November Senate election would energize these groups and alter his plan to win re-election by a huge margin, a result which would materially boost his 2016 presidential cache. To the contrary, a narrow victory would demonstrate vulnerability against Democrats.

Additionally, in December 2009, in response to the question of how he'd replace a United States Senator, NJ's Hypocrite-in-Chief replied "I don't think any responsible governor at this point would call for a special election that would cost $10 million." So by his own words, Christie is now acting irresponsibly. Or even worse, since he's just blown $24-million.

Republicans had wanted Christie to appoint an interim Senator for the remainder of Lautenberg's term--until the November 2014 election--which would've given the placeholder and the GOP almost a year and half as incumbents to raise cash and mount a successful campaign for the regular six-year term. With the U.S. Senate in an unprecedented state of polarization and gridlock, where the Democratic majority has had to count on every single vote (including twice summoning the ailing 89-year-old Lautenberg to Washington) in order to get any measure past Republican opposition, a bankable 18-month red vote would've been invaluable ammunition for conservatives. And given that it's been forty years since the state has elected a Republican Senator, it's easy to understand the GOP leadership's anger and frustration yet again at Christie...who certainly didn't win any points after what they viewed as his bombastic post-Sandy suck-up of President Obama.

When asked by reporters about the cost of the special election, Christie, in typical contentious fashion, barked "I don't know what the cost is and I quite frankly don't care."  This comes from the self-proclaimed budget-busting fiscal hawk who's cut $12-million in hospital charity care; $10-million from urban after-school programs; and almost $9-million in college tuition assistance programs. That's $31-million cut from the poor, middle-class and minorities. Democrats, are you listening? If you're smart you'll cram that nifty little "I don't know/I don't care" soundbite into every '16 campaign ad imaginable. The most-effective way to sink a candidate is with his own words.

Feeling the heat, Christie disingenuously explained his decision:

"The issues facing the United States Senate are too critically important and the decisions that need to be dealt with too vital not too have an elected representative making those decisions who was voted on and decided on by the people of this state. These decisions should be made by an elected official who represents the will of voters of New Jersey."

In a much-anticipated announcement Thursday, Christie named Republican state Attorney General Jeff Chiesa to serve as interim Senator. If he was truly so concerned with "the will of voters" he could've appointed another Democrat. So much for the will of the people...

Is the Scandal-Obsessed Republican Party Sounding It's Death Knell?

Imagine a Washington, D.C. where Republicans came to work each day fired up with renewed passion and zeal. A Congress where energized Republicans legislated in bi-partisan fashion on behalf of the American people. Imagine them joining with Democrats to enact meaningful health care, immigration, gun safety, education, environmental and economic measures. In short, imagine them actually doing the job voters sent them to do.

Instead, as it rabidly swirls in an intoxicating vortex of Obama administration scandals, the reinvigorated GOP's using all it's fervency and resources on a desperate effort to fully obstruct government, undermine President Obama and perhaps, in its fanatical extreme, impeach him as well. We have not seen the Republican Party this frothy and excited since Barney Frank retired.

The administration's been fighting accusations of government incompetence, overreach and even corruption as the president defends himself from myriad controversies that have unprecedentedly surfaced simultaneously in a perfect shitstorm. They include the Benghazi terror attack of September 11, 2012; the IRS's targeting of the Tea Party and other conservative tax-exempt organizations; and the seizure by the Justice Department of phone logs of Associated Press reporters. Throw in military sexual abuse cases; GOP filibustering of Obama cabinet appointees; and a pitch for cash to private insurers by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to promote ObamaCare...and the Oval Office has more so than ever become a terribly vexing place for the president.         

To be sure, Republicans resemble greedy, spoiled-rotten kids in a candy store as they attempt to bring down Obama which, as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell boasted three years ago, has been their number-one priority since '08...sparing no amount of time, expense or political cost to the country. There are more Congressional inquiries and investigations than at any time in recent history. There is zero focus on the business of governing, and 100% commitment to doing through partisan witch-hunting what these frustrated, angry losers couldn't do through elections: defeat Obama and Democrats.

It's a very calculated risk the party leadership is taking now, and one which could result in greater obsolescence and irrelevance if it backfires, which it likely will. Which is why House Speaker John Boehner and other key Republicans are reportedly cautioning the party's venomous members against overreaching in its self-serving probes. I suspect Boehner, who already has his eye on the humiliating 9% Republican Congressional approval rating, does not want his legacy to mirror that of late 90's Speaker Newt Gingrich, who was dealt a crushing political blow following the exhaustive, polarizing investigations and impeachment of Bill Clinton.

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.