Thoughts on the GOP Debate

(note: not my voice at beginning!)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama Finally Gets Tough

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You Bet It's Class Warfare

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still Think Obama's Job Speech Was a Success?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Obama's Jobs Speech Failed to Deliver

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ostroy on MSNBC Wednesday Morning at 11:30

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

Why Hillary Clinton Must Run

Dear Secretary Clinton...
It's time for you to announce that you'll be running against Barack Obama in next year's Democratic presidential primaries. Your party and your country need you now more than ever.

Yes, we all know how rare it is to take on a sitting president from your own party. But this is no normal election year and the circumstances are dire and the stakes too high. By next November if there isn't significant improvement in the economy and appreciably reduced unemployment, President Obama will likely lose to a Republican. And it might be a Tea Party Republican like Michele Bachmann or Rick Perry, who will set America back 200 years from an economic, policy and social standpoint. Government as we Democrats know it will be unrecognizable, and the advancements we've made in the areas of education, healthcare, science, environmental protection and civil/human rights will fall to ignorance, intolerance and religious zealotry. We simply cannot lose next year's election, and you must be a part of the strategy to keep the White House in Democratic hands.

You've seen Obama's poll numbers. You know the state of the economy. You saw Friday's employment report that showed zero job growth for August. The Obama administration projects that unemployment will be at 9% by the election, yet no president since FDR has been elected when unemployment tops 7.2%. And you've seen how Obama's former supporters are hugely disappointed and disillusioned by his constant caving to the right. Most Americans now believe our government is broken and not functioning properly. Democrats need and want a president who knows how to fight. A president who knows what she stands for, has a vision to achieve her goals, and the passion and gravitas to battle the ruthless obstructionist GOP machine to push through her agenda. A president who'd rather wage war with Republicans than succumb to them. There are tens of millions of voters ready to dump Obama and support you.

There's been much speculation that you'll be running in 2016. But that will be too late. Your time is now. Regardless of whether a Republican or Democrat is in office, the economy is sure to turn around well before the 2016 election. Economies are cyclical, and this one too will improve. And if Obama loses next year, a Republican incumbent running in a strong economy will no doubt win re-election. Which means your next real chance to actually occupy the White House will be 2020 when you will be seventy-three; too old to be president and too old to want to be.

If you run next year you will win. Remember how close you came to beating Obama in 2008. Think of how easy it will be to beat him this time. And I'll bet my life savings on a match-up between you and any Republican. Should you run, I and countless others will do everything in our power to support you...from blogging to raising money to campaigning in the streets.

Madam Secretary, please run. America's future depends on you.

Obama's Huge Mistake on the Jobs Speech

Several weeks ago President Obama announced he'd be addressing the nation after Labor Day to outline his plan to create jobs and kick start economic growth. For independents, Democrats and his progressive base, the speech needs to be a grand slam full of substance and viability and not merely another dispassionate Obama professorial lecture which lacks substance.

But even if Obama knocks it out of the park and delivers a solid blueprint for putting Americans back to work, House Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor and the rest of the rabidly anti-Obama Republican House will vehemently oppose it. As Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell proudly declared last year, their mission is to make Obama a one-term president. He could find the cure for cancer and they'll argue how it's gonna put undertakers out of work. So curing the nation's jobs problem is not something they're going to support.

Case in point the battle that was waged this week, and lost by Obama, over the scheduling of the president's jobs speech. Originally set for September 7th, Obama sent a letter to both Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid requesting to address a joint session of Congress. Of course, Reid said yes. And of course, Boehner said no. The reasons? Because the GOP presidential debate is scheduled for later that night, and that there'd be little time to properly secure the Chamber on such short notice. A tug of war ensued for several days before Obama acquiesced and moved the speech to the following night.

But make no mistake, this debate wasn't about scheduling or security. It's about the Republican tactic of saying "no" to anything Obama requests and proposes. And it's precisely this sort of partisan chicanery and vitriol of which Americans are sick and tired.

And it was a huge mistake for Obama. He caved. Again. Without a real fight. Just backed off the way he's done repeatedly these past two and half years. And it's enraged his base and continues to make him appear weak, scared and lacking vision. What should he have done? Quite frankly, he should've told Boehner to fuck off. He should've kept the 7th and addressed the nation from the Oval Office instead which would appear more presidential than standing before a bunch of jeering Republicans in a pomp and circumstance show. Given the unprecedented level of disrespect they've shown this president since he took office, is there any reason to think they're gonna show him any respect that night?

As for the speech itself, he needs to go right for the jugular. He's gotta take of the gloves and attack Republicans for driving our economy off a cliff. He can't worry about coming off combative. He must appear tough and resolute, placing blame squarely on the GOP's shoulders, while instilling confidence that he knows how to combat both unemployment and his Republican enemy. It needs to sounds something like this:

"My fellow Americans....I am speaking to you tonight to offer an aggressive plan to put you back to work. A plan that will create jobs and rev the nation's economic engine again and put us back on the road to prosperity. Make no mistake, the economy stinks. It's been devastating to many, and I understand how it's been affecting each and every one of you...especially those of you who remain unemployed, with houses foreclosed or under water, and savings depleted. I'm fed up, just like you. And you know what I'm most fed up about? The constant partisan obstructionism of Republicans that's preventing me from helping you. I cannot do my job, I cannot end unemployment, if my opponents in Congress are hellbent on making me a one-term president more than putting you back to work. And that should anger you as much as it angers me. I can fix this economy and I can put you back to work, but I can't do it alone. Republicans have to stop worrying more about their own political interests than they do yours. They've got to stop worrying more about the wealthy and corporations instead of the poor and middle class. Republicans have to stop saying "no" to everything I propose solely because they want me out of office. It's infuriating that they're putting their political goals before the good of the country...and it's hurting you and it's hurting America. They're standing in the way between you and prosperity. So this is a critical time in our nation's history. A time when we can act to restore America's strength and prosperity or time for more political gamesmanship by those who are against America and root for it and you to fail. I speak to you directly right now House Speaker Boehner. I speak directly to you right now Majority Leader Cantor. I speak directly to you right now Senate Leader McConnell. It's time for you to stop obstructing and start working to put Americans back to work. They want you to stop targeting me and start targeting job creation. That's what they elected you to do last November. It's time to stop fighting me and start fighting unemployment. It's time to be Americans first and Republicans second. Enough is enough. So here's my 10-point plan to achieve full employment. I say to the Republican leadership, you can either approve this bill and get people working again or you can continue to obstruct this process and play games with America's future. The choice is yours, and I guarantee you, voters will be watching your every move. Point #1....."

And he better have a solid, actionable plan and not merely more of the same vague, over-intellectualized, esoteric drivel that he's blandly delivered multiple times. He needs to start looking at the polls which have Tea Baggin' Texas Gov. Rick Perry up 44% to his 41%. He needs to appreciate that, with the unemployment rate projected at 9% in November '12, no president since Ronald Reagan has been re-elected with a rate over 7%. He needs to accept that 72% of Americans now believe our government is not functioning properly and that our system is broken. He needs to recognize that only 45% of Americans approve of his performance, and just another 29% are happy with his handling of the economy. He's got to start accepting the ugly truth that there are people like Boehner, Canter and McConnell--those who he's misguidedly tried to make bi-partisan nice-nice with for almost three years--who were probably watching Friday's release of the zero job growth stats while shouting "Yeah!" and fist pumping in excitement. Because zero job growth is their political dream come true.

Obama's gotta stop looking and acting like he's thrown in the towel. He's gotta stop caving. He's gotta finally realize who his enemy is and fight them accordingly. He's gotta stop acting like "the only adult in the room" and start acting and sounding like a warrior. He's gotta grow some balls.

Next Thursday night's speech is Obama's FDR moment. It's just a week away. There's plenty of time for him to pull this out and demonstrate true leadership and regain some control of the debate. Let's hope he does. But I'm sorry to say that I, and millions of others, have lost faith and aren't so sure.

Being Michele Bachmann Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry

Tea Party Queen and GOP presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann continues to make bizarre public gaffes which portray her as either crazy, ignorant, bigoted, hypocritical, insensitive, callous or all of the above. Her latest bout of foot-in-mouth disease stems from comments she made in the wake of the East Coast earthquake and Hurricane Irene.

Speaking to a group of Tea Party supporters Bachmann said: "I don’t know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians. We’ve had an earthquake; we’ve had a hurricane. He said, ‘Are you going to start listening to me here?’ Listen to the American people because the American people are roaring right now. They know government is on a morbid obesity diet and we’ve got to rein in the spending."

Forty-five people died from this past weekend's storm, including children. Towns were completely devastated, with an estimated $1-billion+ in total damage. People lost homes and businesses, and five million were left without power. The suggestion that God was punishing these people to send a message to politicians to stop their profligate spending is beyond irresponsible and reprehensible and shows the extent of Bachmann's evil. It's another shining example of how she, like so many of her fellow Tea Baggin' loons, use and abuse religion for political purposes and to spread her vile, hate-fueled dogmatic propaganda.

After taking much heat over her comments what does Bachmann do, apologize? Fat chance. The word "apology" does not exist in her vocabulary. Culpability is not in her DNA. She simply cannot say "I'm sorry...what I said was wrong and insensitive." Incredibly, what Bachmann chose to do instead was dismiss her offensive remarks as an attempt at humor.

"Of course I was being humorous when I said that. It would be absurd to think it was anything else. I am a person who loves humor, I have a great sense of humor," she said.

So let's get this straight: Bachmann denies being an exploitative Jesus freak but she thinks Irene's devastation is something to joke about? I love humor too. In fact, I did stand-up comedy for twelve years. But there's nothing I find funny about the entire Eastern seaboard being ravaged by death and destruction from a Hurricane's violent fury.

What is it about these Tea Baggers like Bachmann, Sarah Palin and Rick Perry that not only causes them to say the most outrageously offensive things but also renders them incapable of taking responsibility for their words and actions? In Bachmann's case, her irrational indifference to large-scale human suffering is unconscionable and is the antithesis of presidential.

You Know You're a Tea Bagger If...

As the 2012 presidential campaign intensifies, there's been much speculation
as to the philosophies, motivations and overall composition of Tea Party constituents.
To help clarify any lingering confusion and to help define these passionate Americans,
I offer the following Litmus Test:

You know you're a Tea Bagger if:

1. You hate science and the corrupt scientists who manufacture data in nefarious schemes

2. You think global warming is a hoax

3. You think there are hundreds of Nobel Peace Prize-winning scientists who believe
in Intelligent Design

4. You think Social Security, Medicare and "big government" are mutually-exclusive

5. You think God is an evangelical Christian conservative

6. You think Elvis was born in August

7. You think the "Soviet Union" remains one of America's biggest threats

8. You can see the "Soviet Union," or Russia, from your backyard

9. You think Paul Revere is famous for warning the British

10. You think the historic "Shot Heard Round the World" took place in New
Hampshire

11. You think John Wayne Gacy was a rugged movie star

12. You think John Wayne was a serial killer

13. You think homosexuals can be "cured" by Marcus Bachmann

14. You think Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has committed "treason"

15. You think there are "Death Panels" consisting of evil doctors who will kill
old people

16. You think Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity tell the truth and that Fox News is
fair and balanced

17. You think governors who advocate their state's secession from the Union
would make great presidents of the United States.

18. You think that African American males like President Obama benefit more by
government assistance than those hard-workin' white folks

19. You think President Obama is an illegal alien

20. You think Michele Bachmann really worked for the IRS just to get inside to
better understand the enemy

21. You think the Founding Fathers abolished slavery

22. You love America but scowl when your opponents exercise the very Democratic
principles which make it great, like free speech; separation of church
and state; a free and open press; freedom of religion; checks and balances;
freedom from persecution; and civil rights for all

23. And most of all, unlike your founding Tea Party brethren 238 years ago,
you think "No taxation without representation" really just means "No taxation."

Obama's the "Dick Cavett President"

I love Dick Cavett. He's a brilliant, irreverent thinker with a uniquely dry, sardonic, sarcastic wit and deadpan delivery. Qualities that make for a terrific
writer, humorist and interviewer, but unfortunately not a United States
president

Sadly, Barack Obama has become the Dick Cavett President. He's wicked smart, cool and lightening quick with an intellectually biting quip. And while George Bush may have been the guy some wanted to have a beer with, Obama's the guy you'd love to hang with at 2am at a Village jazz club and smoke some weed.

But his brand of nuanced, over-intellectualized witty replies to Republican
street bashing makes him look wimpy, weak and outmatched. While the GOP's Hulk Hogans are verbally beating his ass, he's in full-on Cavette mode. The only thing missing is the mod turtleneck. Guess who's winning the rhetoric war?

Case in point: earlier this week Texas Gov. Rick Perry, the Tea Baggers' Great White Hope since he entered the race a week ago, stooped to a familiar thuggish strategy of attacking Obama's patriotism and calling into question his lack of military service. When asked about this on CNN Obama replied, "I’ll cut him some slack. He’s only been at it for a few days now." WTF?! What kind of lame response was that? That's the best he's got? Asked to comment on the president's quip, Perry deftly attacked with "Actions speak louder than words. My actions as Governor are helping create jobs in this country. The President's actions are killing jobs." Ya see, Dick? That's the way to frame the debate and stay on point, all the while cutting your opponent's legs off.

So what should Obama's reply been? How about:

"Gov. Perry is in this campaign just a week and his #1 campaign strategy for fixing the economy and putting people to work is to attack my patriotism? How offensive to the American people who are seeking help from their elected leaders...not more of the same Republican smear rhetoric and stonewalling." How's that? That would show some fire in the belly. Some much needed balls.

The terrain for Obama could get much shakier if, as reported, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie decides to enter the race. And why wouldn't he? Obama's struggling on every front, and he's the GOP's wet dream right now. With his big straight-shootin' personality and Boy-Wonder-like deficit-busting reputation and moderate social views, he could, as I've been warning for months, be Obama's worst nightmare. He could be the tough-talking, take-no-prisoners, roll-up-the-sleeves populist firebrand that would appeal to way more independents and moderate Democrats than the administration would like to contemplate.

With the new Gallup poll citing a dismal 26% approval rating on the economy, Professor Obama better immediately rethink his game plan and start fighting fire with fire and show us some guts or he'll soon be back lecturing Constitutional Law in Chicago.

Ostroy's List of Air-Travel Don'ts

Having recently returned from a trip to Barcelona, and as a frequent flyer, I've had the displeasure of spending many hours in the air with strangers who are clearly in need of a little reminder about proper air-travel etiquette. These days, with long lines, invasive x-rays requiring near-nudity, constant delays, smaller, more crowded planes and the threat of terrorism, the flying experience is frustrating and challenging enough without some buffoon sitting next to me making the flight even more unpleasant.

So to make the overall flying experience more bearable, at least for me, I hereby request that passengers follow "Ostroy's List of Air-Travel Don'ts:"

1. If you're considerably overweight, please don't expect to encroach my space. I have absolutely nothing against you personally. This is all about real estate. I didn't buy my seat so I could subsidize yours. If you're too large to fit into your own seat, buy two.

2. Please don't endlessly pray out loud next to me, no matter what religion you follow. It freaks me out and makes me wonder what you're so afraid of and trying to prevent.

3. Please don't bring really smelly food on the plane to gorge on. Remember that we're sitting so close we're practically having sex. I can do without the Burger King wafting into my yard.

4. What part of my face buried in a book is confusing to you? Please don't talk to me. Let me read. If I want to chat I'll start a conversation.

5. And if you do talk to me, please don't do it with a mouth full of food. I don't want little chewed Burger King pieces flying at me like mortar shells.

6. Please don't fart incessantly. If you have a gas problem, please lock yourself in the lavatory and decompress in private.

6. Please don't get on a plane if you have breath that would choke a swine.

7. If you're sitting behind me, please don't kick my seat non-stop.

8. If you're sitting in front of me, please don't snap your seat back at 100 miles an hour. Slow it down, pal, you're not doing crunches. A little head's up so you don't smash my laptop would be most appreciated.

9. My headrest is not a walking stick, so please don't use it as one. I didn't pay for whiplash.

10. Please don't fly unless you've showered sometime in the prior week. Your stank has no where to go except in my face.

11. Please don't listen to your iPod so loudly that the people 10 rows back can hear it through your headphones.

12. When you're putting your bag in the overhead and I'm in the aisle seat, please don't put your crotch anywhere near my face. Be mindful of where your package is headed. Same goes for your ass.

13. Please don't fall asleep and rest your head on my shoulder....unless you want it elbowed by an intolerant New Yorker. We're not gonna snuggle.

14. Please don't blatantly stare at my computer screen while I'm working. If I want your input I'll ask for it.

15. And whatever you do, do not even think about chewing tobacco and spitting the "juice' in a cup every three minutes. This is the rudest, most disgusting thing you could ever possibly do on a plane. Please indulge your mouth-cancer-inducing pleasures elsewhere.

There ya go. Maybe we can now all fly a little more pleasantly and comfortably. I thank you in advance.

Bachmann Wins Straw Poll; Perry's Running; Pawlenty Says 'I'm Outta this Freak Show!'

The Crazy Party took a step closer to nominating a presidential candidate who
makes even moderate Republicans' skin crawl.

In that great political bastion of Ames, Iowa this weekend a microscopic
percentage of that state's Tea Party faithful ran to the ballot box to officially
anoint Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann their Great White Hope. Less than 24 hours later Tim Pawlenty, perhaps the sanest hopeful in the place next to Jon Huntsman, tossed in the towel. Apparently intelligence, sanity and moderation are not qualifications for being a Republican president these days.

Let's start with Pawlenty. In assessing the landscape objectively and without partisan rancor, and despite that I disagree with much of his views, the guy probably would've made a decent president, or at least the kind who wouldn't keep me up at night worrying about America's moral destruction. But unfortunately for T-Paw he doesn't fit the Crazies' fantasy image of the Republican Alpha Male. To their naked eye, he kinda looks and sounds more like their stereotypical image of a liberal. You can almost see him behind the wheel of a Volvo, his Bierkenstocked foot resting on the foreign pedal.

Which brings us to the GOP's newest boy-wonder, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who fits the Alpha Dog profile with his folksy drawl, cowboy boots, pick-up truck and general swagger. When he's not talking to God he's busy promising voters that he'll "make Washington, D.C. as inconsequential in your life as possible." I wonder if that pesky little government involvement he'd like to rid Americans of includes Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Veteran's benefits, the Post Office, the Centers for Disease Control, the National Weather Service and even the military? Or are those the "consequential" aspects of government; the "good stuff?"? This is a politician who's running for the highest office in the land, yet an office and a government for which he has zero respect and appreciation. A governor who's wanted his state to secede from the Union. It's hard to convince voters you should be president of the "government" you so clearly disrespect. But as I keep saying, Rick Perry has about as much chance of becoming president as Katie Perry.

Now onto Bachmann, who is very likely to slug it out with Perry these next many months for the Crazy vote while Mitt Romney sits back and watches, and benefits from, the train wreck. You can be sure Bachmann and Perry are gonna rip into each other like "The Real Housewives of New York."

Bachmann hit the Sunday morning talk show circuit and was in rare form. Gotta give her credit: she is a master at staying on point and evading virtually every question while coming off over-rehearsed, robotic and lacking substance...and with her usual mangling of the English language. On CBS's "Face the Nation" she boasted that "I have been taking my message all across Iowa, and people resonate with that message." Sorry Michele, messages resonate, not people. But then again what do you expect from a woman who thinks the historic Shot Heard 'Round the World was in New Hampshire?

On NBC's "Meet the Press" host David Gregory appeared as frustrated with her evasiveness as if he were talking to a tight-lipped 15-year-old. He played the clip of her talking about her husband Marcus's influence in her life: "My husband said, 'Now you need to go and get a post-doctorate degree in tax law.' Tax law? I hate taxes. Why should I go into something like that? But the lord said, wife, you are to submit to your husband." She insisted that in her marriage being "submissive" means being "respectful." Gregory was incredulous as he suggested that that kind of "respect" would never fly with his wife.

The candidate who claims she could fix the economy is just three months also humored Gregory with her stand against homosexuality, asking her to comment on her previous statements such as: "It's part of Satan....It leads to the personal enslavement of individuals.....Personal bondage, personal despair, and personal enslavement. And that's why this is so dangerous." Her straight-faced answer? "I don't judge." I guess that's ok if you think calling someone Satanic isn't judging them. And as for that "personal enslavement" thing, kinda gets us back to that whole "submissive" question, no? Hmmm....

On "Fox News Sunday" with Chris Wallace she was outed for appearing to support Obamanomics. Wallace pointed to her opposition to the Stimulus Package yet cited three letters she wrote to the Federal government asking for money for her state, saying the funds would help Minnesota's economy. A bit of a contradiction you say? Not to Michelle, who's argued that if the money's there for the taking, why should voters in her state lose out? But if she truly believed the Stimulus was a bad thing for the economy and would continue to rack up perilous debt for America, wouldn't it have been more politically expedient, and consistent, to refuse such funds? This is yet another example of the colossal hypocrisy of the Bachmann's, who've had no trouble over the years seeking government money for both political and personal use.

And when Wallace, pointing to Bachmann's lone opposition to raising the debt ceiling, asked her about her seeming inability to compromise if she were elected president she offered that she'd hopefully be taking thirteen new Republican Senators with her to Washington for a filibuster-proof Congress. So much for compromise.

Watching and listening to Perry and Bachmann's words and actions I wonder why they even bother pretending to like Democracy? Clearly, neither respects the notion of compromise, the Separation of Church and State, checks and balances, a free and open press, or the truth. Their brand of politics seems more fit for a despotic third-world nation.

Assessing the GOP Debate

Good news for President Obama. He officially won Thursday night's Republican
debate in Iowa and he didn't even have to show up. Despite all the criticism coming at him from all sides including mine, not one GOP hopeful was able to present him or herself as a viable alternative for 2012.

Mitt Romney, who earlier in the day showed his true elitist colors while defending corporate America as "people too," was as consistently bland, evasive and flip-flopping as ever, while trying to convince voters that having economic expertise means buying up troubled companies and gutting them for maximum profit. If this is what being "front-runner" means, then the party is in very serious trouble.

That other supposed front-runner, Michele Bachmann, came charging out of the gate shouting her talking points and, bragging of her accomplishments, pointed to her "light bulb law." Not one of her finest moments of rhetoric.

Tim Pawlenty, who perhaps had the most to lose, perhaps lost the most. He needed to show voters that he was tough and able to fight. He gave it his best shot. And his best shot was pretty darned weak. Imagine Woody Allen screaming at someone. Not terribly scary.

What was scary though was Newt Gingrich's obnoxious, anger-filled display. He arrogantly criticized everything the moderators asked him as being "gotchya" questions--even those Chris Wallace asked about his record--and he was so full of rage it was embarrassing. This, as his ex-wives will attest, is a man who is clearly used to getting this his way and when he doesn't he gets belligerent and narcissistic.

As for the other hopefuls--Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Herman Cain and Boy-Not-Wonder John Huntsmann--they were as unimpressive and irrelevant as ever. Yawn....

So that brings us to three Republicans not yet in the race but who very well may dive in shortly: Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Rudy Giuliani, and the Wasilla Wonder, ole Grizzly Mama herself, Sarah Palin.

Let's start with Palin, who in fact will in no way enter the race. She's so ill-equipped to be president that even her empty suit is empty. But she utterly loves all the attention and will milk it till the very last drop.

Rudy Giuliani may be one of the party's best bets, but as soon as Democrats play his infamous "There were no terrorist attacks on Bush's watch" clip he's doomed. Throw in failed marriages, cheating, and a general disdain for the working class and his picture gets even darker.

And that brings us to Perry, who, if he can somehow manage to get beyond his radical "secession" comments, as well his state's dismal record on education, health care and the environment, is most likely to win the nomination. He's an aggressive, articulate, attractive, funny, engaging Texas governor...and we all know how that can end up.

Change I Never believed In

President Obama has taken a lot of heat lately over what many believe is his mismanagement of the economy and his inability to successfully take on his Republican opponents. Unlike millions of other Democrats, I am neither disappointed or surprised by his political failings. Prior to the 2008 election, and as an ardent supporter of Hillary Clinton, I wrote quite frequently about what I believed would be Obama's inability to fight Republican obstructionism and the party's fierce attack machine. Sadly, I was 100% right.

It's easy to understand Obama's appeal in 2008. He was indeed exceptionally bright, a master campaigner and fundraiser, and able to move tens of thousands of his progressive disciples, moderates and independents through rousing, messianic oratory. But I never drank the Kool-Aid, and had heated battles with many friends who couldn't understand how I didn't "get" Obama's second-coming status. And while I was thrilled that a black man could come so close to the Oval Office and ultimately win the election for the first time in history, I didn't get caught up in the whole liberal guilt trip. What I personally hoped for for America was that the best candidate win, not the darkest.

To be sure, Obama showed passion and a deeply personal vision for America, but he lacked something much more important: the fire in the belly and the cajones to battle the ruthless GOP warriors to see his vision through to law. The man with the sanctimonious professorial lectures who loves to stay above the fray while being 'the only adult in the room' has learned the hard way about the ugliness of modern partisan politics. Watching him these past three years it's as if he's fighting against the Republican bazooka while merely holding a gladiator shield. He's been outwitted, outmatched and out of touch. This is hardly the change anyone believed in or hoped for. He now looks like Jimmy Carter on a bad day.

Where did Obama go wrong? To begin with, he squandered huge majorities in both the Senate and the House, wasting over a year fighting for health care reform while caving on the critical public option. Can you imagine how much the GOP would've accomplished in the same period had they controlled the White House and Congress? Can you imagine how ravenously they would've rushed through their ideological agenda and changed America as we know it? Obama's also caved on the economy, on gay marriage, on the Bush tax cuts, on Guantanamo, on Afghanistan and on debt ceiling/deficit reduction bill. And we still have 14-million people out of work with a 9.1% unemployment rate. What happened to jobs, jobs, jobs? Where's the jobs bill?

Obama simply seems neutered, unlike his predecessor. Like him or not, look what Bush was able to do to further his conservative agenda. He didn't care what anyone thought..not voters, the media, Democrats or members of his own party. He, Cheney and Rove saw their vision through, whether it was right or wrong or good for the country. The point is, they acted. They led. Where's Obama's leadership?

I'm not gonna say Hillary Clinton's perfect or baggage-free, but I firmly believe she'd have fought much more effectively for Democrats. She knows first-hand how ruthless Republicans are when they're in battle. She would've calculated her battle strategy day-one. To the contrary, three years later, Obama still appears like the proverbial deer caught in the headlights.

My Conversation with Jesus

In the wake of Texas Gov. Rick Perry's God-apalooza gathering on Saturday down in Houston, Jesus Christ himself actually came to me in one of those mystical moments of spiritual revelation, sharing his principles and extremely passionate views about humanity and the state of religion today. So many times we hear how Jesus talks directly to people like George Bush, Sarah Palin, Michelle and Marcus Bachmann and Gov. Perry...so I feel terribly grateful and blessed to have had this incredible experience of God talking to me. Here's an excerpt from our conversion:

Me: Mr. Christ, or can I call you Jesus?.... I gotta ask you this question before anything else. Is it true that you're a Republican?

Jesus: What!? Where did you get that ridiculous notion from, my dear Jewish atheist child. Have you not actually read my book, I mean the Bible?

Me: Well, it's just that Republicans are constantly hiding behind the cloak of religion as if somehow they have you on their side. They constantly equate faith with judgement, intolerance and even bigotry. They proudly claim that to be God-fearing you must be against everything that helps the poor, the sick, the elderly, the needy, and minorities. Is that what you taught them?

Jesus: No, In fact, just the opposite. I fought for justice. You can't just put money in a tin at church on Sundays and think you're doing God's work. Sure, you can feed the poor, but if you're not fighting to better their existence on a systemic level then you are not in line with my teachings.

Me: Jesus, what are you talking about?!

Jesus: It's simple. I am a manifestation of the the most disenfranchised human beings. I am black. I am homosexual. I'm a paraplegic. I am a woman. I'm an old, sick man. I belong to the meek. Remember them? Remember what I said? I didn't say "the rich and the corporations shall inherit the Earth," did I? What is mankind doing today to truly help those in need? Or do the rich simply want to get richer while the poor suffer? Remember Luke 14:13 & 14...But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just. And Luke 12:15...Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions. Or how about this..how about Deuteronomy 15:7 & 11...If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land. Do you see what I'm sayin' here? For Pete's Sake, does this sound like the teaching of a Republican? I'm a liberal! There, I've said it! Look at my sandals, my hair...duh!

Me: What about Rick Perry's 'prayer rally' in Texas on Saturday? He was talking to you. Told you "you are our only hope." Were you listening to him? Did you say anything back?

Jesus: First off, let me say neither I or anyone in my family was at that event. That's not my kind of prayer rally. As for me being the only hope, that's quite sad. Perhaps Mr. Perry would be better served to look in the mirror and judge his own narrow-minded, divisive behavior. How he and his conservative brethren prey on the weak, the meek, the needy. Remember Proverbs 14:31...He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. Ok, gotta run...I have a bris in Great Neck I have to get to...

Me: Thank you Jesus, thank you for setting the record straight on a few things.

Are There Bigger Skeletons in the Bachmann Closet?

Michelle Bachmann has spent the better part of the last two months trying to convince everyone that she's not a crazy extremist but rather a mainstream candidate who moderates and independents can embrace in the 2012 presidential election. This despite many outrageous comments over the years about gays, immigrants, abortion, evolution, global warming, President Obama, members of Congress and American history...all the while padding her resume (being an IRS tax collector is not quite the same as being a "federal tax litigation attorney.") and downplaying her and her husband's batshit crazy Christian counseling center which cruelly performs "reparation therapy" on gays in an attempt to turn them straight.

As comedian Marc Maron brilliantly posited last week, "It does seem like their whole marriage is one prolonged experiment in this type of therapy." Maron was echoing the suggestions made earlier in the week by Jon Stewart that Marcus might be, er, how you say, in need of a little reparation therapy himself. Certainly wouldn't be a shocker, as it's always the most vehement anti-gay activists who end up caught with their closeted pants down.

It seems that little ole Marcus just might be to Michelle what Billy Carter was to brother Jimmy (worse even, as Billy's embarrassing antics never prevented Jimmy from becoming Leader of the Free World. Marcus could very well derail Michelle's campaign if his bizarre antics lead to scandal). Last week a radio interview clip from 2010 was released in which Marcus referred to homosexuals as "Barbarians." But he's now pulling a Weiner, claiming that the segment was "doctored." Actually, he claims he was "referring to children" and not gays. Apparently Marcus thinks it's ok to call children Barbarians? What is it about these loony Tea Baggers who, despite audio and video which captures their gaffes and lies, continue to deny, deny, deny as if this evidence didn't exist? It's like the classic Richard Pryor bit about his wife walking in on him in bed with another woman: "Are you gonna believe me or your lyin' eyes!?"

But there's another potential scandal I want fully investigated. And in fact, I want Michelle and Marcus Bachmann to immediately provide the information that would clear them, just as she demanded that President Obama release his long-form birth certificate to prove his U.S. citizenship. Bachmann claims she and Marcus "took 23 foster children into our home, and raised them, and launched them off into the world." This foster parenting took place in Minnesota between 1992-2000, but unfortunately the state destroys all such records after seven years, so nothing Bachmann claims can be proven publicly. Interestingly, while Bachmann claims that the fostering involved unwed mothers, some of the children suffered from eating disorders, and according to George Hendrickson, CEO of PATH Minnesota, the private agency that placed the children with the Bachmanns, none of them were in fact pregnant.

Bachmann herself has refused to provide details about her foster children, and for privacy reasons their names have never been disclosed. But given Bachmann's penchant for exaggeration and truth-stretching, in particular about her resume, don't we have a right to know more about her foster parenting and just how many children this actually involved? Are we to take a face value her claim of twenty-three when she seems to embellish other important details about her past? No, we should demand that the Bachmann's provide the same kind of concrete legal proof as they demanded of Obama. Until then, we should assume that her claim is as bogus as her work as a "tax litigation attorney."

And one more thing: the pastor at her church, Rev. Marcus Birkholz, said Bachmann's "a lady with energy and a heart' whose uncompromising "support for the unborn" is more than just about fighting abortion. "She sees the whole picture. It’s not just bringing a child into the world; that child has to be nurtured and educated."

Really? Bachmann "nurtures and educates" America's children? I'm just curious about a few things. Does the small government that Bachmann and her fellow Tea Party faithful fantasize about drastically cut or eliminate funding for foster parent programs? Education and health care for children? Does her "whole picture" include "nurturing and educating" the children of gays, immigrants, minorities and the poor, who so desperately need government assistance, the kind of assistance Tea Baggers dream of vaporizing from the budget?

Twenty-three kids, huh Michelle? We'll be waiting for the proof.....

What Parents Can Learn From the Leiby Kletzky Tragedy

When to let your child out the door alone--to walk to school, camp, a friend's
house or to the park--is a distressing decision over which every parent struggles. And what happened this week to 8-year-old Lieby Kletzky is the gruesome realization of every parent's worst nightmare. The Brooklyn boy, walking home alone from camp for the first time, was abducted, killed and dismembered by a local man with a sketchy past and an ex-wife who'd taken out a restraining order on him.

Lieby's killing is as unfathomable a tragedy as there is. My own family has experienced brutal murder, and I understand the overwhelming shock and grief they're dealing with. It won't be easy to recover from something so horrific, and my heart goes out to them. And as the Kletzy family struggles to reconcile this senseless, random act of violence, parents in both suburban and urban areas nationwide are grappling with what to do with their own children's desire and need for independence. "Can I go by myself?" is a parent's most dreaded question. To be sure, Lieby's death has reignited the debate over the "when to" question more than anything in the last forty years since 6-year-old Etan Patz disappeared off a Soho street and, still missing, is presumed to have been killed.

The world can be a very cruel, ugly place sometimes, and there are predatory monsters who walk among us, undetected, until they commit heinous acts. Somehow, it is our job to stay out of their way and to protect our children from them. When our children are young we take them everywhere. They are never out of our sight or control. And then they hit that magic age, somewhere between eight and eleven, when an innate sense of independence takes over and they want to be alone and to go places by themselves. It's as natural and necessary a part of growing up as attending sleepaway camp, dating, driving and going away to college. In some very real sense, it's the precursor to those organic milestones.

As much as we'd like to shield our kids from harm, we can't. We can't lock them in the house or walk them everywhere until they're sixteen simply because we fear deviants who attack, rape and kill. We can't prohibit our children from dating because date rape exists. We can't keep our kids from driving because there are drunk drivers who could harm or kill them. We must let our little ones leave the nest at some point so they can mature into happy, emotionally healthy, confident adults. Smothering them and denying them their critical independence can have lasting emotional ramifications. We have to wince, cross our fingers and simply hope for the best.

But what we can do as parents is be smarter, and help our children be safer as they begin navigating the world by themselves. The biggest question is, 'What is the right age to let a child go out alone?' That's a very difficult question to answer, as every child is different. Size, maturity, street smarts all play a role. The bigger concern should be what happens when they go out alone. Do they know their neighborhood inside out? Have parent and child done multiple test runs of the various routes a child will be taking? Has a child been indoctrinated with the realities of the street, and the potential harm he or she faces? Do they know their local safe havens? Have they been instructed how to physically defend themselves? Do they carry a whistle? Do they carry a cell phone? Have they been told never, ever, ever go with a stranger under any circumstances, even if they're told their mom or dad is in serious danger and only they can save them...or that their mom or dad has sent this stranger to retrieve them? Do they know how to scream? Do they know what 911 is?

As a society, we have to make some sense out of little Lieby's death or we've learned nothing from it. Something good has to come from it or he will have died in vain. His murder should give pause to every parent across America whose pre-teen child is venturing outside alone. It's a sad reality check and wake-up call, yet one which might allow us to make things a little safer for our kids.

The Real Casey Anthony Verdict

Casey Anthony may have escaped the death penalty and life in prison, but she no doubt will receive a sentence perhaps even worse: life of scorn. There aren't many people in America who believe Anthony isn't responsible for the brutal death of her 2-year-old daughter Caylee. She simply benefited by the greatest legal system in the world. She may have gotten away with murder in a court of law, but she won't escape the court of public opinion.

Anthony is the new O.J. Simpson. She's the demonic object of our hatred and our frustration with our criminal justice system. It seems that at least once every decade we stand stunned, outraged and nauseated as the verdict is read in an audience-gripping, sensational murder trial as the killer walks free. But that's where the similarities end. In the 1995 O.J. trial, the prosecution not only had bodies--O.J's ex-wife Nicole Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman--but clear evidence that they were murdered. There was also motive: O.J.'s tumultuous, violence-marred relationship with Nicole. And there was DNA evidence. Blood everywhere. O.J's, hers, Goldman's. At her place, his house, his car, and on a glove found at his residence. But that wasn't enough. The jury in this case could've had actual videotape of Simpson committing the murders and they likely would have acquitted him still.

In the Anthony case the prosecution had nothing. Nothing but reams of circumstantial evidence. Sure, if you stepped away from it all and looked at it in its totality with a rational, intelligent, common sense perspective, she's as guilty as sin. What loving mother fails to report her toddler missing for 31 days, then lies about it, creates imaginary people whom she blames the death on and, in the process, gets a "Bella Vita" ("Beautiful Life") tattoo and is out partying? We have every reason to believe she killed Caylee and we have every reason to hate her. But unfortunately, the prosecution did not have a motive, witnesses or a cause of death, and you can't convict someone of murder if you can't prove a murder took place. The burden of proof rested solely on the prosecution, and it simply could not prove Anthony's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. No matter how upsetting and painful, no matter how infuriating and sickening the verdict, the system worked. In America, we don't send people to jail because we don't like them or because we're emotional and angry.

But time will not be kind to Casey Anthony. Like O.J. Simpson, she'll face constant animosity, ostracizing and public ridicule. She'll find everyday tasks like grocery shopping filled with vitriol. She'll find it hard to get a job. She'll probably never have a normal, healthy relationship. Perhaps she'll sell a book and do some interviews and make a few bucks, but she'll spend it just as quickly and probably end up destitute. She'll party hard and crash harder. And just like her partner in criminal history, Casey may ultimately end up in jail for some other heinous, despicable act. To be sure, Casey Anthony is not someone who's going to contribute to society in any meaningful way.