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.

Jon Stewart is Definitely a Comedian. Chris Wallace Admits Fox's Bias

The Daily Show
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

In the wake of the now-famous televised showdown between Jon Stewart and Chris Wallace Sunday morning there's lots of chatter from pundits on both the left and right that Stewart, as Wallace charged, is dodging his true role as a 'journalist.' To paraphrase Stewart from the interview, anyone who believes this ridiculous assertion is "insane."

I'm not exactly sure where all the confusion lies. Stewart was a stand-up comic for years and now has a comedy show. On "Comedy Central." And like many a legendary humorist before him--Mark Twain, Will Rogers, Mort Sahl, George Carlin and Lenny Bruce to name a few--his material consists of politics, politicians and American culture. You will never see anything on "The Daily Show," Stewart's nightly program, that is delivered with a serious tone. You will never see Stewart himself analyze and comment on anything unless his set-ups have wickedly funny punchlines. He's a satirist. And probably the best there ever was. But that's all he is. To paraphrase the late Texas Sen. Lloyd Bentsen's famous smackdown of Sen. Dan Quayle in their 1988 vice presidential debate, "Mr. Stewart, I know journalism. I studied journalism for many years. I have a journalism degree. Mr. Stewart, you're no journalist."

It's pretty sad when, as Rogers said, "People are taking their comedians seriously and the politicians as a joke." A society which considers Stewart and people like Bill O'Reilly "journalists" is a society that's in deep trouble. To label Stewart a journalist is offensive to journalists and non-journalists alike. I don't get my news from Stewart. I save that for the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, CNN, MSNBC, The Huffington Post and other outlets. I watch Stewart for the same reason I watched/watch Johnny Carson, David Letterman, Carlin and a zillion other comics: to get a biting, funny take on the days' news. Because Stewart makes us laugh about the news doesn't make him a newsman. That he makes us laugh about politics doesn't make him a political activist. He's simply doing his job as a comedian.

Now on the other hand, as Stewart pointed out to Wallace, there are millions of very "misinformed" people who watch Fox News and actually think they're watching an objective news network. They listen to people like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and think they're getting the truth. They're not. In an astounding admission of his network's true bias, Wallace, while discussing other networks with Stewart, said "I think we're the counterweight. I think that they have a liberal agenda, and I think we tell the other side of the story." Wow. So much for "fair and balanced."

Stewart is a true genius. But he's a comic genius. And without even being a true journalist he brilliantly managed to do what no one else has done: get Fox to admit that it's a politically biased television network. I bet Wallace didn't have that outcome in mind when he invited Stewart on his Fox "News" Sunday program.

Why Blooberg's Taxi Proposal is Unfair

Mayor Michael Bloomberg is attempting to get a bill pushed through Albany, bypassing the City Council, that would in effect allow New York City's livery cabs to legally pick up passengers in certain areas of the city. This type of proposal has come up at other times over the last forty years and was always killed. As it deserves to be again now.

My father was a "hack" for over 50 years. He began in a post-war era when many young Jewish men like himself could make a decent buck behind the wheel if being behind a desk didn't appeal to them. It was an era where you could eke out a living, perhaps buy a starter home, and in some way live the American dream.

There's a certain misguided nomadic glamour that's associated with the job. You're out on the road, your own boss, making your own hours, working if and when you want to, and meeting all sorts of interesting people. You're like jack Karouac with a coin changer, right?

Wrong. Driving a taxi is an utterly miserable way to make a living and don't let anyone tell you differently. The job practically killed my dad. I remember the long, 15 hour days. I remember the robberies at gunpoint. All the accidents and tickets. And the literally backbreaking nature of being sedentary for so long each day. I still have in my head the disturbing image of my dad exiting his cab as I sat eating dinner by the window one night, watching his grossly contorted body clinging to the fence as he made his way toward our building, hunched over so far he looked like he was staring at the ground. He and his brethren were, and remain, some of the least appreciated workers in New York. He was often cursed at, spit at, threatened, tip-stiffed and generally disrespected.

In 2011, gone are the local, home grown Jewish, Irish and Italian drivers. Most of the more than 46,000 cabbies are immigrants from countries such as Pakistan, India and China. The economics of the job are nearly impossible to get around. Medallions, of which there are about 13,200, cost upwards of $700,000 and mostly it's the wealthier investors who can afford them. The average driver leases his medallion for as much as $200 per day from these fleet-operating barons, and whatever they make beyond that, after paying for gas, food, and other expenses, is theirs to keep. It's an untenable situation, which is why these poor guys literally just sleep and work, some even seven days a week. There's no job security, no benefits, no safety and definitely no glory. But it's an honest living.

Bloomberg's measure is flat out wrong. It will impact the value of medallions and allow for unfair competition. Sure, there are problems with the taxi system. Ever try hailing a cab between 4pm-5pm? Maybe it'd make more sense to require taxi fleets to change shifts at 8pm and not right smack in the middle of rush hour. But permitting gypsy cabbies to reap the legal and economic benefits of medallion drivers without having to pay into the system the same way is grossly inequitable and not the answer.

Assessing the First GOP Debate

It was a motley cast of characters that would make the 2006 California Gubernatorial hopefuls proud. Monday night's GOP presidential debate in Manchester, NH was also a real snoozer, with more talk of God, gays and Obama than each other. Apparently these folks forgot that before they get to run against Obama they need to battle amongst themselves.

Mitt Romney, the presumptive front-runner, was largely treated with kid gloves. The one time he could've really taken it on the chin was when CNN host John King pressed Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty to address Romney directly over the "ObamneyCare" phrase he coined on Sunday's morning's news programs. "He's right there, ask him about it" King challenged. Pawlenty predictably went into his human Ambien mode and avoided appearing too negative.

Pawlenty also repeatedly touted his blue-collar, union roots. I love when Republicans boast of their blue-collar roots as proof that they'd know how to screw the little guy better than anyone.

Newt Gingrich, whose candidacy recently imploded like a Sicilian volcano, was the angriest, most-defiant and most defensive. He disingenuously described Obama's economy as a "depression" on multiple occasions, and skirted the fact that virtually his entire senior strategy team deserted him last week. Talk about depression. And Gingrich also back-peddled yet again about his comments over Rep. Paul Ryan's MediScare plan. Yet he basically repeated his words of caution--first offered on NBC's "Meet the Press" a few weeks ago--that his party not overreach on health care:

"If you’re dealing with something as big as Medicare and can’t have a conversation with the country where the country thinks what you’re doing is the right thing, you better slow down."

While Michelle Bachmann didn't get into any trouble by inaccurately discussing American history, I must say that she comes off as rather scholarly and substantive when compared to her Tea Party co-Queen Sarah Palin. Although there were a couple of instances where someone really needed to give the Minnesota Congresswoman a civics lesson. Speaking to an audience member she vowed, if elected, to immediately repeal ObamaCare, apparently unaware that it is only Congress, not the president, who has the power to enact such legislation. And on the subject of repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell, Bachmann promised that she'd confer with "our commanders in chief" in the military to hear their opinions.

On the subject of gay marriage, all candidates except Cain and Paul hypocritically said they'd support a Constitutional amendment outlawing it despite all firmly believing in states' rights. I guess when it comes to gays, government knows best.

Probably the most bizarre moment of the debate occurred when former Godfather's Pizza CEO Herman Cain, the only black candidate in the race (and apparently the only black person in New Hampshire), tried to explain his past comments that "a lot of Muslims are not totally dedicated to this country" and that he'd refuse to appoint a Muslim to his cabinet without first conducting a loyalty Litmus test based on dedication to the U.S. Constitution. Cain was visibly uncomfortable in his response, lamely explaining that "because you have peaceful Muslims and then you have militant Muslims, those that are trying to kill us." He added, "I was thinking about the ones that are trying to kill us, number one." Like he would really be appointing someone to his cabinet who might actually be a Muslim terrorist?

Cain's ludicrous supposition gave Romney an opportunity to toss some sanity into the conversation. "Obviously I would only be appointing someone to my cabinet who I knew and was comfortable with."

Cain also fear-mongered over the prospect of Sharia, or Muslim law, being applied in U.S. courts, which he and other ignorant conservatives charge is a growing threat to our legal system. "I don’t believe in Sharia law in American courts. I believe in American laws in American courts, period." He continued: "There have been instances in New Jersey, there was an instance in Oklahoma, where Muslims did try to influence court decisions with Sharia law. I was simply saying, very emphatically, American laws in American courts." He happens to be 100% wrong, as Romney, again, took the chance to sanely point out:

"Of course, we're not going to have Sharia law applied in U.S. courts. That's never going to happen. We have a Constitution and we follow the law."

Little could be said about the other candidates on stage--Rick Santorum and Ron Paul--who provided voters a further glimpse into their Christian fundamentalist and Libertarian views respectively. Neither has any more of a chance of winning the nomination than I do.

As far as picking a winner, Romney was the only candidate to appear presidential. He was intelligent, rational and highly confident and composed. The only adult in the room. Did he shamefully run from his own RomneyCare program while governor of Massachusetts? Absolutely. But that was expected. It's his albatross, and he needs to distance himself from his own policy, which is essentially the same health care program Obama pushed through Congress. But just as Romney injected some levity into the evening by announcing that the Boston Bruins were up by four goals in the Stanley Cup Hockey game, I suspect come the GOP convention he'll lead the pack by at least that many delegates....assuming that pack stays the same and doesn't include any of the party's rock stars like New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

What is Palin Hiding in the 2000 Missing Emails?

Back in early April Sarah Palin was interviewed on Fox News about the then-mounting controversy over President Obama's refusal to show his long-form birth certificate. The Wasilla Wonder applauded Donald Trump's "investigation" into it, cagily reinforcing the charge that Obama's citizenship was in question:

"Obviously if there's something there that the president doesn't want us to see on that birth certificate that he...ya know, he's going to great lengths to make sure that it isn't shown and that's kind of perplexing for a lot of people. But, ya know, again, Donald Trump, he may get to the bottom of it because he's spending the resources that probably will be necessary to do some investigation."

Trump's persistent attacks continued unabated until Obama released the document later that month, finally killing the Birther movement and, ultimately, Trump's own candidacy.

And now the focus is on Palin herself, as journalists sift through over 24,000 pages of Mama Grizzly's emails released Friday from about the first twenty-one months of her term as Alaska governor. But she's refused to release 2000 remaining emails from September 2008, while she served as Sen. John McCain's vice presidential running-mate, through her resignation the following July.

But let's remember Palin's arrogant charge that Obama's "going to great lengths" to conceal his birth certificate from the public. Well it sure seems like she's going to great lengths to keep her emails from the public. Where's her respect and appreciation for full-disclosure and transparency now? Where's The Donald's "investigation" of Palin?

Palin's decision to withhold these emails raises several critical questions, especially as she's apparently contemplating a run for the White House: what's contained in those emails? Do they expose unethical or illegal activity? What is she hiding? And why won't she release them if there's nothing questionable in there? Isn't this as important as demanding to see Obama's birth certificate? If she expects to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate, don't Americans have a right to know what's in those 2000 emails?

Until the emails are released, it's fair to assume that there's possibly something very incriminating in there that Palin's running from. The public owes her no less scrutiny than she afforded our nation's president.

What Advice Would Rangel Give Weiner?

Given embattled Congressman Anthony Weiner's Custer-like stand on Capitol Hill, I wonder if the randy Representative's refusal to resign might be inspired by the plight of his fellow Congressman from New York, Charlie Rangel, who dug his own scandal-plagued heels into the ground and went on to win re-election in 2010:

Rangel: Weiner, it's Rangel.

Weiner: Oh, hey Charlie, what's up?

Rangel: Weiner, I feel for ya, brother. I know what it feels like to have your world come crashing down on you so unjustly after dedicating your life as a public servant. It's just so wrong.

Weiner: Yeah, it's pretty rough right now. I feel like my world's falling apart and I've lost control.

Rangel: You know I love ya, but I think you lost control the first time you sent pictures of your johnson over the Internet. But that's something different. Something for you and your shrink to work out. I wanna talk business. Politics. And nobody knows more about NY politics than I do.

Weiner: Get to the point Charlie. In case you haven't noticed, I got a lot on my plate right now. Plus, I gotta head to Best Buy to get a new digital camera...so I'm in a bit of a hurry.

Rangel: Ok, here's the thing. Guys like you and me...we're warriors. We fight to make America a better place. So, we're entitled to a few little treats now and then, right? The public even wants us to have that stuff. Except you and I do it in different ways. I like to amass lots of real estate, skip taxes, park my car for free, and take Caribbean trips. You like to act like a horny 16-year-old on Twitter. Jeez, man, I gotta say as an aside, you didn't even get laid in this mess! All this hullaboo and no booty?! You're pathetic! If I'm gonna possibly lose my job over a sex scandal it's because I'm bangin' Halle Berry!

Weiner: Charlie, please, get to the point, I have to also get over to the Jewelry Exchange to get Huma one of those big ass honkin' Kobe Bryant-style 'I'm sorry' diamond rings.

Rangel: Listen, people said I had to step down. That I was finished. And I said, 'screw that...I ain't goin' nowhere!' And I showed 'em. Won the primary and kicked my Republican opponent's ass with 80% of the vote. And you can do the same, Weeny. I got the blacks, you have the Jews, Italians, Irish and all those Asian, Pakistani, Indian immigrants and such. They love you..just like the blacks love me. You think these folks, these hard working middle class New Yorkers, give a rat's tucchus whether I have a house in the Dominican Republic or whether you Tweet dick shots? They care about their schools, their health care, protecting their self-interests...which is what they know we do for them. You stay in that seat, Weiner, and you refuse to be bullied by Pelosi, Reid, the media or anyone else, and you hang onto your job. I can tell you first hand...it's the voters who will decide your fate. And besides, no one in DC liked you before, so whattya got to lose by staying? It's not like you're gonna lose any friends, ya know! Just stick it out...stay the course. Don't get rattled, no matter how ugly it seems. I'm living proof of that...

Weiner: Ok, thanks Charlie. You're my only friend.

Rangel: Um, not really. Don't really like ya. Never did. Shit, no one does, man! You're an asshole! But I do love underdogs.....

Explaining Weiner

The rise and ultimate fall of Rep. Anthony Weiner's once-brilliant political career has many elements of a classic Greek tragedy, where the highly ambitious, competent, powerful protagonist suffers a horrible fate. In Weiner's case, there are many avenues through which to explain his self-destructive behavior. Any one of them, or all of them, might shed light on why men like Weiner work so hard to achieve the pinnacle of success yet repeatedly and willfully throw away their spoils through scandalous actions.

Let's start with power. Power corrupts, they say. Do men like Weiner think their unique position in business or government insulates them from the same legal and/or moral standards heaped on the rest of society? Do they think they're above the law? Above reproach or prosecution? Has their power so corrupted them that they don't even think their actions are unethical or illegal, or even subject to scrutiny or criticism? Discussing Watergate with David Frost, Richard M. Nixon infamously claimed "When the President does it, that means it is not illegal." The Bushies also used a variation of this when defending the use of torture.

Dovetailing from power is entitlement. These guys may believe that they deserve to abuse the law and engage in all sorts of illicit activity because of their patriotic service to country. That their dedication and devotion, and myriad personal sacrifices they're making, somehow entitle them to monetary and/or sexual 'treats' as a trade-off. Perhaps these guys think their role in government excuses and//or justifies the extras.

Narcissism plays a key role as well. This behavior, according to FreeDictionary.com, can be defined in several ways: (1) Excessive love or admiration of oneself; (2) A psychological condition characterized by self-preoccupation, lack of empathy, and unconscious deficits in self-esteem; (3) Erotic pleasure derived from contemplation or admiration of one's own body or self, especially as a fixation on or a regression to an infantile stage of development. In Weiner's case, one could argue that all three conditions apply. His wanton disregard for his wife's feelings; his unabashed use of social media websites to transmit sexually charged text and lewd photographs; and his obvious insecurities and clear exaggerated desire to be desired are classic traits of a narcissist. There are even elements of his raging narcissism in his bizarre press conferences this week where he seems so enamored of the mike and camera still, rambling on and on as if he's loving all the attention, whether it's been good or bad.

But Weiner's behavior might simply be the result of an overpowering compulsion. I suspect that over the years he's sexually 'chatted/texted/emailed' with many more than the six women he's confessed to contacting. I suspect that he's probably kissed his wife Huma Abedin goodnight on most nights, and then repaired to his home office to 'work' into the wee hours all the while trolling the Internet for women to cyberplay with. By his own admission, he's been committing e-adultery for years, even before he met and married her. It's hard to believe therefore that his 'virtual' sexual escapades involve just six women. I suspect that Weiner simply couldn't help himself. Like most addicts, he probably hated what he was doing, knew it was highly improper, immoral and possibly illegal and could cost him his family and his career, and that he needed to hit rock-bottom in order to begin contemplating seeking help.

Given the sudden shock and awe of WeinerGate and its bigger implications politically, about social media and to society in general, there's been a lot of questions raised these past few days. One of them is, how could he be so stupid in doing the same sort of thing Rep. Chris Lee did just months ago? The married Lee resigned immediately after posting a half naked photo of himself on Craigslist to attract women for sex. His behavior cost his party a historically solid Republican seat in his upstate New York district.

But listen, you can take a drug addict down to the morgue and show him 5 other addicts who just OD'd. He'll say, 'wow, that's too bad,' and then walk out and score some more dope. Merely seeing dead addicts won't make him stop. He has to want to stop. He has to want a better life for himself and be willing and committed to taking the necessary steps do so.

To be sure, Weiner is not alone. The list of adulterous politicians, and those who've engaged in risky sexual behavior, is quite long. In recent history alone there's Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston, George H.W. Bush, Bob Barr, Henry Hyde, Mark Foley, David Vitter, Larry Craig, John Ensign, Mark Sanford, Elliot Spitzer, John Edwards, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Dominique Strauss-Kahn and others, and there'll certainly be more to come. The internet's become a real game-changer. It's redefining 'adultery.' Sex scandals no longer need actual, physical sex. Will social media and its expansive access unleash a torrent of future scandals as the boundaries and floodgates of cheating have opened wide? Is the temptation from this access so great, and the draw of a perceived comfortable, secure, sit-at-home anonymity while 'cheating' so alluring, that even those who might never stray in traditional ways are now susceptible to 'infidelity'?

Time to Tuck Weiner Back Into the Nation's Pants and Move On

Let's be very clear: Rep Anthony Weiner's bizarre sexual journey through Cyberspace, and subsequent lies to cover it up, is irresponsible, reprehensible and deserving of all the shame, embarrassment and public humiliation he's now experiencing since his admission of guilt Monday afternoon. Most important, his sleazy behavior is profoundly hurtful to his wife, Huma Abedin, his bride of less than one year. I can't imagine a marriage so new surviving so many adulterous escapades (virtual or other), but that will be for the Weiner's to assess and decide. But the big question is, is what Weiner did unethical as it relates to his job as a Unites States Congressman?

I'm sure this is a point both parties will argue vehemently over the next many months as the 2012 election nears and Republicans wish to take Weiner down and as his fellow Democrats try to get away with a mere wrist slap. To the left, Weiner's been a fierce warrior, full of righteous rage and not afraid to bully his opponents. In fact, he's just the sort of Democrat the party needs. So now he wears a bulls eye on his back as a result. But are the offenses Weiner committed illegal? Worthy of prosecution? Do they merit his resignation?

The right will argue that Rep. Chris Lee, the former Congressman from New York's 26th District, immediately resigned after a photo appeared of him bare-chested as he was trolling for chicks on Craigslist while married. His resignation opened the door for Democrats to win the historically Republican seat in a special election held last month. They'll also point to former Rep. Mark Foley (FL), who immediately resigned in September 2006 over the scandal involving his sexually suggestive emails and texts to underage teenage boys who had served as Congressional pages. They'll be demanding that Weiner and the Democrats live up to these standards.

But what they won't discuss is how David Vitter, the Louisiana Senator, still serves despite his call-girl scandal. Or how South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford served the remaining two years of his term following his admission of an affair with an Argentine woman and his misuse of state funds. Same for former Nevada Sen. John Ensign, who stayed in office until last month following the disclosure in November 2009 of an extramarital affair and possible abuses of power in an attempt to cover it up. And they won't talk of Newt Gingrich's cheating or political scandals.

What it boils down to is that each case is different than the next and has its own distinct characteristics. And each politician has to decide for himself whether or not his offenses are serious enough to merit resignation, and whether or not he can withstand the media scrutiny and public excoriation that may haunt him throughout the remainder of his term and during a re-election campaign.

To be sure, Foley deserved to go. His actions were not only perverse but illegal. He broke the law. But when a man cheats on his spouse, that should be between husband and wife, not Congress. While people like Weiner violate their marriages and abuse the trust they have with their wives, they've broken no laws. Their fates belong to their wives, families and to voters.

If what Weiner claims is true, there's been no actual physical sexual contact with any of the six women he's confessed to emailing, texting or calling during the past three years. While his randy acts are certainly despicable, will Weiner be the first politician to lose his job over a sex scandal that had no actual sex involved? Welcome to the age of anti-social media.

"I'm Paul Revere, and You Know Nothing of My Work!"

There's a brilliant scene in Woody Allen's Annie Hall where Allen and girlfriend Diane Keaton are standing in line at a movie theater in front of an arrogant, pompous know-it-all whose misinformed pontifications about the writer Marshall McLuhan's work are driving Allen crazy. He admonishes the blowhard and tells him he doesn't know anything about McLuhan:

Man: "Oh, really? Well, it just so happens I teach a class at Columbia called "TV, Media and Culture." So I think my insights into Mr. McLuhan, well, have a great deal of validity!
Alvy Singer (Allen): Oh, do ya? Well, that's funny, because I happen to have Mr. McLuhan right here, so, so, yeah, just let me...
[pulls McLuhan out from behind a nearby poster]
Alvy Singer: come over here for a second... tell him!
Marshall McLuhan: I heard what you were saying! You know nothing of my work! You mean my whole fallacy is wrong. How you got to teach a course in anything is totally amazing!
Alvy Singer: Boy, if life were only like this!

Well, if only we could present Paul Revere to Tea Party queen Sarah Palin he'd surely echo McLuhan in telling her she knows nothing of his work. And, he'd probably be standing with the Statue of Liberty because she apparently knows nothing about either of them, or of most of our nation's history for that matter.

Up in Boston last Thursday The Wasilla Wonder was asked about Paul Revere’s famed ride and she said he "warned the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms. By ringing those bells and making sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free."



Palin's blunder, captured on video, quickly swept through the Internet. Taking a break from her "There's-No-Way-I'm Running-For-President-But-I'm-REALLY-Digging-All-This-Attention" bus tour, she appeared on Fox News Sunday and was asked by host Chris Wallace, "You realized that you messed up about Paul Revere, don’t you?" And as only Sarah Palin could do, given her outsized ego and intellectual denial, she replied in her defense:

"You know what? I didn’t mess up about Paul Revere. "Part of his ride was to warn the British that we’re already there. That, hey, you’re not going to succeed. You’re not going to take American arms....Here is what Paul Revere did. He warned the Americans that the British were coming . . . and they were going to try take our arms and we got to make sure that we were protecting ourselves and shoring up all of ammunitions and our firearms so that they couldn’t take it,’’ Palin said yesterday. But remember that the British had already been there, many soldiers for seven years in that area. And part of Paul Revere’s ride — and it wasn’t just one ride — he was a courier, he was a messenger. Part of his ride was to warn the British that we’re already there. . . . You are not going to beat our own well-armed persons, individual, private militia that we have. He did warn the British."

As my grandmother used to say, oy vey! Too bad the Fox-friendly Wallace let her off the hook too easily and didn't press her on the facts. Had she been on a real network, not the GOP Softball Channel, she would've earned the public embarrassment and humiliation she so rightly deserved.

Will someone please get this poor woman a history book?! Just a week earlier she gave a convoluted explanation of the Statue of Liberty's origin and significance. I'm not sure who's more ignorant of American history, Palin or her Tea Party nemesis Rep. Michelle Bachmann, who a few months ago claimed the "Shot heard round the world" was in New Hampshire, not Massachusetts. What is with these Tea Baggers? Is being dumb a requirement?

To set the record straight for Grizzly Mama, here's what PaulRevereHouse.org has to say about the historic ride: "On the evening of April 18, 1775, Paul Revere was sent... to ride to Lexington, Massachusetts, to warn Samuel Adams and John Hancock that British troops were marching to arrest them... On the way to Lexington, Revere "alarmed" the country-side, stopping at each house, and arrived in Lexington about midnight. As he approached the house where Adams and Hancock were staying, a sentry asked that he not make so much noise. "Noise!" cried Revere, "You'll have noise enough before long. The regulars are coming out!" After delivering his message, Revere was joined by a second rider, William Dawes, who had been sent on the same errand by a different route. Deciding on their own to continue on to Concord, Massachusetts, where weapons and supplies were hidden, Revere and Dawes were joined by a third rider, Dr. Samuel Prescott. Soon after, all three were arrested by a British patrol."

So what's next for Palin as she glides her giant PalinMobile-of-Truthiness across America? Perhaps she's preparing for her next speech entitled The Gettysburg Address: Gen. Robert E. Lee's Finest Virginia Speech.

Here's How/Why Chris Christie Will Enter the Race

Despite his insistence to the contrary, I believe New Jersey Gov. Chris Chris is certain to enter the race for the Republican presidential nomination. And I'm sure it'll go something like this:

GOP Insiders: Gov. Christie, we want you to run. We need you to run. You must run. You're our only hope.

Christie: Guys, I'm flattered. I'm just a kid from Jersey and you're beggin' me
to run for president. I'm speechless. But I'm not your man.

GOP Insiders: Yes, you are.

Christie: Seriously, I'm not. Don't you read what I've been saying for months now? I don't want to run. I don't have any intention of running. I'm happy with the job I have.

GOP Insiders: But you're not going Sherman on us. You haven't said you won't run, nor be drafted to run, under any circumstances. Is that what you're now telling us?

Christie: Like I said, I'm not running. I'm not even qualified for the job. I'm not ready for the job!

GOP Insiders: That's precisely why you should run. Why you need to run. And why you'll win! It's time an 'outsider' fills this job. An everyman who just happens to also be a very successful governor of one of America's largest states. Chris, you're a lean, mean, straight-shootin' cost-cuttin', budget balancin' family-values guy who keeps income and property taxes low...and is funny too! Ok, maybe not so lean, but they'll love you just the same. You'll be the new guy they want to have a beer with. Kinda like a smart Bush. You'll appeal not just to conservatives, but independents and Reagan Democrats too. Not even Obama can score that hat trick!

Christie: Keep talkin'....

GOP Insiders: Forget about what you've said in the past. Everyone knows politicians go back on their word. You'll say you're running because of a love of country. That you've been called to serve. That you're being told that America needs you. That, get this, this is a totally selfless move on your part!

Christie: But I...I

GOP Insiders: You'll win, man! You'll be that kid from Jersey who becomes president...of the United friggin' States! Look us in the eye and tell us you really don't want that!

Christie: Well I....

GOP Insiders: C'mon, you don't think you can beat.......Palin?!

Christie: Of course I can. She's batshit crazy.

GOP Insiders: Bachmann?

Christie: Even crazier.

GOP Insiders: Ron Paul?

Christie: See above...

GOP Insiders: Herman Cain?

Christie: Ok, now you're just wasting my time. But, I do like pizza!

GOP Insiders: Gingrich?

Christie: More skeletons in his closet than in a college anatomy lab.

GOP Insiders: Pawlenty?

Christie: (yawns) Human Ambien.

GOP Insiders: Santorum?

Christie: He's even too right wing for me!

GOP Insiders: Romney?

Christie: You mean Mr. Mormon RomneyCare?

GOP Insiders: Perry?

Christie: C'mon, that rogue cowboy wants Texas to secede from the Union!

GOP Insiders: Huntsmann?

Christie: Who?

GOP Insiders: Exactly! That's what we're trying to tell you! You can kick these losers' asses all the way home from Iowa and New Hampshire!

Christie: You're right. This is the sorriest pack of hopefuls I've ever seen. You guys are making this sound easy.

GOP Insiders: That's because it is. Listen, there's plenty of time till Iowa. Seven months. We'll immediately ready the ground troops, line up the big donors, get Rush, Sean, Beck and O'Reilly on board and start making this happen just as soon as you say Oval Office!

Christie: What about Obama?

GOP Insiders: Seriously? Can you say 'unemployment and housing crisis'?

Christie: Can you say 'Osama bin Laden'?

GOP Insiders: Oh c'mon, Chris! Don't you know how dumb most Americans are? Bush convinced them that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, and Rudy tells 'em that there were no terrorist attacks on Bush's watch. You can't make this shit up! Don't worry, our guys will effectively spin that bin Laden was tracked and killed because of Bush's aggressive policies and tactics....the very same measures Obama and the fairy libs want to dismantle and put America at grave risk again. Hell, maybe we'll even bring old "Turd Blossom" Rove back to lead that charge.

Christie: You guys really do think we can do this.

GOP Insiders: We do. And we will. This is your chance Chris. We're talking the White House, dude! State dinners! Air Force One! The history books! It's all within your grasp, big man.

Christie: Wow. I gotta say, I do feel like the hot chick at the dance! Ok, I'm in! Say it....

GOP Insiders: Say what?

Christie: 'Mr. President'. I wanna hear it. Call me Mr. President...wanna hear how it sounds.

GOP Insiders: Well of course...Mr...Mr President!

Christie: Sweet...

Too Drunk to Remember, Not Too Drunk to Be Raped?

Two New York City police officers, Franklin Mata and Kenneth Moreno, were acquitted last week of rape charges brought on by a woman in 2009 who claimed they abused her while on patrol and she was highly intoxicated. The high profile case dominated the news for months. The officers were convicted of three counts of official misconduct for entering the woman's apartment. They were immediately fired by the Police Department and face up to a year in jail on each count when sentenced June 28th.

Afterwards, Moreno stood on the courtroom steps and said the woman, who's suing both cops and the city for $57 million, was "mistaken and confused," and that "she made the whole thing up." And over the weekend Moreno's wife Julia, in a colossal state of denial, expressed outrage at the accuser as well, saying she "should go to jail for this" and should "go to hell....From the beginning of time, this is what girls do -- young girls, inexperienced. They're not mature. They get drunk. They do these things and, you know, they want sympathy. In his case I believe she wanted sympathy from her friends because they threw her out of her own party."

Moreno's wife is obviously standing by her man regardless of how obvious his guilt. But she's angry at the wrong person. It was her husband who admittedly picked up the very drunk woman, took her to her apartment and then over the course of several hours re-entered her apartment three times, using her keys. He "flirted" with her, "snuggled" beside her in bed while she wore only a bra, kissed her head, and sang to her. What's more, there is a recording of a fake 911 call they made to justify returning to the apartment, and, the victim had later confronted Moreno outside his precinct while wearing a recording device. After insisting that nothing had happened, he then admitted that they "had sex" and that he had used a condom. And Ms. Moreno's angry at the victim? (By the way, she started dating Moreno when she was 18 and he was 33. I'll let you draw your own conclusions on that one...)

At the core of the defense was its claim that she was too drunk to be a credible witness, but it is precisely that state of debilitating intoxication that served as the very invitation for the officers to make their highly inappropriate and illegal entry into her apartment where she was supposedly just 'comforted' as opposed to raped. Furthermore, there was no DNA. But if she showered, or if he used a condom, that could explain the lack of physical evidence.

Moreno claimed that, as a recovering alcoholic, he was merely "counseling" her about her drinking. Did you ever watch MSNBC's "Predator" series? It investigates sexual predators as they find their underage victims (as young as 12) in online chat rooms and then travel--often driving for several hours--to meet them. Inevitably, once host Chris Hanson's sting operation nails them, they claim to be there to "mentor" these poor, vulnerable underage teens. It's crazy to think these guys want sex with children just because they engage in very graphic online chats and then show up at the door with alcohol, drugs and condoms, right?. Why is it that the bad guys are always "just there to talk?"

Are we as an intelligent society really expected to believe that Moreno simply lay aside her in her bed, innocently caressing her as he sang Bon Jovi's "Living on a Prayer" gently in her ear? It's pretty safe and fair to assume that the officers' behavior was anything but altruistic given the highly unethical nature of their presence in the her apartment in the first place. And given this suspicious backdrop, it's easy to accept the accuser's account as the truth. Don't tell me a red-blooded adult male who makes repeated trips into a drunken young woman's apartment does this with the sole intent of taking care of her. If that were the case, and she was so sick that she required professional attention, he could've and should've called paramedics to the scene or driven her straight to a hospital. I'm sorry, but Moreno wasn't there to nurse or croon. It's very unfortunate that there was no physical evidence to conclusively prove what happened.

The verdict just reinforces the ugly truth about what women will face if they accuse a man of sexual assault, especially if they're drunk and the man is a cop and he'll conveniently claim that she was too wasted to remember anything or to be taken seriously.

Democrats Win NY's 26th. Does Gingrich Have it Right?

Imagine a Red Sox fan walking into a Bronx bar on game night and walking out an hour later having convinced the Yankees fans inside to root for the Sox. Pretty unthinkable, right? Well that's essentially what happened yesterday in New York's 26th Congressional District where the Democrat, Kathy Hochul, defeated her Republican opponent, Jane Corwin, in a special election in one of the state's most conservative bastions.

To give some perspective, the district, which spans from Rochester to Buffalo, has 27,000 more Republicans than Democrats, voted for John McCain over Barack Obama in 2008, and has had just three Democrats represent it in the last 150 years. The 26th is about as red as they come. In last Fall's midterm elections, the GOP incumbent, Chris Lee, won the district with 76% of the vote. The only problem for Lee was that a few months later he was caught in a cheesy shirtless pose on Craigslist trolling for babes. Gov. Andrew Cuomo then called for the special election to fill the randy Republican's seat.

Jump ahead to April when Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), Chairman of the House Budget Committee, released his controversial proposal to eliminate Medicare and replace it with a voucher system. While virtually all Republicans voted for it, most Americans are against the plan. So what Hochul shrewdly did up in Western New York was scare the bajeesus out of voters with: 'My opponent and her party will take away granny's Medicare and put her on the street with a tin cup.' And it worked, big time.

If Democrats were smart (I'm not so sure sometimes), they'd co-opt Hochul's strategy and aggressively run with it nationally all the way to November 2012. This is the absolute perfect bumper-sticker issue for them, and with it they could win many critical seats. The truth is, Americans dislike crafty politicians messin' with their large entitlement programs. And it ain't just granny and grandpappy that's pissed off. Voters, whether they're 20, 30 or 50, likely have several people in their families benefiting from Social Security and Medicare. What Ryan's plan did therefore was to commit political suicide for the Republican Party (sshhh...do you hear that sound? It's Ryan being pushed under the bus this morning by his conservative colleagues....)

So was Newt Gingrich right to come out strong two weekends ago on NBC's Meet the Press where he criticized Ryan's plan as "Right wing social engineering?" Well, the proof is in the puddin.' The Democrats' astounding victory Tuesday should not just give great pause to House Speaker John Boehner (OH), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (KY) and every other Republican (incumbent or hopeful), but should be an indication to Gingrich that maybe, just maybe, he's on the right side of a hot populist movement. My opinion? I'd say it's time to pull out that fork that so many stuck in him these past two weeks. It would be very foolish to count Newt out just yet. While he may have pissed off every Republican politician in Washington, his position seems to resonate among the majority of Republican voters. Call me crazy, but that's what matters on election day.

Some Tough Love for Dog Owners

Let me first say that I am the proud owner of the most adorable German Shepard/Rottweiler mix. Priscilla's 10-years-old (or the cutest 70-year-old, depending on your choice of math) and sweet as pie. Two years ago I had to put down my Yellow Lab Elvis Pawsley (yes, I guess that makes me Colonel Tom). I've had dogs my whole life, including Ralph and Barney. I'm a dog lover. What I don't love is most dog owners. Living in a big, densely populated city like New York requires a certain level of consideration for others, yet it is dog owners who are some of the biggest violators.

Dog owners are just like parents of small children. In fact to them, their dog is their child. Instead of playgrounds they go to dog parks and stand around with other dog owners and talk about their "kids" the same as parents do. They ask meaningless questions like "What's her name?" How old is she!? "Did ya get him from a breeder?," as if they really care. I mean, do they really care if Buster is 6 and hails from Beacon, NY? And they believe that we think everything their dog does is utterly fascinating, just as parents think everything their kid does is mind-numbingly interesting. "Hey, wasn't that awesome how my kid just punched your kid in the face!?" Um, not really....

But I really don't mind any of that behavior, no matter how odd it may be. What I do mind is when, outside of a dog run, owners act as if their dog can do anything it wants, anywhere it wants, and we're still supposed to think it's phenomenal. So to enlighten you dog owners who remain clueless as to how to behave amidst your fellow New Yorkers, here's a few tips:

1. Please don't let Oscar piss on the sidewalk three feet from my table at an outdoor cafe. I know your pooch's urine has an incredibly artistic yellowishness to it, and the muscle definition when he lifts his leg is Shwarzenegger-like, but I'm eating my freakin' lunch and don't want to see it. Any of it. Same goes for pooping. News flash: merely picking up your dog's crap doesn't mean you haven't left behind a nice little sidewalk souvenir for the rest of us. Walk past the cafe next time and then let your dog relieve himself.

2. Please curb your dog, or at least walk on the edge of the sidewalk closest to the street. It never ceases to amaze me how people walk down the middle of the sidewalk with their dog and then it urinates or poops right there as people almost step in it. The city's streets are filthy enough. We don't want animal waste on the bottom of our or our kids' shoes, on the wheels of our kids' strollers, shopping carts and bikes.

3. Please keep your dog on a leash. We all know you're the Dog Whisperer and deserve major props for training your dog to wander down Broadway untethered, but there's lots of little kids who are terrified of dogs. And besides, it's against the law.

4. Please be mindful of where your dog is going when you use one of those 20-foot extension leashes. I almost tripped and cracked my skull the other day when your little buddy's leash got wrapped around my legs when he was doing his sidewalk gymnastics.

5. I don't mind you bringing your dog to sit with you at any outdoor cafe. But, if he's gonna yap and scream like a toddler, then please leave. If I wanted to eat my pancakes while dogs bark their heads off I'd go to a kennel. News flash: your dog's not cute when he yelps non-stop. He's annoying.

6. I am not amused when your horny Dominique Strauss-Kahn of a beast mounts and humps my Priscilla. When you see that look on my dog's face like "This ain't consensual," that would be a great time to yank him off her.

Daniels Out. Time for Scarborough?

Back in September 2009 I wrote a piece on why MSNBC's Joe Scarborough would be a viable threat to President Obama in the 2012 election:

"Scarborough's been smartly playing the moderate card lately, which is not what we can say for some of the other 2012 "front-runners" like Palin, Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee. These guys are so fringe in their ideology that they could never appeal to the all-important middle."

Those words ring even truer today as the pack of Republican hopefuls still primarily comprises either the most radical group of Tea Baggin' loons like Gingrich, Palin, and Michelle Bachmann or snoozers like Tim Pawlenty. Mike Huckabee, Donald Trump and Mitch Daniels are out of the race, leaving the supposed front-runner status to Mitt Romney. But he has several major obstacles to overcome, including his Mormon faith, his own ObamaCare-like program while Massachusetts governor, and the fact that he's already lost once before. And while the GOP is desperate to have "attractive" candidates like New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie or former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsmann Jr. run, the ground clearly remains quite fertile for an outsider like Scarborough to toss his fleece into the ring.

The word on the street is that Huntsmann's the GOP's best bet. Also a Mormon, he was appointed by Obama and served as U.S. Ambassador to China from 2009 to April of this year. He's a fiscal conservative who backed Obama's economic stimulus, and has moderate views on civil unions, immigration and the environment. But the mountain he has to climb is quite steep. He has zero name recognition, lacks major charisma, worked for Obama and is seen by many in the party as too "liberal." As the Conservative Daily News wrote, "What did Jon Huntsman, Jr. forget, you ask? Simple, he forgot conservatism. Huntsman has mastered the art of pandering to his inner liberal. He maintains a sterling record in fiscal matters but has a nasty habit of straying from conservative principles."

This tepid support from the right to the current GOP pack should convince Scarborough that the party faithful is waiting for a skilled politician with personality and name-recognition to enter the race. Someone who is centrist enough to attract independents without offending the base, and tough enough to face an incumbent president whose popularity is growing.

When Did the Truth Become 'Gotcha' Journalism?

Tina Fey recently hosted Saturday Night Live and resurrected her brilliant impersonation of Sarah Palin in a 2012 Republican presidential debate skit in which The Wasilla Wonder incredulously declares "I just hope the lamestream media won’t twist my words by repeatin’ em verbatim."

SNL and Fey were of course spoofing the real Palin, who has made many such accusations of media foul-play, including over her most embarrassing encounter when famously asked by Katie Couric what books and magazines she reads. That interview was the beginning of the end for Palin's 2008 vice presidential bid.

And just this week, as his 2012 presidential candidacy appeared to be imploding, the real Newt Gingrich, when asked by Fox News' Greta Van Susteren about his $500,000 Tiffany credit card balance, refused to answer and claimed he won't play "gotcha games."

Gingrich also this week defended his disastrous "Meet the Press" interview Sunday morning--in which he attacked the GOP, Rep. Paul Ryan and his Medicare plan--by claiming "I didn't go in there quite hostile enough, because it didn't occur to me going in that you'd have a series of setups. This wasn't me randomly saying things. These were very deliberate efforts to pick fights." Poor Newt. He maintains he was blindsided by the very crafty David Gregory and had no idea what to expect from this liberal attack show. You'd think that after appearing on the program 35 times he'd know what he was walking into.

When the proverbial shit hit the fan and his campaign appeared to be detonating after just one week, Gingrich, after telling Van Susteren he "made a mistake" in attacking Ryan's plan, then arrogantly declared "on the record" that any ad that an opponent might use against him which includes his actual "Meet the Press" comments will therefore be a lie. Jon Stewart summed up Gingrich's convoluted philosophy this way: "If you quote me directly utilizing videotape of my comments in context, you're lying!"

The Daily Show - Fast Dive
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

What is it with these Republicans and the truth? What exactly is "gotcha" about being held accountable for the idiotic things that come out of their mouths? We live in a digital age of 24/7 news coverage. Where anything and everything will end up on YouTube. But it's not the media that's responsible for making people like Palin, Gingrich, Donald Trump, Michele Bachmann and countless others look foolish. They do that all by themselves simply by speaking. To quote my late father Sol, the master of the malapropism, I say to these Republican dummies...If ya don't like the truth, get outta the kitchen.

Still Think Schwarzenegger's Not a Serial Groper?

He's a liar, a cheater, a home-wrecker and a predator. No, I'm not referring to the 1987 sci-fi action pic he starred in, but more likely a sexual predator. After the explosive revelation this week that former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger fathered a love-child with a household employee about 13 years ago, it should erase all doubt about whether he in fact was guilty, as accused in 2005, of groping many women over the course of his 30-year bodybuilding and acting career.

Schwarzenegger's newest bombshell is not much of a shock in political circles, especially those out west. Rumors of affairs and children swirled around him during the 2005 campaign against incumbent Gov. Gray Davis. But those rumors were quickly dwarfed by the groping scandal in which fifteen women came forward with allegations of sexual attacks against them at gyms, movie sets, production facilities and elsewhere. Schwarzenegger and his camp vociferously denied the charges, and his wife Maria Shriver went to bat for him as well in what many experts believe was a campaign-saving defense. He went on to win the election and served two terms until 2011 when Jerry Brown became governor again after first serving in that office from 1975-1983.

So here's what happened: somewhere around 1988 Arnold had sex with the worker, Mildred Baena, now 50, and she became pregnant with his baby. She recently left the job after serving twenty years with the family. The affair, pregnancy and eventual birth of their son was kept secret from Shriver--who was said to be pregnant with her son Christopher at the same time as Baena--and the rest of the family until Schwarzenegger's recent revelation. He and Shriver officially announced their separation last week after twenty-five years of marriage. Apparently, this tawdry episode was chief among the reasons for the split.

It's easy to feel sympathetic towards Shriver, who's clearly dealing with a highly emotional, humiliating public scandal. No one likes to see anyone suffer like that, and my heart goes out to her and her five children. But I also can't help feeling for those fifteen women who her husband allegedly molested. Women whose reputations were attacked and whose lives were forever changed by the man Shriver so loyally defended as they both sought even more fame and power than they already had. You can't tell me that on some very visceral level Shriver did not know of or at the very least suspect the sort of lewd behavior of which Arnold was likely guilty. I'm not at all saying she's responsible for this new love-child scandal, but she certainly helped feed the beast. What goes around comes around.

Donald Trump Announces He's Not Running for President and Will Be Going Back to Simply Annoying Business People

On April 15th I wrote: "But let's be very clear about one thing: Trump has absolutely no desire or intention of becoming president. His ego is too grandiose, and his appetite for money too rapacious, to forfeit the self-serving spoils of his capitalistic kingdom to serve the little people for a mere peon's wages while having to answer to anyone other than himself....So what Trump's campaign boils down to is a charade. It's a game he's playing, which is serving to feed that massive Id of his while affording him an even greater soapbox from which he can regurgitate his narrow-minded, inane bile."

With little fanfare and certainly to no surprise here, Trump on Monday officially announced that he will not be running for president. Here's a snippet from his press release:

"After considerable deliberation and reflection, I have decided not to pursue the office of the presidency," Trump said in a statement. "This decision does not come easily or without regret; especially when my potential candidacy continues to be validated by ranking at the top of the Republican contenders in polls across the country. ... Ultimately, however, business is my greatest passion and I am not ready to leave the private sector."

Apparently, even he's grown tired of the self-aggrandizing hoax through which he's flung enough ignorant, racist bile to fill 100 KKK meetings. But to be sure, Trump got what he wanted: he was able to have the spotlight shine on him for months as he flirted with a possible candidacy and was able to spew all sorts of mania-driven garbage. But in the process he caused serious, irreversible harm to his political standing and overall reputation. It was simply delicious to watch him squirm in anger and humiliation at the recent White House Correspondents dinner. God bless you Seth Meyers.

Trump, who has the dubious distinction of making Charlie Sheen seem calm, cool and collected, attempted to take President Obama down through a relentless, race-baiting "birther" and "schooler" campaign designed to delegitimize him and his presidency. Had it not been for the killing of Osama bin Laden, who knows how far Trump's reprehensible charade would have gone. Timing is everything, right? With Obama's approval ratings nearing 60%, and with the release of his birth certificate which served to embarrass and prove Trump wrong, it would seem that only the business world, and those who watch "The Apprentice," will have to put up with his massive ego going forward. Thankfully, he's been run out of Washington and the nightly news...

Hey Newt, Can We ask You Sex Questions Under Oath?

Newt Gingrich took to his smart phone Wednesday with the following message on Twitter: "Today I am announcing my candidacy for President of the United States. You can watch my announcement here." He included a link to his website video message, thus becoming the first politician to use the 143-character medium to announce a run for the White House.

The 67-year-old serial philanderer apparently thinks that Tweeting makes him cool somehow, or that he hopes the audience it reaches is under the age of thirty and clueless as to his cheating, race-baiting ways....and will see him simply as a wise old grandfatherly Republican Party stalwart who still brags of family values despite his extra-marital affairs, kinky sex fantasies, married-man-stealing wife and multiple political corruption scandals.

When asked recently by Fox News host Chris Wallace whether or not he's a hypocrite for leading the 1990's charge to remove Bill Clinton from office over his marital transgressions at the same time he himself was having an affair, Gingrich's reply was that it wasn't about cheating per se but of lying under oath, which Clinton did about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

Let's get this straight: Newt wasn't attacking/judging Clinton for cheating, but merely asked him about the cheating, which then boxed him into a humiliating corner over it, and then zapped him with legality when he lied about it under oath. Pretty convoluted justification, if I must say.

So now that Gingrich has announced his candidacy for president, I say he should agree to be held to the same standards as those he imposed on Clinton. He should be subjected to a hearing where he is sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth...so help him god. A lie-detector test should follow. In both, he should be asked the following:

-how many times have you cheated on your first wife?
-how many times have you cheated on your second wife?
-have you cheated on your current wife, Callista?
-Is there anyone on your staff you'd like to have sex with?
-Have you ever had a homosexual fantasy or any kind of sexual encounter with a man?

Wouldn't we just love to see the answers. Whattya say, Newt? What's good for the goose is good for the Gingrich...