Want to Really Protect Heterosexual Marriage?

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

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

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

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

The Seinfelding of Comedy: In Defense of Seth MacFarlane

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Don’t Republicans Promote ‘Gun Abstinence’?

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

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

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

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

Haggling for Hagel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Karl Rove's Back and He's Pissed!

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

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

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

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

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

Gay Boy Scouts: What Are Conservatives So Afraid Of?

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

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

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

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

Chuck and the Chicken Hawks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Newtown Massacre: Time For Legislation Not Conversation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Open Letter to Gov. Chris Christie

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

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

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

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

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

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

Romney's Binders Full of Gifts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Rockaways in Ruins

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

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

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

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

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

“Manhattan.”

“Who are you with?

“We’re here on our own” I said.

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

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

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

“You’re not alone,” I assured him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Real Takeaway From the Election

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

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

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

Will We Hear THIS Speech From Moderate Mitt Before Tuesday?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The '80's Are Calling..."

Mitt Romney opened the debate hoping for some levity. Referring to last week's Al Smith Dinner in New York, he said: "Mr. President...we were together at a humorous event a little earlier, and it's nice to maybe be funny this time, not on purpose. We'll see what happens." Well, he saw what happened, alright. Obama "funnied" the life out of him as he put another notch on his debate-win belt.

Perhaps the biggest winner of the night besides Obama was the late former President Richard Nixon, who no longer holds the "sweatiest presidential debater" crown. Romney perspired so much he looked like Usain Bolt in mile 26 of the NYC Marathon. Although I'm not sure what was more humiliating for the Republican challenger, his obvious disregard for the "Never let 'em see ya sweat" adage or his repeated cries of "Attacking me is not an agenda!," which his campaign even tweeted throughout the evening. Nothing says "presidential" more than a sopping wet whiner.

After waking from his first-debate coma, Obama came back swinging in last week's second match. But it was Monday night's foreign policy debate that will be most remembered. Obama delivered a couple of verbal smack downs on par with Lloyd Bentsen's famous 1988 "You're no Jack Kennedy" barb to his Republican vice presidential challenger Dan Quayle.

"The 1980′s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back," Obama quipped in response to Romney's outdated positions. And when Romney charged that the Navy has fewer ships than it did in 1916 the president shot back with: "We also have fewer horses and bayonets."

It was about this point in the debate that conservative pundit Glenn Beck tweeted in frustration of Romney:  "He is not hitting anywhere. Is this to make him not scary? He is scaring me."

Obama also called out his opponent's Romnesia on several occasions, the most notable over the auto industry bailout, which Romney had opposed in his November 18, 2008 NY Times "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" op-ed. "If we had taken your advice, Governor Romney, about our auto industry, we'd be buying cars from China instead of selling cars to China. You can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye...Governor, the people in Detroit don't forget."

Romney, who is typically an attack dog at these debates, sat meekly for most of the night and seemed to follow a strategy that called for him to agree more with Obama than disagree. Surprisingly, the terrorist attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, where four Americans died including Ambassador Chris Stevens, didn't dominate the discussion as expected. Instead, Romney shared positions on China, Israel, Palestine, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan, drone attacks and anti-terrorism so similar to the president's that at times it was hard to tell the two candidates apart.  It was interesting that virtually the entire foreign policy discussion focused on the Middle East, as if nothing else around the world matters. Not a peep about the European financial meltdown, for example, and how they'd help fix the collapsing economies of Spain, Greece and Italy.  

So who "won?" A CBS News poll had 53%-23% for Obama.  CNN's insta-poll showed Obama with a  48%-40% margin. Clearly, Obama was as calm, cool and collected as Kennedy was in his historic 1960 debate against Nixon. He demonstrated intelligence, a mastery of the facts and issues, discipline and control. He was presidential and a highly competent Commander-in-Chief. He was Muhammad Ali to Romney's Chuck Wepner.

To the contrary, Romney was agitated, befuddled, nervous, naive, inexperienced and yes, very, very sweaty. He had so little in his foreign policy arsenal that he tried to steer the discussion to the economy at every possible turn. He gave voters zero reason to believe he brings anything new to the foreign policy table, nor reasons why they should stop the Obama momentum abroad. And when Republican spinners all claim, as former Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer did, that Benghazi (which they've harped on for weeks) and foreign policy doesn't matter and that it's the economy that Americans will vote on, or that the debate itself "doesn't matter," it's obvious they know their guy lost.

Why Obama May Have Lost Tuesday's Debate

Ok, so Democrats are happy that President Obama decided to show up for Tuesday night’s debate at Hofstra University on Long Island, his second match with his Republican opponent Mitt Romney. He certainly came out swinging and scored some decisive points. But was Obama’s feistier, more spirited performance enough to move the needle? Did he get the job done?

While the tragic deaths of four Americans in Benghazi at the hands of terrorists has consumed the right-wing punditry these past several weeks, Romney himself chose to focus on jobs and the economy, and for good reason.  A CBS Instant Poll after the debate showed that he won by 65%-34% on the economy. In the days ahead we’ll see a slew of new polls indicating whether or not either candidate received an appreciable bounce and if the debate in any way might impact the election. 

The president brought his A-Game, but it was his B-Game that was on display for most of the 90-minutes before an audience of eighty so-called independents (honestly, at this point in the campaign, how is it possible they’re still undecided? “Gee, as a woman, I’m still unsure whether I want to control what goes in and out of my vagina, or if I’m ok with rich old white men making those decisions for me!” Who are these people!?). The B-Game is all he has. He’s truly not a fighter. Deep down, he’s a gentleman, and gentlemen don’t street fight, which is how Romney battles.

But their roles and goals were switched from the last debate: the bar for Obama was set so low that he couldn’t fail, while the bar for Romney, fresh off his killer performance two weeks ago, was unrealistically high. Romney performs best when his back is to the wall, while Obama, given the monumental criticism he faced after the first debate, reignited his mojo. It was a lot easier for him to succeed given this landscape.  A CNN poll taken Wednesday found 73% said Obama’s performance exceeded expectations compared with 37% for who said Romney fared better than expected. But more telling was who "won:" the poll found that 46% went for Obama while 39% gave it to Romney. With a 4.5% margin of error, this certainly was no knock-out.

To be sure, there were moments that literally made me cringe. Mostly when Romney acted like an uber-entitled, duplicitous bully who believes that interrupting and shouting over the President of the United States, while also disrespecting the moderator and the rules, is acceptable behavior, if not de rigueur. To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, Obama fought the war with what he has. While I believe it would’ve been conduct unbecoming a president had Obama met Romney’s child-like petulance with similar loutish, combative behavior, I would’ve preferred to see more Bill Clinton-style passion and forcefulness—fire in the belly—as well as much more detail and vision, both of which, especially on the economy, were in very short supply.

So what was essentially missing from the president? He would’ve benefited from more directly and aggressively going after Romney on the issues and his positions. When “Moderate Mitt” spun his tall tales about how he’s pro-education, pro-women, pro-middle class, pro-Medicare and pro-jobs, for example, Obama could’ve challenged him with:

•    “No, Gov. Romney, you, Rep. Ryan and your party seek to cut or eliminate Pell Grants and similar government aid for college students.”
•    “No, Gov. Romney, your policies and statements aren’t supportive of education and teachers. You and your party believe the Department of Education should be dismantled, and that we have enough teachers.”
•    “No, Gov. Romney, you, Rep. Ryan and your party do not champion women’s rights…in the workplace or involving their health and their own bodies.”
•    “No, Gov. Romney, you, Rep. Ryan and your party care about one thing: providing massive tax breaks for the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class. You would like to cut all government assistance and give that money to the rich.  You’re like Robin Hood in reverse.”
•    “No, Gov. Romney, you’re not being honest about your statement, and my administration’s actions, about the auto industry. ‘Let Detroit Go Bankrupt’ is what you said.  This would’ve killed the auto industry. The banks weren’t giving them funding to survive. We bailed them out. We helped them survive and thrive, as their sales now prove. We saved a million jobs. You would’ve lost those million jobs.”
•    “No, Gov. Romney, you and your party are against every measure I and my Democratic colleagues in Congress have attempted to enact to create jobs.  I challenge you right now to tell Speaker John Boehner and House Republicans, before millions of Americans watching tonight, to pass my jobs bill!”
•    “No, Gov. Romney, you and Paul Ryan want to end Medicare as we know it, turning it instead into a costly and confusing voucher program, forcing seniors to go out shopping for insurance.”
•    “Gov. Romney, perhaps interrupting, shouting over someone and re-writing the rules is how it works for CEO’s in the boardroom, but that’s not how it it’s done in politics.”

Let’s be clear: the Obama we saw Tuesday night was infinitely stronger and more effective than the empty suit that showed up three weeks ago. He excited and fired up the base for sure. But better may not be what independent voters wanted or needed to see and hear. Next Monday night he’ll have another opportunity to close the deal. It’ll be fascinating to see which Obama shows up this time.  And, according to RealClearPolitics.com,  with Romney slightly leading in key battleground states such as Florida, Missouri, Colorado and North Carolina, and virtually tied with Obama in Virginia, Wisconsin, Ohio, Nevada and Iowa, the Democratic base would be wise not to be too celebratory just yet.

More Debate Suggestions for Obama Since He Clearly Didn't Listen to Me the First Time

The fate of the presidential election could hinge on the second debate Tuesday between Barack "I Was Too Polite" Obama and “Moderate Mitt” Romney, judging from the impact their performances in the first debate had on the media, voters and the polls. So without much fanfare I hereby offer my advice to Obama on how to win this one:

1. Do not, I repeat, do not look down. Period. Not even to write notes. At this point in your political career if you can't wing it you're in the wrong business

2. When he's talking, stare at Romney like you're on a deserted island and he's the last piece of food you’ll ever eat. Half smile, intent gaze. Practice this face in front of the mirror between now and then

3. Alternate between looking at Romney and looking into the camera to address voters directly

4. Be aggressive. Forcefully challenge Romney's lies and distortions. If he flips and flops on his positions call him out on it. Call him "Moderate Mitt" and contradict him with his own prior statements and positions

5. Defend government spending, and your policies in particular, as having saved the economy when neither consumers, banks or businesses were spending a nickel. New data out last week showed that consumer confidence is way up, unemployment and foreclosures are down, housing is recovering and Americans are feeling the country's headed in the right direction. Pounce on that! 

6. Remind them of how well their retirement accounts have done as the Dow and NASDAQ have risen 100% and %155% respectively

7. Proudly discuss the auto bailout and how you saved that critical industry...while reminding voters how Romney wanted to "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt"

8. Remind voters that while corporate America is enjoying record profits they're still not hiring, the private sector has added almost 5-million over the last 30 consecutive months

9. Hit Romney hard with his 47% comments. This is the proverbial gift that needs to keep on giving

10. Pressure Romney to give specifics on which tax loopholes and deductions he will cut/end. Press him hard

11. Do a Joe Biden and look into the camera and remind seniors that Romney/Ryan will end Medicare as we know it and privatize Social Security. Assure them that there’s only one party that ever does anything to protect and preserve Medicare and Social Security, and that’s the Democratic Party

12. On foreign policy, don't let Romney hang you up on Benghazi. Acknowledge the ongoing investigation to get to the bottom of what happened, assure voters that the terrorists will be brought to justice, and then remind them of how the world, because of you, is free of bin-Laden, al-Zawahiri and Qaddafi, and that al-Qaeda has been nearly decimated and that there’s been more Drone attacks into Pakistan than ever….all of which continues to keep Americans safe here at home.

13. Repeat the following catchall’s as much as you can: “Will end Medicare as we know it.” “Will privatize Social Security.” "The job creators aren't creating jobs." “Will return us to the same failed policies of George W. Bush.” “Detroit lives and bin Laden’s dead.” Huge tax cuts for the rich, increases for the middle class.” “The math simply doesn’t add up.” “Let women decide what happens to their bodies.” "Our enemies have been brought to justice." "The war in Iraq is over." "Our troops in Afghanistan will soon be home."

14. Act like being president for another four years is a job you actually want. Show some damn passion. Don't let Romney be the only bubbly one in the room

15. I know it's hard, but try to explain things as Bill Clinton would...with the same sincerity, clarity and brevity. You're a charming dude. Show it. Leave the wonky professor act home

16. And lastly...get some sleep tonight, for Pete's sake, so you don't look like you'd rather be on a hammock napping

Here's How/Why Obama Must Proudly Defend Government's Role in the Economic Recovery

Big government. Those two words are uttered with utter disdain by Mitt Romney and Republicans. But go back to the Fall of 2008, when the U.S. economy was on the verge of bone-chilling collapse, and it was big government that kept us from falling into the abyss.

Let's give credit all around. It was former president George W. Bush who pushed through the initial $25-billion round of the auto bailout and $428-billion in TARP funds for Wall Street. President Obama continued the aid, injecting $787 billion more through his economic stimulus and job creation programs; over a trillion in additional investments in banks, corporate debt and mortgage-backed securities purchases; and another $60-billion into Detroit (while Mitt Romney was busy writing op-eds entitled "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt").

Trillions were injected by government into the economy at a time when both consumers and businesses were holding onto every nickel, while banks froze credit and borrowing, as the nation's fiscal engine was sputtering off a cliff.

Four years later, corporate America enjoys record productivity and profits, yet the unemployment rate remains near 8%...with an average of just 150,000 or so jobs created monthly. Businesses still aren't investing in the economy despite their swollen coffers, and consumer confidence and spending, as well as housing, while increasing, is nowhere near what it needs to be for the economy to fully recover. Think about what America's economy would look like today without that emergency relief from government?

But the fact is, all over the country steady economic improvement is evident. Ohio, for example, a critical battleground state and one of the hardest hit by financial crisis, has seen unemployment drop from a 2010 peak of 10.6% to 7.2%. Over 70,000 of the jobs created have been in the auto industry. And while Ohio's Gov. John Kasich proudly boasts of his state's turnaround, he and other governors with similar progress claim that neither Obama or his policies deserve any credit.

So let's get this straight: it's Obama's fault on a statewide level when the nationwide economy tanks, but when it recovers it's the individual states, and their respective governors, who are responsible for the growth. If that sounds like disingenuous political double-talk, it is.

With less than a month before the election, it's time for Obama to stop the nice-guy routine and start acting like a man who wants to keep his job, and in particular, because he deserves to. He must proudly embrace his policies and the tremendous impact they've had on the economic recovery and stop allowing Romney and Republicans from controlling the narrative and defining him as a reckless tax and spend liberal.   

Here's what he needs to say when he's out on the stump:

"Are we better off today than we were four years ago? You bet we are! Do you remember how you felt in the Fall of 2008...when you feared for your job, your retirement savings dropped in half, and the value of your home sank 30%-40%? When you worried that your bank would collapse and with it your life's savings? Four years later there's been a swing of almost a million in terms of monthly jobs lost to jobs being created.  We did that. There's over 4.5-million private sector new jobs created in 30 straight months. We did that. The auto industry is alive and thriving. We did that. There's record profits in corporate America. We did that. Your 401K, college and investment accounts have doubled.  We did that. Your home value is increasing, and you're able to get credit again....which is why consumer confidence and spending is rising. We did that. And you know what else we did? We used government, your government, the government to which you pay taxes, to help this sick economy when no one else would. Ya know what America would look like today without your government helping you when you need it most? It would look like, well...it would look like President Romney. The choice is yours America..."

And it wouldn't hurt to punch this out with the passion, sincerity and clarity of Bill Clinton.

An Open Letter to Mitt Romney From Big Bird

 

Dear Mr. Romney:

I have to say, I am both shocked and disappointed by your desire to cut funding for PBS. You said at the debate that "I love Big Bird." But the sad truth is, you don't love me at all. You don't love any of us...not Bert, Ernie, Oscar, The Count, Grover or Elmo either...and who on Earth doesn't love Elmo? What's wrong with you?!

Can you please explain to me why you think it's more important, for example, to help private plane owners but not PBS? Where are your priorities? You're clearly more concerned with Wall Street than you are Sesame Street. But let me tell you something: investment bankers never taught kids how to read, write, count and to be caring, sensitive, thoughtful people. Did you know that children who watched our program have an average 16% higher GPA in high school than those who didn't? Our show also teaches them from an early age to appreciate and respect art and science.

Well maybe that's it. Maybe it's because you and your party don't appreciate and respect art and science? Maybe it stems from the desire to dismantle the Department of Education, and your statements that we don't need more teachers. Maybe it's because you've never needed outside help in your entire life because you came from a rich, privileged family who gave you everything you could ever possibly want...including the best private education available.

I'm sure you never sat on the floor of a ghetto tenement watching Sesame Street, or any other PBS program, on an old junky television with a hanger clipped to it for reception. For many of our viewers, our show is not just a free babysitter and tutor, but an entry into a world of culture and fantasy that only rich folks like you have at their fingertips every day just by waking up. Is that so hard to understand? Why is it so hard for you to grasp that some folks, and millions of children, simply need a little help in life?

Look, the government gives the Corporation for Public Broadcasting $445 million per year. As far as the $4-trilion U.S. budget goes, that's a pimple on Snuffleupagus's ass (sorry for using a bad word, but I'm very upset with you!).  Is this a road you really wanna go down?

Mr. Romney, unlike most of my other cast mates who are solid Obamacons, I am, or at least until Wednesday night's debate, was an independent. But you've pushed me--and I suspect millions of concerned moms and dads--into Obama's camp. You've lost my vote. I simply cannot fathom supporting someone who doesn't recognize the value in public television and it's tremendous impact on society....both in the near and long term. 

Oh, and one more thing. You should really love us because, with a name like Mitt, you could easily be one of the characters on our show....

Respectfully,

Big Bird