Are Liberals Just as Bad as Republicans When it Comes to Rhetoric and Spin on the Affordable Care Act?

No one's ever accused me of being a patsy for the Republican Party. To the contrary, I've been a staunch supporter of President Obama, Democrats and the liberal agenda. I've also loudly, vociferously and consistently criticized the GOP for driving a wedge into our political system with its self-serving, obstructionist tactics. But what I've been witnessing and personally experiencing this week regarding the Affordable Care Act controversy has me wondering if, in the end, liberals are no better than their conservative counterparts.

Talk to a passionate Democrat and they'll more than likely offer you this lofty opinion of themselves: "We're the smart ones. The rational and logical ones. The ones who care about others. We're better than they are." But are they? Perhaps Washington is broken not just because of Republicans, but because of Democrats as well. As the saying goes, it takes two to tango... and liberals have been dancin' up a storm this week. 

The liberal spin on the ACA mess is astounding, and mirrors the typical partisan tactics of the GOP. Let's start with how Democrats are giving Obama an inexplicable total pass on the bold, unequivocal promises he's made repeatedly about ACA:

"If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health-care plan, you'll be able to keep your health-care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what."

"And if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it.  No one will be able to take that away from you.  It hasn't happened yet.  It won't happen in the future."

Pretty clear, right? "Period...period...no matter what." Yet the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that 10-million Americans will be forced into policy cancellations by their current providers (because their current coverage doesn't meet the new ACA standards) and have to buy new, possibly more expensive policies from these same insurers or from the ACA exchanges. So are liberals--who'd typically be outraged by this kind of blatant lie, misrepresentation or incompetence from a Republican--demonstrating outrage and demanding accountability? No. Instead, they're spinning like mad. Like Republicans. They claim that the new insurance will be better. Maybe so. But that still doesn't mitigate or excuse "Period...period...no matter what."

Then there's the condescending spin that these existing policies are nothing more than "substandard, worthless plans." Again, maybe so. But Obama never said "If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan -- if we deem it to be adequate."

Perhaps the most egregious spin of all is this one: "Obama said if you like the plan you have you can keep it. He did not say if you like the plan you have they will keep you!" Really? This is the most fascinating parsing of words since the Bill Clinton days of "depends on what the definition of "is" is."

Self-righteous liberals now find themselves condescendingly lecturing people that they're too stupid to know that their current policies are dreadful and worthy of termination, and that they should in effect be thankful that these smarter liberals are forcing new, more expensive policies on them. To see liberals stoop to the same shameful, disingenuous spin levels of Republicans is quite disheartening.

It's been a rough week for ACA, Obama, and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and with good reason. Within the administration's ranks, the media, at Congressional hearings and on Main Street they've been skewering on the hot seat and have been forced to profusely apologize for the health care law's botched roll-out. Yet so many liberals are holding firm in their belief that ACA is perfect and wildly beneficial while summarily dismissing the opinions and experiences of others who may be negatively impacted by it. That makes them no better than the myopic, fanatical Tea Party "patriots" whom they loathe.

Yes, Washington is indeed broken, as so is the American electorate. People have become so angry, polarized and drunk on the party Kool-Aid that objectivity has all but disappeared. There's no middle ground anymore. No ability to appear or sound rational or logical. No right and wrong. Just red and blue.

To be sure, Obama could find the cure for cancer and most Republicans will criticize him for it while defending the overall merits of this dreaded disease. Similarly, Republicans could be 100% spot-on about something and most liberals will swiftly and summarily dismiss it simply because it comes from the right. It's become almost impossible to have an intelligent political conversation because most people can't objectively discuss a policy subject without injecting convoluted, hyperbolic partisan rhetoric.

These Republibs, as I call them, will practically call you a traitor if you don't toe the party line 100%. I had one old friend tell me yesterday that I "should vote Republican then" simply because I acknowledged ACA's flaws (despite being an ardent supporter of it) and suggested that Obama re-attempt a bi-partisan dialogue for the fix. Sadly, we live in a culture now where "compromise" and "objectivity" have become bad words.

Are Republicans Right About the Affordable Care Act?

The Affordable Care Act was ushered in with hyperbolic partisan fanfare, along with a bold promise from President Obama than anyone currently holding insurance would be able to keep their coverage and doctors, and that health care premiums would decrease not increase. But as we now know from the past several weeks, the rollout of ACA has been nothing short of a disaster. This includes the botched launch of the HealthCare.gov website; the fact that millions of people are receiving cancellation notices from their insurance companies; that premiums are, in many cases, increasing appreciably; that hardly anyone has been able to sign up for coverage, including, and especially, the 7-million young people needed to make guaranteed coverage work; to the likelihood that the deadlines for the individual mandate will probably need to be extended.

To say ACA’s problems have been an embarrassment for Obama is a colossal understatement. This is his signature law. He fought like an animal to have it legislated, adjudicated by the Supreme Court and affirmed in the 2012 presidential election against his opponent, Mitt Romney, who vociferously ran on its repeal. He then stood firm in the government shutdown showdown, sending House Republicans crawling back to their caucus room with their tails between their legs, their spirits broken and capitulating like the French army in WWII.

Obama now finds himself caught between a rock and a hard place, trying to deftly balance an appreciation for, and an acceptance of, his health care reform’s flaws while maintaining an upbeat, optimistic and steadfast defense of its ultimate merits and value. The president now promises a full website fix by November 30, a deadline which, even if met, would still present serious challenges in meeting enrollment deadlines.

Republicans have been demanding that heads roll, with Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius’s most notably on the chopping block. Putting aside partisan loyalties and/or bitterness, do they actually have a point here? Are they right about ACA after all? With new reports this week claiming that the administration knew years in advance that millions would be losing their coverage, is it time for Sebelius, and perhaps others, to finally go? And are we headed for another bloody Benghazi-like “What-did-he-know-and-when-did-he-know-it” witch hunt? Is the GOP justified in pursuing an intensified investigation into the program’s and the administration’s failures?

Perhaps it’s time for Obama to put his tail between his legs, admit monumental tactical and process failure, and attempt to start over with the full cooperation of both House and Senate Republicans. To be sure, ACA is not going away. It will become as bedrock an entitlement program as Social Security, Medicare and the Prescription Drug Plan. But at this point, and with each passing day, it’s becoming abundantly clear that it needs an overhaul, and a bi-partisan one at that, if it’s ever going to work successfully.

The Tea Party Hates Obama Because He's Black

The examples are plentiful: Rep. Joe Wilson shouting "You Lie!" to President Obama from the House Chamber. Rep. Ted Yoho (FL) responding with "I'm not gonna comment" when asked if Obama's a "born American." Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) saying he doesn't want to be associated with Obama because "it's like touching a tar baby." Rep. Kerry Bentivolio (R-MI) telling supporters "I stood 12 feet away from the guy, and couldn't stand being there." Or Sen. Dick Durbin recalling how a high-level Republican leader told the president "I can't even stand to look at you" at a recent White House meeting. And then there was Newt Gingrich's bizarre statement that we can only begin to comprehend Obama's actions if we understand "Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior." Do I even need to bring up Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, Rush Limbaugh and other Republican leaders?

What does all this point to? A visceral hatred of Obama because he's black. Anyone who refutes this charge is either a racist themselves, monumentally naive, in supreme denial or all of the above. The Tea Party, and even many "mainstream" Republicans I'm sure, are sickened by the fact that a black man lives in the White House. With his black wife. And black children. These are bigoted people who grew up in an America where the only black people walking around the White House were servants. They're disgusted, angry, resentful and frustrated that a black man is the most powerful person in the world; a job that's been reserved for whites since the birth of America.

To be sure, the crippling polarization in Washington isn't a result of typical partisan differences. It goes so much deeper than that. It's rooted in an unprecedented level of bitterness, disrespect and the belief that Obama is neither American nor a legitimately elected president. They can't stand to be near him, or to talk with him, because, to them, he's no more qualified to be leader of the free world than the guy who shines their shoes at DC's Union Station.

Which is why they will never support anything he does, even if he discovers a cure for cancer. Which is why they quite calculatingly branded the Affordable Care Act "Obamacare." If you hate Obama, you gotta hate Obamacare, right? To them this law is nothing more than a black guy giving away hard-earned white money to poor, lazy blacks. And Obamacare is a sly symbol of that racial animus.

The blatant racism in America today is ugly. It's shameful. It's embarrassing. And it sure as hell exists.

The GOP Shutdown: One of the Worst Blunders in Political History

The radical Tea Party faction of the Republican Party last year hatched an ill-fated plan to kill the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which it has derisively coined Obamacare. In the end, what it couldn't achieve legislatively, judicially and electorally it tried desperately to achieve through extortion: holding America and the world economy hostage by threatening and then forcing a government shutdown and bringing the country to brink of default on its debt.

This utterly misguided war was recklessly commandeered by de-facto Speaker of of the House Sen. Ted Cruz who, while uber-marginalizing the Speaker-in-name-only John Boehner, manically poured ideological fuel on the flames of the House crazies' obsession and delusion. But the demands fell on deaf ears. President Obama refused to negotiate on his signature health care reform and held firm like a rock.

When attempts to defund ACA failed, these rabid right-wingers sought a 12-month delay. Then a repeal of the Medical Device Tax. Then a ludicrous attempt to force the First Family and congressmen to buy insurance from the ACA exchanges. When all that failed the big capitulation came, as Obama stood tall while Cruz, Boehner, Eric Cantor and the rest of The Obstructionists slinked back into their holes carrying nothing but their broken spirits. The Senate unanimously (82-18) voted to re-open the government and raise the debt ceiling, a bill which the neutered Boehner finally put to a House vote, handing an historically humiliating defeat to the GOP.

As Sen. John McCain lamented: "Republicans have to understand we have lost this battle, as I predicted weeks ago, that we would not be able to win because we were demanding something that was not achievable."

Similarly, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was asked when he first knew this cockamamie scheme would fail. "We had extensive discussions in July about how the defund strategy couldn't possibly succeed." Admitting the toll this debacle has taken on his party, he frustratingly vowed that there'd be no more government shutdowns. "One of my favorite old Kentucky sayings is there's no education in the second kick of a mule." 

What's astonishing is that what was so abundantly clear to GOP Senators was completely lost on their over-energized, under-strategized House counterparts. Logic, reason and maturity came from just one chamber. If Congress were a restaurant, House Republicans would be sitting at the kids' table.             

In the end, this embarrassingly botched strategy will surely go down as one of the most colossal miscalculations ever by a political party. Republicans were so rapacious and fanatical in their quest to kill or delay ACA that they actually missed one of the best opportunities to kill or delay ACA. Given all the technical glitches with the healthcare.gov website, which has resulted in an embarrassingly plagued roll-out of the program, all the Tea Party loons needed to do was let the program define itself. But they acted like a bunch of spoiled rich kids who couldn't get their way and made the shutdown the only thing anyone talked about. They could've instead been sitting at their mahogany desks these past three weeks basking in ACA's botched launch. "See? We told you Obamacare's a failure!"

To be sure, there was a huge opportunity cost to Operation Shutdown. The GOP now has the lowest approval ratings in its history as it heads into the critical 2014 mid-term election cycle. Cruz took the party down a no-win path. He lacked vision and an end-goal. The Republican brand is now more tarnished, the party more fractured, than ever and he is squarely to blame. The Tea Party's irrational, irresponsible, reprehensible self-serving quest has been an affront to every American. It was an unnecessary waste of time and taxpayer money, and a shameful abuse of our legislative system, a snub at the Supreme Court and a disgraceful disrespect of the U.S. presidency.

Once again, in what has become a predictable inability to help itself, the Republican Party drove off a cliff, demonstrating an astonishing disconnect not just from the needs of average Americans, but from reality. Politico reports that Obama on October 2 asked Boehner why he shut down the government. "I got overrun," he said. If the future-ex-Speaker feels this way now, just wait till after next year's election.

A Conversation with Ted Cruz

To Democrats and moderate Republicans, Ted Cruz is akin to the Antichrist...a demonic, destructive, self-aggrandizing maniac who just might destroy the global economy and the GOP in one fell Obamacare-hating swoop. But to right-wing extremists and Tea Party loyalists, he's a modern day Samuel Adams; a true American patriot and hero whose I-don't-give-a-fuck attitude makes them swoon more than Sarah Palin.

But there's something on which both sides can agree: Cruz is an enigma.  How is that this first-year Senator from Texas with the puppy-dog eyes and cartoon voice, who catapulted to overnight international infamy, has become the most feared man in Washington on both sides of the aisle?

And so I've imagined the following chat with the man so many people love to hate:  

Ostroy: Sen. Cruz, Might I congratulate you on being the first Senator to be hated by both Democrats and most Republicans.

Cruz: Why thank you! I've been working very hard to achieve that unique distinction.

Ostroy: Most people attribute the government shutdown and the looming debt-ceiling crisis almost exclusively to you. How and why have you gotten yourself into what Jon Stewart refers to as this colossal "Shutstorm?"

Cruz: It's all because of Obamacare. I've been one of the very few to aggressively oppose this welfare-state program which is destroying America.

Ostroy: "Destroying America?" Senator, that's a pretty dire, hyperbolic accusation. Can you please tell us exactly how Obamacare is destroying the country?

Cruz: No, I can't. Sorry.

Ostroy: What do you mean? You just made a broad-stroke attack on President Obama's signature health care reform. Was that just calculated fiery rhetoric?

Cruz: Yes, that's exactly what it is. You got me! Sounds good though, huh?!

Ostroy: You've said Obamacare is a disaster, and pointed to the recent problems--computer glitches and such--since its October 1st launch as proof that it's a failure.

Cruz: That's correct. There are millions and millions of people who've flocked to that website only to find that they couldn't access it. Couldn't even get online to get info or to register. So yes, it's an unmitigated disaster.

Ostroy: You're summarily dismissing the program's long-term merits and value because of near-term, temporary computer glitches? That seems terribly myopic. If "failure" is defined as initial website problems, will you then concede it's a success if, say, a month from now the site's easily accessible and millions of uninsured Americans have signed up?

Cruz: Er....um....hey, how about those Cowboys!  But seriously, listen to the American people. They're telling you they don't like or want Obamacare. 

Ostroy: But what about those "millions and millions" you say who've been "flocking" to the site? As Stephen Colbert joked, "Too many people signing up is always the surest sign that nobody wants it." You realize your contention about what Americans want makes no sense, right?

Cruz: I do. Got me again! Dang, you're good!

Ostroy: And speaking of not making any sense, you're now calling for Obamacare's individual mandate to be voluntary. Voluntary mandate. Senator, you're starting to sound like Palin now. Do you realize how oxymoronic that is?

Cruz: Are you calling me a moron? The American people don't like that.

Ostroy: Let's talk about your visit this past weekend to the World War II Memorial in DC. You were protesting the site's shutdown, blaming it on Democrats who you, Palin and others accuse of causing the government shutdown. Isn't that a bit disingenuous Senator?

Cruz: It is.

Ostroy: Isn't that a patently false accusation in fact?

Cruz: You betchya! Oh, sorry. You hang around with that ditzy broad long enough you begin to sound like her!

Ostroy: You do acknowledge the fact that it is Tea Party Republicans in the House, led by your troop-rallying and sabre-rattling, that's responsible for it all, don't you? 

Cruz: Hell yeah! Why do you think I'm smiling all the time? I've been smiling more than Eric Cantor through this whole game!       

Ostroy: But that's just it, Sen. Cruz. It's not a game. 800,000 people have lost their jobs. Military families have lost benefits. Sick children can't get medical treatment. Our fragile economic recovery risks being hurled back into recession. The global financial markets could face catastrophic consequences.

Cruz: SHUT the front door! Really? I, er, um,...I....

Ostroy: America's standing in the world is being tarnished. We're an embarrassment overseas. The full faith and credit of the United States is being pathetically played by you and your henchmen like a bad poker hand. Do you have any idea what you're....

Cruz: ...I'm truly sorry, I....

Ostroy: ...doing to America? You're pissing on the Constitution, on the presidency, on Democracy...

Cruz: You're right. Jeez, you're so right. Excuse me for a moment. Betty...get me Speaker Boehner on the phone right away....!

Republican Terrorism

Consider this: a radical, militant organization commits threatening acts which place the United States on security lock-down. Or perhaps they hack into Wall Street's vast, intricate computer network, sending the stock markets and banking system into chaotic panic. Or they make hostile demands which, if not met, could bring down our financial system and the global economy.  We'd unequivocally label these acts terrorism. So why shouldn't we  consider the Republican Party's similar acts of extortion of the past week terrorism?

The GOP, and in particular its radical Tea Party faction led by "House Speaker" Sen. Ted Cruz and his second-banana Rep. John Boehner, has stopped the wheels of Democracy from turning by taking the government hostage over its obsessive, all-consuming hatred of President Obama and his signature health care reform, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which they've derisively named Obamacare. Never mind that ACA is standing law which passed both houses of Congress, has been signed by the president, challenged and upheld in the Supreme Court and reaffirmed in 2012 by voters who re-elected the man responsible for it while summarily rejecting his challenger who opposed it.

Make no mistake: holding a gun to Obama's head while shutting the government unless he caves in to their demand of de-funding or delaying ACA is not just "treasonous," as former Labor Secretary Robert Reich called it, but a despicable act of terrorism. The GOP is holding the American government, economy, people and political process hostage and, with the October 17th debt-ceiling deadline rapidly approaching, the threat of default has put the full faith and credit of the U.S. at grave risk. That this terrorism is domestic, and comes from within the Beltway, doesn't make it any less terrorism. It just makes it more shameful and unconscionable.

Republicans have irresponsibly and reprehensibly put party before country, using and abusing the levers of government in an ideological feeding-frenzy after forty-three failed attempts at killing ACA. And now with the government shut and ten days away from defaulting on its financial obligations, the economic impact could be "catastrophic," according to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew.

"I'm telling you that on the 17th, we run out of our ability to borrow, and Congress is playing with fire," Lew warned.

The House's suit-clad terrorists could end this unprecedented, apocalyptic standoff by voting on a clean continuing resolution which would immediately re-open the government and serve as the framework for reaching a debt-ceiling deal. Obama and Congressional leaders claim the CR would pass with bi-partisan support. But Boehner refuses to allow the measure to reach the floor.

"The votes are not in the House to pass a clean debt limit," the neutered Speaker said. 

Boehner won't allow a vote because he knows it'll pass. Though he more than likely would like to call a vote. But unfortunately these traitorous rebels are holding Boehner hostage as well. They've strapped him behind the wheel of the GOP crazy-bus, on Cruz Control, and sent him driving the party off a cliff.

The Republican version of Suicide Bombing

A person walks into a foreign

cafe, a disco or a bus with explosives strapped to his or her body. In a flash there's horrific carnage and, soon after, a proud claim of responsibility by a fanatical group...all in the name of a heated cause which the violence is designed to further. But in the end this irrational, delusional, self-destructive act typically leaves a dead suicide bomber, innocent people killed and wounded, and a worsening, not a fix, of the root problem. That's what House Republicans, in particular the radical Tea Party faction, have done by shutting down the United States government. It's political terrorism at its worst.

All because they hate Obamacare, officially known as the Affordable Care Act (ACA), more than they hate the president himself. And they hate their view of the 'welfare state,' a stomach-turning landscape where their hard-earned money is being used, or more so abused, to subsidize the needs of a lazy, shiftless mostly minority poor and middle class. So they refuse to pass an appropriations bill, threaten not to raise the debt-ceiling by the October 17th deadline, and in effect close the country. The collateral damage from this unconscionable behavior is being felt by everyone from the 800,000 furloughed government workers, to the National Guard and Reserves, and to the children who cannot get cancer treatment at the National Institute of Health.

Additionally, many intelligence and counter-terrorism experts, including Rep. Peter King (R-NY), former chairman and current member of the Homeland Security Committee, and James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, said the shutdown has threatened America's security. A risk, Clapper said, which "will accumulate over time."

These "wacko birds," as Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has called grandstanding Tea Party poster-boy Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), apparently do not believe in Democracy and think they have a right to hold America's economy hostage--putting a gun to President Obama's head--by demanding the repeal or delay of his signature health care reform which has been passed by Congress, upheld by the Supreme Court, and re-affirmed in the last election by voters...who chose Obama over his repeal-obsessed rival Mitt Romney (whose health care reform in Massachusetts while he was governor, by the way, was the Heritage Foundation-created model ultimately used as a basis for Obamacare).  
  
"They won't even negotiate," charges House Speaker John Boehner and other conservative leaders. But that accusation is patently untrue. Obama and Democrats have conceded on single-payer, the public option, a one-year delay in the business requirement of ACA, and an agreement to adopt 100% of the cuts and spending in the $988-billion budget Republicans have sought (essentially, the Paul Ryan budget). As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and others have said, the GOP's too stupid to accept 'yes.' Nothing can or will satisfy these right-wing loons, as the current fight is not over spending and cuts, but of their intense loathing of Obamacare and their unrelenting obsession with destroying it. 

"We've got divided government," Boehner said Wednesday following a nearly 90-minute meeting with Obama and Democratic leaders. No, Mr. Speaker, what we have is a divided GOP. Can't we bring back the good old days when Republicans were just a bunch of angry, rich, white elitist obstructionists instead of the certifiablyinsane, angry rich, white elitist obstructionists who rule your House today? Boehner lamented that what's happening in Washington right now, the seemingly impenetrable gridlock, is not the governance America's Forefathers intended. To be sure, our Forefathers did not envision a government in which one disgruntled party, obsessed over the majority's signature legislation which they've failed to repeal forty-three times, brings our nation and the global economy to the brink of financial disaster.

Republicans have pointed to Tuesday's computer glitches, caused by an onslaught of exchange website visits once ACA went into effect, is proof positive that the program's a disaster. And they're maintaining their claim that their fight is on behalf of the American people. That they're "listening" to the "overwhelming majority" who dislike Obamacare and want it defunded.  Right. As Stephen Colbert noted, “Too many people signing up is always the surest sign that nobody wants it.”

An Open Letter to House Republicans

Dear House Republicans:

Well, ya done did it. You shut down the government. Congratulations! Although I'm not exactly sure for what. But let me take a stab at it.

Maybe it's because you don't think the Republican Party is irrelevant enough. Or maybe it's because you want to speed up your complete obsolescence. Perhaps it's because you think your 10% approval rating is too high. Or maybe it's because you want to prove to Newt Gingrich that you're more reckless, irresponsible and crazier than he was back in '95. Or maybe you're all just too stupid to understand the economic implications of your unconscionable behavior. My guess? It's all of the above.

Celebratory cries of "Yay!" and "Yippee!" could be heard throughout the Republican caucus at midnight last night as Speaker John Boehner turned into an even bigger pumpkin. But let's be clear: this is no Cinderella story. There's no Prince Charming to save the day.

So now what, geniuses? Do you realize that the "Obama" of "Obamacare" is never going to throw his signature health care reform under the GOP bus? You do realize that you're at an impossible impasse, don't you? That you've boxed yourselves into a humiliating corner from which there is no way out except retreat? Have you thought of all this? Please tell us you've thought of all this. Because if you haven't then, yes, your brains have been marinating in crazy sauce.

It wasn't enough for you to be the most ineffective, do-nothing Congress in history. You had to attempt to overturn standing law by attaching your ideological insanity to a spending bill; law which makes your blood boil because you see it as little more than an arrogant black man using your hard-earned rich-white-folk-money to give free shit to a bunch of poor, lazy, shiftless blacks and Hispanics. Be honest. Just more welfare, right?

But I have some news for you. This isn't just about the poor or minorities. There's millions of middle-class people. White people too who desperately need health care. Who need help. Who want guaranteed coverage. Who are happy not to have lifetime caps. Who will no longer worry about being denied coverage over preexisting conditions. Who want to keep their adult children to age 26 on their policies. And guess what? Many of them are Republican. And Independents. And they live in your districts. And they vote. And they'll remember you in 2014 come election time. Together with their black and Hispanic brethren they'll remember how you acted like spoiled, angry, self-serving children who didn't give a rat's ass about them or America's fragile economy.

Remember the old adage: Be careful what you wish for.

An Open Letter to John Boehner

Dear Speaker Boehner:

Before I rip into you I must first admit that I do feel a little sorry for you. On the cusp of a likely Tea Party-led government shutdown at midnight Monday, you appear as feeble as the helpless substitute teacher unable to control the rowdy, disruptive kids in the back off the class. Like that classroom, your House has been hijacked by the bad kids. And there's nothing you seem to be able to do about it.

And that's just the problem. You are Speaker of the f'ing House, for Pete's sake. You're supposed to be the strongest, most powerful, influential figure in that Chamber. Instead, you're as impotent as a neutered mutt in a dog run. I'm not sure what's worse: the reckless, irresponsible antics of your renegade Congressmen who are hellbent on destroying America's economy because of their hard-on to kill Obamacare, or your humiliating lack of juice in keeping them in check. Either way, I blame you.

You and your party apparently have forgotten what Democracy means. The Affordable Care Act, or more pejoratively branded Obamacare by the right-wing spin machine, has been legislated, adjudicated and signed into law by a sitting United States president. It's been signature law since March 2010, and was a referendum in several elections. In 2012 voters were given a clear choice between the incumbent president who created this law and the Republican challenger who largely ran on repealing it. And Americans spoke, sending Mitt Romney back to sulk in his thirteen homes. What part of this democratic process don't you and your party understand? You don't get to call "do-overs" by extorting the process and holding America's economy hostage. Quite frankly, it's unconscionable that your members are careening towards shutting down the government tonight, and worse, threatening to send the U.S. into default on October 17th in the debt ceiling stand-off. You all should be ashamed of yourselves.                

What's also despicable, and hugely disingenuous, is the political rhetoric you guys are spewing. On the Sunday talks shows your talking heads accused Democrats of being the ones seeking a government shutdown, not you. You cited the revised "compromise" bill the House sent the Senate Saturday. Ya know, the laughable one where Obamacare wasn't defunded, but tabled for a year (and also stripped of the medical device tax which would be used to help pay for it). Predictably, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said screw off and we'll see ya Monday at 2pm.  You weasels cried foul: 'See?! We're the ones compromising, and Dems won't even talk to us!'

Your idea of "compromise" is a joke. Modifying a ludicrously unrealistic, impassable bill to make it slightly less ludicrous and impassable is not a "compromise." If I demand the deed to your house and then the next day said, "Ok, I will only live there 50% of the time," that doesn't make me a compromiser. It actually makes me just as ridiculous. If Reid didn't come back to the "negotiating" table it doesn't mean Democrats are disrespecting the process. It just means you and your "compromise" are a colossal insult to them and every American and Reid won't dignify it, or you, by showing up to such an outrageously offensive charade.

I'm incredulous that you guys think you could load up your "revised compromise" bill with, literally, your party's entire platform... which voters have already soundly rejected. I swear, I think I even saw a demand that Ted Nugent be inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Are you people insane?           

Wait, there's more. You guys cited how "hard" you've been working all weekend while Obama played golf and Dems didn't even show up to work Sunday. "He talks to Iran and Putin, but won't talk to Republicans." Yeah, there's a very good reason for that, and it's quite disturbing: unbelievably, Iran and Putin have been acting more sane than you lunatics!

And then there's the outright lies. The ones like "People are going to lose their existing coverage." Again, shame on you. You know darn well that Obamacare only applies to those currently without health care. It doesn't apply to those currently insured unless they choose to seek cheaper options on the federal and state exchanges.

Or how about this lie: "Obamacare is the biggest job killer;" that American business are only hiring part-timers because they don't want to have to cover full-time employees. Seriously? Or is it that American corporations (who are earning record profits, by the way) aren't hiring because productivity levels are the highest they've been in ages following the massive layoffs from the recession. Why hire more people when you can get the job done with less?  

And this one's my favorite, from Sen. Ted Cruz, the chief flame-thrower in the repeal movement and the man who gives you raging hemorrhoids: "The American people overwhelmingly reject Obamacare. They understand it's not working." Funny,  Obamacare doesn't start until tomorrow.

Ya know what, Mr. Speaker? I actually don't feel sorry for you anymore. That you've humiliatingly ceded control of your House to Cruz and his Tea Party henchmen makes you inept and not worthy of your leadership position. But there's still a few hours to change all that. The ball's in your court...

Why They Hate Obamacare So Much

Shut it down!! Shut it down!! Shut it down!!

Republican leaders from House Speaker John Boehner to whip Eric Cantor are threatening to shut down the government unless a resolution passes which keeps it afloat and defunds Obamacare. Clearly, the only thing these rapacious obstructionists hate more than Obama himself is his health care reform.

What it's clearly boiled down to is that Republicans are possessed by an overpowering psychological compulsion to repeal Obamacare even at great cost and harm to America and the GOP despite forty-one previously failed legislative attempts to do so. And now they can't stop. It's about raging, venomous, unprecedented partisan ego and out-of-control anger. The hope for logical, rational, country-first thinking has been decidedly killed off by a macro dose of hostility, resentment and fear; fear that Americans will ultimately grow to love Obamacare once they get a taste...and that there'll be no turning back. 

What I suspect also drives some of these rabid repealers is an unhealthy measure of racial animus. There are many on the right who still cannot get over their visceral disgust that a black man and his family are occupying the White House (it's called White House for a reason)...but it's Obamacare which really gets them frothing at the mouth. Ton them Obamacare translates to a black man taking hard-working rich white-folk money to give free shit to poor, lazy blacks.

But as reprehensible as the GOP's hate-campaign is, the level of ineptitude coming from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is even more disturbing. It's unforgivable how Obama and the administration have failed so miserably at conveying to average Americans the inherent value of his Affordable Care Act. Rather than falling in love with Obamacare, as they do their Social Security and Medicare, 53% actuallydisapprove of it. That Obama's allowed Republicans to frame the debate with incendiary, over-the-top rhetoric (Cantor claims it will have "horrific effects" on middle class families; Boehner calls it a "train wreck") is beyond comprehension. The most beneficial government program since the New Deal has somehow been turned into an apocalyptic nightmare. Incredibly, guaranteed insurance, no lifetime caps, no rejections for pre-existing conditions and the ability to keep children up to 26 on the family plan are perceived as a bad thingby more than half the country. 

The ultimate failure is that President Barack "Grand Bargain" Obama's been too busy these past five years kissing Republicans' asses, deluding himself into thinking he can achieve bi-partisan harmony in Washington while being embarrassingly oblivious to the realty that these same lawmakers hate his guts and everything he stands for. They have one unabated goal: to undermine him, his agenda and his legacy at every possible turn. And regarding his legacy, Obamacare will likely be what the president is remembered for most (aside from the historic significance that he's the first black president): that he had the vision for it, yet woefully lacked the skills and balls to sell it.

Dr Mr. Putin: How Dare You?

Dear Mr. Putin:
I read your NY Times op-ed Thursday. I have two questions for you: how dare you, and, what the hell were you thinking?

But I must admit, for about a nanosecond or two I thought, Damn, the guy's making a lot of sense here. As Elvis Costello wrote, 'What's so funny about peace, love and understanding'... right?

"We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement," you wrote. You discussed the deterioration of U.S.-Russian relations, but noted "we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together."

But then just as quickly, the realities of the man behind the pen kicked into overdrive and I found myself literally saying out loud on a crowded subway train... Is he fucking kidding?! And then I realized that your piece was no joke, but rather a cool, calculated, duplicitous bit of political propaganda from an icy, manipulative, self-serving former KGB operative who smells a self-aggrandizing opportunity to advance his heretofore shitty standing on the world stage.

Jeez, Vlad, you head a country that places a higher value on ugly-ass '80's Bill Cosby sweaters than the rights of homosexuals. How dare you?

You think that Americans want or need a sermon from you on democracy, diplomacy, morality, faith, militarism and exceptionalism? You know what's truly exceptional? Your delusional, self-important rant and your belief that you have even a microscopic amount of credibility and respectability among the same U.S. citizens whom you hope and expect to impress and persuade with your disingenuous plea for civility and peace.

With your cold-war-era policies and matching steely personality, you support terrorists, you arm our enemies, you give asylum to our criminals and you consistently vote against us in the very United Nations you repeatedly cite as the arbiter of all things good and just. How dare you?

And speaking of the UN, that errant bastion of international law and diplomacy, which you hold in such high esteem, it has been an irrelevant, impotent, Jew-hating, terrorist-supporting embarrassment for decades. You write that "No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage." Might I inform you that that moment of obsolescence arrived may years ago, and not just because of any lack of leverage per se, but more so over a woeful lack of credibility, civility, rationale and fairness. You and your friends in China, the Middle East and elsewhere have turned its General Assembly and Security Council into a disreputable, mystifyingly inept, ineffective circus.

"My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust," you incredulously claimed. Really? This statement alone is an outlandish affront to every American, and one which clearly demonstrates the alternate universe in which you apparently live.

So spare us the self-righteous, sanctimonious pontificating. It's been a long, long time since we joined hands, arms and values to fight the Nazis. Sadly, your country has driven off a political, diplomatic and moral cliff since then. We'll continue to do just fine without ya.

Regarding your shamefully exploitative attempt to selfishly soar to moral high-ground in America's newspaper of record, you don't believe a single word you wrote nor do we... 

Republicans, Please Impeach Obama

There's a contingency of Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives which seeks to impeach President Obama. I hope they succeed. Not because I am anti-Obama or sympathize with them on any conceivable level, but because such an action, if successful, would sound the death knell for the GOP.

With an embarrassingly low approval rating hovering in the mid single-digits, and with the party's overall image, brand and relevance in crisis mode, Republicans would seal their long-term obsolescence with such a self-serving, venomous partisan witch hunt while surely boosting Obama's political standing and currency (read: Bill Clinton).

Impeachment proceedings, legislated as punishment for cases involving High Crimes and Misdemeanors not as debilitating, resource-draining ideological retribution, would unequivocally prove to voters that the GOP's been hijacked by a paralyzed cabal of enraged, sore-losing malcontents whose unprecedented hostility towards the president is a brain-cell-eating disease that's rendered them rationally and intellectually impotent on the major issues confronting the nation such as the economy, employment, immigration, education and the environment.

As former Speaker Newt Gingrich can attest, Republicans would likely spend the next ten to twenty years or more (as these self-proclaimed "revolutionaries" did after Clinton's impeachment) in the political doghouse, watching enviously and regrettably as Democrats build another secular bull-run.

But fortunately for these rabid impeachment-chasers, including Sen. Tom Coburn (OK), Sen. James Inhofe (OK), Rep. Kerry Bentivolio (MI), Rep. Jason Chaffetz (UT) and Sen. Ted Cruz (TX), articles of impeachment, if drafted, would likely never make it through the House, and even if it did, would surely be killed in the Senate.

To be sure, one could argue that, given their unyielding political strategy of polarization and obstructionism, the real treasonous behavior is that which has been perpetrated daily since January 2009 by House and Senate Republicans, who at any and all cost to America, have put party before country as they seek to thwart Obama's agenda and ultimately bring down his presidency.

Boycott Shmoycott

The Republican National Committee voted last week to boycott presidential primary debates held by television networks NBC and CNN if they continue with productions of a Hillary Clinton mini-series and documentary respectively. Yes, the party that gave us what felt like 842 debates in the 2012 primaries has decided to limit its participation this time to Fox News and possibly ABC and CBS.

And why? Because the GOP angrily charges that these productions will be "puff pieces," "extended infomercials" and a "thumb on the scales" in the upcoming 2016 presidential election for which Clinton is the presumed Democratic frontrunner. "Political ads masked as unbiased entertainment," the RNC draft resolution claims.

"We're done putting up with this nonsense," said RNC Chairman Reince Priebus. "There are plenty of other outlets. We'll still reach voters, maybe more voters. But CNN and NBC anchors will just have to watch on their competitors' networks. The media overplayed their hand this time."

Seems Priebus has finally figured out that the GOP stands a better chance of winning elections if it stops its candidates from actually speaking. And considering the last crop of GOP hopefuls, keeping these boneheads out of debates and off of mainstream television screens seems to be making more sense as well.   

But the RNC's position here is puzzling and counter-intuitive. For on thing, the results of the last election demonstrate a dire need by the GOP to expand its reach among voters not contract it. Shrinking its audience to largely Fox News does little to help broaden its base. The party's message (whatever that is) must be heard by more than the rabid conservatives watching Fox if its ever to rebuild its brand and expand its tent.  

Limiting its audience punishes the lesser-known, under-financed candidates who need as much free air-time as possible. What the party would be left with is a select group of elitists who have the visibility, name-recognition and wealth to fuel their own campaigns outside of the debate arena. 

The GOP, ironically, also runs the risk of having its debates themselves viewed as infomercials. Imagine a Republican debate, on Fox, and moderated by the likes of Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh (as the party wants). Who but the red-meat-gorging Foxies would want to watch that softball-filled farce?

Most perplexing is that Priebus is crying foul without even knowing the ultimate content of these productions; programs, mind you, which Clinton herself has said she prefers not be aired. Apparently she doesn't think hours of rehashed Bill/Monica, Hillary/Obama campaign drama (including charges of racist comments by her and Bill), Benghazi and more would amount to a free "infomercial" for her campaign. And she's right. It's reasonable to expect that both productions could dredge up enough semi-dormant Clinton controversy to negatively impact her. So for the RNC to go absolutely RepubliBonkers over programming which it knows little about seems monumentally ill-advised.   

Lastly, the RNC's actions really aren't much of a surprise. For years now, Republicans have attempted to subvert America's democratic election process in any way they can....limiting the public's access to candidates and disenfranchising voters. This strategy runs so counter to what previous elections have taught them. It's become truly fascinating to watch the GOP implode despite all it knows it needs to do to turn around its disastrous fate. Republicans simply can't help themselves.

In the end, Priebus' lame-stream media paranoia serves no purpose other than to fire up an already blazing base. It's an embarrassing waste of time and energy which will yield nothing. If NBC and CNN ultimately sponsor debates and extend invitations to the Republican candidates, you can be sure these media-hungry carnival barkers will take their desired place at the podium.

John McCain is a Liberal?

I was at the gym early this morning and overheard a small group of men and women talking politics in between sets.

"A Hillary/Palin match-up...now that's what I want to see!," one woman excitedly declared, although I got the sense she was simply teasing the others.

"Yeah, she's the real deal," echoed a beefy man in his 50's, clearly quite serious.

Then I heard something that stopped me mid-chin-up.

"I was gonna vote for McCain last time, mainly because of Palin, but changed my mind because he's a liberal," a 40-something guy said.

"Really?," asked the woman. "McCain's a liberal?" Incredulous, I muttered the same question to myself.

"Yup, calls himself a Republican, but he's nothing but a liberal," he said with utter disdain.

And that, my friends, is why the Republican Party as we know it is dead. When its constituents start referring to Sen. John McCain as a liberal you know the GOP bus has officially careened off the cliff.

Let's just visit McCain's record for a second, because perspective and context here is critical. He's a fiscal and military hawk. He voted for the Iraq war, pushed for the surge, and currently seems to want to invade every rogue country in the world. He supports lower taxes for individuals and corporations. He's pro-gun, anti-Obamacare, against gay marriage, is anti-choice and against public funding of abortion-related programs. He's even fairly vague on the subject of immigration. While he supports a two-step process of beefed up border security and overall reforms, it's hard to tell where he truly stands on the actual fate of the nation's 13-million undocumented citizens. And let's not forget he's the Dr. Frankenstein to Sarah Palin's, well, Frankenstein.

Welcome to 2013 Republican politics, where Tea Party crazies rule the day and former conservative icons like Ronald Regan, Bob Dole and Jack Kemp couldn't get themselves elected if they offered to pay for votes. We now live in an age of rabid extremism; a political climate that allows for hard-core, longstanding conservatives like former Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar to be tossed from office for not being conservative enough...and for hard-core conservatives like McCain to be labeled liberal. The GOP's no longer a political party. It's now a cabal led by the likes of Palin, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and other conservakooks.

Compromise has become a filthy, dirty, stinkin' word. Republicans who attempt to meet Democrats halfway, even a quarter way, are attacked for being caving sellouts of "real" conservative values. Gone is the first rule of negotiating: no one can get everything they want, all the time.

Yes, welcome to modern day Republicanism. A perfect storm of Tea Party furor, ignorance and intolerance. Where candidates can surely get themselves elected on ideological absolutism, rabble-rousing rhetoric and fire and brimstone...but fail to get anything accomplished legislatively because it takes compromise to pass bills in Washington.

To be sure, sanity has left the building. Monomania has taken over. What the party stands for today is a far cry from the days of Reagan, Kemp, Dole, Alan Simpson and other ardent right-wingers who somehow managed to do their jobs and pass bi-partisan legislation. It's no longer the party of small government and low taxes. To be a Republican today, or more so a successful Republican, you have to preach to the lowest common denominator. You must be anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-poor, anti-minority, anti-women, anti-gun-control, anti-environment, anti-education, anti-science and anti-empathy...while, ironically and hypocritically, preaching the gospel of the good Lord.

With 'young turks' like Cruz, Rubio and Paul leading the GOP charge it all but ensures the party's further and deeper slide into irrelevance and ultimate oblivion.  

Maureen Dowd is Wrong About Reince Being Right

In her New York Times op-ed Wednesday columnist Maureen Dowd writes "Reince Priebus says a lot of goofy things, but the chairman of the Republican National Committee has a point." She's referring to Priebus's latest diatribe in which he's accused NBC and CNN of being in the tank for Hillary Clinton, providing her with "puff pieces" and "extended commercials" through their planned mini-series and documentary respectively.

"Hillary tries awkwardly to airbrush her history, but everybody can use some professional help," Dowd continues. "By the time Hollywood is finished, Hillary could be fighting critics with the sexy charm and kickboxing skills of Catwoman."

So Priebus has his panties in a snit because he thinks, as Dowd suggests, that in these productions Clinton will come off looking like a super-human political goddess. But there are those who will argue that the former First Lady, U.S. Senator, Secretary of State and likely 2016 presidential candidate has as much, and maybe more, to lose by the films as she does to gain.

Let's remember one thing: while Hillary is wildly popular with the Democratic base, she's a veritable lightening rod with everyone else. She narrowly won the popular vote against Barack Obama in the 2008 Democratic primaries with 48%, and many of the 47% who voted for him can't stand her. Her approval rating has dropped 12% since last year (she's taken hits with men, independents and Republicans) and polls show that she's virtually even in head-to-head match-ups against each of the likely Republican candidates. She's certainly no shoe-in. 

Consider the controversies and scandals Hillary's been a part of, either directly or through her husband and former president Bill Clinton. There's TravelGate, Whitewater and the mystery shrouding White House staffer Vince Foster's death; the infamous "stand by your man" comments during the Monica Lewinsky affair; what some called racially insensitive comments by Bill and Hillary during the '08 campaign; and the Benghazi debacle. None of these moments from Hillary's past would benefit her to be showcased on television, and I suspect she's as pissed off about NBC and CNN's planned programming as Priebus.

While Dowd cites the television movie "Game Change" and how Julianne Moore's Emmy-winning performance cemented Sarah Palin's reputation as a bona fide dumbbell, the bigger point, and contradiction, is that Moore's radiant beauty did little to transform Palin's ignorance into "sexy charm." The movie only held a mirror up to the Wasilla Wonder and she did all the rest.

As for Priebus, he should stop whining like a 12-year-old about what the so-called liberal media does or doesn't do for Hillary Clinton. Let him call Rupert Murdoch and ask Fox Television to make all the movies they want about the Republican candidates. The trouble is, Murdoch's a fantastic businessman. He's not going to invest in films no one will want to see about people no one cares about.

WeinerGate 2.0: The Misadventures of Carlos Danger

He arrogantly used the pseudonym Carlos Danger as he trolled the Internet looking for high-risk, no-actual-sex sexual encounters with college-age women. With a few bold keystrokes and even bolder penis pics, he engaged in uber-graphic erotic chatter that would make a porn star blush. Of course, we're talking about New York City mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner, whose 2011 sexting scandal cost him his Congressional seat, a whole heap of voter respect, and nearly his marriage to Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin.

In the wake of that scandal he offered a half-hearted, calculating, politically-expedient mea culpa which included the warning that more instances of his online hijinks were likely to surface in the future. What no one expected is that he was referring to the sexting and shlong-selfies he'd continue to send out in the year after his resignation from Congress and after the birth of his son.

Earlier this week a new revelation surfaced that "Carlos" continued lying to voters, his wife and the media by sending out additional sexts and weiner-shots to at least one other young woman for over a year, and as late as last Summer. This time his partner-in-crime was a 22-year-old Indiana woman named Sydney Leathers. Weiner and Leathers. You can't make this stuff up.

In an effort at damage control, and with his saint-like wife by his side, Weiner spoke to reporters Tuesday in a hastily scheduled press conference, complete with all the usual insincerity and duplicity we've come to expect from him, to reaffirm his candidacy, the strength of his marriage, the support from Huma, and that he's a changed man.

"It's in our rear view mirror," Weiner said of his scandalous behavior. But I suspect that this latest episode in WeinerGate is likely to derail his once-promising campaign. Judging from recent polls, which had Weiner comfortably ahead of former front-runner and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, voters seemed inclined to forgive his past indiscretions.

For a bright guy Weiner can't seem to stop making some mind-numbingly dumb decisions. He could've been one of those lucky bastards who, despite a humiliating fall from grace, was afforded a second chance. And he blew it. He misused and abused the public's trust and it's not likely he'll get a third chance. His lack of judgement and utter recklessness makes him unfit for office. There's a morality and integrity deficiency, and voters, especially the old Jewish and Italian kind who comprise a huge part of his Queens and Brooklyn base, can be unforgiving once they've crossed an important threshold. If Mr. Danger can't control the overpowering and dangerous impulses that he's clearly afflicted with then he can't be trusted to run New York City and exercise the kind of judgement and discipline that that monumentally important job requires. As crazy as this sounds, Weiner's actually making Eliot Spitzer seem like a pretty stand-up guy. And that's no easy feat.
 
To be sure, Weiner's candidacy is dead. It's just a short matter of time before he accepts his fate and pulls out (pun intended). The scandal is now dominating his media airtime and voter facetime, and it's become impossible for him to discuss the issues facing New York. Don't be surprised if he doesn't last the weekend...

Wasn't Obama's Racism Speech One of Those "Conversations" Republicans Keep Saying We Need to Have?

Republicans are always pushing for national "conversations" about tough subjects like gun control and racism. And with good reason: it's a successful bait-and-switch strategy to keep them from ever having to actually do anything about these hot-button issues.

"What we need is an adult conversation," these empathy-bankrupt conservatives say when a violent monster shoots up a school, or when an over-zealous neighborhood-watch vigilante profiles, stalks and kills a black teenager. "Time for an honest discussion," they suggest with feigned sincerity when outrage and a demand for action comes from the left.

Yes, conservatives just love having conversations, except when it's with a black president talking openly and honestly about the kind of persistent racism in America that results in an unarmed black kid being shot dead by an armed white adult. Then they're not so keen on discussion.

Republicans have expressed anger and disbelief at President Obama over his remarks last Friday during an impromptu White House address on racism and the Trayvon Martin case. Obama spoke passionately about his personal experiences with racial profiling and discrimination in an effort to humanize the struggles black males face in everyday life.

The president's address clearly touched a raw nerve in conservatives, who ratcheted up their toxic rhetoric. Since Friday these rabid right-wingers have accused him of favoring blacks; ignoring black-on-black crime; race-baiting; and threatening the rights of gun owners.

"It is not surprising that the president uses it seems every opportunity he can to try to go after our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms," said Texas Senator Ted Cruz. "I think it is unfortunate that this president and this administration has a consistent disregard for the Bill of Rights." 

"President Obama is now our race-baiter in Chief," Fox News contributor Todd Starnes wrote on Facebook. "His remarks today on the Trayvon Martin tragedy are beyond reprehensible."

"Unfortunately, President Obama is a fraud as a uniter," said former Cincinnati mayor and former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, who is black. "He has been an inconsequential leader of the United -- underscore United States of America."

Fox's Sean Hannity used Obama's own words to wage a reprehensible attack against him, while essentially blaming Martin for his own death because of drug use:

"Now the president's saying Trayvon could've been me 35 years ago," Hannity said on his radio show. "This is a particularly helpful comment. Is that the president admitting that I guess because what, he was part of the Choom Gang and he smoked pot and he did a little blow -- I'm not sure how to interpret because we know that Trayvon had been smoking pot that night."

One conservative commentator on MSNBC's Hardball Friday night outrageously declared that Obama "is not a 'black' president." Well, he actually is, whether or not she or any other in-denial bigot wants to accept it.

Yes, white America, we have a black man in the White House. And he's the President of the United States, not the butler. So when an unarmed black teenager gets blasted in the heart at point-blank range by the deadly bullet of an armed white man's pistol under the most questionable and controversial of circumstances, and the killer is subsequently acquitted, this black president is going to speak out about it. But why is his commentary evidence, as Republicans claim, that "he's not the president of 'all' people?"

Just what do Obama's critics want? Is he supposed to pretend not to be black in order to appease white racists? Is he expected to be "presidential" and speak out when there's a hurricane, a plane crash, a school massacre or a movie-theater shooting, but avoid discussing anything impacting black people? Does discussing issues relating to blacks inherently make him biased or a race-baiter? What exactly does it mean when people demand that he be "the president for 'all' people?" Do blacks not count as people? Are they not a constituency? Is he precluded from being their advocate too because he's black?

Even more infuriating is when these racists who attack Obama claim that they have a more acute understanding of the injustices blacks experience in America and, worse, that blacks' perceptions about race and racism are overstated and outdated. To be sure, only a racist would deny that racism exists.

And look what happens when a black president attempts to have an "adult conversation" about race and racism. Look how quickly those on the right no longer want to talk. Theirs is the party that neither wants to legislate or communicate.

As an aside, when Obama's said "Trayvon could've been me 35 years ago," I wish he'd added the following sentence:"...and how many white Americans see a black boy and their first thought is, 'there goes a future president.'" That would've been a fitting punctuation on the Trayvon tragedy, and the realities that teens like him will continue to face until these empty "conversations" turn into action. 

What Zimmerman's Weight Gain Might Be Telling Us

The murder trial of George Zimmerman in the death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin has occupied the public's consciousness and airwaves since the shooting occurred February 26, 2012. But little attention has been focused on the amount of weight Zimmerman has gained since that night. And I believe this conspicuous physiological change demonstrates his guilt.

Zimmerman appears to have added roughly 100 pounds or more, which seems an atypical feat for an allegedly innocent man facing a potential life sentence for killing a kid. The more likely change would've been a significant loss of weigh from having no appetite as he anxiously and fearfully awaited his fate. But to gain that amount of weight Zimmerman's appetite had to have been gargantuan this past year, suggesting that it is a radical manifestation of the guilt and shame that's consumed him since he killed Martin.

Yes, George Zimmerman feels like shit. He killed a kid. A teenager who he knows was innocent. He's not a sociopath. A sociopath feels no guilt. No shame. No remorse. I don't think Zimmerman left his home that night wanting to or thinking he was going to kill someone, especially a child. I genuinely believe he's been tortured by the horrible course of events that turned his Dirty Harry-wannabe act into the tragic, shocking gun-death of a kid holding nothing but a bag of Skittles and an iced-tea. Everything he believes he stood for has been turned on its head. His life is out of control. All because a bullet from that loaded pistol, for which he had an insatiable desire and need to carry, tore through the heart of Trayvon Martin. And so he eats. He eats to dull the insurmountable pain...and the guilt...and the shame. His eating is a product of self-loathing.

Psychologists and those who've personally experienced eating disorders say that people often overeat in an attempt to repress such feelings of guilt and shame...of self-hatred. That extreme weight gain over such a short period of time, as in Zimmerman's case, is a manifestation of these feelings. Has he eaten massive amounts because he hasn't told the truth and is literally burying his lies with food? Like his innate desire to protect his neighborhood--which ended with disastrous results--his overeating is the most basic form of self-care gone horribly wrong. And it's not what one would expect from an allegedly innocent man who truly believes he was justified in the eyes of the law and his God.

Many psychologists also view eating as a sensual act. So it's a little bizarre that someone who's professing innocence, and believes he's being stripped of his basic freedoms, would eat so excessively. There's a reason prisoners go on hunger-strikes. They're denying themselves food as a symbolic act in protest of the injustices cast upon them. The food-as-sensual-reward theory is probably why we don't see any binge-eating strikes.

But in fairness, to give another perspective of Zimmerman's weight gain, psychologists might argue that some people eat simply because they're experiencing high degrees of stress. But they generally attribute that stress to the kind of routine daily pressures and anxieties of work and family--not from killing someone--and from which food is used to self-soothe.

To be sure, the cause of Zimmerman's massive weight gain is speculative at best, as is the belief by many that his reaction to hearing the verdict further suggests his guilt. Wouldn't a truly innocent man have shown some sort of emotional release...a look of relief, a gasp, a sigh, tears or all of the above? Instead, Zimmerman stared straight ahead, motionless and emotionless... without changing his facial expression even one single tick. You could almost hear him thinking to himself..."Holy shit, I got away with it..."

Is There Any Hope For Egypt?

A little over a week ago Egypt's Army generals, claiming to be executing the will of the people, staged a military coup to overthrow Mohamed Morsi, the country's first Democratically-elected president. Since then, the country has spiraled downward into religious persecution and violence, tearing its fabric into two major factions--the Muslim Brotherhood, many of whose top Islamic leaders have been arrested and jailed, including Morsi, and the secular generals-- which seem headed for a full-scale civil war.

As a result, Egypt's nascent, fragile Democracy is in danger of disappearing and never returning. But what's most troubling is to see the level of support for the military, and the unbridled enthusiasm for its brutal actions this week and last, by tens of millions of Egypt's civilians...most of whom viewed the army as the enemy just one year ago prior to the revolution which ushered in the so-called "Arab Spring." Now they're jubilantly hopping in bed with these bombastic, disingenuous, power-hungry generals in such a naive and misguided manner. Troubling as well is the claim that last week's overthrow was not a military coup.
 
Let's be clear: the generals' decision to send tanks rolling through the streets as they deposed and arrested Morsi and his his top Muslim Brotherhood government leaders is, by definition and by all logic and reason, a military coup. Islamist media outlets have been shut down, the Constitution suspended, and Parliament dissolved.

Egyptians can call it whatever they like to fit their "Revolution 2.0" narrative, but right now Egypt's "Democracy" and "free elections" exist only until the military decides to change that. It's surprising--shocking actually--that many Egyptians are celebrating this coup rather than condemning it while fighting for Morsi's ouster through electoral means. A process where everyone gets to vote on the outcome, not just the dissenters.

Egyptians will have to decide whether they want to live in a true Democracy or amid military rule. Can't have both. This notion of "let's have free elections ...until we don't like the other side that won and then we'll stage a military coup and depose them and arrest all of their top leaders, shut their tv stations, shut Parliament and suspend the Constitution"is disingenuous, dangerous and certainly not in Egypt's best interest long-term. The country is going to be torn apart over this coup, and undoing everything Egyptians fought so hard for in the revolution of 2012. This is exactly the sort of oppressive autocratic rule the people rallied against. And now Egyptians are posing for photos with soldiers? The same military which has choked the country for sixty years? The military is not with the people. It is using the people. It cares only about holding onto its power.

Egypt must strive for a true Democracy, under the rule of law, where its citizens are truly free. A political system where leaders are elected and voted out when the people want change. Where votes, not intimidation, coercion and violence, are the agents of that change. Right now, as perplexing as it is, Egyptians have willingly turned their country back over to the near-fascist rule of brutal military generals who've turned Democracy and progress on its head and rolled the clock back to the Nassar days...

Picking Apart Zimmerman's Hannity Interview

I listened again this past weekend to the full interview accused murderer George Zimmerman gave last July to Fox's Sean Hannity. As I outlined last week in "Critical Points About the Trayvon Martin Case,", there are many reasons to doubt Zimmerman's innocence. The interview with Hannity only reinforces my belief in his obvious guilt.

A snapshot of the various inconsistencies, contradictions, misrepresentations and lies from the interview:

1. Zimmerman claims he was not following Trayvon Martin, the 17-year-old black youth he shot and killed after being allegedly attacked by him. Yet he tells Hannity "I meant that I was going in the same direction as him, to keep an eye on him so that I could tell the police where he was going. I didn't mean that I was actually pursuing him." Call me crazy, but isn't that the definition of "following?"

2. He claims he left his car behind and continued walking (while "not following" Trayvon) because he was unsure of where he was:  "Where I parked my car was the back of townhouses. There was no way to know what the street number was." A neighborhood watch guy in a small development has no idea where he is? Not plausible.

3. He claims Trayvon looked like he was up to no good. Like he was on drugs. "I felt he was suspicious because it was raining. He was in-between houses, cutting in-between houses, and he was walking very leisurely for the weather. I -- it didn't look like he was a resident that went to check their mail and got caught in the rain and was hurrying back home. He didn't look like a fitness fanatic that would train in the rain." What kind of convoluted nonsense is this? Furthermore, it was night time, he saw Martin from a distance, and it was raining. Just exactly why did he appear suspicious, other than simply being a black kid in a hoodie hanging around his dad's apartment. Would he have looked "suspicious" had he been a white kid?

4. At first Zimmerman had said Trayvon was "running" but then changed his story: "Maybe I said running, but he was more...like skipping, going away quickly. But he wasn't running out of fear." Really? Maybe he was running because a strange adult male with a gun was stalking him in a menacing way?

5. He claims he shot Trayvon while he was being beaten and was screaming for his life. But after he shot him he claims he did not know Trayvon was dead until an hour later at the police station. How is it possible that Zimmerman, with Trayvon lying on the ground bleeding from a gunshot wound to the heart, didn't at least do the humane thing and check to see the kid's condition...if he was dead, or in fact still alive and needing help? He just shoots Martin and walks away?

6. After he fired his gun, he claims Trayvon "sat up and he said something to the effect of "you got it" or "you got me". I assumed he meant, OK, you got the gun, I didn't get it. I'm not going to fight anymore. At which point I got out from under him." This is utterly preposterous. Is that really what he believes Trayvon was thinking? Zimmerman said he had "discharged my firearm," so obviously he knew he shot Trayvon. We're supposed to believe this incredibly implausible scenario? 

7. He talks about using words like "punk" to describe Trayvon and recants what he previously told cops and the 911 dispatcher that 'the bad guys always get away.' This suggests anger and a predispostion. The actions of a Dirty Harry wannabe. It suggests that it was he, not Trayvon, who was looking for a confrontation that night.

8. He claims Trayvon repeatedly "slammed" his head into the sidewalk. That he was also punched in the head a dozen times or so. But expert medical testimony showed only "insignificant" injuries. The physiological evidence simply doesn't support this claim.

9. Zimmerman claims he knows when Trayvon first saw his gun: "After we were on the ground, I shimmied with him on top of me, and it made my jacket rise up. He, being on top of me, saw it on my right side." How does he know this? Did Trayvon say something about seeing the gun? A black gun, in a black holster, stuck behind Zimmerman in his back, on a dark rainy night, during a scuffle? And to the claim that there was a struggle for the gun, how come there were no traces of Trayvon's DNA on the gun? To that end, nor was there any Zimmerman DNA under Trayvon's fingernails...casting further doubt on the claims of him receiving such a savage, continued beating and attempts at suffocation. Martin had just a couple of minor scrapes on two of his fingers. Wouldn't he have had more bruising and cuts/abrasions, as well as DNA traces, if he delivered such a beating? 

10. He told Hannity that prior to the shooting he never heard of Florida's controversial Stand Your Ground law. But that's an outright lie. An instructor who taught a class Zimmerman attended in 2010 testified last week that the law had been discussed in detail in his class.

11. He bizarrely points to a moment while in jail when he was supported by other convicts: "There was one instance when I was in the rec yard by myself and in the window a few inmates got together and just made a sign of strength to me." Are we to be impressed and/or moved by this alleged demonstration of solidarity from a a bunch of incarcerated law-breaking cretins, most likely white supremacists? That Zimmerman would even make this comment is especially insensitive and creepy. 

It's hard to walk away from that Hannity interview thinking anything but that Zimmerman is a cold, callous, highly calculating murderer who claims the entire tragedy was "God's plan;"who doesn't regret carrying a weapon or pursuing Trayvon; and who believes he will be acquitted.  He's a tone-deaf liar who claims that when Hannity first asked him if he would've done anything differently that fateful night he actually said: "When you asked that I thought you were referring to if I would not have talked to the police, if I would have maybe have gotten an attorney, if I wouldn't have taken the CVSA (computer voice stress analysis) and that I stand by, I would not have done anything differently." That's what his initial thoughts were about "doing something differently?" Not that he wouldn't have killed this kid?

A final thought: if Zimmerman is truly innocent, why did he give the interview to the conservative, pro-gun, softball-tossing, white-audienced Hannity and Fox? Why not Brian Williams, or Matt Lauer, or someone objective and qualified to discredit his ridiculous assertions? Or better yet, why do such damage control at all? Wouldn't he have appeared more credible if he'd issued a simple statement such as: "I am innocent of these charges and will not try this case in the court of public opinion but rather in a court of law...where I am confident justice will be served." Getting in bed with Hannity--just as Sarah Palin and other embattled conservatives have done--only serves to demonstrate a probability of guilt and a desire to control the narrative and spin a defense in a warm, friendly setting.