Prepare for the hangover, Mr. Trump

Sleeping with the enemy

On January 21 in the year of our Lord 2012, after having concluded that our mattress had reached the lowest dip in the biorythm of its life, the Goat and I concluded a harrowing shopping excursion with the purchase of the unit pictured above (more here).

This was the first new mattress purchase I ever made. Hence, when the set I wanted clocked in at nearly $1,800, I did not care.

"I do not care," I told the Goat as we lay upon the Trumpster's mattress in our winter coats staring at the ceiling in the predictable showroom.

That the mattress we liked best was under the Trump brand was more or less a joke. Who cared? We liked the unit, which was, after all, a Serta - one of those brands we more or less trust.

Here in the year of our Lord 2016, however, a few things have changed. We are no longer in the market for a new bed, but if we were, I daresay the Trump name would deter the purchase. Four years ago, the Donald was a loud-mouthed boor. Today, he's an egomaniac dangerously stoking the flames of fear and bigotry in order to prolong his perverse intoxication. I offered this observation to the Goat during our constitutional yesterday morning.

"No way I would shell out $1,800 for anything with a Trump label on it now," I said.

"So what?" countered the Goat. "His supporters will."

I begged to differ, saying that the average Trump supporter does not look one hell of a lot like the people who have historically supported the luxe Trump brand. Try a swank $420 per night hotel room or a $600,000 NYC one-bedroom condo.

Who knows? Maybe the rich people won't care if their $380 Aquanox Signature Spa Experience is associated with the Trumpster. That said, there's always someone happy to take your $380 who does not publicly call women fat and ugly and does not believe you should be barred from entering the country based on your religion.

But if that same rich person opts to purchase a mattress much like my own, she or he will discover that Serta has since stopped selling mattresses under the Trump name on account of his "disparaging comments about Mexican immigrants."

That's just one. Earlier this month, Politico offered up a telling article on how the Trumpster's luxury brand is nosediving amid the Donald's atrocious rhetoric.

"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters."

While I suppose that may indeed depend on the demographics of the victim, Mr. Trump, it may nonetheless be true. The question is, in the event you wake on January 20, 2017 and find you are not preparing for the inaugural pomp and circumstance, who will be bellying up to support the Trump brand? Your post-political life may no longer include the well-heeled. You'll be left with the angry white middle class to whom you've pandered, which may or may not be able to afford your diamond-encrusted lifestyle.

As my dearly beloved pointed out to me, Trump has reinvented himself time and time again. Perhaps he will do so in the aftermath of his political career as the Politico article points out:

"Then again, (Trump) could move into the part of the consumer market where no real damage has been done. Perhaps a Trump brand of smokes, or maybe canned meat?"

So who's up for a Trumped Potted Meat sammie and a nice cold can of The Donald's Pink Catawba?

*  *  *

Add a pinch of free market to Citizens United and you get: TRUMP

Financial windfall, O'Brien style

Dear readership, these musings have been written quickly whilst a development news assignment waits, the laundry tumbles, the beef roasts and the Goat golfs, so just stick with me on this.

Given: Americans really hate corruption.

Corruption has been going on in politics for a long time. In January of 2010, however, the Supreme Court of the United States removed any fig leaf hiding it by essentially codifying corruption with the Citizens United decision.

Enter: Donald Trump.

Pundits have much to say about the popularity welling around him. They call him an outsider. They claim he's tapped into a certain spittle-flecked-red-faced rightie anger.

yeah, yeah

The primary reason people are rallying around Trump is his money. They believe it makes him immune to the siren songs of the lobbyists and deep-pocketed special interests. They believe it frees him from fundraising.

His supporters don't care what he says. And to be fair, why should they? Nothing politicians say matters. It's all tribal.

So Trump has money and he's a tribe member (well, sort of). Add a healthy dose of bigotry and misogyny and voila! You're in rightie heaven.

Conversely, the lefties love Sanders because he's a socialist. Sanders cares more about people than money-- a LOT more. Therefore his supporters believe he cannot be bought by the big money hurting all the little people. Add income equality, reproductive rights and a living wage and libs inflate with pure joy.

All of this is causing a real problem for establishment candidates because they are (of course) bought and paid for by lobbyists and special interests.

Aside: Could 2016 be Kasich/Biden? hm ... dunno

As for me, I'll take the socialist over the narcissist (I'm pretty sure you could buy Trump for one thin dime if he was broke while Sanders has sung the same tune for 30 years), but make no mistake: When the courts stand above the American people and announce that corruption is the law of the land, John Q. Public will gravitate to those they believe will eschew it. Trump and Sanders are the perfect candidates: one doesn't need money, the other doesn't want it.

There is something delicious in this.

For once, beads of sweat are forming on big money's upper lip, although I'm certain it will find a way to snuff out Those Who Will Not Be Bough. Until then, the lobbyists can pull at their collars and clear their throats while the rest of us enjoy some free market politics.

*  *  *

Baby you can drive my car

Lil' OB, first day of senior year

On our quiet little dead-end street, there will be no less than four 2015 high school grads come this June, including Lil' OB. I refer to them and their compadres as the "Youth of America."

"Good morning, Youth of America," I used to say to them as they waited at the bus stop during the grade and middle school years. Now they've all grown up. No more bus stop congregations.

You want to know something about the Youth of America, dear reader?

They don't care about driving.

This perplexed the Goat and your humble hostess when we saw it evidenced among some of Lil' OB's cohorts. They put off getting their drivers' licenses as long as possible. Parents were the ones coaxing kids to learn to drive. Plenty of parents had to issue a mandate: you have to get your license or else ...

Driving has become a necessity, not a recreation. Kids don't romanticize driving and cars the way older generations do. Kids don't cruise around. They don't hang out anymore. Social media has replaced the casual impromptu drive-in parties in parks and convenience store lots we all remember.

Turns out this is not just a thing around here. Per the U.S Federation of Public Interest Research Groups, "the percentage of high school seniors with driver’s licenses declined from 85 percent to 73 percent between 1996 and 2010, according to the AAA Foundation for Highway Safety, with federal data suggesting that the decline has continued since 2010." The Washington Post detailed what's behind those staggering numbers in this exhaustive article last fall.

Humble Hostess with first VW Bug, circa 1981

Dear reader, the Youths of America do not want cars. They don't want another loan on top of their student loan. They don't want to deal with insurance. They don't want to buy gas or pay for expensive parking spaces downtown. Driving is just a hassle. They don't care if you believe in climate change or not; they don't like hydrocarbon exhaust. And none of this is going to change any time soon.

Although I suspect the GOP will do everything in it's power to stop this trend, forcing people to drive more and buy cars is a tricky business, particularly when the good ol' free market offers up solutions like Zipcar and Uber. Read this Cleveland story to get an inside look at what users say about ridesharing. Nonetheless, there is a little problem brewing in this kettle of stone soup.

Got infrastructure?

Car or no car, we all need it and we all finance the vehicular infrastructure with the gas tax, but per the first link up there: "Between 2001 and 2009, the average number of miles driven by 16- to 34-year-olds dropped by 23 percent."

Less miles driven means less gas purchased and less gasoline tax paid. Considering "both the Highway Account and the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund are nearing insolvency," this does not bode well.

And while this matter percolates beneath similar issues such as building a fiber optic infrastructure, maintaining the antiquated electrical grid (amid a burgeoning solar revolution) and even grappling with the landline telephone system, what's our Congress doing?

Why, worrying about rape and abortion, of course, and trying to repeal Obamacare, and broadcasting partisanship across the globe and and and ... doing nothing to shore up the middle class or solve its very real problems.

Who's going to pay for the roads when traffic is reduced by 25 or 50 percent or more?

Who is going to pay for the roads?

*  *  *

Erin O'Brien misses Herman Cain

Folks, I'm starting to get a little worried over here. The noise we get from the fringe right is one thing, but we seem to be moving toward a new level of crazy and incompetent and it's getting ever-closer to the main stream.

You may have run across these news items, but I wanted to round them up just the same and give them some collective impact.

Let's start with Mr. Jeb Bush. This man was Governor of Florida for eight years, yet he did not have the wherewithal to properly vet some punk's twitter feed and past radio performances. Then there's this fiasco, wherein Bush put droves of personal information online, then blamed the State of Florida for not redacting it before he made it public.

So a man who has the audacity to charge $100,000 a head for a little sup and face time can't hire someone to page through content he's about to make public? Or check a lousy twitter feed?

Too bad Dubya and/or Poppy didn't get it through ol' Jebster's thick skull that you have to be really careful when you're running for Prez.

Then we have Rand Paul with this: "I've heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines."

No that he's ever seen this evidence first hand or anything like that. Nope. He's only heard of these tragic cases.

Not to be outdone, Mr. Walker in Wisconsin refused to acknowledge evolution.

“That’s a question a politician shouldn’t be involved in one way or another," said Walker. "So, I’m going to leave that up to you.”

Completely unsubstantiated statements that could put kids at risk and failure to acknowledge what science has proven over and over and again?

I guess someone needs to give these guys some direction.

*  *  *

The economically ignorant

Don't ask

From Joe's post dated November 10 in the year of our Lord 2008:

Get ready for $4.00/gallon or more gas again next summer, people ... Let us see, gas lines, runaway inflation and high unemployment. ...The only bright side is I can gloat and say "I told you so" to all of you economically ignorant mofos voting for hope and change.

This is the point at which a good little writer would round up a whole bunch of solid numbers and links touting low gas prices, a soaring stock market, booming economic growth and job creation, but I'm not going to do that. Michael Grunwald did it in this piece for Politico:

Mitt Romney promised to bring unemployment down to 6 percent in his first term; it’s already down to 5.8 percent, half the struggling eurozone’s rate. Newt Gingrich promised $2.50 gas; it’s down to $2.38. Crime, abortion, teen pregnancy and oil imports are also way down, while renewable power is way up and the American auto industry is booming again.

As for poor ol' Joe and the rest of the silly righties, if you want to feel better about your disastrous predictions, scoot on over to the gas station and fill 'er up. Then calculate what that four-dollar-a-gallon tank would have cost and how much you "saved."

Now then, run along back home and write a check in that amount and send it along to your favorite charity.

Can't decide? I'll make it easy for you. Just send the check to me:

Erin O'Brien

P. O. Box 470167

Broadview Heights, OH   44147

Thanks in advance and enjoy a (very economically) Happy New Year!

*  *  *

Kraut. Hammer.

The Kraken

Conservative pundit Charles Krauthammer's name came up during today's Morning Review (the portion of the day during which the Goat and I sip coffee while he reads the paper, I peck at my iPad and we "release the Kraken" [let the bunny out of her cage so she hop around the living room and eat the carpeting]).

"Krauthammer's paralyzed, you know," I said.

"I did not know that," replied the Goat.

So I googled ol' Krauthammer and verified that he was in a tragic swimming accident at age 22, but (of course) was quickly drawn into another of Google's temptations: Krauthammer's Jan. 30th opinion piece for the Washington Post: How to debunk the war on women.

The column started out promisingly enough:

What is it about women that causes leading Republicans to grow clumsy, if not stupid? When even savvy, fluent, attractively populist Mike Huckabee stumbles, you know you’ve got trouble. Having already thrown away eminently winnable Senate seats in Missouri and Indiana because of moronic talk about rape, the GOP might have learned. You’d think.

Really? A bit of sensitivity glimmering from the Right regarding women's issues? Well kiss my ample Irish Hungarian posterior.

It didn't last long. Krauthammer's voice of reason faded in the very next paragraph:

Huckabee wasn’t quite as egregious, just puzzling and a bit weird. Trying to make a point about Obamacare mandating free contraceptives ... 

Free contraceptives.

Oh dear. Here we go again. With those two words, Kraukhammer brandishes his bayonet right alongside the Huck, Todd Akin and the rest of the wingnuts waging war on women.

CODE PINK CHAUVINIST ALERT: Gents, heed these words: Any woman who pays $100, $250, $500 or $750 per month for health care coverage--whether she's footing the entire bill or it's a copay for ACA coverage or her employer's offering--does not consider benefits of said coverage as "free." The assertion is particularly offensive to working women, who regard their health insurance as an earned benefit.

To be sure, birth control might be the only tangible benefit a woman reaps from that coverage, which she pays for. Every. Single. Month. This holds particularly true if she is healthy, young, single and childless. In his Post column, Krauthammer even notes the Right's dismally failed courtship of single women with some alarm:

... the Republicans’ inability to make their case in respectful tones has cost them dearly. In 2012, they lost unmarried women by 36 (!) points. 

Exclamation point, indeed. Keep calling that $200 per month packet of birth control pills "free." Keep doing everything you can to take away the one thing those unmarried women actually get from their health care coverage and the GOP can watch that number climb higher and higher. 

You boys will just never get it will you?

*  *  *

The Obamacare post

What a miserable mess.

My friend Derf summed it up nicely in this strip, but no worries. I will enumerate my complaints herein.

I am disgusted at Obama and his administration for:

1) the dismal lack of communication/education regarding the ACA and the subsequent confusion that has plagued the law from the onset.

2) the abject technical failure of the roll out.
 
The discourse regarding these failures often includes a reference to the three luxurious years Obama had to avoid them. Three whole years! 

Really?

In those three years a couple of tiny details hindered the ACA. Okay, maybe they weren't so tiny. First, there was Supreme Court decision in June 2012 which spilled into the presidential election. Both events were extended dramas we painfully endured until the threatening does the ACA live or die! toggle switch was flipped.

It's easy to say neither spectacle should have affected development of the ACA, but does anyone believe that the entire program didn't suffer while those sorts of razor-sharp pendulums swung above it?

As a backdrop to the battles of 2012, we've had the GOP's war on health care reform from the onset. It included an impressive monolithic opposition, a slew of red states refusing to set up their own exchanges and myriad local efforts to hinder outreach. The list goes on and on.

A few years ago a pundit nailed it. Although I can't recall the details, essentially he said that for a program as big and complex as the ACA to succeed, the entire country would have to work together, including every level of government from state capitols to Pennsylvania Avenue. We have not and (for now) the ACA is floundering. Badly. And whether you like the present health care reform or not, you will pay the price if it fails. This debacle belongs to the entire country no matter which side of the aisle you're on, just like the Iraq War did.

We're all Americans.

Had the conservatives not waged war, but instead rolled up their sleeves as they did with Medicare in 1965 (after fighting its inception and conceding defeat), and worked for the last three years improving the law, things would look a lot different today. The result would not have been perfect, but it would have been better (see: Romneycare). Of course, that's not how it played.

When the Right's euphoria over the troubled ACA subsides, conservatives are going to be left with the not-so-little problem of offering up a health care reform plan of their own. Why have they failed to formulate said plan? After all, they've had three whole luxurious years to do so. The reason is simple: the ACA is conservative health care reform and always has been.

That's correct: conservatives have spent the last three years battling to topple their own solution to health care reform. The proof is the yawning absence of an alternative. Folks, if they had a good idea, we'd have heard it by now. They don't. They never did. Think back on how quickly those enthusiastic chants of Repeal and Replace! were truncated to ... erm ... um ... Repeal!

The only real alternative now is the expansion of a single payer program, which is all I ever wanted. As it stands, one third of the country is already enjoying a big fat GOV socialized health care program by way of Medicare, Medicaid and Tricare. Ironically, the GOP's fervent opposition to reform may lead the country to the one option conservatives hate more than Obamacare.

Holy hospitals, Batman!

A lot of folks are upset over policy cancellations. What a stunning change of heart. I don't remember many in that group being up-in-arms about people losing their coverage before the ACA. Methinks those indignant Righties don't care much about the actual cancellations, although they do like them. Those cancelled policies represent yet another opportunity to attack Obama because he said they wouldn't happen.

You lie!

Truth: the cancelled policy debacle is one of the things that should have been sorted out over the past three years, and likely would have been (along with a host of other problems) if not for the GOP's airtight opposition.

For better or worse, Obama and his signature legislation have sustained some pretty significant wounds in this war. His call for insurers to extend those cancelled policies last week is part of the bleeding.

Yeah, yeah.

A couple of months ago, the big crisis was chemical weapons in Syria. Last month it was the GOV shutdown. Now we have this mess. Maybe it will fade in a couple of months, maybe not. But while it's not my reform of choice (which is single payer for one and for all), I'm still holding out hope for the ACA.

I don't know what will happen, but turning back is not an option. People are no longer going to accept denial of coverage based on a preexisting condition. They are not going to accept the deletion of their otherwise uninsured adult children from their policy. States like Ohio are not going to give back the Medicaid money. Insurance companies are not going to throw out the work of the last three years without legal hellfire. The list gets longer every day. People may not be signing up in droves, but they are signing up.

Dear GOP, please put down your guns. The more you stab at the ACA, the bloodier we're all going to get. It's time to make this goddamn thing work.

Talk about your wishful thinking.

*  *  *

Erin's big fat political post

Frankly, I'm having a difficult time controlling myself this morning, so I'm going to do this bullet style.

Nonsensical image unrelated
to today's content

-With an overwhelming majority, our darling Congress finally decided to reopen the government yesterday and avoid turning ol' Uncle Sam into a deadbeat Dad. The House voted 285 to 144--that's about a two to one ratio; and the Senate voted 81 to 18--a little better than four to one. So why did it take so long to have such a noncontroversial vote? Just ask Denny Hastert.

-This exercise in abject futility is estimated to cost us some $24 billion. Perhaps we should send the tab to the rapidly dwindling group of Americans that still supports the Tea Party.

-You know who I'd like to start with? Tea Party candidate for the Idaho House of Representatives Greg Collett. Naturally, the Gregster adamantly opposes big GOV programs, such as Medicaid--even though his ten kids are all Medicaid participants. Yes, really.

-Congratulations Cory Booker.

-Let's drop into Kentucky, shall we? One Bluegrass State Representative (Garland Barr) and one Senator (Rand Paul) voted to keep the GOV shut down and welsh on our bills. Mitch McConnell and KY Rep. Brett Guthrie (yes, they are all righties) magnanimously voted* in favor of yesterday's bill, perhaps in some part because it included a $2.8 billion barrel of pork for the blood red state, which is, incidentally, signing up people for Obamacare faster than any other state in the Union.

See previous caption

-Speaking of the Mitchster, one of my favorite moments from yesterday was a bit subtle. You had to be paying attention (feel free to lambaste me for being a political junkie in the comment section). As the GOP Senate leader was essentially conceding utter defeat before God and Country, Ted Cruz was braying into a microphone at exactly the same time (hint, hint), refusing to admit any defeat and saying, no, he wouldn't delay the impending vote. Awful big of you, Teddy. I'll buy you a Molson next time I see you, or a shot of Canadian Club if you prefer.

-Another honorable mention on style during the shutdown debacle goes to Fox News for referring to it as a "slimdown" throughout.

-I feel sort of bad for poor ol' Agent Orange (aka John Boehner).

Oh ... never mind

-Lastly, a nod to the Old Dominion State, the eight electoral votes of which went to the Republican presidential candidate in eight of the last 10 elections and to Obama in the other two. Virginia is also about to select a new governor and you can bet the GOP faithful will be watching that race with eagle eyes.

Enough. It's a beautiful day here in my corner of the Buckeye State. The turning leaves are shimmering against a blue blue blue sky. It might be a good day to drop into the Cuyahoga Valley National Park. I hear they're open for business.


* Update, Oct. 20. The actual shutdown vote tally for KY was two Reps voting NAY (keep 'er shut down!) and four YEAS (open 'er back up)--source. Sorry not to get it right the first time, folks; I was suffering from a political overdose

*  *  *

Peepers

Plenty of commentary and outrage going around these last couple of days. I'm afraid we're a little late, folks. The genie came flying out of the bottle atop a cork with Patriot Act emblazoned along its length more than a decade ago.

But it's keeping us safe, said the doe-eyed hausfrau from the front seat of her Escalade as the cool manufactured air kept beads of perspiration at bay. She said the same thing as she bustled her darling all-American family through airport security where an unseen agent ogled her comely teen daughter courtesy of a full-body scanner.

If it keeps us safe ...

She yawned and waxed self-righteous when that Paula-what's-her-name got what she deserved. The fact that the revelation flew in upon the wings of a private email account didn't even register. Patraeus who? The CIA? What's that stand for? Oh for pity's sake, look at the time! I'm off for my mani/pedi.

She'll be every bit as ambivalent through today's kerfuffle. They just have to keep track of those people. It doesn't have anything to do with me.

Of course, we all sure love surveillance when it catches a bad guy.

Remember the feeding frenzy that ensued in the wake of the Boston tragedy? The whole country went crazy combing through photos and video. Officials scoured every entity in the vicinity of the explosion. Sure enough, some business had a cam recording the suspects. And after that, the predictable cries of disbelief ensued: Why weren't those guys on someone's radar?

Gee, buddy, do you really think that radar will exclude you?

He does. He's blind to the fact that he's already a suspect. (We'll just need to take a peek in that backpack, sir). Nothing's going to change. Don't blame Washington. It's not about the right or the left. It's about my little friend in the Escalade, folks, and the guy fuming on the radio about tracking all the Muslims. We all collectively allowed fear to strip away our power.

It's our fault.

And if unseen eyes are spying on the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, don't be surprised when the State of Ohio informs you that "our records indicate" you've failed to pay state sales tax on some online purchases. Don't be surprised when, at the Wellness Screening for your new job, some polite lady in a smock tells you that your credit card purchases indicate a family diet that includes entirely too much soda pop and processed meat.

That, my friends, is what it will look like.

*  *  *

Obama finally does something the GOP loves

Here's a bad idea, I'm going to make a prediction:

The AP phone records grab story is going to fade fast.

I mean come on. Does anyone believe the GOP will really do anything about a covert investigation that included seizing private phone records from the "liberal mainstream" media?

Nope. After all, the right side of the aisle certainly doesn't want any real reforms or legislation in place when it's their turn to spy on journalists.

Now they do have to act like they're upset about the issue because it's associated with Obama, so they might bellyache and get all red-faced, but then this thing is going to disintegrate like a wet Kleenex.

Folks, if something this public and this egregious gets glanced over by our government, say goodbye to the last thin remaining strands of privacy festooning the Constitution.

Aside: How funny is it that the Second Amendment zealots are afraid of a gun registry? As if the gov doesn't have every single one of them on a list anyway. They can find out anything about anyone without any reason, including what guns you own and whether or not you wear ladies' underwear.

Man-o-man, it ain't easy for libs. We put a "lefty" in the Oval Office and he starts doing stuff that would make Nixon blush.

*  *  *

Taking it to term

For years, I edited a local monthly paper, The Broadview Journal. I also wrote the political column. I covered most everything that went on inside of City Hall. This town does not have term limits and we surely had our share of long-time council members and mayors. And you know what? When the electorate changed, so did the office holders.

I've been thinking about term limits over the past days, mostly because of this and I'm afraid to report to James that I don't have a very strong opinion about the topic. Term limits are essentially a regulation: We're too stupid to vote this clown out so let's make a law that does it for us.  

Not too different from Bloomberg saying you're too stupid to stop yourself from guzzling down too much sugar water so I'll make a law that does it for you.

Granted, Bloomberg didn't have the electorate behind him. But here in Ohio, we voted to ban smoking in bars and restaurants. Plenty of people didn't like that even though it was democratic decision--and I mean people were red-hot spittin' mad. Hence my point is that even if an electorate agrees to instate term limits, that's fine--but it is still a regulation.

Let's face it: that same electorate is free to limit a politician's term by (ahem) voting accordingly. 

Some people think we should have one 6-year presidential term. I disagree. I think the current two-term limit as determined by the 22nd Amendment is pretty good policy. It cultivates a shift in dynamics by tempering the first term and giving a certain freedom to the second term. It also imparts more gravitas to the idea of legacy than would one 6-year term.

Americans should also have the right to keep a guy in the Oval Office for a second go-around. Obama is a good example. The GOP had all the money in the world going in against an embattled candidate, yet Romney & Co. never had a chance. Obama earned his second term hands down.

Should senators be limited to two 6-year terms? House reps limited to four 2-year terms? America's architects didn't think so; and I'm unsure how I'd vote on such measures. I'd probably support them, but I'd have to read the arguments for and against and think it over. That's a lot of lame ducks and I'm not so sure much would change. After all, the lobbyists would still be playing the same profane games, just with a whole lot more resets.

Speaking of lobbyists, James, now there's a topic ...

*  *  *

Throwing a Curve Ball

 
Jeepers, Creepers, plenty of righties are sure blowing a gasket over the Susan Rice Benghazi "scandal."

Question: Where were Senators Graham and McCain when George Tenet was telling Bush to go to war over the steaming pile of tripe manufactured by "Curve Ball?" Where was the inquiry and the panel and the investigation then?

Susan Rice reads talking points on Benghazi: Red-faced spittle-flecked outrage!

More than four thousand US Troops and 100,000 civilians dead and countless others injured or maimed in Iraq over bogus WMD claims from an unverified source: Um ... oops.

Babies, I hate to break this to you, but Susan Rice ain't no Scooter Libby.

This should come as no surprise from the utterly traitorous GOP, which has turned its collective nose upward at the man they wanted to put into the most powerful position in the world less than one month ago.

I think David Corn got it about right on the Nov. 29th edition of To The Point:

Mitt Romney will not be invited to appear on panels on the future of Republican Party, or even to go on talk shows to talk about the fiscal cliff. He has no force of persuasion within the Republican Party. Outside of the Republican Party, he has no troops. He has no standing. But he did get a free lunch courtesy of the U.S. Government today.

Yup.

And while we're at it, who exactly is the leader of the GOP these days? McCain? Limbaugh? Priebus? Boehner? McConnell?

Is it Paul Ryan? Can anybody help me out here?

*  *  *

Romneyland

A prediction if Mittens makes it into the White House:

Romney's Massachusetts health care reform, which he rarely mentioned during the campaign, will suddenly start getting a lot of airtime. Repealing Obamacare (the ACA) will quickly--very quickly--dissolve into changing/amending the ACA. Romney will call it something else, but the individual mandate will remain. He'll add tort reform and some other rightie candy, but it will essentially stay the same.

Don't believe me? The rightie pundits are already weaving this into the dialogue--try Matt Continetti on last Friday's Left Right and Center.

The ACA has always been the Republican dreamboat answer to health care reform. There is no way they will trash it given the chance. Like everything else over the past four years, they were only against it because the black guy was for it.

Obamacare ain't going away no matter what happens on Tuesday, folks.

*  *  *

Debatable

Earlier this week, my fave news show moderator Warren Olney interviewed long-time political consultant Samuel Popkin for the "Reporter's Notebook" segment of his Oct. 2 edition of To the Point.

Why Popkin?

In 1980, as President Jimmy Carter prepared for his debates with GOP challenger Ronald Reagan, Popkin "played" the part of Reagan during the practice sessions. In his To The Point segment, Popkin offers up commentary on Carter and the obscure and mysterious phenomenon of presidential practice debates. It's a great interview that I cannot recommend highly enough. It's only about 10 minutes long and starts at the 40:40 point in the podcast.

I had listened to the Popkin interview before the Wednesday night debate and his insights were spot on. Obama's unease was precisely the sort that Popkin described incumbent presidents falling into for a variety of reasons. The segment was also loaded with great details. This one was my favorite: former Michigan Governor and Dem sweetheart Jennifer Granholm "played" Sarah Palin for Joe Biden while he prepared for the 2008 vice-presidential debate.

You cannot fully appreciate that delicious little tidbit until you dig a sample of Granholm for yourself:



Who is your mama?

*  *  *

American muscle

My Gram Soos was born in 1916. Whenever the topic of the Great Depression came up, she'd always fit the following into the conversation.

"You know what ended the Great Depression?" she'd say with the superiority of someone who had lived through it. "The War ended the Great Depression." Then she'd pause and nod. "The War."

The War was of course backed by untold dollars courtesy of Uncle Sam. WWII was the biggest stimulus package of all time, but no one called it that.

Did it work? Hell yes it worked. After all, Hitler was real. Pearl Harbor was real. Americans could see the looming threat and they wanted to be a part of vanquishing it. They were proud to serve and see their sons serve. Americans bucked up behind gas rations and bellied up to city chicken while Rosie the Riveter did her part on the home front. These were the right and patriotic things to do.

The money Uncle Sam spent on WWII was the most effective stimulus of all time because Americans believed in every nickel of it. They perceived it as money that needed to be spent.

This essay could now take a long detour through the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I'll leave that circuitous trip for you to meander on your own, dear reader. Instead I'm going to jump to 2009, when, in order to address the financial crash of 2008, Uncle Sam pumped some $800 billion into everything from unemployment to infrastructure, housing to education. Obama's stimulus package was officially titled the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

Unfortunately, John Q. Public didn't believe much in it. You can argue that's because the dollars weren't visible enough or that the GOP bad-mouthed it into dis-credibility or perhaps you have a reason of your own. No matter. In the end, the results were lukewarm at best.

But the auto bailout? Now that was a stimulus with some muscle.

Bush threw the first lifeline to Detroit in 2008 by redirecting some TARP (aka bank bailout) funds. Obama threw more dollars Michigan's way in 2009. In the end, Washington pumped about $80 billion into the withered auto industry. Did it work?

We love our cars. We touch them every day. Our cars are real. I have never owned an American car, but I still love the American car industry. Throw American dollars at something Americans believe in and it will succeed in the game of perception.

Who backed us when we were down?

So despite the initial unpopularity, despite all the bellyaching and moaning from the right, the middle, the wherever, Obama's staggering and consistent lead in Ohio and Michigan should come as no surprise.

Now then, consider this match-up:

Imported From Detroit vs. Let Detroit Fail

We all know the blue collar guy will KO the white collar guy with the first punch. Therein lies the Right's terrible troubles, which are coming to fruition in the wake of its We're-Against-Everything-Obama's-For-No-Matter-What modus operandi. The anti-Detroit campaign might have been appealing from a Forbes point of view--the what-ifs have been endlessly dissected and inspected, but you can't always run the country like a business. Sometimes you've got to listen to America's heart, where you'll find Chevy in a line-up with Mom, baseball and apple pie.

There are some things you should never bet against.

* * *

"Today, Mitt Romney Lost the Election"

--Josh Barro for Bloomberg

Folks, after reading this morning's headlines, I am at a loss. I am not going to laugh at Romney or sneer or snark.

The 2012 GOP candidate might have been able to recover from the Latino jokes. He might have been able to explain away the comments about young women locked in a Chinese factory, but essentially calling nearly half of all Americans a bunch of hopeless losers is indelible.

I have no idea if Mr. Barro's prediction is correct. I have no idea what my fellow Americans will do when they step into the voting booth on November 6, but effectively dismissing half of the electorate disqualifies Mr. Romney from the office of the President in my book.

I don't care who he was talking to. How can any American vote for a man who has written off 47 percent of us?

*  *  *

On tribal politics

Politics have become so tribal that anyone who works with the other side is viewed by many partisans as a traitor, akin to sleeping with the enemy--Norman Ornstein.

Imagine, dear reader, a Tip O'Neil/Ronald Reagan style handshake in Washington. What the business owners and investors in this country wouldn't do to see that. After all, stability is the single most important ingredient in economic recovery. Unfortunately, however, the GOP is holding stability hostage thanks to the compromise-is-a-dirty-word set.

News flash: when a party moves blindly away from its ideology in order to practice pure obstructionism, it's called tribal politics. Need an example? Let's start with healthcare reform.

2006:  The individual mandate is the Republican answer to health care reform, the construct of a conservative think tank (The Heritage Foundation) and widely approved by conservatives as one of their own (Romney) leads the charge to enact it in the great state of Massachusetts.

 2009: The individual mandate is SOCIALISM!

Where were all the SOCIALISM! screamers before Obama took office? Why weren't they righteously decrying Medicare and Social Security over the years?

Because tribal politics, dear reader, do not adhere to an ideology. The only goal is self-preservation. And although I have no idea what the November end game is going to look like, tribal politics do not seem to be doing Mr. Romney any favors.

In order to lead the tribe into the November battle, Romney was forced to change his positions on abortion, gun control and health care reform--and those are just the obvious ones. Then this week, while President Obama sprang to action condemning the deadly attack on our Libyan embassy and sending security troops to points across the Middle East to protect American interests, Romney promptly started calling the President names and doubling down, making his latest patriotic casualty the unspoken agreement that partisanship ends at the water's edge.

Tribe before country, folks. Always.

(psssst ... hey GOP, you got your ears on? I hate to break this to you fellas, but your relentless attacks on Obama and his policies are starting to backfire. Obama looks more and more like an underdog scrapper against your monolithic party-of-no legislative stance and a stalwart statesman when bullets start to fly. Your man Romney, on the other hand, is looking more and more like a spineless YesMan brown-nosing his monied brethren.)

Oh to be a fly on the office wall of Karl Rove. Oh to hear the insider discussions between the Koch brothers and their minions. Because the real question, dear reader, has to do with the beloved free market. After all, at some point the rate of return on those beauteous donations courtesy of Citizens United might start looking pretty bleak. Don't believe me? At post time, Intrade Odds--which tracks the bettin' man's money--favored Obama's reelection over Romney's chances of taking the White House by more than 30 percent.

Backed into a corner, however, these guys can get pretty desperate. The Kansas GOP tribe even tried scrubbing Obama's name from the Kansas November ballot over more spavined racist birther claims.

Well, well, well. Talk about your American way.

* * *

On Romney and authenticity

Having been promised that Romney would speak at 10 p.m. last Thursday, I tuned in at the prescribed time only to find Mr. Eastwood delivering the most noted performance of the convention. I saw part of Rubio's speech, didn't make it to Romney's, but no worries. The full text is readily available.


 Here's something you will not read in that text:

In 1998, Ann was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. Those dark days were full of trepidation and uncertainty, but we were fortunate enough to have Ann's boundless strength as well as considerable means. Now look how beautifully she's emerged. (APPLAUSE)

Every tragedy is dotted with points of light. After Ann's ordeal, I knew no one should have to face the difficulties of a debilitating disease compounded by the fear of not having access to healthcare. And when I became Governor of Massachusettes, I vowed to myself to find a way to make public healthcare available via private means. (APPLAUSE)

In 2006, that vow came to fruition. (APPLAUSE)

I really believe Romney's heart is in that imaginary script. I really believe that his wife's battle with MS was part of what drove him to enact the Massachusettes Health Care Reform. That would have been a personal and powerful campaign touchstone. It shimmers with truth. Unfortunately for Romney, the GOP has told him in no uncertain terms that he is not allowed to have any part of it.

Authenticity does not come in a jar. You cannot fake it or buy it. The GOP has essentially stolen its candidate's authenticity.

Ann is another terrible tragedy. The truth would have illuminated her in ways all the sentimental stories cannot. Now every American--insured and uninsured--who has struggled with health care costs sees a rich healthy woman who never had to worry about the bills.

Whether or not Romney's forced loss of authenticity will cost him the election is anybody's guess, but his vast swings on pro-choice/pro-life and gun control/gun rights compounded with his refusal to disclose his taxes do not help his case.

Authenticity, Governor Romney, is a terrible thing to waste.

*  *  *

Obligatory health care rant

-Congratulations to the GOP for creating "individual mandate" health care reform, championing it for two decades, instituting it in Massachusetts, decrying it as soon as the black guy in the White House said he liked it, and then getting it all the way to the Supreme Court where their own guy upheld it.

-Speaking of Head Justice Roberts: Hey guys, I'm really conservative (really, I am), but this here Supreme Court ain't ideological! 

-In order to repeal ACA, the GOP will have to keep the House, win 60 seats in the Senate and take the White House in November. Good luck with that.

-Won't it be a gas watching which states opt in or out of the Medicaid expansion?

-Warren Olney had a great show on the SCOTUS ruling, with a terrific segment on the Stolen Valor Act ruling at the end of the show.

-Every single time Mitt Romney says the ACA is bad for America, he does not believe it himself. That inauthenticity smells bad now. Wonder how rank it'll be in four months.

-Now sit back and enjoy an all-American two-liter bottle of high fructose corn syrup-sweetened soda for 99¢. Smoke 'em if you got 'em, folks, and order up a bacon sundae. Your countrymen got your back when the diabetes sets in and the lung cancer blooms and your tubes get clogged up. From now on, we're all in this together.

*  *  *

It's a Republican way of solving a problem which we face as a nation

Now everyone just forget that ol' Mittens wholly supported an insurance mandate, 'kay? That goes double for you SCOTUS peeps.

* * *