What It's Like to be Mitt Romney

It's been charged of both Presidential candidates that they're out of touch. And both sides, Republican or Democrat, have fervently denied such charges. It's important that the American people see each candidate as someone they could have a beer with, that they can relate to.

In a bipartisan effort to humanize the opposition, I've been trying to put myself in the shoes of Mitt Romney. It is in that spirit that I'm actually going to try and write this in the most positive way I can, so that you too might see just how normal he is.

Childhood

As a child, Romney found it hard to fit in. His father was a wealthy governor, after all, so even at the elite private schools he attended there was a bit of a bubble separating him from his classmates. While others may have been cowed by such a case, Romney seems to have used the occasion to improve himself and those around him.

In an early show of leadership, Romney once rallied his fellow students to the common cause of strict and arbitrary dress code enforcement. The crowd swarmed an effeminate classmate whose hair was too long, holding him down while Romney personally and forcibly styled the locks to a more appropriate length.

You know, normal kid stuff.

College

We all have some crazy times during college. Young and impulsive, every one of us makes a mistake in those years that would be embarrassing, to say the least, if made public years later. Experimenting with drugs or our sexuality, treating others badly, maybe impersonating a state trooper and harassing citizens at night, whatever. College antics.

Like any other college kid might, Romney found himself in possession of an official government-issue trooper's uniform acquired by his father. And he used this typical present to, naturally, cruise around until he saw someone breaking the law so he could pull them over and chastise them. Oh, to be young again...

Career

Everyone knows the exceptional aspects of Romney's business career. He ran his company, Bain Capital, in a prudent and efficient manner, investing in countless businesses, many of them (like Staples, or Dominos Pizza) phenomenally successful. With his business success and personal investments combined, he's now worth an estimated quarter of a billion dollars. (Not counting any undisclosed offshore assets.)

What isn't talked about as often are the humdrum, man-of-the-people aspects of his work at Bain. For example, Mitt Romney worked so hard at fixing the Olympics, and then running for office, that he didn't even realize he'd retired from Bain! It took the guy a few years to realize the truth. 

His critics might wonder how difficult his job must have been if it was more or less indistinguishable from retirement, but even they must admire the business acumen required to collect a six figure paycheck well into the apparent twilight of his life. Much like your local, lovable Wal-Mart greeter.

Candidacy

Romney worked very hard to single-handedly save the Olympics, so much so that he almost never traveled home to his beloved Massachusetts, where he was CEO-in-name-only at Bain. The overqualified Romney was at first frustrated by the partisan efforts of liberal activists, who claimed that one is a resident of a state only if one lives and/or works there. A rational human being would admit that a man need only touch the soil for the briefest of moments to call any state theirs.

As part of the interview process meant to prove his residency, Romney claims he made several business trips to Mass., when his only business there was Bain. This is the part where you can truly feel for Mitt, and sympathize: the poor guy was unaware even then that he'd long-since left the company for good. Poor schlub.

Again, his opponents might say that Romney has shown a consistent and life-long pattern of entitled behavior, ruthlessly gaming every system to his favor with the full force of all his considerable advantages. But you and I, and all the real people of this great nation who have felt Mitt's pain and have known his struggles, know that what he really is at the core of his being is an average, every day guy like the rest of us.

Bain in the Ass

What a difference a month makes. In June, around the time of Obama's Latino Hail Mary, Romney had been in charge of the previous few weekly news cycles, with numbers that were inching up, and was firmly in charge of the national narrative.

Every speck of that previous near-advantage has been wiped clean in 30 days time. And a good part of the turnaround has been a continued focus on Bain, which has left Republicans scrambling for an election year tit for this unrelenting tat. 


John Sununununu, former governor of New Hampshire, recently gave a perplexing and aggressive interview to Andrea Mitchell where, when asked about charges that Romney pioneered outsourcing, he asserted that Romney was rubber and the President was, in fact, glue. 

And when talking to Sean Hannity, the former governor lashed out in another incident we can only attribute to low blood sugar. (0:53)

Outsourcing? Well, Obama's an outsourcer too, then! Oh a felony, eh? Well Obama might as well be a felon! And in fact, the Right has gone even further saying that, you know what, Obama admitted to committing felonies too! Because, uh, well, um, smoking weed is a federal crime!

(Which, not to continue the robust tit-tat trade going on here, but I'm pretty sure that impersonating an officer of the law is also a federal crime. If we're going to re-litigate ancient history, I mean.)

There are other, far less entertaining surrogates out there making these and other points; I just get a kick out of Sununu. What's notable about all these attacks, though, is that they don't seem to be working. Bain is proving to be a drain on Romney this election in just the same way as it was in all his past elections.

So, there's been some debate over whether this election resembled 1992 or 2004, with Mitt Romney as either Clinton or Kerry, depending. If Bain - which should otherwise be Romney's biggest strength - continues to hurt him as it's doing now, Romney might as well just take up windsurfing and get it over with.

More Action, More Jobs

Dearest Mr. Obama,

Barry, your economic message sucks. I think you've done a fine job, considering the "headwinds" and all, but you don't seem to be making that case very effectively to anyone but people who already support you. Everything you've offered so far is easily countered by your opposition and thus drowns in the din of the media. You need to simplify.

Do you remember Herman Cain, B.O.? I'm sure do. If you think hard enough you'll even recall he was once the frontrunner to the GOP nomination. Was it because he had good ideas? No, he was batshit crazy. Was it because he ran an effective campaign? Holy Christ no. It was because no matter what you had to say about him, he had an economic message everyone could understand and articulate. 

Even when the logical flaws inherent in his plan were pointed out, his numbers held and his message stayed just as effective as it had been. The Cain Train was unstoppable. I regret only that he was unable to quell the vicious, scurrilous rumors of personal mistakes...

In short, Bizzay B., I suggest you adopt and repeat the following phrase, as Latinos say, ad nauseam:

"More Action, More Jobs."

Just try it out. Read the following out loud: "Help me get Congress to stop fighting progress - we need More Action. Help me pass the American Jobs Bill - we need More Jobs. Stop the partisan gridlock; We need More Action. Stop the European austerity; We need More Jobs. Barack Obama: More Action, More Jobs. Re-elect me, muthafuckas!"

How good did that feel? You got to artfully suggest Congress is responsible for this mess while trumpeting your key economic initiative. You even got to tie Republicans to the shambles that is the European Union and maybe remind voters of how bad things could have been for us. 

And, if I were asked what your core economic message was, as a supporter, I would no longer have to ramble on about headwinds and cars in ditches and skipped tabs; I could simply say, "Barack Obama stands for more action and more jobs."

(It could also explain away some of your executive overreach, Mr. Constitutional Scholar. Congress wants less action - and therefore fewer jobs, as per our new message - so you, the man of action, have had to circumvent them for the good of your country and the jobs therein. More Action, More Jobs.)

You don't have to take my genius slogan word-for-word. Play with it, make it your own. But you do need   a simple argument that can cut through the clutter. And as of now you don't have one.

With Love,
-JD

Preparing for Panic Mode

Alright. I admit I'm a little worried. I'm not panicked - there are bright spots yet, the math is still in my candidate's favor - but I'm getting more concerned.

The media coverage of Obama has been decidedly negative. I don't say that in a whiny woe-is-me sort of way (I'm no conservative); the media is just seeking controversy. Presidential elections are their Black Friday - they'll coast on the investments and payouts of this cycle's coverage for the next four years. They need a close race. You can't blame a guy for feeding his kids.

In his effort to flip the evolving script, the President gave a big speech that was more picked apart and fretted over than discussed seriously on merit. So Obama pulled out the big guns and gave them lazy Mexicans all of our jobs.

This new immigration policy (or anti-policy) is foremost the prudent move for our country. It saves resources, saves money, and encourages good citizenship. And nobody cares. Screw that wishy-washy Hopey Changey crap, the fun part is in sussing out the politics.

In light of this announcement, for example, one has to wonder what the advantage would be of a Rubio Vice Presidency. And what issue do Republicans have to court Latino voters with now? It gives those of Latin persuasion magis causum (as their people say) to show up at the polls, an inevitable issue for the Democrat's Western strategy. And it forces Mitt Romney to either commit the cardinal sin of agreeing with the President, or essentially reverse course on yet another major issue and further alienate a crucial voting bloc...

What's Romney's response, you ask? So far he's punting, using Rubio as human shield, and no doubt there is some serious focus-grouping being conducted by his campaign. He's wisely fighting to stay on his only truly effective election message: The Economy Sucks and It's Obama's Fault.

The question remains, though. Romney's been hammering this singular point, excepting times when he swiped at the President for straying from that message, and Obama has been unable to articulate an effective counter-point. Is he capable of unveiling an economic policy or message that can cut through the clutter and reassure skittish undecideds he can steer the economy back on track?

That, uh... that's the part where I'm worried.

Walker, Wisconsin Danger

Scott Walker

Scott Walker is a douchebag. We can all admit that, I think. He's a slimy sort of politician who uses ham-handed tactics to push an agenda his consitentuency didn't really vote for, and his reign will probably shake voters' faith in reactionary election outcomes.

The thing people seem to have a hard time agreeing on, though, is what the implications of a continuation of the Walker dictatorship may be. Whether he wins or loses the historic recall battle could very well predict, or even dictate, how Wisconsin will swing this Fall.

One argument asserts that Walker's numbers going into the recall, and that he looks likely to squeak out a victory, mean the state will be more likely to go for Romney than the President. It's hard to counter -- if Democrats lose this hard-fought battle, and one that once looked to some like an easy victory, it's hard to imagine them not being demoralized. It could depress turnout noticeably. It also leaves the levers of government in WI in the hands of the GOP, which could be a substantial boost to the Romney campaign in the state.

Right. Sure. But here's where I have a problem; it's my favorite paragraph from an article on this very subject.

"Whether Walker wins or doesn't is going to be a big indicator of how Wisconsin goes, and how the whole upper Midwest goes," said Iowa's Republican Gov. Terry Branstad.

 A few things, here. First, this guy's a Republican, so what the hell does he know? Er, I mean, y'know... he could a little biased. Is all. Second, Wisconsin is not a proxy for the Midwest. If it were, Obama would already be failing miserably there, and that probably isn't the case yet.

Scott Walker

The only real problem I have with the theory is the small matter that I disagree with it entirely. I think a Walker re-elect would actually be a good sign for Obama. This may be wishful thinking (if you can't tell, I support Obama in the upcoming elections), but it seems to me the headwinds in Walker's favor are more of a pro-incumbent attitude than we saw in 2010, and not some dramatic Republican wave just starting to crash.

Nate Silver (or Natty S, as he's known on the streets) recently broke down the Walker polls, essentially blaming the economy. Things are getting better in Wisconsin, and about the same degree that they're getting better for the nation as a whole. People just aren't as pissed off, and, as Big Nat Platinum put it...

If Mr. Walker’s approval-disapproval ratings were even, he might be a favorite to win the recall election because some voters who are on the fence might nevertheless object to the idea of removing a governor from office in midterm.

Not that Obama has a 1:1 correlation here, what with his less-than-stellar approval rating, but I think Nat-A-Tat-Tat's point can be expanded a bit. If Obama can make the argument that his administration has promises to keep, and miles to go, that may just give him the small edge he needs to tip the scales.

Now, I'm a fatalist at heart. At the first true glimmer that Obama will lose, I'll probably be the first one wringing my hands. But I don't see it yet. And if it comes to that, I'll wait until all the pieces are in play before I get truly frightened. Everything I've seen of Obama's political style is chess; he patiently positions himself on the board and corners his foe, always on the offensive but never impatient.

Scot Walkers

The Bain attacks are a good example of this methodical style, I think. They haven't proven terribly effective so far, perhaps, especially after a self-concerned mini-mutiny among some Democrats. But if you look at it as a piece of a whole, it's yet another piece in an overall strategy of denying Romney any possible qualification for office. Romney did most of the work, disavowing more or less his entire record as Governor at various points in the past few years. Obama has since added education, civil rights, women's health, and now (perhaps) Romney's record at Bain to the list of subjects perilous for Romney to discuss.

More important is that Barack now has some wiggle room when debating the economy. His campaign may not convince a lot of voters that Mitt is evil with these attacks, but they've nonetheless provided an excellent (and much-needed) rhetorical pivot point. "Oh, my job numbers, you cannibalistic vampire capitalist kitten eater? Yeah, let's discuss job numbers."

Sidenote: Most fascinating about all this is that part of the strategy seems to be trying to get Romney to defend his record as Governor, which could begin the process of tamping down enthusiasm for Romney among the GOP base, and the crucial process of more easily defending legislation like the Affordable Care Act through the lens of Mitt's record. Romney's response has been that he'd rather take the beating on Bain than so much as touch his record as leader of a liberal state.

I'm still convinced the game is Obama's, and I don't think I'll change my mind until, y'know, there's an actual reason to. Kudos to the news for fabricating this narrative, though. It's riveting.

The Rich Dunce with Good Hair

In case you're unfamiliar with the story, I'll summarize this event in the only way I know how: the rapture of song.

The following lyrics are intended to be set to the tune of the theme to Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, which was of course written by famous rappist Willard C. Smith.

_______

Now this is a story all about how

The Romney campaign got run out of town

He tried to take a minute

To discuss test scores

But ended up offending minorities some more

On the West Philadelphia campaign stage

The candidate was boo'd by blacks and gays

Holding up picket signs outside of the school

Every one of them thinking 'hey, this guy's a tool'

But a couple of folks

Who say they are poor

Expect the nominee to knock on their door

They got the impression that he didn't care

About poor students who survived on welfare

He hopped on his bus, told the driver to go

(The rig was pretty big and the decals tasteful)

You might think that this kind of campaign gaffe was rare

But nah, Romney does this shit everywhere

He pulled out of the lot running from all the haters

He'll try to combat his negatives later

Maybe he can talk of

The economy

But his response to the Bain ads has been kind of weak

I Can't Quit You

It's better with the caption. 

(via my gay roommate)

Barack Obama Announces He Is Gay

It's a metaphor.

First off: I told you this election was going to be exciting. Secondly, I totally heard Obama's gay now. Maybe I misread the headline, ahdunno I was in a hurry, but I'm preeetty sure he wants to marry a man. Maybe Biden? (I secretly hope it's Boehner...)

Alright, that's stupid, sorry. But it's the premise that excuses these awful shoops that I giggled over for a good twenty minutes. This is how I choose to learn the basics of graphic design, folks. Sidenote: It's right around the time you reach the third page of Google Image results for "Gay Men Kissing" that you start to wonder where your life is going.

This one too, why not.

So, my favorite part about all this? (Aside from the gay jokes?) It shows the difference between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama as politicians. This is a total flip-flop, and while most people assumed he was pro-Gay Marriage, the announcement was not prompted by some sudden personal conviction. It was a political necessity.

But so far the response hasn't been a horrified recoil by his constituents, as Mitt Romney's recent attempts to move toward the middle have elicited, but rather jubilation. This is how you tell politicians apart. This is the line of demarcation.

Still, while I think this will turn out to be a really good decision, flipping positions like this is risky. And North Carolina is a potential battleground that just outlawed the thing Obama now supports. Why the hell would he do this now? My sense is that, like anything else in politics, you have to follow the money.

The gay money.

Chuck Todd said recently that "gay money" was the new Wall Street money.

 

To rub that point in the President's face, the creator of Will & Grace (the show that single-handedly made gay dudes people) even wrote a big fat check to the Re-Elect campaign, on Joe Biden's behalf. Bitchy or just catty, you decide, but I'm sure he feels it was effective enough. The response from fundraisers so far? Positive.

But the polling here points to a more perilous situation nationally, and a treacherous tightrope to walk. Same sex marriage may be a loser overall in swing states, and my little election map prediction relies on states where a plurality of voters are now seemingly at odds with the President.

That's the great thing about good politicians, though. I'm pretty sure this is a winner for Obama and Democrats. And I'm pretty sure, were Romney doing the same thing with a similarly perilous conservative position, it wouldn't be for him. 

Even if this blows up in Obama's face, this is great politics. And great fun. That leaves the score so far at...

Politics: 1  
Soccer: 0

I've Got A Raging Election

Aw man, it's official! It's happening! I'm stocking up on popcorn, signing up for newsletters, and giving my phone number to anyone with a clipboard. I'm in this thing, dude. And despite having perhaps the two most boring candidates to ever compete together as my options, I'm excited!

I'm excited entirely because of this. This is the current electoral map, as per the NY Times. It's a close race, for sure, but it gets more interesting when you start to play with the numbers. Give it a shot - look at polling in any of the swing states (Michigan, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and New Hampshire). Let's go ahead and give each candidate the states they're most likely to win.

BAM. Race over. And not just a win, a healthy win. Obama wins in this scenario if he cedes the South entirely (including both Carolinas and Virginia and shifting resources from Florida because fuck Florida) and fully embraces and supports Hispanic turnout. He could even lose either New Mexico or Colorado - but not both - or New Hampshire, any any other random <10 delegate state, and win.

A massive negative campaign against Romney in traditional media throughout CO and NM, positive campaign among Latino media, this is entirely possible. And this isn't even necessarily Obama's best case scenario - that one involves VA and/or TX and/or SC. Yeah, not likely, but more likely than Romney taking, say, MI or WI.

Or, let's say Romney and his SuperPACs have the West on lockdown. Let's imagine he finally formulates the magic position that flips Obama's overwhelming majority with Latinos. What could the potential map look like then?

Here, Romney wins by holding all of his lean states and taking CO, NM, NV and NH. If he loses any of the states with 10 or more delegates, he loses the election. This is pretty well best case scenario for Romney and it's still a pretty narrow win. NH is not a likely get, for example. This makes me very confident in Mr. Obama.

So, three of the most important takeaways from the lay of the land right now.

1. Latino turnout looks to me to be the most decisive factor of the race.
2. Obama has more to lose than Romney has to gain.
3. Fuck Florida.

And another interesting quirk: if Romney get's exactly 269, tying with Obama, the House decides who wins the election.

It strikes me this election will be like soccer. If you don't follow the intricacies of the game, it'll seem pretty boring. But, that's only because the action and the players are inherently uninteresting..

Double Standard

I just want to drop a quick note here, just for easy reference. If you encounter a conservative that claims that Barack Obama's actions would have been completely unacceptable under George W. Bush (here's an example), please tell them to shove it. As a personal favor to me.

This is a silly argument for two reasons:

1. They're complaining that nobody is complaining. Berra-esque.
2. Bush was a conservative.

This doesn't indicate a double standard in the media or the public, though, but with the people complaining. They're comparing apples and oranges. Obama is doing really conservative things, and getting a pass for that because he's a progressive.

Bush did the same thing. Big spending, big government? Not conservative ideals. And Bush got a pass because he ninja'd it through with a bunch of batshit conservative initiatives. So, again, the double standard only applies to the big dummies claiming there's a double standard.

The Insanity of Ron Paul

Like other people on the internet, I like Ron Paul. I'm with the majority of my generation in supporting his opposition to our wars on Iraq, Afghanistan, Terror and Drugs. I like the idea of personal liberty, and his staunch support for what is a fundamental right forgotten all too often. I find the way he talks to be, quite frankly, goddamn adorable - like he's about to give me a chocolate bar and a copy of The Fountainhead and pinch me on the cheek. I want to have Thanksgiving dinner with him and get into a long discussion about the role of government in a modern society.

The down side to Ron Paul, though, is that he's fucking crazy.

Pictured: Mel Gibson

You might be thinking that's just a biased opinion - and you might be right, ahdunno. But I have evidence to support my assertion, so hear me out. Imagine, just for a moment, he's nothing more than a doddering old fool with a hardly a legislative achievement to his name who, much like Mel Gibson's character in Conspiracy Theory,  happened to stumble on an actual impending crisis and that happenstance unleashed everything that followed. With that frame of mind, don't a few things make a little more sense?

His racist newsletters, for example. There are two possible versions of events here. Either he knew about the hateful language and was okay with it, or he published multiple newsletters with his name on them without a single care as to their actual contents. I tend to believe Paul's just a racist old guy, like nearly every other old guy I've ever met, but either way that's some crazy stuff. Note also that for his official explanation he picked the crazier of the two already-crazy options; His name and reputation were on the line and he was making millions of dollars off these newsletters, but he never had the wherewithal to actually read the darn things? How quirky.

Jackson contemplating
unilateral invasion of Canada

It should be noted, also, that his first response to the newsletters as campaign fodder wasn't to disavow his bigoted statements, but rather to defend them, as a campaign official told the Houston Chronicle the statements, "mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson." (This respect for Jackson coming despite Paul's apparent disdain for the Civil Rights movement.) Also, there's video of him acknowledging the newsletters in 1996, and again not so much as distancing himself from the hateful language in them. Curioser and curioser.

But that's not all! Some people are starting to actually talk about some of Paul's batshit economic ideas as he rises to prominence. Like, switching to the gold standard - a move the entire world has been moving away from for a variety of reasons. Or abolishing the Federal Reserve, something not done since our last lunatic President, Andrew Jackson.

I like the fact that even when he's saying something loopy, Paul says it with practiced conviction. I like that he stands up for what he believes in despite political headwinds. But that is not a good thing in the face of an impending general election - Paul will be forced at some point, inevitably, to either defend a crazy belief until its absurdity is clear, or hedge and lose credibility as the tough-talk candidate. Can't you just imagine Barack Obama nonchalantly devastating Paul by pressing him on his belief that the Civil War shouldn't have been waged? Or, similarly, that equality is a state's rights issue?

Of the entire GOP field, Paul is one of maybe two guys I genuinely like. I would love to see him win his party's nomination. But part of that conviction has nothing to do with our similar beliefs, or my fascination with his Furby-esque speaking presence, but rather my abiding conviction that he would lose handily to Democratic opposition in a national election.

Healthcare 2010: From Death Panels to National Security

What do you do when you have no foreign policy credentials, and your aim is to take down a President who's won two wars and killed our most hated national enemy? Pull out the old standard bogeyman, of course!

Goes along quite well with a story in Politico about the complete lack of foreign policy in the debates -- due to the complete lack of experience among the current nominees. If they don't do something to neutralize this advantage for Obama, it could prove damaging down the line. Will they all stoop to such inane and pathetic tactics? Only time will tell.

But yeah, I mean, they probably will.

Prognostication

There are a few things I've been sort of mentioning in conversation with my friends, little predictions about what I foresaw the 2012 battle coming down to. They haven't all been right, but there are some big ones, some that were scoffed at, that I think look more and more plausible as things unfold.

Right now, Herman Cain still seems to be clinging to his role as the current GOP frontrunner, even now eliciting far more excitement than his chief rival, Mitt "I'm Running For President for Gosh Sakes" Romney. But sexual harrassment claims put a politician in a tough spot, and Herman the Hammer sees all problems as nails. 


Prediction: Herman Cain resorts to boosting plausible deniability, with he and his right-wing-talk supporters (ie, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.) vilifying his accuser. Either she'll be an economic opportunist taking advantage of a powerful man, or she'll be a tawdry slut looking for attention.

Now, let's assume the Republican electorate at some point comes to its senses and decides Herman Cain being both an unelectable idiot and a philanderer is just a little too much for them. They still hate Romney, the only plausible candidate. And these Tea Party types have shown they care more for ideology and personality than substance or logic. I don't think I've ever seen an election begging so hard for third-party candidates.

Prediction: A viable Tea Party candidate, and possibly (though likely to negligible effect on the election) a far-left challenger to Obama.

On that note - WTF, Sarah Palin? I was completely convinced she was running for office, and I'm still not entirely sure she wasn't. The bus tour, the media frenzy, and the knowledge of reality without Palin injecting herself into the news cycle, makes me wonder if she just didn't declare her candidacy. It would make sense to view her actions as the beginnings of a campaign that ran out of oxygen after both Bachmann and Perry were officially in the running.

Prediction: She's too unpredictable, too assured in her nonexistent skills, for me to even guess what she does next, but you can rest assured it will only benefit her. And you can bet she won't fade quietly from the national stage - I'm sure, at the very least, she has kingmaker ambitions.

Finally, another thing that's been on my mind: Healthcare. I predicted nigh two years ago, when my fellow Democrats were convinced the victory was total and we needed to move on, that this would remain a major issue all the way until the election, and very probably beyond. Now the Supreme Court is readying to take the case. My bet is that the law will remain largely unchanged, but either way the impending decision will probably work in President Obama's favor. If they rule against, he can use that to boost his base, framing the election, and its impact on the Judiciary and the Court, as a needed turning-point. If it's decided that the provision in in fact constitutional, then Obama has a clear and solid victory going into the election.

Prediction: Nothing will change except Obama's poll numbers, which should see a bump. Nowhere to go but up, at least, right?

It'll be fun looking back at this after the election. Unless these are all wrong, in which event I'll be rewriting this entirely and still claiming victory. Mutable media!

Cain Pain II: First Blood

Seems Herman Cain's continued frontrunner status has earned him the ire of Rick Perry, and garnered the first sex scandal of the campaign! Normally sex scandals are bad, but this one's far worse than it should be, thanks to Cain's inept handling of the controversy. Things are so bad, some are actively predicting the fall of the Cain campaign entirely -- though those people tend to be the selfsame ones who called him the flavor of the week a couple weeks ago. 

(Full disclosure: I'm one of those people.)

That isn't a hope, by the way. I don't hope Cain fails to get his party's nomination -- quite the opposite. From his complete lack of foreign policy gravitas, his government inexperience, his claim to fame being as Boss of a pizza family (that's mobster talk), and now this values-voter-shunning sex scandal, I could foresee another '08 happening if he were the Republican opponent. But I can't believe Obama could possibly be that lucky.

I mean, at the same time, his "leading from behind" strategy wins the war in Libya (I'd rather lead from behind and win than shock-and-awe and lose), he can claim victory in Iraq, and we've seen a few positive indicators for the economy; his numbers seem to be flirting with the idea of creeping upward. Could we possibly see the return of the political wunderkind who defeated both the Clinton and Republican political machines those many long years ago?

Chris Matthews feels differently about my hesitance to chalk this up to luck, and has even said so on his show a few times. Is Obama one of the luckiest politicians in recent history? It's certainly thought-provoking.

Not to be all about MSNBC or anything, but their token Republican has been spreading rumors of right-wing voters who say they'd rather run an imperfect but ideologically pure candidate (ie Cain or Paul) and lose than run Romney, who's already being cast as the consumate flip-flopper. I have no idea how the average GOP primary voter thinks, but I do know Kerry was beaten in 2004 on the flip-flop charge and some swiftboating. Could the same work against Romney? Could healthcare be his swiftboat?

And the scandal says something very interesting about Perry, the candidate suspected of leaking the story to Politico in the first place. I've hoped from the start that Michelle Bachmann would be the attack dog of the campaign -- and in some ways she has been -- but Perry seems to be landing the only resounding blows against the current frontrunners. Could his ambitions sufficiently soften his opponents before the general election?

So many questions! But that's why we love politics, right?

The Grand Ol' Party (or: How Republicans Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb)

Let's flash back to 2008 for a moment. Spirits are high across the nation, and Democrats are fat with power and pride. It seems as if the excess of the Bush Administration has stirred a powerful backlash that, combined with the political and rhetorical skills of the newly-elected President, might just cause an era of Democratic control.

That, uh... that didn't seem to last long.

Just before Obama's landslide, the Republican machine went into full-on panic mode. Like a cornered animal, starving but resourceful, they lashed out full-force in a desperate bid to survive. Almost immediately, the Right-Wing Echo Chamber wrenched the debate away from silly trifles like economic recovery in a global market to important issues like the decades-long conspiracy to hide Barack Hussein Obama's international citizenship. Republican operators FreedomWorks and FoxNews seemed to spur the growth of teabaggers, the Tea Party Beta.

This proved most effective. The original mantra of the group was actually agreeable, on its face. They were tired of Democrats and Republicans and all the useless ideological quibbling. They demanded their government sober up and focus only on one thing: the economy. Jobs and revenue. Cutting waste, trimming bloated government, and - most intriguing to me - saving fights over social policy for a brighter day. This was the party that loved Ron Paul, after all, and he openly criticized government restrictions of liberty, and even the War on Drugs.

PARTY OF NOTHING

That turned out to be far from reality, but it was a potent platform. Combined with non-stop, unprecedented, vicious attacks on the President, and the (totally not racist) gutteral loathing many (in the South) seemed to have specifically for Barack Obama, 2010 saw the Democrats taking a huge political hit. The GOP as a whole had embraced the Policy of No, the art of opposition, and it had worked.

So far, the 112th Congress has passed less than 1% of the nearly 4,000 bills introduced. That's a bit misleading, perhaps, as their session is only part-way through, but the 111th passed only 3% of the bills introduced during their's. Most concerning, though, is that those numbers are owed, in part, to a surge in cloture votes. The 111th Congress used the filibuster in unprecedented numbers, and were it not for a corresponding historic rise in cloture votes, the recent inactivity would have been that much more glaring. The number of filibusters may fall in the 112th, but only because the House has greatly reduced the need for such measures by coupling opposition and inactivity with an urge to pass bills they know won't become law.

That's all political infighting and Congressional criticism. But there's a much more immediate and insidious side to these current politics, giving rise to a disturbingly interesting conspiracy theory. What if, the idea goes, the GOP has seen political oppurtunity in sabotaging not just their political opposition, but the constituency thereof? Put more bluntly: Are Republicans purposely destroying America?

This is a purely intellectual excercise. It would be wrong to assume that anyone could be craven enough, or deluded enough, to use their power in such a way. The members of Congress are in Washington to work as part of the government - you have to assume they're doing their jobs, and doing so with the best interests of our nation, this Grand Experiment of ours, in mind. Right? Right.

PLOTTING

But, what would you have to do to actually destroy America? If your aim was to tear down the framework of our nation, how would you go about it? Let's say you're a powerful politician whose sole aim is making life miserable for the people you govern, ultimately in hope they'll take their anger out on those you oppose. More specifically, the President.

It's a herculean task, really. You'd need a groundswell of popular support. You would have to somehow develop a rabid constituency, if not manufacture one altogether. No matter how corrupt your vision of government may be, it's still impossible to legislate without the power of the ballot behind you. Palpatine dissolved the Alliance to thunderous applause, I'm sure we all recall.

If you wanted to take out the President, the best way to do that -- historically -- is to make sure there's a bad economy. In our evil plot, here, there would be all sorts of other benefits to a declining economy, but the most dramatic, immediate and important would be the impact it would have on control of the White House.

Now, if we're deliberately maneuvering government to directly oppose the interests of our constituency, we need some sort of cover. Whatever we do, we have to create a general sense of panic, anger and frustration. Political crises can be manufactured, for example. Disasters of any sort would be beneficial, really, but must be accompanied with appropriate political spectacle.

Lastly, and least intuitive, it would be important to diminish the populace's opinion of Congress itself. The more they see the body as a collection of lazy, bumbling fools in a distant capitol building, the better. This is a sinister and far-reaching plot, and a perception of impotence or incompetence will only make things easier. It would be ideal if all useful government activities ceased to function. Failing total shutdown, any blows to efficacy or even efficiency would be beneficial.

THE CONSPIRACY

Let's slip off our corrupt politician hat and put on one made of aluminum. We've identified the steps one could take to sabotage a nation for sake of political expedience. Now, let's pretend the plot is real and people in the government are acting it out.

Congressional Republicans have quite a bit of support for crazy, destructive policies thanks to an outbreak of extreme conservative activists, most often calling themselves the "Tea Party." (To confuse things further, they actually belong to the Republican Party.) The movement started with a successful, screaming conservative on national television, and was supported, often even funded by major media outlets (most notably FoxNews, the most influential network on television).

As for economic sabotage, examples of GOP activity that has directly and negatively impacted the economy are many and varied, and date back to the previous Republican administration. Here's one of the theorists propagating this particular aspect of the Grand Ol' Conspiracy for HuffPo.

Then, of course, there's panic. Luckily enough for conservatives, though, we've existed in a culture of fear for about a decade. The Right has used every failed terrorist attack as a talking point, highlighting the ineffectiveness of the current administration and the agencies established to protect us from such threats. Numerous disasters have also been used to further political interest, most notable being calls to abolish FEMA.

As for evil mastermind credibility, have you seen Congresses approval ratings? They wish they had Obama's numbers! Every day another congressman does something so awful, so craven, we all shake our collective heads and swear aloud. If it was an evil plot, mission accomplished. Everyone hates Congress.

And don't even get me started on efficacy and inefficiency...

VERDICT

It's interesting to think about. And, though I hesitate to admit it, I would not be the least bit surprised if there were actually people in powerful positions who have actually see the political benefits of sabotage. When I hear talk of dramatic defecit reduction in an economic crisis worse than any since the Great Depression, I do wonder if the person making the argument is just oblivious to history, or economics, or if they genuinely want to see a double-dip.

But it isn't all insidious. A depressing number of people honestly believe, almost religiously, in certain ideals that are truly harmful to government and society. There's some hope; people yearn to be good, and to do good. If we just gather together, and work to share our beliefs, and the logic behind them, maybe -- just maybe -- we can talk some goddamn sense into these morons.