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

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.

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!

The Subtle Differences Between #Occupy and the Tea Party

Let's discuss the difference between Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party. This first image, for examle, indicates the general reception of the Tea Party by the powers that be, vis-à-vis their initial demonstrations:

Here we see the line-up for the official FoxNews sponsored Tea Parties.

And here's an image indicative the of the general reception of Occupy protestors:

Here we see an Iraq War veteran who's been shot in the head, reportedly with a
tear gas canister, in the streets of Oakland

The differences are subtle, I know. Maybe video might clarify. Here's a government official lashing out  and attacking the Tea Party:

Contrast that with government officials responding to OWS:

Can you see it? No? Jeez. Look -- the Occupy guys are total hippies! In the first picture, check out that stoner on the left with the giant earrings. What are those made of, tusks? Hey, jackass, go get a job! Tea Party supporters, on the other hand, are more like Glenn Beck. Family men. With jobs.

And those Oakland protesters, what dicks. They were saying some very mean-spirited things, and being quite loud about it. It looks like they may have been obstructing pedestrians, too, which is completely illegal. And rude.

There isn't any video of it (conveniently enough) yet, but the Oakland police said the protesters were throwing rocks, bottles and paint at them. It very much scuffed and otherwise defaced their body armor -- which, I might add, was paid for by taxpayers. I mean, tear gas may be too dangerous for warfare, but common decency has its limits.

Think about that the next time you see one of these "peaceful protests" in the news. Hippy.