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.

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..

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!

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.

The Demon Licks Obama

One can't help but wonder about this
man's views on foreign policy

Gene Simmons, member of a band I'm told plays something similar to Rock 'n Roll, recently railed against Barack Obama - or, more specifically, Barack Obama's recent assertion that Israel and Palestine go back to the border agreed upon back in 1967.

Says Simmons...

For a president to be sitting in Washington, D.C., and saying, 'Go back to your '67 borders in Israel,' how about you live there and try to defend an indefensible border nine miles wide?

...

It’s a nice idea, when you grow up you find out that life isn’t the way you imagined it, and President Obama means well," Simmons said. "I think he’s actually a good guy. He has no fucking idea what the world is like because he doesn’t have to live there.

...

If you’ve never been to the moon, you can’t issue policy about the moon. You have no fucking idea what it’s like on the moon.

For reference, here's where Simmons lives. Note the similarities to Israel. (SPOILER: There are none.)

(via Politico)

Osama's Dead. Now What?

On Sunday, the White House announced a sudden and mysterious late-night speech by the President. For about an hour, the subject of the speech went unstated - causing a feeding frenzy among the media.

I sat with some friends of mine, all enjoying some old-school thrills, switching off on Super Mario 64. I - ever the nerd - was browsing the internet while the others struggled to find all eight of Big Boo's red coins, when I noticed a Breaking News alert on HuffPo. It said something to the effect of, "President to give speech; subject withheld." I announced this to the room, and the speculation was on! What could he be announcing? Why so late at night, so sudden? Why the secrecy?

Then it was announced it was "national security related." Cue full freak-out mode. We were all, apparently, going to die. Finally, finally, someone read the news on Facebook. Osama bin Laden had been killed. And that was totally awesome. I clicked "like," cementing my approval for the ages.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

We watched the President live on the White House web page. Obama swaggered to his podium, read the announcement, and footage started popping up of spontaneous mass patriotism outside the White House and in Times Square. Mario, long forgotten now, was fast asleep in Peach's courtyard. The rest of the evening was spent researching exactly how grisly Osama's death had been. (In the eye? Yikes. So much for kidney failure...)

The speech was brief, and as the President receded into the ominous Cross Hall, we all wondered aloud what this would mean for our country. Is this the end of the war in Afghanistan? Or Iraq? How did it all happen? Did we really have the body, or was this an elaborate ruse on the level of pretending to be an American citizen so you can run for President? How will this affect the election?

On the last point, some prognosticators have predicted that this news could bump up Obama's approval some 10 points or so, which might be sustained for up to six months. Seems sensible enough - even Republicans were having a hard time criticizing the President's handling of the operation.*

No, it's the liberals attacking the President this time. I had thought the execution of Osama bin Laden was a universal desire - he had masterminded at least one plot that resulted in thousands of deaths, possessed the ability to do so again, and stated his clear intention to do just that. I'm not the biggest fan of the death penalty, but goddamn if this isn't a worthy enough argument in favor. Osama's death wasn't just retribution, it wasn't murder, it was justice. More than that, it was the intelligent thing to do.

I understand some hesitation. We essentially committed an act of war in Pakistan. No matter how cool our equipment was, how smoothly the operation went, you can't change the fact that we flew troops into their country and rushed in, guns blazing. Hell, we blew up a helicopter on our way out - exactly the wrong sort of thing to do on the sovereign land of a nuclear power. Could this further anger the military of Pakistan?

IMPLICATIONS

Bin Laden was found not far from the Pakistani capitol, in a prominent, even affluent, military town. The "Pakistani West Point," Kakul Academy, is a stone's throw from where Navy Seal Team 6 exploded a cutting-edge stealth helicopter in Osama's walled-in compound. It's hard to imagine such a feat from the most wanted man in the world without some assistance, or at least a few turned heads, from the nation's powerful military. Will this lead American war-hawks to put more pressure on Pakistan? Could actual complicity come to light? And, if so, will our relations with the country, already frayed, prove irrevocably severed?

And, so long as we're asking questions, what does this mean for al-Qaeda? Without its founder and leader, can it remain the galvanizing, frightening organization it has been? Further, after this blow, and continued reports about what seem to be al-Qaeda's death throws, with the Taliban a distant memory in the national consciousness (hell, there's an entire generation now that doesn't even know who Osama bin Laden was), what purpose are American troops serving in Afghanistan? Isn't this grounds for immediate withdrawal?

All this ruminating, and no answers. Just question after question. The death of a madman is inarguably good news, and seems somehow to resolve so much. But it seems everyone seems stuck in the same loop as I, pondering mysteries that always seem to resolve themselves in the unshakeable refrain of, "Now what?"

_______________

*UPDATE 5/8: Not that it stopped them from trying.

Mid-West Mafia Take Over NLR

Alright, maybe the title's a little hyperbolic... but this is awesome.

I'm pretty new in Arkansas - I've been in Little Rock, the state's capitol and largest "city," for about a year - so I'm still catching-up on the intricacies of local politics. Sometimes it can be so hard to wrap your head around city politics in a new area. It's all dense with names and locations that have no meaning, no previous relavance. In short, it's all boring. But, every so often, due diligence can result in the discovery of a juicy news morsels like this one.

I love a good corruption story, but what's really savory here is the mob connection. George Wylie Thompson was arrested by the FBI in Cabot. The charges span from possession of 147 firearms and 80,000 rounds of ammunition to bookmaking and marriage fraud, going all the way back to 2008. (A lifetime ago, really.) A felon isn't supposed to own a single gun, and I hear the Feds really start to raise an eyebrow when the total exceeds 146...

Thompson had first been arrested at the tail end of 2009, on stereotypical mafioso charges in an East Coast sting. One can only conclude drug mules that speak in broken English aren't always the best business associates. Also, Arkansas isn't as boring as it seems.

Thompson got 10 years, the Alderman got four months. At least Thompson totally knows karate. That'll come in handy in the Pen, I'm sure.

Pretty cool, huh? A made man in the Mid-West. And somehow I still can't find a decent cannoli in Little Rock.

Thy Brothers' Keeper

I'd like to honor my fellow Americans, just now emerging from the darkened recesses of legislative oppression, on the eve of our President's signing what will undoubtedly be considered yet another historic piece of legislation. An era of discrimination has finally ended, and now that it has, I think it's important to view the evolution of a potent and divisive debate.

Congress, always on the cutting edge, has finally caught up with the majority of Americans and given equal rights to our nation's fearless fags. In honor of this momentous occasion, let's review the life and death of the military policies and guidelines we all affectionately called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

__________

30,000 BC - First homo gets erectus for a dude. Cave-paintings appear as popular home decor. Local cave values skyrocket.

1924 AD - The Society for Human Rights begins advocating strange new ideas, apparently misconstrued from a literal interpretation of the Constitution.

1948 - Kinsey publishes Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, alerting the public to the growing dangers posed by the personal lifestyle choices of others. Also, people get all weird about how many gays are actually out there. Lurking.

1950 - President Harry Truman signs the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which details proper procedure for punishing homosexual activity among troops. None of the methods you're now imagining were ever implemented -- expulsion chosen instead.

1962 - Illinois legalizes sodomy. Gay people have sex for the first time. Initial reports indicate the fabulous nature of such encounters.

1973 - The American Psychiatric Association stops classifying The Gay as a mental disorder.

1982 - President Ronald Reagan signs Defense Directive 1332.14, which states that homosexuality is incompatible with military service. History in no way proves this to be the ranting of an increasingly senile former actor.

1993 - President Bill Clinton, trying to fulfill a campaign promise, pushes hard to let gays into the military. Opposition is, ironically enough, very stiff. DADT, a compromise between civil rights and homophobia, is adopted as official US military policy.

1994 - Col. Grethe Cammermeyer becomes the only person allowed to serve her country and be openly gay at the same time. Waits three years, changes her mind.

2000 - Vermont allows gay marriage. The institution of marriage immediately dissolves. Every citizen of Vermont marries their favorite pet or vehicle by mid-2003.

2001 to 2008 - George W. Bush.

2009 - President Barack Obama campaigns on repealing DADT. Doesn't seem weirded out by gay dudes. America approves. Also that year, the Supreme Court disagrees with America. (Again.)

2010 - Republicans grant the conceit that gays are people too, in exchange for tax-cuts.

2011 - DADT officially dead. Nothing bad ever happens again.

(Timeline via Infoplease, The Washington Post, Wikipedia, Google.)

Republicans Celebrate Status-Quo

I'll admit, even I -- a die-hard Obama worshiper -- had my faith shaken when I first heard about the extension of the Bush tax-cuts for the wealthiest Americans. It seemed nonsensical -- why would Republicans, who have shifted their entire brand toward closing the budget deficit, fight to keep the single largest non-defense aspect of said terrifyingly large spot of red ink? And, what's more, why the hell would Obama, that supposed fascist commie socialist, let such a thing happen despite it being the driving thrust of his election campaign?

I was bewildered. I grabbed the nearest bottle of alcohol and began what can only be described as a drug-fueled descent into madness. There was property damage, yes, and a few people may or may not have been mortally wounded (one should never, in those circumstances, stick around to hear the prognosis), but when I finally awoke and replenished my fluids, I had an epiphany. This is what I voted for.

Not this, specifically. I voted for the opposite. Screw the wealthy - they can have their tax cuts when my friends and family can exist without government aid. But this process, the idea of political compromise, of both sides getting what they want, that's what I wanted.

RATIONALIZATION

First, it's important to remind my fellow liberals that this is how government is supposed to work. It was a compromise between right and left, and Republicans -- still basking in the glow of victory after decisively retaking the House and reversing many Democratic gains in the Senate - got the better end of the deal. Welcome to Democracy.

And when one picks this tentative framework apart, there are quite a few things there that Democrats wanted that would have, under any other circumstance, resulted in a drawn-out battle with these supposed budget-hawks on the Right. The extension of unemployment benefits being the most ready example - it assured economic stability to families just before the holidays.

Liberals are grousing, nonetheless. In the modern view of legislation as win/lose for Republicans or Democrats, this seems to be chalked up as a win for the Right, not a product of bipartisan negotiation. But criticism so far seems purely reactionary, and a little thought on the political strategery shows this single deal could be the most significant step toward a possible second term for the President.

I know, it sounds hyperbolic, but hear me out.

This bit of legislation will essentially act as another round of stimulus. The bill amounts to more than $870 billion, and though liberals like to complain that tax cuts are an inefficient way to gin the economy, it will help. At least a little. And the economy is a notoriously effective barometer for presidential political success. Recall the fierce debate from the previous rounds of stimulus and the Republican inability to allow Congress to function and multiply it by a few hundred billion, divide that by its own square root, carry the two, then do nothing for a few months. Congratulations, you've just acted out what Congress would have done were Obama to propose such a stimulus under any other circumstance.

THE IRAN STRATEGY

The act of inviting Republican leadership to the White House and essentially brokering a back-room deal is beneficial, too. Obama may have sowed seeds of good will among Republican legislators (unlikely, but possible), and looks at the very least to be attempting bipartisanship. If this is but the first of a series of such efforts, he can take either of two possible beneficial positions. One, he lead the charge in a new, more prosperous era of bipartisan legislation. Or, more likely, Two, he reaps the political goodwill as Republicans reject his overtures yet again and keep their image of Do-Nothing obstructionism.

Call it the Iran Strategy. Just like our policy toward Iran, alluded to in the most recent Wikileaks dump of diplomatic cables, this could be a play-nice-then-stab play. If Obama at least appears to exhaust all other options, he can make a show of throwing up his hands just before declaring all-out war.

The President's also tacking toward the center in light of a Right-leaning election. This is an important and difficult task, but one that nonetheless has to be taken by anyone seeking national election. He seems to be using the spirit of bipartisanship to ease into the hearts of moderates. He may be angering his base a bit, but there are minimal risks to that (it's not like they'll vote Republican anyhow), and any of a handful of legislative actions could offset any ill-will. And, let's not forget, this is the sort of thing he said he would do if he were elected President.

Before you join in the chorus of criticism, remember compromise, not idealism, is the key to negotiation. And, when voting for a candidate, one must be careful what one wishes for.

Old People Use Subtitles, Young People Exploit

A brilliant new semi-Orwellian ad was released, playing on the American fear of squinty-eyed orientals (a tradition more than a century old) about the stimulus that saved us from another depression, the health-care overhaul the American people have been begging for during the past, ahdunno, couple generations, and the government "takeover" of GM that saved countless jobs around the globe (especially in light of Toyota, the company Republicans wanted to fill the void when GM collapsed, changing it's business model from "autos" to "careening death machines").

The gist is, China will own us, and we'll collapse entirely while somehow surviving to become employees of their government. Or those students watching the lecture - I don't know, there's no logic to the script. But it's well made, I have to give them that. Great lighting, and the special effects were just cheesy enough to excite my inner nerd.

The spot has a strange thesis, considering China made even more sweeping and dramatic moves than we did to keep its economy upright, and now they're doing their best to tamp down their economic success to fight inflation and avoid revaluing their currency. One could make the case that, in light of China's overwhelming success, the watered-down reform (a misguided attempt at bipartisanship) didn't go far enough. But that's not the case made by the conservative group that ran the following ad.

The ad begs for parody, and luckily enough the good folks at Campus Progress Action pounced, pointing out a bit of absurdity, and even throwing in a Christine O'Donnell jab at the end.

Ah, the youth.

(via HuffPost)

New Season, New Joys

I love politics. And, just like every other great American sport, there's a season when things get exciting - with politics, of course, it hovers around September through November. And goddamn is this year a good one.

Christine O'Donnell, for example. The Republican from Delaware was a surprise winner during the Republican Primary - prompting even Karl Rove to throw in the proverbial towel on the General. And, as the race has gone on, it's become disturbingly obvious O'Donnell is just what she claimed to be; average. Like most Americans, she has no idea what the hell is in that fancy "Constitution" thingy. It appears that during her week-long "graduate fellowship with the Claremont Institute in constitutional government" they didn't quite make it to the amendments. Which says, basically, that she must've skipped her first civics exam when (if?) she went to college.

The Rove prediction isn't entirely shocking - he seems skeptical of the entire Tea Party movement. The long-time beneficiary of the Republican establishment obviously has a dog in this race, but when he's got his analyst cap on, and especially when he's criticizing conservatives, there are few people who can speak with greater authority. His equating Teabaggers to members of the Civil Rights movement is retarded, at best, (Beck-esque, really,) but one should expect hyperbole from a professional spin doctor.

It's not all bad for the Tea Party - Democrat Jack Conway pulled the ultimate dirty campaign tactic (questioning his opponent's religious beliefs) in his battle against Rand Paul. Translation: Conway's desperate. And he isn't the only one - shockingly, a few Tea Party candidates seem like they're on the road to D.C. The bad news is that people would vote for unqualified candidates out of spite for established politicians. The good news, though, is that Republicans seem to be painting themselves into a corner.

During the Bush years, the Democratic Party was fractured, and the Independent party was made up of avowed liberals, progressives and even socialists. This led to easy exploitation - a house divided and all that, after all - by the right-wing, and created situations where, even in the face of majority opposition (ideologically speaking), the President went largely unchallenged on his legislative initiatives. The Tea Party, already sparring with the establishment, seems prepared to put Republicans in the same position. This isn't the Reagan Revolution, this is a dip into anarchy.

In fact, should the movement survive until 2012, it's easy to imagine a conservative third-party candidate siphoning votes away from Republicans. One can dream...

What a year to see, though, eh? It seems like both parties are taking it from all directions, with the American people seemingly, desperately, shooting themselves in the feet with every vote. God, I can't wait to see how this all works out.

(I'm hoping for Armageddon.)