the politically challenged

.

So we’ve decided to take the leap after all?

.

.

Pathetic.

.

.

.

Throw  them all out. Throw them all out.  Throw them all out.   Throw them all out. Throw them all out.    Throw them all out. Throw them all out. Throw them all out. Throw them all out. Throw them all out. Throw them all out. Throw them all out. Throw them all out. Throw them all out.    Throw them all out. Throw them all out.  Throw them all out.

 Throw them all out. Throw them all out.

Throw  them all out. Throw them all out.  Throw them all out.   Throw them all out. Throw them all out.    Throw them all out. Throw them all out. Throw them all out. Throw them all out. Throw them all out. Throw them all out. Throw them all out. Throw them all out. Throw them all out.    Throw them all out. Throw them all out.  Throw them all out. Throw  them all out. Throw them all out. Throw them all out.  Throw them all out. Throw them all out. Throw them all out. Throw them all out. Throw them all out. Throw them all out. Throw them all out. Throw them all out.

Throw them all out.

Throw them all out.

Throw them all out.

Throw  them all out. Throw them all out.  Throw them all out.   Throw them all out. Throw them all out.    Throw them all out. Throw them all out. Throw them all out. Throw them all out.

Throw  them all out.

Please.

.

I have decided that the fiscal cliff interactions between Obama and the Republican leadership are clearly a dance. What is unclear is whether this dance is simply a “mosh pit” of stumbling morons  or  actually a beautifully disguised and brilliantly choreographed ballet.  While I am praying for the latter, I am preparing for the former (as St. Augustine advised, “Pray like everything depends on God, but work as though everything depends on you“).

MOSH PIT ?

BRILLIANT CHOREOGRAPHY ?

In an effort to decipher which of these dances is actually taking place, I have just placed a bug in the White House negotiating room, and am eagerly awaiting the clues.

These are the clever tells I will be listening for:

.

Evidence of the Mosh Pit:

Obama: “I won the election. Taxes are going up. Screw entitlement reform.”

Boehner: “We don’t have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem. We can’t hurt the job-creators.”

Obama: “I won the election. Taxes are going up. Screw entitlement reform.”

Boehner: “We don’t have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem. We can’t hurt the job-creators.”

Obama: “You One-Percenter!”

Boehner: “Marxist Kenyan!”

.

Evidence of the Well-Disguised & Brilliantly-Choreographed Dance:

Obama: (…whispering…) “Can anyone hear us?”

Boehner: “No. We’re clear.”

Obama: “OK. Just like we agreed. Tomorrow, I will publicly attack you and make a pathetic opening offer. Remember to beat your chest and tell America how disappointed you are in me. We then bicker like children for two weeks, letting our fringe elements think we are battling for them to the bitter end. At the last minute, we will reach that Grand Bargain, all the while telling our supporters how courageously we fought for our core beliefs (sounds of knee-slapping heard…). We then both declare victory and play golf. I’ll tell my Liberals that Republicans finally caved on taxes, and you’ll tell your Conservatives that you finally forced real entitlement reform.”

Boehner: “Sounds great. Can I still call you a Socialist once or twice? It will really help.”

Obama: “No problem. One more game of Parcheesi before you go?”

Boehner: “OK, but this time I go first. Baby needs new shoes!”

.

..

I am really, really  hoping I hear the word Parcheesi…

.

.

I’ve been bashing the Republicans lately for not only forgetting that there was a recent national election, but for overlooking the small fact that they were soundly beaten (Democrats won the Presidency, the Senate and a majority of votes in the House).

And as the President ran and won on the promise of raising taxes on the wealthy, this issue has now been officially litigated and the nation has passed judgment (even exit polls demonstrated support for raising taxes on the wealthy by a wide 2:1 margin). So PLEASE, enough  rambling about “how bad it would be for the economy to raise taxes on those wealthiest job creators“. Whether or not such a proposition has merit, the issue has now been fully debated and your side lost . Done. Kaput. Over.

Well, almost.

This tax increase has always been predicated on the concept of a Grand Bargain, whereby Democrats would meaningfully cut federal spending — at least $2 for every $1 in tax increases.

So, Democrats, it’s time to put up or shut up. Show the Republicans your specific spending cuts (real cuts to take effect now) and then demand the corresponding level of tax increases.

If you Democrats are not willing to make these meaningful spending cuts, then it’s time to stop the assault on Grover and his minions.

Democrats, it’s time to pay the piper. Then you can require the Republicans to do the same.

.

.

Grover: “Hey! You Talkin’ To Me?”

.

Daring to cross Al Capone in 1928 was typically a career-ending experience. Capone made his power and authority so clear and unambiguous that rare was the need to enforce it. So too has become the power of our country’s current political thug, Grover Norquist.  Just a few occasional words of warning from Grover are usually enough to frighten any politician into signing and keeping a life-time pledge to never ever, ever increase taxes (did I mention ever?).

And on that rare occasion when a daring Republican implies that he might break this no-tax pledge, Grover is right there to remind him of the consequences of such disloyalty. In the case of Capone, it would have been a brief call to “Louie Da Bull “. In the case of Grover, it’s a similar call to a few friends who will have you unseated in the next primary.  A less bloody end, but an end nevertheless.

You even thinkin‘ of breakin’ da pledge?  Fuggeddaboutit!

.

Desperate Times & Desperate Measures:

As we stare into the abyss that is the looming fiscal cliff, everyone in Congress finally knows it’s time for that Grand Bargain. There’s simply no time left for sacred cows. Democrats are finally prepared to put entitlements on the chopping block. And Republicans are finally ready to increase revenues … or… they would be ready to increase revenues but for their pathologic fear of The Grover. In fact, Grover now has Republicans squirming in their boots, desperately searching for any way to increase revenues without actually looking like they are increasing revenues.

So these anxious Republicans are now faced with a very simple choice that feels so terribly difficult: pledge-to-country or pledge-to-a-lobbyist ?  It’s really that simple. While displays of political courage are rare, the words of Republicans Bob Corker, Lindsey Graham, Peter King and Saxby Chambliss this week give us cautious cause for optimism.  We will now see whether these few brave men will be able to inspire similar courage in a majority of their peers.

Who could have imagined that a fear of crossing one solitary lobbyist could potentially lead an entire party to shove America off the fiscal cliff (that is, who besides Al Capone)?

So what will it be Republicans, your country or your lobbyist?

If you decide to put your country first, you can one day tell your grandkids about the time you bravely stood up to Al Capone and saved America.

If instead your loyalty lies with your lobbyist, when your little granddaughter asks why Grandpa cowardly turned his back on his country during its moment of crisis, you should tell her the truth:  because you were really really scared of this guy:

.

According to several of my more liberal friends, it would appear that the Republican Party’s very existence now depends on its ability to fully embrace abortion, gay marriage and tattoos (ok, I added the tattoos part).

Apparently, what my Democratic friends believe this country really needs are two Democratic Parties. Call me crazy, but as I believe the competition of ideas and political philosophies is the very strength of our unique government, I suggest my liberal friends reconsider this position – perhaps while sitting for another tattoo (completely unfair, but I couldn’t resist; sorry).

What the Republican Party actually needs is not an abandonment of its Conservative principles, but rather a commitment to promote these same principles with kindness & compassion. An honest and sincere rebranding is in order, not an abandonment of core principles.

A few simple suggestions come to mind:

Demonstrate in words and actions that you want to earn 100% of the vote. The party must appeal to everyday “workers” as much as to those wealthy “job creators” Republicans can’t stop obsessing about. The next time a Republican mentions “47%”, it had better be while describing his body fat.

And here’s a clever thought: If you want the Hispanic vote, show the Hispanic community that you actually like Hispanics! As a demographic, they are hard working, courageous, family-oriented, and religious (even pro-life) – qualities perfectly suited to a Conservative message. So stop referring to them as “illegals” as though they were another breed of dog. And enough talk of “electrifying fences” as though electrocuting a 13 year-old child trying to sneak into this country is reasonable.  And stop enacting “show me your papers” laws, which is an affront to each and every Hispanic in this country.

Similarly, if you want the African American vote (Paul Ryan’s “urban vote”), try actually appealing to black voters. Enough talk of welfare queens or moochers or takers. The Party simply has to understand that very few people actually enjoy being on government assistance (and the low self-esteem that accompanies it).  Instead of writing off this voting block, tell African Americans why a Conservative message will lift them and their communities.

One additional hint: trying to restrict minority voting with unnecessary voter ID laws or prohibiting Sunday voting serves only to rally these voters against you. It really is simple: if you want their vote, treat them with respect and show them you want it!

Enough of the Ugly! Words and tone really do matter. What moral voter, of any political affiliation, wants to reward a party that calls our first black President a Kenyan, a Muslim, a Socialist, lazy, a liar, a racist and Un-American? Who is proud that our President was forced to actually show his birth certificate on national television? If you hate his policies, attack his policies, but enough with the horrific name-calling.

Don’t run from your Pro-Life position, but remember that Pro-Life is not limited to opposing abortion. It also includes caring for the poor, the uninsured, the lost and the undocumented. It’s very hard to sound Pro-Life when you are also telling the uninsured that they should be left to die on hospital ER gurneys.

And when discussing rape, I think it’s time for middle aged white males to turn off their microphones. Lastly, the Party should think very carefully (and speak very cautiously) before demanding that a 13 year-old victim of a savage rape carry her pregnancy for another 9 months.

No more clowns in Primary Process. Does anyone believe Romney was helped by 348 debates alongside the likes of Trump, Palin, Cain, and Perry?  How can you possibly attract a serious candidate if you require him/her to stand alongside a cast of clowns?  Even more destructive is forcing a moderate candidate to pretend he is Attila the Hun, rendering him so extreme that he is unable to make the tack to a more moderate position required in a general election. The role of President of the United States is an extremely serious one. Manage your selection process accordingly.

Enough with Anti-Intellectualism:

• Believe in Math: Tax plans must add up, and when every professional poll shows that your candidate is losing, stop inventing conspiracy theories and opting instead for your own imaginative “internal” polls.

• Believe in Science: The Earth is not 6,000 years old. Creationism is religion, not science. Women can get pregnant after rape. And when 98% of scientists state climate change is a real phenomenon, at least hesitate before claiming that all scientists are frauds.

Reign in the Rabid Right Wing Media Complex:  (and you liberals do the same with your loudmouths!)

Does anyone think Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity helped the Republican Party this election cycle? They are simply loud-mouthed entertainers who flourish economically when Democrats are in power.  They rile up their passionate base only for their own economic gain, fostering little more than hatred and conspiracy theories. Thoughtful discussion and facts have no place in their shows (did anyone notice that these experts all erroneously predicted a Romney victory on the eve of the election?).

Ask Rush if his name-calling helped re-elect the infamous Allen West or Joe Walsh. Don’t any of Rush’s “ditto-heads” realize that Rush is thrilled at Obama’s re-election, as he now has four additional years to rant and make millions from his lemmings?

These loud mouths are not just annoying to non-Republicans, they are a real cause of harm to the Republican Party.

Federalism and the 10^th Amendment: While your Party’s stance in favor of a limited role of the central government and greater deference to state’s rights certainly has merit, acknowledge that there is still an essential role for the Federal government in our lives. Be it FEMA or the FDA, our success as a nation still depends on a strong federal government.  This government, however, must be lean, efficient and noble.

Lastly, perhaps the greatest lesson to be learned from this election cycle is that it is not enough to run against something or someone — especially if you run on hatred. You must stand for something and passionately articulate your beliefs. Prove to the 100% why your approach is best for them and then ask all 100% for their vote.

.

.

I think every political analyst, professional or amateur, should have the courage to make an election prediction on the last day of each presidential campaign.

In my case, while I know it is impolite to brag, I should first warn you that my general success at electoral prognostication  has run as high as 50% — nearly that of a simple coin flip.

.

Accordingly, my prediction:   (please insert drum-roll right here)

.

Obama wins electoral college:  276 to 262.

Obama wins popular vote: 49.8% to 48.2%.

.

Tomorrow night you will discover whether I am just a moron without any political wisdom or whether I am actually a moron with a lucky guess.

Let’s wait and see.

..

Everyone knows that only morons mix friendship and politics. As a moron, then, I would like to report on the rather tense dinner gathering I attended last evening.

Four couples. Eight voters. Mexican food.  Muchas margaritas. Seven very strong supporters of Romney,  and me, an Independent-weakly-tending-possible-Obama voter.

Feeling rather defensive as the lone Independent, I found myself in the very awkward position of defending a sitting President whom I only half-heartedly support.

The result will be broadcast on pay-per view next week:

.

WRESTLEMANIA XXI: The Mexican Margarita Melee!

..

As these seven staunch Romney supporters are all educated professionals, it would be terribly arrogant of me to simply assume that their positions are either ill formed or irrational.  As I truly value both their friendships and opinions, I thought it best to thoroughly examine their arguments before casting a potentially irresponsible vote for Obama next Tuesday.

I will address their arguments separately:

.

1. “Obama is a Socialist.”

As I have heard this charge many times, I always reply with a simple question:

What series of policies or legislation has Obama enacted that can be defined as being Socialist?

I invariably get two replies:

.

(a) “Obamacare is a government takeover of healthcare.“

Obamacare simply requires those who can afford insurance to purchase the private insurance of their choice.  Not government insurance. Private insurance. This is a government takeover?

Republicans have conveniently forgotten that this individual mandate was actually created by the conservative Heritage Foundation and enjoyed the full support of the Republican Party for years — that is until a Democratic President with a strange name actually embraced this definitionally Conservative philosophy. Requiring individual responsibility? How Socialistic!

[A funny note: 70% of Tea Party members are actually against cuts in Medicare — the real  “government controlled health care”. Ha!]

.

(b) “Obama speaks and acts like a Socialist.”

This charge refers to the classic “populist” rhetoric that has been employed at election time by nearly every Democrat since FDR.

Personally, those “it’s time those fat cats paid their fair share” comments used to rally the troops make me very uncomfortable. But these are the exact same lines used by Clinton, Gore, Dukakis, and Kerry  — and no one ever accused them of being Socialists.

.

2. “Obama should never have bailed out Detroit. They should have gone through the routine bankrupty process required of any other corporation.”

The fatal flaw in this argument is that during the horrific economic climate that existed at the time, it has been clearly documented that there did not exist a single investor able to step in and bail out Detroit. As a consequence, bankruptcy would have been Chapter 7, not Chapter 11, with full liquidation. The result would have been a complete dissolution of the Detroit automotive industry, with a loss of well over 1 million jobs.

As explained by Steven Rattner, the financier appointed to manage the Detroit crisis at the time:

“In late 2008 and early 2009, when G.M. and Chrysler had exhausted their liquidity, every scrap of private capital had fled to the sidelines. I know this because the administration’s auto task force, for which I was the lead adviser, spoke diligently to all conceivable providers of funds, and not one had the slightest interest in financing those companies on any terms. If Mr. Romney disagrees, he should come forward with specific names of willing investors in place of empty rhetoric. I predict that he won’t be able to, because there aren’t any.”

This then begs the final question: would you have rather have followed Romney’s plan and witnessed the complete liquidation of the Detroit automotive industry (and its accompanying loss of over 1 million jobs) or would you rather have supported Obama’s bailout which saved Detroit (seen GM’s just released 3rd quarter financials?…)?

.

3. “President Clinton has publically admitted that he was the cause of the financial ruin left to us at the end of Bush’s eight years in office.”

What Clinton actually admitted was that his well-intentioned policies to encourage home mortgage lending to those who really did not qualify for such mortgages was, in fact, a big mistake.

This error, however, no more lead to our financial ruin than Wilbur & Orville’s development of the airplane led to the Twin Tower’s disaster.

Clinton’s policies would have ultimately led to a severe downturn in the housing market — nothing more. Our ruin, was the result of years of Republican deregulation of the financial industry that permitted the deceitful and greedy bundling of mortgage backed securities, which led to a complete financial collapse.

And for the record, it is worth a brief reminder of Bush II:

• Entered office with a budget surplus given to him by Clinton.
• Left office with record deficit and economy in ruin, hemorrhaging 800,000 jobs per month.
• Created only 1 million jobs in 8 years (Clinton created 21 million; Obama 5.2 million in 4 years).
• Bush erroneously invaded Iraq, costing us $3 trillion, not to mention thousands of lives. (Source: Washington Post)
• Bush’s unfunded tax cuts lead to a deficit of over $ 2 trillion (Source: Tax Foundation)
• Bush’s unfunded Medicare prescription drug plan lead to a debt of $7 trillion. (Source: AP)

All this is really Bill Clinton’s fault?

.

4. “Everything bad in this country is Obama’s fault. Anything positive that is happening is occurring despite Obama, not because of him.”

There is little I can say here.

How can you give your leader the blame for everything bad, but no credit for anything good that has happened under his control?

Sounds very much like the headline: “Bush killed Osama Bin Laden!”

.

5. “If I watch the documentary 2016: OBAMA’S AMERICA, I will change my mind.”

I will watch this propaganda film as soon as my Republican friends attend a Michael Moore Movie Marathon. Biased infomercials are simply never a source of meaningful information, whether they be from the Left or Right.

And while there are countless factual errors in this movie — documented by experts from both parties, perhaps the conservative FORBES magazine put it best:

“Obama 2016 is full of holes. It blurs the arguments against Obama with conspiratorial thinking and is full of blatant falsehoods.”

.

6. “Obama is unwilling to work with Republicans.”

I have never understood this charge.

A few undisputed facts:

• After inauguration, Mitch McConnell states: “‘My number one priority is making sure president Obama is a one-term president.” One heck of a number one priority!
• Republican Congress uses the filibuster to obstruct Obama more than any congress in history.
• Birther movement so outrageous that Obama is forced to “show his papers” lest 40% of Republicans think him a Kenyan. Trump must be proud.
• On the eve of Obama’s inaguration, Paul Ryan and 14 Republicans met and created a  formal plan to obstruct anything Obama might propose during his term in office in an effort to unseat him four years later.

Who is unwilling to work with whom?

.

7. “Romney’s tax plan is nothing like Bush II’s.”

As Romney has specifically admitted that he will not divulge his plan, it is difficult for anyone to say exactly what he will do.

What we do know, though, is only what he has actually stated on the record:  he will not only make the Bush tax cuts permanent, but he intends to further cut taxes by an additional 20%.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck….

.

8. “Obama simply has not created a pro-business environment – either in his philosophies or policies.”

My friends might be surprised to hear that I agree with them on this issue. Obama’s policies, actions and even his use of language  have made the business community leery of anything that he does.

If he is re-elected, I sincerely hope he will respond to this serious criticsm and adjust accordingly. For example, he may embrace the new “Campaign to Fix the Debt CEO Fiscal Leadership Council“, a new non-partisan organization of America’s leading business executives who are offering their plan for a renewed pro-business economy.

Many presidents have made profound shifts during a second term. Perhaps we’ll see one here.

.

***

In summary, my final take-home message from this dinner gathering:

1. I love and respect my friends even if I completely disagree with them; and

2. Mixing friendships and politics is possible, but the addition of margaritas may not be wise…

.

.

First, a confession: I am one of those few remaining “undecided” voters still out there.

The consensus view by professional pols is that we undecided voters primarily consist of the uninformed, the ignorant and the out-of-touch. Apparently, then, I am essentially confessing to being a moron.

In the interest of  finally committing to a candidate (and shedding my moron status), I have now put together this Voting Guide for those like me who might need some assistance in coming to a final voting decision.

Instructions:

A.  For each question, chose either Obama or Romney, and then weight your response with a point score of 1 through 5:

(1: You feel either only a slight predisposition toward that candidate; and/or you clearly favor that candidate on this issue, but feel the issue is only of marginal importance to you.)

(5: You feel very strongly about both the candidate and the particular issue.)

B.  Add up your final point tally and pull the appropriate lever.

*************

 THE TEST:

.

Tax Policy / Revenue / Entitlement Programs / Economic Philosophy:

Do you favor letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthy, so that upper class tax rates return to the Clinton-era levels?  Or do you favor not only making all the Bush tax cuts permanent, but believe that taxes should be further cut an additional 20% in order to stimulate the economy?

.

Do you desire a “Grand Bargain”, whereby income tax rates are increased on the wealthy at the same time that government spending is cut (perhaps somewhere in the ratio of $4 of cuts for each $1 of tax increase)? If so, which candidate is more likely to achieve this bargain?

.

Do you tend to favor Romney’s  “Supply-Side” economic policies? Do you believe it is possible to offset a proposed $5 trillion in income tax reduction by “closing tax loopholes and broadening the tax base“?

.

Do you tend to favor Obama’s  “Keynesian” economic policies? Do you believe that “deficit spending” is a wise course of action when our country’s deficit is already at record levels?

..

Which candidate is most likely to meaningfully restructure our major Entitlement Programs (Medicare, Medicaid & Social Security) so that they are actually sustainable (please accept the fact that they are currently bankrupting our nation)?

.

Would you prefer your president to have signed Grover Norquist’s pledge to never increase taxes?

.

Which former president’s economic policies do you find were most beneficial to you and the country: Bush II or Clinton’s?

.

Currently, an estimated $2 trillion in corporate money is sitting in cash reserves, not being invested in our country’s economy. Which candidate is more likely to entice this much needed corporate cash back into our economy?

.

Social Issues & Supreme Court Appointees:

Do you favor preserving a woman’s right to abortion? Do you favor stricter restrictions on this right? Would you prefer the next appointed Supreme Court Justice to uphold or overturn  Roe v Wade?

.

Are you a proponent of “marriage equality“? Do you support the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the decision to no longer enforce The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)?

.

Opponents to the new HHS regulations under Obamacare argue that these mandates: (1) require for the first time public funding of birth control and abortifacients (e.g. “Morning After Pill”); and (2) abridge constitutionally protected religious freedoms by requiring religious organizations such as Catholic Hospitals to provide birth control and abortifacients. Do you (1) agree with this interpretation; and if so (2) do you support these mandates?

.

Do you subscribe to the view that amongst the greatest threats to our country’s success is the profound decaying of traditional moral values ? If so, do you favor a return to these traditional values?  Which candidate is more likely to encourage the cultural changes you would support?

.

Foreign Policy & Military Spending:

Do you favor a $2 trillion increase in defense spending?

.

Do you favor a neoconservative approach to foreign policy? For example, would you consider extending our military deployment in Afghanistan beyond our currently scheduled exit date?  Are you more inclined to use military intervention in Iran over their nuclear program than you perceive our current President to be ?

.

Energy Policy:

Should we focus more money on “green” energy and combating “climate change”, or should we instead focus at this time on our own reserves of fossil fuels — in the interest of creating jobs and making ourselves fully energy independent (with the ultimate hope that we can find new technology over the next 100 years to eventually make fossil fuels obsolete)?

.

Healthcare & Regulation:

Would you like to fully repeal Obamacare and start entirely anew to find a better system (or scrap it and make no effort to replace it with anything), OR would you like to keep Obamacare as a framework upon which to build upon, improving and reforming it as necessary?

.

Would you like to fully repeal Dodd-Frank and start entirely anew to find a better system (or scrap it and make no effort to replace it with anything), OR would you like to keep Dodd-Frank as a framework upon which to build upon, improving and reforming it as necessary?

.

Immigration:

Do you favor a national immigration policy that includes some limited form of amnesty to certain illegal immigrants (e.g. those that have been in this country for at least 5 years and have no criminal record), OR do you favor full deportation (self or forced) for all illegal immigrants, with no offer of amnesty at all?

.

Cancer & Chemotherapy Analogy:

Our nation was afflicted with a terrible cancer and we have been on painful chemotherapy for the past 4 years. Our oncology team has just announced that finally, the cancer is shrinking and we are now making very slow but steady progress. Complete recovery, however, will require another very long bout of the same therapy.

A new oncologist, however, has just arrived, claiming that we have been on the wrong treatment plan. He wants to completely change our therapy, arguing that this wholly different treatment will cure us much, much faster.

Would you rather stay on our current treatment plan, enduring these painfully slow but measurable gains, or would you rather risk a complete change of doctors and treatments in the hopes of a much faster cure – all the while mindful that this new treatment plan could backfire and bring back the original cancer?

Miscellaneous:

Does either candidate appear to be of considerably higher moral character in the manner that he lives his own life, and in the manner in which he has campaigned and governed?

.

Is there value to you in re-electing an incumbent president, so that our next leader does not have to spend 2 of his next 4 years in office campaigning for re-election instead of running the country?

.

Which candidate is more likely to be able to get both Parties working together again?

.

Do you believe either candidate is a Kenyan, a Muslim or a socialist? If so, do you also believe in Bigfoot, UFO’s and in secret government programs that spy on civilians (did you just hear something?)

.

Can I live with either candidate as my President?

.

(Now go out and vote!)

.

Confession: I am one of those few remaining “undecided” voters still out there. Apparently, the consensus view by professional pols is that these few undecided voters primarily consist of the uninformed, the ignorant and the out-of-touch. Apparently, then, I am essentially confessing to being a moron.

In any case, this has been my problem:

Obama is just a tad too liberal for me, and Romney, the self-declared “severe conservative”, is just too darn conservative for me. So here I’ve sat, lost somewhere between their agendas.

Earlier in the political season, there was speculation of a possible 3rd party candidate, a centrist of sorts who would bring these disparate ideologies together. First, there was Americans Elect, planning on selecting a moderate candidate. Then there was the little known No Labels group. Ultimately, no one stepped up to the plate, so here I’ve sat, still undecided — until, perhaps, this past week.

Then Wednesday evening, from out of the blue, a surprise 3rd party moderate stepped onto the debate floor with President Obama. This candidate spoke the language of moderation and compromise that has simply not been heard at any time during this political season:

.

“I like parts of Obamacare,” he said.

“I think Dodd-Frank has many positive features,” he admitted.

“I’m not going to lower taxes on the rich,” he boldly announced for every Conservative voter to hear.

.

Did I just find my moderate, centrist candidate — my reasonable compromise between Obama and Romney?

Maybe.

……. or maybe not.

Damn. Still undecided.

.

.

AN URGENT APPEAL FROM PRESIDENT OBAMA

.

Dear Kidnappers:

I demand the immediate and safe return of the real Mitt Romney. I will spare no effort and pledge the full resources and might of this great country toward this noble cause.

We don’t yet know how you managed to switch Governor Romney with the imposter that appeared in his place at our debate last week, but we are on to you.

I have to admit, you almost got away with it. But you were too clever by half. The clues were subtle, but are there on the tape for all to see and hear:

.

“I like parts of Obamacare,” he says.  (Hmmnnn…)

“I think Dodd-Frank has many positive features.” (Really now)

“I’m not going to lower taxes on the rich,” he says.

.

Fiends!

Oh, the humanity!

Did you really think you could simply switch our “severe Conservative” with this soft, moderate Mitt and get away with it?

I know Mitt Romney, and you’re no Mitt Romney!

So return our Mitt or prepare to be Bin Ladened!

..

.

.

.

Complaining about dishonesty in politics is about as insightful as complaining about the smell of rotting fish on a shrimp boat – both unpleasantries are simply the normal by-products of their respective professions.

Rather than complaining, then, let us now instead celebrate those rare acts of honesty and courage so infrequently seen in the political arena.

Yes, it’s time to present The Abe Awards for Uncommon Honesty & Courage in Politics.

Abe Award #1: Mitt Romney at the NAACP:

In the era of extreme pandering to every special interest, it would have been easy for Romney to have instead soften his message to the NAACP — to water down his words in the hopes of appearing a bit more palatable.

Something typically bland and meaningless would have sufficed:

Instead, Romney briskly took the stage, looked his audience straight in the eye and told them exactly what they did not want to hear. The resulting boos from the audience were certainly no surprise to anyone — including Romney himself.

Knowing full well that his message would not be welcomed, Romney still faced a politically hostile audience and spoke the truth, letting them know, in no uncertain terms, his very precise intentions – even warning that, “I have no hidden agenda.”

Whether or not you agree with his policies, this candor is certainly an honorable act for which Romney should truly be commended.

And while many liberal critics of Romney simply write this off as his opportunity to prove his bonifides to his severely Conservative supporters, it nevertheless still takes guts to go before an already suspicious audience and deliver what will only be perceived as a hostile message.

Abe Award #2: Republican House Leader Mike Turzai & Voter ID Laws

Almost too embarrassing to watch this year have been the extremely awkward attempts by Republican leaders (usually lesser leaders) to defend the new string of Voter ID laws currently being pushed by Republican legislatures.

Employing catch phrases such as “to preserve the integrity of our democracy” or “one fraudulent vote disenfranchises all voters” or “I think Bulgaria might require voter ID’s”, these Republicans awkwardly try to justify why they would disenfranchise a million legitimate voters to stop four potentially fraudulent votes.

As even these proponents of Voter ID laws admit there is simply no evidence of significant voter fraud in this country, such laws are clearly a solution in search of a problem (and that 80-90% of the disenfranchised happen to be Democrats is just a coincidence).

Then, just when I couldn’t take another Republican looking into the camera and stating “you even need a photo ID to fly!” (which also happens to be untrue), along comes honest Republican House Leader Mike Turzai.

When publicly touting his Party’s legislative accomplishments before the Pennsylvania State Committee, he had the political courage to speak the truth:

No namby-pambying around here. No wasted words about ballot integrity.  No wish-washy defense of democracy. Just a simple admission that Voter ID laws will disproportionately disenfranchise the Democrat vote, permitting a Romney victory.

Just the cold, hard truth. Refreshing – at least in its honesty. 

.

Abe would be proud.

Sort of.

.

.

As a father of 5 kids from the ages of 5-17, I feel I know a bit about parenting (most lessons, of course, I have learned the hard way).

My most recent parenting challenge has been to try to teach my 16 year-old daughter how to recognize a good man from a… well… a not-so-good man.

The small problem I am having with this particular lesson is that no matter what I say to my daughter these past few months, she looks at me like I’m a moron (I am told this phase should pass within 10 years).

I recently employed the classic story of a young woman out on a fancy dinner date with a handsome young man:

He arrives at your door, well dressed — perhaps even carrying roses. He gives a very warm greeting to both your parents, and promises to bring you home safely at a reasonable hour. He then walks you to his car and opens the door for you. He takes you to a beautiful restaurant and pulls out your chair to seat you. He speaks kindly to you and appears interested in your opinions, your thoughts and even your family. Then, just as you’ve decided he’s surely the nicest young man you’ve ever met, he suddenly yells at your waiter in a horrifically rude and condescending tone.

This boy, I explain, despite all the kindness he has extended to you,  is not a good man.   A man is not measured by how he treats a pretty girl, but rather, by how he treats the most defenseless — be it an employee, a waiter or the homeless on the street. It is only the man who treats “the least of us” with respect and compassion that can be called a true man.

After thoughtfully conveying this story to my daughter, for just a brief moment, I thought I had finally broken through into that impenetrable mind of the 16 year-old girl. Then, in a flash, the moment vanished — replaced with that “you are a moron” look.  Shoot. So darn close…

Today, though, I owe a debt to Governor Chris Christie (and YouTube). For what I could not teach to my daughter, he kindly did for me.

During today’s press conference, Governor Christie responded to a reporter’s polite question with a condescending “Are you dumb?”  He then concluded his conference with a classy “Thank you all very much and I’m sorry for the idiot over there.”

I was so disgusted by his behavior that I showed the video clip to my kids. My 16 year-old daughter watched the clip and immediately replied:

“He might be a good Governor, but he’s certainly not a good man.”

That-a-girl!

Thanks, Gov.  I owe you one.

.

.

Is  it just me, or do MSNBC and FOX sound more and more like The Onion than real news stations?

.

News Event: Obama family visits grocery store.

MSNBC Headline: Obama Stimulates Economy & Creates Jobs

FOX Headline: Obama, the Socialist

.

News Event: Obama plays basketball Sunday morning.

MSNBC Headline: Obama Stimulates Economy & Creates Jobs

FOX Headline: Obama, the Socialist

.

News Event: Obama authorizes drone strikes.

MSNBC Headline: Obama Saves America (While Stimulating Economy & Creating Jobs)

FOX Headline: Obama Still a Socialist (and Possibly Kenyan)

.

News Event: Obama seen playing with family dog.

MSNBC Headline: Obama loves dogs!

FOX Headline: Obama loves dogs, stir-fried!

.

News Event: Osama Bin Laden killed, Obama gives order.

MSNBC Headline: Barack “Rambo” Obama Single-Handedly Kills Bin Laden With Bare Hands

FOX Headline: Bush Kills Bin Laden (Obama Apologizes to Al Qaeda)

.

News Event: Obama accidentally bumps into an elderly woman at rally, says “Sorry” as he helps her up.

MSNBC Headline: Obama Saves America’s Elderly

FOX Headline: Obama Again the Apologist

.

News Event: Out-of-control cable news bias destroying journalistic integrity.

MSNBC Headline: “Leaning Forward”

FOX Headline: “Fair & Balanced”

.

Maybe it’s time to change the channel?

.

.

…………….. “If only those damned Republican’s would just get …………….. ..out of the way, our economy would recover!”

So goes the Democrats’ nearly universal defense of President Obama’s inability to get our economy back on track (Those obstructionist Republicans!)

For purposes of this article, let us assume that this defense is wholly accurate – that if Obama were permitted free reign, our economy would roar to life.

This then begs the question: If Obama were re-elected, wouldn’t Republicans simply continue this strategy of complete obstructionism?

Antipathy and resentment of anything Obama-esque would arguably only increase during a second term. Obstructionism would likely reach heights never imagined.

If Obama declared during his second inaugural address that breathing was essential for this nation, Republicans would immediately tout the tremendous benefits of hypoxia.

A vote for Obama, then, would simply be a vote for four additional years of complete legislative paralysis. And paralysis during a time of unprecedented world economic peril is certainly a path to ruin.

So to those Democrats who blame our country’s problems on Republican obstructionism, I ask you to carefully consider your 2 options this November:

1. Obama: A man whose principles you truly admire, but who will not be able to accomplish anything for your country during these perilous times; or

2. Romney: A man whose principles you do not admire, but a moderate who just might be able to get the economy stimulated – even if he does so in a manner you dislike.

Democrats for Romney?  While strange and perhaps even unfair, it’s still a vote to thoughtfully consider.

.

If you’re a staunch Democrat, you might believe that if only those damned Republican’s would just get out of the way, our economy would recover.

If you’re a staunch Republican, you might believe that if only those damned Democrats would just get out of the way, our economy would recover.

If you’re an Optimist, you might believe that if only both parties could somehow temporarily put aside their differences and honestly work together to solve our problems, our economy would recover.

Question: What if – even in the Twilight Zone, where Democrats and Republicans labor selflessly together,  hand-in-hand – there is simply no way out of our economic mess?

A sobering thought.

.

• Because when I argued that 2 children were enough, she ignored me.

• Because when I argued that 3 children were enough, she laughed at me.

• Because when I argued that 4 children were enough, she told me to mind my own business.

• And because when I argued that 5 children were enough, she paused (at least so far…).

• Because when I return home from a long day at the office, whining about my difficulties and petty aggravations, she tells me to shut up and bathe the kids.

• Because when I find myself drowning in only a thimble of water, she convinces me that I’m strong enough to handle anything (or at least she’ll empty the thimble).

• Because just when I start to feel either a bit too cool or self-righteous, she reminds me that I’m being an idiot.

• Because she taught me that enough is as good as a feast.

• Because she somehow convinced me that I actually like to take all 5 kids to 8:30 am mass every Sunday.

• Because of her unequalled ability to clean the most disgusting diaper with only half a wipey (Confession: I require a minimum of  22 wipies per change).

• Because she teaches tolerance, patience, self-sacrifice and compromise. Not by her own actions, of course, but by requiring such of her husband.

• Because when I’m daydreaming about a sexy woman, I actually think of her! (What’s wrong with me !? How did she ever surpass Cindy Crawford?)

• Because she makes me believe I can actually dance salsa (as long as there are no revealing mirrors in the vicinity to prove otherwise).

• Because she reminds me that I’m not nearly as smart as I think I am. In fact, that I’m not even half as smart as I think I am. Or a quarter. OK, because she reminds me that I’m not very smart.

• Because she listens to my piano-playing and singing as though she has not heard each and every song 35,567 times before.

• Because she makes me want to be a better husband, father, son, brother and friend.

• Because a severe hypochondriac can only function when married to a woman who lives in complete denial of any medical threats.

• Because she’s beautiful. Not that it matters, of course… I mean it matters, but not in her case… I mean I love her just the way she looks… …which is great,  I mean… Oh shoot….

• Because she’s most attractive when covered by 5 kids in our bed, each fighting for the best position (usually leaving me alone at the foot of the bed).

• Because she has enough self-confidence for the two of us.

• Because while beautifully raising 5 kids, she still managed to fit in a professional career.

• Because despite being confident, capable and strong, she’s still just vulnerable enough to need my love.

• Because she believes that God loves me, even if I’m rather doubtful.

• Because she chose me! (true story, ask her yourself)

.

• And because without her, I’d be lost forever.

.

In life, we can little control how others choose to portray us. Our reaction to such portrayals, however, speaks volumes about our character.

Such is the case of yesterday’s scathing Washington Post expose on the young Mitt Romney, and Mitt’s very telling response.

While an editorial decision to make a high-school incident – nearly 50 years ago – a front-page, 5000+ word expose smacks of bias and political hatchetry, Romney nevertheless was left in the unenviable position of having to respond to very disturbing charges.

So how does a man respond to horrific allegations that he led a group of bullies in a physical assault on a shy and awkward student — knocking him to the ground, pinning him down and cutting off his hair – all while the young boy lay crying and screaming for help?

.

Option 1: If the story is simply a lie, defend yourself.

“This story is a cruel fabrication and simply did not occur. I would never participate in such disgusting behavior. The Washington Post should be ashamed of their irresponsible reporting. There is really nothing more I can add.”

.

Option 2: If the story is true, admit it, humbly apologize and move on.

“This is an incident that occurred nearly 50 years ago. Even though I was only a child myself at the time, I have always felt ashamed about my behavior and offer my most sincere apologies to his family. This, however, is not the man I became – as evidenced by 50 years of moral living since then. There is really nothing more I can add.”

.

Option 3: Respond with cowardice and dishonesty.

“Gee, I just don’t remember anything about it.”

.

Confronted with these 3 options, Mitt reflects deeply, silently prays and searches the depths of  his soul. Having fully weighed these options, he makes a thoughtful decision and addresses the national media:

.

“I’d like Option 3, please.”

.

Aaaah!

The old   “I can’t remember if I led a group assault on a boy, while he lay helplessly on the ground crying for help” defense.

—

Forgiving a man for a cruel act that he may have committed nearly 50 years ago is easy.

Forgiving that man for lying about it today is not.

.

.

I am outraged!

Well, not really. But I’m seriously considering it.

Being outraged is apparently the thing-to-be this political season. Huffing, puffing and generally frothing with self-righteous indignation have now been elevated to an art form on the Hill.

For you amateurs out there, the usual tell is the preface, “In all my years, I have never…” The other giveaway is a quick Google search demonstrating that the deeply offended has himself deeply offended using exactly the same allegations within the past 5 days.

There is no shortage of examples this year.

Trump and the Birthers offended the President –whose defense that he was actually born in the United States — offended all Kenyans.

The Tea Party was deeply offended by the Socialist agenda of Obama — which deeply offended the real Socialist Party, who were outraged by this mischaracterization.

Komen Race for the Cure outraged Planned Parenthood, who then offended all Catholics, which outraged liberals, who in turn offended Rush Limbaugh, who then offended both Sandra Fluke and most of his show’s sponsors. Glenn Beck was then immediately outraged by Rush for having out-offended him.

Ann Coulter was then outraged by Bill Maher, who was outraged by Bill O’Reilly for deeply offending Michael Moore for his outrage at anything successful.

Harry Reid had never felt so outraged by the actions of John Boehner this year — except for the multiple times he was deeply offended by the Tea Party and/or Eric Cantor and by nearly every other Republican, usually on most Wednesdays (all this would have outraged Boehner, but such emotions unfortunately make him tear up).

Organ donors are outraged by Dick Cheney, who feel that despite a second heart, he still doesn’t have one. MSNBC is offended by anything FOX. Global Warmist are outraged by the Anti-Greens (a name which incidentally offends the Arugula Foundation of America). Straights by gays. And lesbians are particularly offended by men who say they love lesbians.

Reince Priebus, whose Mom is offended by Democrats who cannot pronounce her son’s name, is outraged daily by Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who offends all Republicans who take offense at ridiculous compound names.

Obama supporters were outraged that their President was called a Muslim, which simultaneously outraged Islamists who clearly know Obama to be an infidel and unlikely to ever don a suicide vest. Santorum was then offended by Obama.  Mitt by Santorum.  And Newt by everyone.

And finally, Rep Anthony Weiner managed to offend all 535 members of Congress and the Oscar Meyer Weiner company at the same time.

Outrage! Outrage! Outrage!

You know, if you really think about it, all this outrage really is a bit (yes, you guessed it )…

Outrageous.

.

As the Supreme Court this week considers the constitutionality of the Individual Mandate (let’s leave its complex constitutional analysis to the legal scholars, as nearly everyone else in this fierce debate has never even read the Constitution), I thought it valuable to briefly review the philosophy and principles behind the Mandate itself.

What It Is:

Simply stated, the Individual Mandate requires everyone who can afford medical insurance to purchase the private medical insurance of their choice.

What It Is Not:

• It is not government-run insurance.
• It is not Socialized medicine.
• It does not dictate what medical care or tests one must have performed upon them.

********

Rights & Responsibilities:

With every right, there is a corresponding responsibility. No freedom is absolute. Every right is always limited by law founded on moral responsibility.

.

…………………….“The right to swing your fist ends                                  where the other man’s nose begins”

Such is the right to not purchase health insurance. This right only exists until one’s neighbor is required to pay it for him. Hence, the birth of the Individual Mandate.

Our healthcare system in the United States is unique in that you are a participating member upon your birth (or entry) in this country — irrespective of whether or not you choose to pay for it.

Whether you are born prematurely and require a 3-month stay in a neonatal ICU or whether you suffer a car accident and require an airlift to a trauma center for a 12-week recovery, you will receive state-of-the-art medical care — irrespective of your ability to pay for it.

When you exercise your right to not have medical insurance, the rest of responsible America has to pick up your tab. This is precisely where your right ends.

The Individual Mandate recognizes that by your very existence in this great country — a country that is obligated to care for you — you have actually entered yourself into the healthcare market. As a participating member of this market, then, you are required to be responsible for your share of costs.

Requiring one to purchase health insurance, therefore, no more requires you to enter this market than requiring you to breathe. Your presence here is participation in this system. The Mandate is simply a requirement that all citizens take personal responsibility for their participation in a healthcare system that they are already a member of.

.

Personal Responsibility:

Personal responsibility, the most sacred tenet of the Conservative movement, is the core of the Individual Mandate — a mechanism of benefitting all citizens without reliance on government-funded programs.

Proposed in the 1990’s by the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation (whose main spokespersons are Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity), the Individual Mandate had always enjoyed the full support of the Republican Establishment.

How then has this same Individual Mandate — a concept created and long-promoted by Conservatives — suddenly become what these same Conservatives now claim to be the “greatest threat to the survival of our Republic since Hitler?“

What actually changed with respect to this Individual Mandate?

Only one small detail:  Its support by a black President with a foreign middle name.

So much for sacred tenets in politics.

.