Reconcilable Differences

Shortly after Congress passed President Biden’s $1.9 trillion pandemic rescue bill earlier this year, Mississippi senator Roger Wicker issued a celebratory tweet about the bill’s provision of nearly $30 billion to support the restaurant industry.

Here’s the thing, though: Wicker and every other Republican had voted against the legislation. His tweet and similar statements from his GOP colleagues can and should of course be written off as typical political hypocrisy, but they suggest a likely preview of how the current political debates over the President’s latest spending proposals will play out—and also why Republicans should, frankly, not worry too much about them.

Since these bills, through the magic of a parliamentary maneuver called “reconciliation” (which we’ve all had to learn way too much about), can pass with simple majority support, they are likely to squeak through Congress with only Democratic votes. Once this happens, feckless Republicans can brag to their constituents about all the goodies they’re receiving while still proudly proclaiming their anti-Biden credentials. Win-win.

And while I hate to be giving Republicans any advice, I take comfort in the fact that the “win-win” alluded to above includes the country as a whole.

Solipsistography: “Democrats Push a Budget to Fulfill Biden’s Aggressive Economic Ambitions”

Don't People Even Know How to Obstruct Anymore?

What is wrong with Mitch McConnell?  OK, let me be more specific.  What was Mitch McConnell thinking when he declared that the Republican-controlled Senate would not so much as consider confirming anyone President Obama nominates to replace Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court?  I understand partisan politics, and I get that McConnell wants to fire up the conservative base, particularly in an election year.  But still, the man has been a politician for years: Does he not understand the basics of politics?  Has he become so unhinged by eight years of Obama-hatred that he cannot remember them?

Look, all McConnell had to do was provide a simple disingenuous sound bite: "We are all shocked and saddened by the sudden death of Justice Scalia.  Now is not the time to discuss the politics of selecting his replacement.  In due time, after the President selects a nominee, the Senate will hold thorough hearings to determine this candidate's qualifications for this vital position."  Anyone with a basic grasp of American politics circa 2016 would translate this as, "No way in hell will we confirm whatever Commie Pinko Muslim-sympathizer Comrade Obama has the nerve to send our way."  And we could all get on with our lives, avoiding at least one political kabuki dance.

But no.  McConnell decides that the way to handle the situation is effectively to say, "Mr. President, we advise you not to do your job."  The paleoconservatives rejoice McConnell's sticking it to the man while everybody else erupts in outrage or, at best, shakes their heads and wonders what the heck is happening.  I mean, does McConnell--or any Republican senator--think that telling Obama not to nominate someone will convince Obama to, y'know, not nominate someone?  Sure, that person may face an uphill--or impossible--battle; sure, the Senate may reject even the most qualified nominee--as is, technically, their right; but to declare yourself opposed to acting in accordance with the most basic reading of the Constitution you claim to revere seems to be displaying hypocrisy for no good reason.

I suppose Obama could totally call their bluff by nominating, say, Jeb Bush!.  Not like he's going to be president or anything.  And since the Senators promised not to hold hearings, what harm would be done.  I kinda think he should go ahead and nominate Trump.  He's ultimately not much worse than Scalia, and arguably better on the social issues.  I kid, of course.  He should really just nominate himself.  Let Biden take care of the country for the last few months until Hillary gets into office.

In Which We Review the Republican Debate

So, let me get this straight: At last night's Republican debate, Donald Trump argued that no increase in the minimum wage is necessary because wages are "too high."  At the same time, the tide of illegal immigration must be stemmed and some 11 million people deported because, as Ted Cruz claims, these illegal immigrants are "pushing down American wages."  In other words, restricting immigration will raise the wages of American workers, who are already overpaid.  I'm so confused.  Not as confused the masses of red-state blue-collar workers supporting billionaire Donald Trump, who apparently thinks that they--the workers--are paid too much, but confused nonetheless.

Also from the debate, according to Marco Rubio, America needs "more welders and less philosophers.”  As Stannis Baratheon would surely point out, what we need are "fewer" philosophers, but aside from that Rubio is absolutely right.  America must reduce its well-documented glut of philosophers!  Why, one can't swing a dead cat--or, if you're a Schrodingerian, a dead and alive cat--without whacking a philosopher in the face!  And I, for one, am sick and tired of placing ads for welders on Craigslist (none of your business!) and having twenty to thirty philosophy majors show up!

In Which We Avoid Republicans, Dare Trump, Question Facebook, and Roll Our Eyes at Overly Creative Reporters.

I confess: I didn't watch the Republican debate last night.  Since I am not a registered Republican, and thus will not directly participate in the selection of the GOP nominee, I declare missing the debate not so much an act of utter civic apathy as an example of instinctual self-preservation: My delicate sensibilities can stand only so much of these carnival barkers pretending to be statesmen--or rather, NOT pretending to be statesmen.  That would be an improvement.  Still, I was struck by this quote from ostensible "safe" candidate, Jeb Bush:

“It troubles me that people are rewarded for tearing down our country. It’s never been that way in American politics before. I just don’t believe that this country’s days are going to be deeply — you know, going down. I think we’re on the verge of the greatest time, and I want to fix the things to let people rise up.”

Huh?

Was this Bush trying out new campaign slogans: "Bush 2016: Fixing the things!"  "Bush 2016: On the Verge of the Greatest Time!"  I guess either of those is better than "Bush 2016: America Doesn't Go Down!"  Not much better, but, y'know, better.

*************
Did you see this?  In response to Donald Trump's suggestion that the million-dollar loan he received from his father was not a particularly large sum of money--and should do nothing to detract from his delusional self-image as a self-made man--Stephen Colbert challenged Trump to sign a million-dollar check made out to the Harlem Children's Zone.  If Trump is half as smart as he considers himself, he will waste no time in signing the check: That million dollar donation would do more for his image than ten times that amount spent on advertising.  I'm almost mad at Colbert for giving that jackass such a golden opportunity.  But I will cling desperately to the belief that Trump's inherent jackassery will prevent him from doing such an obviously right thing.

*************
I have 30 people "following" me on Facebook.  I have no idea what this means, especially because I don't actually KNOW any of these people.  Shouldn't it just say I have 30 people "stalking" me?

*************
From the "Someone at the Times Is Trying Way Too Hard" files:

"Enceladus is only 300 miles across and whiter than a Bing Crosby Christmas, reflecting virtually all the sunlight that hits it, which should make it colder and deader than Scrooge’s heart."
                       --"Cassini Seeks Insights to Life in Plumes of Enceladus, Saturn’s Icy Moon"

Some editor should have gotten rid of that sentence the way the Grinch took away Cindy Lou Who's Christmas tree.

Here's to Your Health: So Much for Bipartisanship

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear yet another challenge to the Affordable Care Act.  I'm sure the fact the Supremes agreed to hear this case a mere three days after an election that will return the Senate to Republican control is the purest of coincidence.  The fact that this time, if the justices rule against the ACA, there will be not the slightest shred of a chance that Congress will agree to tweak the legislation to conform to any judicial ruling has, I'm sure, nothing whatsoever to do with their decision to hear the case.  That would indicate crass political calculation, well below the dignity of such an august body of judges.

Bastards.

In case you're interested, at issue as far as I can tell are the semantics of the word "state."  A group of highly indignant folks has taken umbrage with the federal government for providing subsidies to people who cannot afford insurance, when those people live in states that have refused to set up state-run health insurance exchanges.  The dispute revolves around language in the ACA that restricts federal subsidies to those participating in "an exchange established by the state."  The IRS has issued regulations codifying the idea that people may receive subsidies for participating in a health insurance exchange whether that exchange is run by a state or by the federal government, which is running its own exchanges--for the admittedly nefarious purpose of providing health insurance to those whose state governors are only trying to protect them from. . . having health insurance.

One group of federal appeals judges have declared the language in the original legislation ambiguous, and have consequently ruled that the IRS made a reasonable interpretation in establishing its regulations.  Another appeals court has "reluctantly" determined that the law as written does, in fact, forbid the federal government from providing subsidies.  As a liberal, I want to agree with the former, but as a writer, I fear that the second court might actually be correct--or at least is not clearly wrong.  And the larger point is that, while the ambiguity of the phrasing does, in fact, probably give the IRS the right to do what it did, I fear that this same ambiguity will provide the conservative majority on the Supreme Court the political cover it will need to achieve its presumed desire of destroying the Affordable Care Act.  Not that the Court takes into account such crass political calculations.

What everyone should bear in mind is that this law has so far provided millions of people the ability to receive healthcare to which they previously had no access.  Presumably, people are alive today--or at any rate healthier today--because of this legislation.  And for all the talk of gloom and doom and apocalyptic rises in the cost of coverage, nobody seems to be suffering much as a result of the ACA.  Make no mistake, this lawsuit is nothing but the latest mean-spirited attempt to gut a piece of legislation that has as its goal nothing more than to help people, largely out of spite and continued irrational hatred of the man who championed the legislation in the first place.  I just hope the millions of people who lose their coverage if/when the Supreme Court and their Republican enablers have their way will remember this in the next election.

Of course, the GOP will find a way to blame Obama for that, too.

What a Difference a Catastrophe Makes!

Cheers to Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-eally?!?) for taking a bold stand against diehard conservative activists!  Boehner slammed outside agitators in a speech to House Republicans, lambasting them as hypocrites who claim to espouse faith in higher principles but who truly seek only to raise money and expand their membership lists.  They are, Boehner concluded, "ridiculous"!

Why the verbal tongue-lashing?  Well, Boehner is apparently fed up with the damage caused to his Grand Old Party by these unelected agitators.  After all, because of provocations from groups like Heritage USA, cowardly Republican leaders--like John Boehner--were forced to abandon their principles and shut down the government over an unwinnable attempt to defund the Affordable Care Act!  If only staunch possessors of adamantine backbone--like John Boehner--had been in charge back then!  Imagine how differently things would have turned out!

I Hope President Obama Can Survive the Humiliation. . . .

Our not-so-long national nightmare is finally over!  The House of Representatives just approved a Senate bill to finance the government and raise the debt ceiling, paving the way for the restoration of government services and the return of furloughed workers.  Analysts portray the deal as a complete repudiation of the Republican Party's extremist wing, a political defeat of historic proportions, but this is unfair.

True, the Tea Party faction failed to achieve its primary goal--defunding the Affordable Care Act--but everybody knew they would fail.  Saying the Republicans lost that battle is like saying the New York Mets lost this year's World Series: They were never in it to begin with. 

And, sure, right now the Republican "brand" is about as popular as anal herpes, but given the American electorate's attention span, they have every possibility of bouncing back by next year's elections--unless they are stupid enough to pick this kind of battle again next October.  With Michele Bachmann retiring, though, the collective IQ of the GOP congressional caucus will probably rise just enough to allow them to avoid that debacle.  Too bad.

But amidst all the bad news for the GOP, let's not overlook the silver lining, the major concession they managed to wring from recalcitrant Democrats: a "slight tightening of income verification rules for Americans accessing new health insurance exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act."

I know you probably think that doesn't sound like much, but that's because you don't know what it really means!  The Tea Party scored a major victory here.  (My fellow liberals better brace themselves.)  According to an article in the Los Angeles Times, under the rules approved as part of this budget deal, the Secretary of Health and Human Services must "report to Congress by Jan. 1st on the 'procedures' in place to verify eligibility" for subsidies offered to help people pay for health insurance.  And as if that weren't enough, by July 1st, the Secretary must report on the effectiveness of the verification!

Well, Tea Party, I tip my hat!  You sure showed us!  I hope it was worth it.

Irony and Hypocrisy

Last week, in one of his typically insightful rants, Jon Stewart excoriated the Republicans for--brace yourself!--their hypocrisy in attempting to shift the blame for the continuing governmental shutdown onto President Obama, claiming that it is his unwillingness to negotiate that is unnecessarily prolonging the stalemate. 

 

Essentially, he points out that if Republicans want to claim that they are standing on principle and protecting Americans from what they sincerely believe to be catastrophically misguided legislation (the Affordable Care Act), then that's fine...but they have to "own it"--and willingly accept whatever consequences they suffer in the court of public opinion.  And while I always revel in an explication of GOP hypocrisy, I was struck yesterday by the irony of the Republicans' situation.

Because if the Cruz-controlled GOP hadn't shut down the government over Obamacare, they could right now be making tremendous political hay over the utter SNAFU that has thus far characterized the rollout of the Affordable Care Act.  An article in yesterday's Times catalogued the ongoing technical problems that have plagued the online portal where people could go to get information and ultimately to sign up for the insurance exchanges that are the centerpiece of the ACA.  While administration officials are hopeful that the glitches will be fixed soon, Republicans have cost themselves an opportunity for a "told-you-so" to end all "told-you-so's."  Because even if they could find people in the general public--i.e., those who haven't drunk the Tea-Party brewed Kool Aid--to listen to another one of their strident denunciations of this "existential threat to the nation," all President Obama would have to do is turn around and say that, yes, there are technical problems with the ACA website, but these problems could be fixed a lot faster if, y'know, THE REPUBLICANS HADN'T SHUT DOWN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!

The modern Republican Party: Hoist on their own petard since 2009!

I Hate When They Seem Reasonable

The only thing I hate more than reading about Republican-driven machinations to suppress voter turnout is reading about Republican-driven machinations to suppress voter turnout--and agreeing with it.  Well, kinda.  Sorta.  In principle.

Over the last few years, a number of state legislatures have introduced bills that require voters to show photo identification when they come to the polls, ostensibly to prevent voter fraud.  The fact that there is exactly no evidence to suggest that voter fraud is a widespread problem--or, for that matter, a problem period--has proven no deterrent to these zealous guardians of the public weal.  And the fact that these laws pose disproportionate obstacles to minority voters--voters who are far more likely to vote Democratic than Republican--is pointed out by only the most churlish and cynical of pundits and bloggers.

Color me churlish.

So it was with no small sense of unease that I found myself less troubled by an article about Kansas and Arizona, which have introduced "two-tiered" voting systems to allow them to impose extra requirements on voters in state elections--specifically, in this case, a requirement that prospective voters show proof of citizenship.  And while I am fully aware that this, like the various proposals to require photo identification, is primarily an attempt to disenfranchise as many low-income and/or minority voters as possible, I find myself unable to muster a good argument against it.  After all, if voting is a privilege of citizenship--and it is--then why shouldn't states be able to demand proof of citizenship before extending the privilege.

What's even more troubling about this is that proving citizenship is arguably more difficult than merely proving identity.  While I am aware that many low-income or minority citizens may not have photo IDs, I also think that, in the main, the vast majority of people do carry identification: I've carried a driver's license since I was 18--and I didn't even start driving until I was over 30!  In other words, photo identification is fairly common. On the other hand, how many people carry around proof of citizenship?  Not everyone carries around a social security card, and even fewer carry passports, much less birth certificates.  Sort of makes me nostalgic for the good old days of voter-suppression through photo ID requirements.

Best Thing I Read All Day

Unsurprisingly, the Republican House majority passed a budget bill that includes no funding to implement the provisions of the Affordable Care Act.  So, unable to prevent passage of the bill, unable to overturn the bill legislatively or at the ballot box, the GOP has now decided to drive the country over a financial cliff in a fit of sore-losership unequaled since Mike Tyson took a bite out of Evander Holyfield's ear.  Because the bill has about as much chance of making it through the Senate and receiving President Obama's signature as. . .well, as Mike Tyson had of beating Evander Holyfield.  And if the spending bill is not approved, then the federal government will shut down for the first time since 1996--and the GOP firebrands are perfectly OK with that.

Now, are you ready for the best part?  See, while shutting down the government will inconvenience a lot of people--families wanting to visit national parks, Medicare providers who may not be paid in a timely manner, low-level members of the federal bureaucracy who will find themselves furloughed--the essential business of the nation will continue.  The United States will, for example, still have an army.  (Don't get any funny ideas, Canada!)  This is because, even if the federal government comes to a general standstill, agencies charged with upholding "the safety of human life or the protection of property" would still be allowed--required--to function.

And--get ready for it--President Obama could unilaterally declare the provisions of the Affordable Care Act vital to protect human life!  In other words, by shutting down the government over a refusal to fund Obamacare, the House Republicans may actually expedite Obamacare's implementation!

Whatever you may think of President Obama, you have to envy him the utter stupidity of his adversaries.

Seriously, Why Am I Even Surprised?

So John Boehner has finally (finally?) caved to the Tea Party lunatic fringe.  As the country heads for a federal government shutdown and another ludicrous showdown over its borrowing limit, the Speaker of the House has decided to cast his lot with the most extreme members of his party.  Rather than try to work with Democrats and the less insane members of the GOP to craft a political solution to these impending train wrecks, Boehner has decided to accept a Tea-Party strategy of vowing to pass needed financial legislation if and only if the budget includes no funding to implement the Affordable Care Act (i.e., Obamacare).

Not content with holding meaningless votes to repeal the ACA, Congressional Republicans have now decided to hold the economic fate of the nation hostage, rather than fund a piece of legislation (passed, we should remember, by a majority of duly elected representatives) that they don't like.  We could, perhaps, excuse this band of rabble-rousers, who, let's face it, represent the back end of the IQ Bell Curve (their caucus includes that diplomatic dream-team of Michele "Spells Her Name with One 'L' 'Cause the First Lady Spells Hers with Two" Bachmann, Louie "Don't Cast Aspersions on my Asparagus" Gohmert, and Steve "La Raza" King).  But what's Boehner's excuse? 

Whatever you may think of John Boehner, you know that he knows this is a terrible idea: Even if he believes in the cause--which I'm not at all sure he does--he knows that, politically, this is a disaster: The Senate won't back any bill that calls for defunding the ACA, and even if it did, Obama wouldn't sign it.  I guess he's assuming that, somehow, when the government gets shut down, the public will blame the Democrats, but he should ask Newt "Moonbase Alpha" Gingrich how well that strategy tends to work.

But what could Boehner do, you ask?  Well, how about show some leadership?  How about he goes up to these Tea Party "rebels" and says something like, "Look, you may think you're standing on principle, but you're also going to destroy the country and probably take the Republican Party with it.  So here's the deal: You can say whatever you want, but when it comes time to do the business of the country, you toe the line.  And if you insist on this kamikaze shit, I will make it my mission in life to see that you end up just like those kamikaze pilots: You will be stripped of all committee assignments.  You will get no support from the Republican Congressional Committee when you run for re-election; and your district can forget about receiving anything in the way of federal spending as long as you are its representative."

Maybe that would work.  Then again, these are people who just slashed billions of dollars from the food stamps program--a program, incidentally, that puts a huge amount of money in the pockets of Tea Party constituents.  So appeals to reason--or even threats--would likely fall on deaf ears.

To Each According to What We Say They Deserve

Last week, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke outlined the steps that the government would gradually--gradually, mind you--take in withdrawing economic stimulus measures that have been in place for the last four years or so.  As the national economy improves, the Fed will "scale down gradually its monthly purchases of Treasury securities and mortgage-backed bonds beginning later this year and ending when the unemployment rate hits 7 percent."  The central bank will also eventually begin raising interest rates, which currently hover around zero, in an attempt to ward off inflationary pressures.  Shortly after Bernanke made this announcement, the Masters of the Universe on Wall Street flipped out and stocks took a nose-dive.  I don't pretend to understand all the vagaries of high finance, but I do understand that, whenever the Fed Chairman raises interest rates--or even mentions raising interest rates at any time in the foreseeable future--stocks crash.

Now, just last year, the Republican nominee for President, Mitt Romney--whose picture could presumably grace a dictionary entry for "Wall Street"--got into a heap of trouble when he lambasted the 47% of Americans "who are dependent upon government": a group of people who would never vote for Romney because he would "never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

So what we learned last week is this: The same titans of finance who scream "Socialism!" when the government offers support so that poor people can do things like eat or avoid homelessness will also scream--in terror--if that same government threatens to withdraw support for programs that enable multi-millionaires to become billionaires.

And Republicans wonder why they can't win elections.

Here's to Your Health, Again

The other day, I posted about the latest Republican attempts to thwart implementation of Obamacare.  A friend of mine, who has made no secret of her disdain for this particular piece of legislation, reiterated her opposition to it.  Fair enough, although that did not address the basic point of my piece, which was the insane level of obstructionism of various GOP politicians: In this case, going so far as to block provisions of the Affordable Care Act (the law of the land, mind you, duly passed by legitimately elected representatives) that would make it easier for the desperately poor to gain access to health care and that would literally cost them and their states ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for the first three years.

What occurred to me today, as I pondered once again this friend's ongoing dislike of Obamacare, is the fact that--for all the opposition's sound and fury and gnashing of teeth and cries of "Tyranny!"--the law hasn't even gone into effect yet!  And if early reports from states like California are any indication, many of the dreaded repercussions feared by Obamacare opponents--such as higher insurance premiums--will not come to pass.  So, here's my modest suggestion: Why don't people just relax and wait and see what actually happens with the ACA, instead of prophesying the imminent fall of the Republic if and when it is enacted?

Of course, that's not going to happen.  The GOP will continue to scream and wail and convene nonsensical votes to repeal Obamacare--a repeal they all know is never, ever going to happen--because what else have they got?  They certainly have shown no interest in proposing better legislation--or worse legislation--or any legislation.  And the more they scream, the more a sensible observer must recognize how benign--if not downright helpful--Obamacare will turn out to be. 

If the GOP truly thinks the law is a disaster--really believes the vast majority of the country would be harmed by it--then the smartest thing they could do, from a political perspective, is to shut up, sit back, and wait for the law to take effect.  If people truly end up hurt by the law--well, then, the Republicans will solidify a Congressional majority for many years to come.  Lest anyone think otherwise, let's be perfectly clear: Republicans are not afraid of the potential harm the Affordable Care Act might cause; they are, however, completely terrified at the thought that it will work.

Here's to Your Health

A provision of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) sought to extend insurance coverage to the uninsured through an expansion of the Medicaid program, the generally successful program that, for over forty years, has ensured that the poorest of the poor have some access to healthcare.  Seemed like a good idea at the time.  The Supreme Court, however, ruled that, since Medicaid is administered at the state level, individual states had the right to choose whether or not to allow such Medicaid expansion.  Now, as the ACA nears implementation, a number of states are balking at an extension of Medicaid, which means that, ironically, a number of uninsured people will find themselves too poor to receive financial assistance to pay for healthcare.

Now, the fact that the states planning to reject Medicaid expansion are all under Republican leadership should in no way suggest that the rejection is a political ploy to make Obamacare look bad.  This is purely about fiscal rectitude!  After all, the states reasonably point out that their own budgets are stretched already.  How can they afford to take on an unfunded mandate like Medicaid expansion?

Well, OK, it's not completely unfunded: For the first three years, in fact, the federal government will pick up 100% of the new costs.  But, still, what about when those three years are up?  Then--THEN--the states will find themselves stuck with all the costs for all those people who have become accustomed to not going bankrupt when they need to see a doctor!

Well, OK, they won't be stuck for all the costs, but the federal contribution to the state's coffers will shrink dramatically from 100%--all the way down to 90%!!!

OK, yeah, it's a political ploy to make Obamacare look bad.  Why do I even bother to be indignant?

Post-Mortem

I doubt I can add much to the commentary about the quite satisfying results of yesterday's voting, but I've been harping about the election for so long, as so many of us have, that I can't be expected to leave the day behind without at least offering my own post-election thoughts.

The ever-shrinking part of me that clings to optimism (currently occupying the space between tip of left big toe and first toe-knuckle) wants to think Republican leaders will learn the right lesson from yesterday's drubbing: that the country as a whole has little tolerance for. . .well, for intolerance.  Certainly GOP dead-enders will claim Romney lost because of insufficient conservativism, but, while Mittens was undoubtedly a flawed candidate, no lack of ideological purity caused his downfall.  Does anyone truly believe ultraconservatives DIDN'T vote for Mitt in large numbers?  If the argument is that an uninspiring candidate depressed conservative turnout, then that means a substantial number of Tea-Party true-believers felt more comfortable with the a second Obama term than with an imperfect but at least SOMEWHAT more ideologically copacetic Romney administration.  I don't buy it.  I personally suspect Tea Partiers turned out in droves for the chance to turn out Obama.  I suspect, indeed, that this is the ONLY reason Romney racked up about 50% of the popular vote.

Republicans keep trying to convince themselves and us that there is this tremendous demand on the part of the majority of Americans for some return to mythical conservative values when the facts--the observable if much maligned material of the reality-based community--are so clearly opposite.  Are Republicans blind to the fact that, in five of the last six presidential elections, a majority of voters expressed a preference for the other guy?  Or they could just look at yesterday's Senate results!  If there is such overwhelming preference for red-blooded conservatives, why did Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin in Republican-leaning Missouri and Richard "Rape Babies Are Just God's Way of Making Lemonade Out of Lemons" Mourdock in reliable Red State Indiana, both lose?  Why was Allen "Obama's a Communist" West tossed out in Florida?  Among a certain Republican subset, Romney may conjure the image of a Rebublican-in-name-only, but no one could accuse Akin, Mourdock, and West of holding anything but the purest of conservative credentials.  As Edward G. Robinson might snarl, "Where's yer groundswell, now, eh?"

Part of me hopes the GOP doesn't wake up.  Let the party devour itself in internecine bickering until it goes the way of Whigs and Tories and Bull Mooses and other extinct political fauna.  At the same time, I worry that, if the Republicans DON'T come to their senses, and something bizarre were to happen, we could end up with a President Ryan--a thought that should appeal to no one.  Maybe Boehner and company will face reality and we can get something like civility out of our elected leaders--to say nothing of governance.  I won't hold my breath.

In the meantime, we can all breathe a little easier today and, perhaps, for the next four years.  And by 2016, maybe Elizaabeth Warren will be ready to take a shot at the office.  A boy can dream, no?

Job Creators

By now, you would think I'd be immune to the depredations of logic committed by the Republican Party.  But they constantly surprise.  A few days ago, WOFOS sent me a link.  Please click to get a sense of the true level of pettiness and hypocrisy subscribed to by members of this cabal:

http://www.nevinssmallbusinesspledge.com/

If you're not in the mood to click the link--or if you're afraid of exposing yourself to right-wing cookies--allow me to summarize.  The link takes you to a page where "job creators" can make the following "pledge":

"I will hire a new employee when Mitt Romney is sworn in as President of the United States of America."

You can, of course, pledge to hire as many employees as you like.

I wonder if those who sign this pledge are aware of exactly how hypocritical they sound.  Consider, these right-wingers are proud capitalists of the staunchest sort.  In their Ayn Randian worldview, "producers" create wealth and prosperity by utilizing capital in the most efficient and effective ways--and ONLY in the most effective and efficient ways.  An employer will thus only hire people when he or she needs these people to improve productivity.  By the same token, though, if a new hire will improve productivity, the employer must, according to the fundamental tenets of this philosophy, hire that worker.

Now, if these people are pledging to hire new workers, they must need these new workers--every day without them is thus hurting their businesses' productivity and thus committing an offense to the Great God of the Market.  The alternative explanation is that the "producers" don't truly need more workers but will hire them as some sort of "favor" to. . .   Well, I'm not exactly sure: Romney, perhaps, but since he'd already have been elected, I'm not sure how important that favor is.  But what will these "surplus" workers do, exactly?  Corporate busywork?  Sounds positively Keynesian to me.

Beyond the illogic, though, I can only shake my head at what this pledge blatantly reveals: Republicans will refuse to hire people until Barack Obama is no longer the President--presumably because he is the President--and then blame President Obama for the high unemployment rate.

At long last, have they left no sense of decency?

Thursday Trendwatch (Saturday Edition)

10. ROBOT SURGERY
Why it's trending: According to a headline on Foxnews.com (and I can only imagine what kind of sinister GOP cookies just got embedded in my computer when I went to THAT site), "Questions remain on value of robot prostate surgery."  I didn't even realize robots had prostates!

9. MITT ROMNEY
Why he's trending: I'll give you three guesses, and the first two don't count.  Specifically, though, the Mittster has affirmed that, if elected, he "will not take God out of the name of our party platform."  The Democrats, of course, first removed and then reinstated the Almighty in their party platform, a non-story that Republicans predictably milked for all it was worth.  I was unaware that God appeared in the "name" of the Republican party platform, which is actually titled "Republican Platform: We Believe in America."  Perhaps it's in a special font that only Republicans can see?  Or did Mitt just have dyslexic moment when he saw the letters "GOP"?  Which don't appear in the name of the platform, either, but what are you gonna do?

Asked for comment, Yahweh replied, "I'd appreciate if everyone could leave me out of it.  I stopped following politics after the dissolution of the Whig party."

8. CLINT EASTWOOD
Why he's trending: Why do you think?  Personally, I had no problem with Clint's rambling interview with the invisible POTUS at the RNC.  I did think it was a little tacky to wrap up with, "And remember, 'Trouble with the Curve' opens on September 7. Peace out!"

7. COCA-COLA FLAVOR DROPS
Why it's trending: Technically, what's trending is "Dasani drops," a soon-to-be-introduced water-enhancer from the Coca-Cola Company.  Added to water, the drops turn boring H2O into a fruity, refreshing treat.  One word of caution: Do NOT  drink undiluted Dasani drops: Stuff's like uncut heroin.

6. KIM ZOLCIAK
Why she's trending: Because she just gave birth a few weeks ago, and CHECK. HER. OUT!

Now I just need someone to tell me who the balls Kim Zolciak is!

5. GOLD MINING
Why it's trending: With the weak jobs report, and speculation that the Federal Reserve will take further action to stimulate the economy (and thus potentially cause inflation to rise), end-timers and other survivalist types will flock to gold as a safe financial harbor.  Only a churl would point out that the value of gold is exactly as arbitrary as that of fiat currency like the American dollar, and I am not a churl.  Still, I recommend like-minded citizens join me in an internet movement to transfer the symbolic value of gold onto a more accessible medium.  Dasani drops, perhaps.

4. AMY POEHLER
Why she's trending: She and husband Will Arnett are splitting up after nine years of marriage.  I didn't know they were a couple.  Must have been a lot of fun around the dinner table. Or maybe not.  They are splitting up, after all.

3. KHLOE KARDASHIAN
Why she's trending: After completing a mini-marathon to help raise money for Medecins san Frontieres (Doctors without Borders), the reality-TV star and respected medieval scholar joined MSF volunteers on a trip to Nicaragua, where over 100 children received free cleft-palate surgeries.  She also dined with President Daniel Ortega and his cabinet and discussed opportunities to subsidize tenant farmers in the country's interi--  Nah, I'm just messing with you: She's a finalist for the "X Factor" hosting gig.

2. MICHELLE OBAMA NAIL POLISH
Why it's trending: Style-obsessed Americans have been buzzing for days about the nail polish that First Lady Michelle Obama wore the other night at the DNC.  Now, it can be told: The striking color, "Vogue," was created by extracting stem cells from aborted fetuses.  It's true!  That's what Rush Limbaugh said, anyway.

And the number-one trending topic at this moment on the space-time continuum is. . . .

1. JENNIFER GRANHOLM
Why she's trending: The former governor of Michigan gave a fiery speech at the Democratic National Convention, blasting Mitt Romney for opposing President Obama's plan to save General Motors.  Too bad she can't run for President: She was born in Canada.  I mean, I obviously have no fundamental objection to a foreign-born President, but Canada?  I have to draw the line somewhere.

Chairs as Empty as Rhetoric

Everybody's jumping all over poor, addle-minded Clint Eastwood (Don't pummel me, Clint!) for spending an inordinate amount of time at the Republican National Convention talking to no one.  I've been doing that here for the last three-plus years!  You don't see anyone making fun of me.

You don't, do you?  You'd tell me, right?

I've always associated the "empty chair" with gestalt psychotherapy: The therapist has the client speak to the empty chair, "seating" therein a person that the client wishes to confront, the better to exorcise the mental demons that torment.  I guess that's what Eastwood was doing, the demonic President Obama having possessed the previously not-so-demented Republican Party.  Kind of dramatic, when you think about it.  Of course, it dramatizes nothing so much as the fact that the GOP is in serious need of psychotherapy.

Incidentally, I didn't catch Romney's speech, and I was swamped at work today and had no time to read anything about it.  Did I miss anything?

OK, didn't think so.

Grotesque Old Party

I cast my first vote in a presidential election for Michael Dukakis.  Undeterred by that debacle, I cast my next presidential vote for Bill Clinton.  I remember thinking at the time that the nation had dodged a potentially lethal bullet by avoiding a second Bush the First presidency.  How sad, then, is it now that I find myself looking back longingly at the elder Bush as a model of decorum and decency--a paragon the likes of which I fear we will never see again in the Republican party?

The GOP likes to call itself the party of Lincoln.  Obviously, that is no longer the case.  But the Republicans are no longer even the party of Teddy Roosevelt or Eisenhower.  I don't even think they can be considered the party of Nixon!  Granted, I was lacking in political awareness during the Nixon years; as a toddler, my chief political concerns revolved around whether a parental filibuster would deny me pudding.  But from everything I've read about him, I conclude that Nixon, were he alive to run for office today, would probably have to run as a Democrat.  If not a Green.

In my life, I have lived in New York and California--along with a brief childhood residency in Massachusetts.  I am, in other words, a Blue State citizen, through and through.  And despite my ever-deepening despair at the political direction this country is taking, I have always clung to a certain faith that people who disagree with me politically are, on the whole, decent human beings.  It is this faith that allowed me to maintain sanity during the George W. years and that has allowed me to ponder the prospect of a Romney presidency without succumbing to abject terror: A belief that, if a large proportion of my fellow citizens were willing to take a flyer on these people, I should at least give them the benefit of the doubt.  I can't feel that way anymore.

With the remarks of Rep. Todd "legitimate rape" Akin, some line has finally been crossed.  Not so much that he said it--that could just be chalked up to utter ignorance and/or personal misogyny.  But the fact that ANY Republican is supporting him, is apologizing for him--presumably only because he is a Republican--casts the entire party as a den of anti-intellectual, uncaring, and hateful barbarians. (And if you say that all politicians would rush to such partisan defense, you're wrong: If Obama had said the same things Akin said, Nancy Pelosi would be screaming for his head.)


The Republican Party is dangerous and evil.  If elected, they will drag this country down to third-world status.  I struggle to cling to hope.