Presents Perfect

Mitt Romney has caught substantial flak lately for comments made on a conference call to supporters.  During this chat, he blamed his recent electoral drubbing in part on "gifts" that President Obama had offered to such traditional Democratic supporters as African-Americans, Hispanics, and younger voters.  These comments were greeted with the predictable howls of outrage.

(DIGRESSION: Unbeknownst to Romney, a New York Times reporter had been invited by one of the conference-call participants to listen in on the conversation.  You would think Mittens would have learned by now never to say anything controversial during "supporters-only" affairs.  Indeed, for all our sakes, maybe he could just stop saying anything.  Ever.  EOD)

Lost amidst all the indignation is an important point: Romney is absolutely right.  President Obama DID win re-election largely because he shamelessly bestowed "gifts" upon the aforementioned constituencies.  What kind of gifts?  Well, a reliable liberal such as myself would say these "gifts" were such things as forgiveness of college loans, ensured access to contraception, and, of course, healthcare reform.  But of course, these are just liberal talking points; I'm sure Romney was referring to more obvious pandering on the part of the President.  So let's see what he meant by "gifts":

“With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest was a big gift,” Mr. Romney said.

Hm.  OK.  Go on.

“Free contraceptives were very big with young, college-aged women. And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents’ plan, and that was a big gift to young people."

Sigh.  OK, I get the point.  I-- What's that?

"You can imagine for somebody making $25,000 or $30,000 or $35,000 a year, being told you’re now going to get free health care, particularly if you don’t have it, getting free health care worth, what, $10,000 per family, in perpetuity — I mean, this is huge.”

Yeah, I mean, dangle shiny healthcare in front of a bunch of poor folks--how could Mitt have competed with that?!?  In retrospect, his counter-offer--REVOCATION of said healthcare--may not have been the game-changer he had been counting on.  Look, Mitt, it's one thing to get mad at President Obama for playing Santa Claus, but nobody told you that you had to play the Grinch!

So, what Mitt Romney considers "gifts" are things that most people--apparently including Mitt Romney--would consider policy initiatives, initiatives that any politician would pursue to satisfy his constituents.  Only a churl would point out that Romney intended to bestow similar gifts--tax breaks, deregulation--upon HIS supporters if HE had won. 

In other words, in making these comments, Mitt Romney is guilty of nothing more sinister than a firm grasp of of electoral politics.  If only he had a better grasp of math.  He might then realize that the sheer number of people who appreciate Obama's gifts is substantially larger than that of the gazillionaires who would have appreciated Romney's.

ADvantage Obama

Given how much money candidates spend on advertising, one would imagine that ads have some impact.  I guess for a truly undecided voter, an informative advertisement has value--assuming there are informative advertisements.  I doubt such an animal exists.

I say this in a completely non-partisan spirit: Democratic ads are just as pointless as Republican ones (if less offensive to every tenet of basic human decency--but I digress).  After all, an ad placed by a candidate will highlight either the good things done by that candidate or the bad things done by his or her opponent; such ads can hardly satisfy a voter's need for objective information.  Sure, advertising does serve a purpose in generating name recognition, but anyone unfamiliar with the names "Obama" or "Romney" at this point in the game probably shouldn't be voting anyway.

Here's an interesting tidbit about this season's political advertising binge: With all that we've been hearing about super PACs' baleful influence on the political process, it seems that the President--ostensibly less-favored by the big money interests--has held his own quite nicely.  In fact, according to an article in today's Times, ads favoring President Obama have outpaced ads favoring Mitt Romney, approximately 160,000 to 140,000--despite the fact that Republicans have outspent Democrats, roughly $500 million to $400 million.  In other words, despite spending approximately 25% more on advertising, Republicans have placed about 12.5% FEWER ads.

And just remember, the standard-bearer of the Republican Party bases his claim to the presidency on his business acumen.

Mo' Binders, Mo' Problems

I'm sorry I missed the debate last night.  I was, however, glad to hear that President Obama mopped the floor with his GOP challenger.  Admittedly, that's a partisan interpretation based on second-hand sources, but no matter how one spins the result, it sounds like Barack sure showed up last night.

Of course, all that anyone's talking about is Bindergate, Mitt Romney's infelicitous attempt to shore up the women's vote.  As I'm sure you've all heard by now, Mittens portrayed himself as a champion of women's equal opportunity because, as governor of Massachusetts, he questioned why his staff couldn't find qualified women to apply for senior governmental positions.  He requested--nay, demanded!--that aggressive steps be taken!  And last night he bragged about compiling "binders full of women."  And a meme was born!

 

Binders are the new Big Bird.

I've spent an inordinate amount of time today trying to determine whether this remark was actually offensive.  I'm willing to give Mittens the benefit of the doubt here: I'll assume he wasn't being sexist and may, indeed, have relatively--relatively! Remember, the man's in the same party as Rick Santorum--mainstream sttitudes towards women in the workplace.  I think that, unlike his infamous "47%" comment--which came as part of a lengthy discussion and thus probably reflects his true feelings toward the less fortunate--this "binders" remark truly was just bad phrasing: It says less about Romney's possible misogyny than it does about his utter out-of-touchness: For him, women--people in general--are just so many data points, so many quantifiable inputs to be color-coded and tabulated and assessed in terms of their bottom-line value.  Romney may or may not be a sexist, but this comment plays perfectly into the caricature of him as cold-hearted business mogul who evaluates--and values--people only insofar as they contribute to his agenda.

At times like these, I think of my Republican friends--I must have some: I'm a very likable guy.  How did they react when Romney uttered the "binders full of women" line?  Did they cringe, realizing this would be the take-away from the whole debate?  Were they perhaps fixated on some equal and opposite gaffe committed by President Obama (a gaffe pitched to a dog-whistle-like frequency that only Republicans can hear)?  Or do they see nothing wrong with it?

I don't say that out of a sense of condemnation, either.  I think of my reaction when then-Senator Obama made his infamous "gaffe" during the 2008 election cycle, about how certain people "cling to guns and religion" out of a sense of fear--Obama's own "47%" moment, if you will.  Many expressed outrage at the elitism implied by the words, but, frankly, I remember thinking, "What's the big deal?  He's basically right."

We've reached a point in the election cycle, nearly--mercifully--over, when for the most part only the most egregious of blunders will have a serious effect on the race.  Those of us gleefully bantering about Mitt Romney's latest faux pas are for the most part people who would in no way have considered voting for him anyway.  I can't wait for the day when Americans can put all this unpleasantness behind us and return to simpler, more universal pleasures, like hating on Canadians.

Things He Said and Didn't Say

During last night's presidential debate, I tried my hand at live-blogging. . .or live-tweeting. . . or tweet-blogging--whatever you call it.  And I rocked!  Took to it like a duck takes to. . . whatever it is ducks take to.  Juice, maybe?  But today I'm back at my normal station to offer some final thoughts (for now) on last night's political festivities.

I suppose Romney "won" the debate, for what it's worth, which is not much.  President Obama seems to be maintaining a comfortable lead in the major swing states.  His main goal last night was simply to avoid any "47% of Americans are bloodsucking parasites"-like gaffe, and by that standard, I'd say he did fine.  That being said, there were a few things I wish he had pounced on.

Everybody is jumping all over Romney for first praising and then threatening to whack Big Bird.  (DIGRESSION: I keep envisioning Romney and Ryan as Caiaphas and Annas:: "Like Henson before him /  This Big Bird must die / Must die, must die /  This Big Bird must die /  For the sake of the Nation / This Big Bird must diiiiiiiiiieeeeeeee."  And before you ask, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SvJhOO_EfQ)  EOD)  President Obama probably should have pointed out that, even cutting all funding for PBS would do approximately nothing to balance the budget.  Still, he could afford to let that one slide, as folks like America's favorite astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson can take up the fight:  "Cutting PBS support (0.012% of budget) to help balance the Federal budget is like deleting text files to make room on your 500Gig hard drive."

There were a couple of points, though, where President Obama truly needed to go for the throat.  First were Romney's repeated claims that President Obama "cut" $716 billion from Medicare.  (A) Obama "cut" $716 billion in the same way that, if your landlord decides to reduce your rent by $100 a month, you would "cut" your rent budget.  It's called savings, jackass.  Excuse me.  That's rude.  This man could be our President.  It's called savings, Governor Jackass.  (B) The exact same $716 billion "cut" was endorsed by Romney's running-mate Paul Ryan!  Maybe President Obama feels that this claim, since it has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked, needed no response.  Except it really did!  Sure, the president's supporters know Romney's full of shit, and Romney's supporters don't care.  But those seven uncommitted voters in Ohio who are going to decide the election may NOT know it yet, and President Obama must call shenanigans loud and clear every chance he gets.

I also couldn't believe the gall of Romney's repeated assertions that he is more bipartisan than President Obama because he, Romney, had to work with an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature in Massachusetts.  Does Mitford not realize that this attests less to his bipartisanship than to that of the Bay State Democrats?  Did the leader of the Massachusetts State Senate Democrats state in the early days of the Romney administration that his number one goal was to make sure that the Mittster was a one-term governor?  Come on, Barack!  This is easy!

Anyway, there are a couple more debates, as well as a Biden-Ryan showdown, still to come.  I hope the President brings some good ol' Chicago-style brass knuckles to the next fight.

Advice to Young Teachers (and Certain Obtuse Politicos): I DON'T Know What You Mean

I give lots of feedback to my writing students, probably more than they've received from any other writing teacher.  I tell them, before I hand back their papers, that I can be extremely nit-picky.  I can (and do) pull apart even the most seemingly innocuous statements if those statements are in any way ambiguous.  I also tell them that, for many of them, their initial response to my comments will often be, "Oh, you know what I mean!"

NEVER say to me, "You know what I mean."

If I KNEW what you meant, I explain, then I would hardly need to read your writing.  And if, in the real world, you find yourself forced to say "You know what I mean," then the odds are that your interlocutor does not, in fact, know what you mean.  Be clear.

I thought of this today as I listened to the Mitt-Romney-formerly-known-as-a-presidential-candidate attempt to explain his offensive, condescending remarks about nearly 50% of the American population: You remember, the people he said--actually SAID--he "doesn't care about."  Essentially, his defense was a variation on, "You know what I mean!"  No, Mitt, we don't!

Or, in your case--even worse--maybe we do.

No Bullying Pulpit

This seventh-grader, Benny, is a really nice kid who lives in a rough neighborhood--has lived there all his life.  The other neighborhood kids have never liked Benny--most of them kind of hate him.  They always call him names, pick fights with him, what have you.  And over the years, Benny's gotten pretty tough: He's had to!  When the other kids start hassling him, he gives as good as he gets.  And Benny has one big advantage over the other neighborhood kids: His best friend, Barry, is the star linebacker on the local high school football team.  Barry has always looked out for Benny (he's an old friend of Benny's family), and he always will.

Lately, though, Benny has started to annoy Barry.  See, Benny's been going around threatening the local bullies, warning them that if he even thinks they're going to start trouble, he's fully prepared to make life extremely miserable for them.  It's not a completely unreasonable position to take--this is a very rough neighborhood.  But now Benny's also demanding that Barry make some serious threats towards these kids as well.

Barry doesn't think this is such a great idea.  Sure, Barry could make the threats--and even back them up: He's a senior linebacker, and these are essentially just little kids.  But Barry has other things on his mind: his classes, an after-school job, college applications, to say nothing of the big game coming up against Mitford Prep. . .  OK, you get the point.

I am Jewish, and a strong supporter of Israel--or at any rate of the ideal of Israel: a secular democracy in an otherwise benighted land, a haven for a historically persecuted people--my people.  But when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu starts issuing demands that President Obama declare "red lines" to Iran--lines which the Islamic Republic dare not cross in its pursuit of nuclear weapons lest it find itself on the receiving end of an American attack--I just feel like telling him: Shut. Up.

I don't want to see Iran get the bomb (though I still have a philosophical problem with the idea that a nuclear-armed country has some sort of right to forbid another country from acquiring same).  I understand Netanyahu's concern.  However, he has no right to demand that another country--a country that has done more for his land than any other nation in the world--essentially commit itself to go to war on his behalf if some arbitrary "red line" is crossed.  Netanyahu, of course, says such lines would make war less likely, as Iran wouldn't want to provoke a US onslaught.  But I can't help thinking that Bibi--who seems all too eager to unleash hell on Iran--would see American red lines as green lights: How much time do you suppose would pass between an American ultimatum and Israel presenting Washington with evidence of Iranian violations?  I put the over-under at a week.  And then what?

Mitt Romney--Surprise!--thinks President Obama is showing contempt to our staunchest ally.  But it's easy to play backseat president before the election.  And even Romney hasn't said what his red lines would be. 

If Netanyahu is so gung-ho to attack Iran, let him do so.  The United States will, as President Obama affirmed at a recent gathering of Jewish leaders, "have Israel's back."  But Bibi must understand that the American people are quite weary of Middle East wars and have little appetite for another one.  We remember George W. Bush, who was all too willing to issue threats and ultimatums, and we are none too thrilled with how all that turned out.  I, at least, appreciate a President who is not willing to make bombastic threats for no reason other than that a friend asked him to.  President Obama has certainly failed to live up to his Nobel Peace Prize in many ways, but in this instance, at least, he is showing the right spirit.

What Would Jesus Do? Probably Not What Mitt Did

The last 24 hours have been rather hectic in the Middle East, and I, sadly, have had scant time to check out the news in other than a cursory manner.  Here's what's happened so far:

Yesterday, US embassies in Egypt and Libya were attacked by mobs, apparently responding to an inflammatory, anti-Muslim video produced by some fringe amateur filmmaker.  How sleazy is the video?  Well, I haven't seen it, but it received a seal of approval from Terry Jones--organizer of International Burn a Koran Day (which I'm sad to say falls on a Saturday this year, so no day off!).  Apparently, a large portion of the Islamic world has yet to realize that just because a mentally defective racist American happens to say something, this does not reflect the official position of the American government or the vast majority of Americans.  At any rate, these protests turned particularly violent in Libya, where four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed.

It goes without saying--or it should--that no one in his right mind--American, Libyan, Egyptian; Democrat, Republican, or Independent--condones these actions.  The Libyan government condemned the attacks, as did any number of decent people the world over.  As for the domestic US reaction, the consensus could be summed up as anger at the perpetrators, sympathy for the victims, and resolve not to be cowed by international terrorists.  Despite their well-publicized differences, political figures both Democratic--President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Senator John Kerry--and Republican--Speaker of the House John Boehner, Senator Mitch McConnell--issued sensible, sensitive responses to the horrific events.  Politics, as it has been often said, stop at the water's edge.

But someone forgot to tell Mitt Romney.  Rather than taking the opportunity to appear statesmanlike, Romney wasted no time in politicizing the incident, spewing partisan misinformation to an anxious nation.

A bit of background: Before--let me emphasize, BEFORE--the attacks on the embassies, an embassy employee, in an apparent attempt to soothe the feelings of Muslims over the offensive video--issued a statement essentially affirming the United States' commitment to religious freedom and its fundamental respect for members of all faiths.  This relatively benign statement--again, made BEFORE the attacks--was seized upon by Mitt Romney as some kind of "apology" offered up by President Obama to the very people who killed his Ambassador.  The fact that it was not an apology nor was the statement made by the President or any member of his Cabinet only adds to the inanity of Romney's statement.

Andrew Sullivan has done a thorough job of destroying Mitt Romney for this egregious act of tactlessness.  I would just like to emphasize the utter cluelessness this betrays.  Because who's Romney trying to impress?  Anyone who would conceivably believe these blatant misrepresentations is already firmly in the "Vote Romney" column.  Anyone else--anyone undecided--must surely listen to this repulsive act of blatant politicization and shake his head over the depths to which an intelligent, historically moderate representative of the American elite has allowed himself to sink.

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.

Who Knows How to Make Money?

A recurring argument in support of Mitt Romney's presidential aspirations goes like this: Mitt will fix the American economy because, as a successful businessman, he knows how to make money.  Mitt Romney undeniably possesses great  wealth, but let's examine the argument that he "knows how to make money."

Mitt Romney's father, George Romney, while apparently a man of humble origins, ran the American Motors Company and served as the governor of Michigan.  It is safe to say that Willard came into this world, already worth at least seven figures.  The man seems to think eating tuna fish sandwiches represents financial exigency.

Barack Obama has humbler origins.  Depending on whom you ask, Obama was either born in Hawaii to a middle-class Kansan woman and her Kenyan husband and grew up in conditions of greater or lesser scarcity, or he is the anti-Christ, born in Kenya and the subject of an elaborate and ongoing conspiracy to mask his unholy origins so he can lead the United States to its ultimate downfall and bring about the Rapture, leaving behing a blasted Hellscape of suffering and deprivation.  Either way, though, the young Barack was hardly rich.  And yet, somehow, even before his election to the presidency, Barack Obama had become quite wealthy, an established member of "the one percent."

So, if we're comparing candidates based on their ability to make money, shouldn't we give the edge to Obama?  Romney changed millions into more millions, but President Obama made millions out of nothing!  Kind of like when Jesus turned a fish and a loaf of bread into tuna fish sandwiches for everybody.

Of course, Romney supporters would probably have condemned Jesus for forcing so many people into the indignity of eating tuna fish.

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.

Naming Candidate Ryan

Mitt Romney has concluded that the only way to win the election is to prevent as many people as possible from voting for Barack Obama--not by convincing these people that he, Romney, would make a better President but by preventing them from voting at all.  His GOP supporters have facilitated this goal in a several swing states by passing voter-suppression--er, sorry, "Voter Fraud Prevention" laws, which will have the curious effect of keeping large numbers of people who, statistically speaking, are more likely to vote for President Obama out of the voting booth.  Well played, GOP.

In his latest masterful move of electoral jiujitsu, Romney has selected House-Elf Paul Ryan (R-Azkaban) as his running mate.  Sure, many observers feel that Romney has all but handed the election to President Obama: Rather than picking a safe, non-controversial running mate, Romney has selected the one man in all of Washington who cannot realistically distance himself from the Medicare-slashing, Social-Security destroying budget devised by. . . Rep. Paul Ryan.  (Then again, Mitt Romney has distanced himself as much as possible from the Massachusetts universal healthcare plan devised by none other than Governor Mitt Romney, so I guess anything's possible.)  But Ryan's unelectability may just be the point!

Romney and his supporters have already done a great deal to make sure that people who want to go to the polls and vote for Obama can't do so.  But what about the rest of the electorate who aren't minorities or poor or college students?  How can Romney dissuade the solid middle-class liberal from voting?  Simple!  Make the likelihood of his election seem SO unlikely that we don't bother to go out and vote.  Lest you think this far-fetched, as soon as I heard of Ryan's nomination, I chuckled, shook my head, and made plans to get an all-day massage on November 6th.  Thankfully, I realized in time, that's just what they WANT me to do!

Be alert, people.  Complacency is dangerous.

The Solipsist Reads the Times (So You Don't Have To)

84-year-old former Egyptian dictator and Robert De Niro look-alike Hosni Mubarak was sentenced to life in prison.  He thus has nothing to look forward to but sitting around his room, watching television, and eating bland food, as opposed to your typical octogenarian who's out there windsurfing.  The Egyptian people, though, are disappointed in the verdict--some people are just never satisfied!--as the judge only found Mubarak guilty of being an accomplice to the murders of a couple hundred protesters during the early days of the uprising.  I suppose this is technically true, in the same way that Hitler was an accomplice to the SS.  Interestingly, this disappointing verdict has once again united the country: Islamists, liberals, and bears (oh my) have once again banded together to protest the corruption of the ruling elite.  Nothing like a common enemy to bring out the best in people.

In other news, the world economy still sucks.  The basic problem seems to be that we live in a globally interconnected world without globally interconnected regulatory systems.  (Don't say that out loud, though: People will accuse you of being a New-World Order leftist like, uh, the first President Bush.)

It turns out that Mitt Romney is a "Star Trek" fan.  Initially, this news worried me, as I feared it might induce certain people--FOS, for instance--to vote for the man.  Then I realized this was unlikely: After all, Romney may be a closet "Trek"-enthusiast (he rejects the "Trekkie" appellation), but Barack Obama is the nation's first Vulcan president.  Finding out Mitt Romney likes "Star Trek," though, does make him harder to hate, until I remember his attitudes toward everything that people who value a decent society hold dear; then I regain my urge to hurl tribbles at the man.

Iraq has increased its oil output tremendously, so much so, in fact, that the international community is cautiously optimistic that stronger sanctions against Iran may not prove as disruptive to world oil supplies.  Commenting on this news, former National Security Advisor and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice said, "This is welcome news, of course.  Still, I would once again emphasize that increased oil production was never the predominant concern; liberating Iraq from a dictatorial regime and bringing democracy to the Middle East were."  Former Vice President Dick Cheney, in contrast, cackled and exclaimed, "Yahtzee!"

I was also disturbed to hear that, despite the fall of Saddam Hussein, the tradition of state-sanctioned torture continues in Iraq.  At an auction for oil contracts, "An elevator-music rendition of Lionel Richie's 'Hello' played over and over."  Monsters!

The more painkillers are used--and the earlier in treatment they are prescribed--the greater the overall costs to employers.  Hm.  You know, when you see that sentence typed out, you realize that one of the central premises of this article is that if you take more pills and use them for a longer period of time, it will cost more money.  No wonder Times readers are so well-informed!

Finally, the Times provides an interesting discussion of the various controversies and disputes around the Sept. 11 Memorial Museum.  One ongoing debate focused on whether or not to include photographs of the 19 hijackers who crashed planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania.  Those opposed claim that this affords the murderers an undeserved honor.  It really doesn't, though.  Photographs of criminals don't celebrate the criminals.  Think of these as mug shots.

It's All a Popularity Contest--Thank God!

Joe Ricketts, billionaire owner of the Chicago Cubs "baseball team," made news last week because of a since-abandoned plan to finance an ad campaign, in which voters were to have been reminded of connections between President Obama and incendiary preacher Jeremiah Wright.  Outrage over this blatant race-baiting forced Ricketts to renounce this campaign.  Smart move.

But who thought this was a good idea in the first place?  Times Columnist Frank Bruni quotes a memo prepared for Ricketts, in which consultants who worked on the campaign express frustration that the American people "still aren't ready to hate this President."  Bruni goes on to lament the incivility implicit in that memo, and the general scorched-earth nature of American politics, which demands personal demonization of one's enemies rather than mere disagreement with one's rival's policies.

With all due respect to Frank Bruni, though, Ricketts' consultants had exactly the right idea.  We can lament this reality all we want, but the truth is that electoral politics truly is a popularity contest.  I used to think this was glib oversimplification, but it occurred to me after reading Bruni's piece that, at least since television became a driving force in presidential politics, the more likable candidate has always won.  The dashing Kennedy beat the dour Nixon.  Affable Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter (likable enough, but kind of a dweeb) and Walter Mondale.  Good ol' Bill Clinton beat Bush I and Bob Dole.  And as much as I despise George W. Bush for what he did to this country, as much as I consider him arguably the wort President in American history, he was more personally "likable" than either the robotic Al Gore or the cadaverous John Kerry.

Exceptions?  Well, it was before my time, but from what I understand, Lyndon Johnson was not exactly Mr. Warmth. Which to me just suggests how far beyond the pale Barry Goldwater must have been.  Had he survived, does anyone seriously doubt that Bobby Kennedy would have beaten Rochard Nixon?  And as for George H. W. Bush vs. Michael Dukakis?  Well, neither of them was exactly what you would call the life of the party.

Which brings us to Barack Obama.  He was certainly more likable than crusty old John McCain.  And even now, with the exception of lunatic-fringe, right-wing birthers, most people--even if they dislike Obama's policies or think he's done a lousy job--like and respect Barack Obama.  Why wouldn't they?  He's young(ish), attractive, cool, smart, and--to borrow a line from "Malcolm in the Middle"--I'm just gonna say it, he gets two points for being black.

For all I know, Mitt Romney may be a perfectly pleasant man at home.  He may be the life of the wine-and-cheese party--well, except since he's a Mormon, it would be the grape-juice-and-cheese party--and see, that's what I mean!  He's boring!  Ultimately, Romney faces the unenviable task of trying to get Americans to accept wrong-headed, retrograde policies.  The good news is, he probably won't succeed; the bad news is, if he were only a little more likable, he would.

Youthful Indiscretions

As President Obama strides two steps forward in the history of civil rights with his endorsement of gay marriage, Mitt Romney takes us one step back.  It has recently come to light that, as a senior at Muffington Central Prep School (or something), Romney may have engaged in a bit of playful gay-bashing.  He and some of his good buds ganged up on a schoolmate, John Lauber, who had the temerity to return from Spring Break with his hair dyed blond.

Now, I know what you're thinking: Little freak had it coming.  I know!  But, you know how the lamestream media is: Give them a story about a future presidential candidate bullying a gay teenager, and they're all over it!

In Romney's defense, he claims he was not bullying Lauber because Lauber was gay; indeed, Romney says--and personally I believe--that he wasn't even aware that Lauber was gay.  So, there, it's cool: Romney's not a homophobe; he's just a jerk.

Honestly, I don't think anyone should worry too much about things that presidential candidates might have done in high school, which in Romney's case was almost fifty years ago. Hell, when I was in tenth grade, I killed and ate a local electrician.  Nobody's going to hold that against me now, right?

What?

Oh.

Well, just forget I said anything.

Two Cheers and a Yawn for President Obama

Call me jaded, call me an emotionless robot, but I just can't get overly excited about President Obama coming out (so to speak) in favor of gay marriage.  Don't get me wrong: I think anyone who wants to get married should have the right to do so, and I think the Prez did the right thing by declaring his support for this basic human right.  I'm just not convinced it's that big a deal.

First, I've always more or less assumed--and I suspect I'm not alone in this--that, deep down, President Obama always did believe that gay people should have the right to marry.  Indeed, back when he was just a local Illinois politician, he indicated as much on a questionnaire.  Only when he went national did he promote a more mainstream endorsement of civil unions.  Most people probably believed that Obama was cynically trying to make himself more palatable to middle America, but they overlooked this maneuvering, believing he would ultimately do the right thing with regard to gay civil rights.

Which of course he has.  President Obama has overseen a repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," for example, as well as ordering the Justice Department to stop defending the "Defense of Marriage Act."  These substantive policy decisions have done more for the gay community than the purely symbolic statement that the President believes that gays and lesbians should be able to marry legally.

People say the President took a political risk.  I'm not sure why: People who oppose gay marriage were likely never going to vote for Obama anyway.  True, his statement may anger some members of the black community--particularly black clergy and their devout followers, but are these folks likely to flock to Romney?  And however many people are turned off by this non-change change of heart, I imagine at least as many found it refreshing to hear a politician take a firm, unequivocal position on a controversial social issue.

Indeed, this whole thing may redound to Obama's political advantage.  Mitt Romney, of course, has toed the party line and reaffirmed his opposition to gay marriage.  Personally, I suspect Romney's true feelings, like Obama's, differ somewhat from his public pronouncements.  I don't doubt Mittington's relatively traditional view of marriage--despite his ancestral co-religionists' somewhat more multiple idea of the husband-wives relationship.  I suspect, however, that deep down he really just doesn't care all that much about the issue.  Now, however, his Republican base will demand a full-throated denunciation of Obama's godless liberalism, which will only complicate Romney's attempt to present a more moderate image to the national electorate.

Maybe Romney should just come out in favor of gay marriage, too.  Now THAT would be newsworthy.

The Daily Headdesk

Hilary Rosen, a Democratic political strategist, created a mini-firestorm when she commented that Ann Romney, wife of presumptive Republican nominee Mitt, had never worked a day in her life.  Mrs. Romney pointed out that, as a mother of five, she had done more than her fair share of work, and Republican operatives wasted no time in portraying Ms. Rosen--and by extension Democrats in general and the Obama administration in particular--as enemies of stay-at-home moms in particular and women in general.

Whew!

First, it should be noted that Hilary Rosen does not work for the Obama campaign.  Furthermore, while no one should denigrate mothers' work, everyone knows that Hilary Rosen (a mother herself, by the way) was not doing that.  Sure, she probably should have said--and no doubt wishes she HAD said--that Ann Romney has never had to work a day in her life to support her family.  But everyone, including indignant Republican ops who are shocked--shocked!--by Comrade Rosen's blatant hostility towards motherhood and all things American, knows that is precisely what she meant.

Moreover, they know it's true, which is why nobody is engaging her on the merits of her statement.

The truly goat-getting part of all this was Ann Romney's response.

Mrs. Romney had responded. . .to Ms. Rosen, saying that "my career choice was to be a mother” and adding that people need to “respect choices that women make.” Pushing back against the comment, she added: “She should have come to my house when those five boys were causing so much trouble. It wasn’t so easy.” . . . Mrs. Romney insisted that “I know what it’s like to struggle.” “Maybe I haven’t struggled as much financially as some people have,” she said. “I can tell you and promise you that I’ve had struggles in my life.”

As disingenuous as the other responses to Rosen's comments are, this one raises things to the proverbial whole 'nother level.

Look, Ann, no one is saying that you--and, for that matter, ALL parents--and, for that matter, all PEOPLE--don't struggle. But that minor qualification about not having to struggle financially WAS THE WHOLE POINT!  Every mother faces the exact same maternal struggles you did, but 99.9% of them didn't have the financial resources you did to help them deal with those struggles. I could, of course, be wrong, but I'll wager--let's say 1% of my net worth vs. 1% of your husband's--that you had a nanny or two to assist you with those five kids.

Whaddya say? Wanna bet?

Campaign Update

Pity the political journalist, especially in this election year, when he or she must cover Rick Santorum with a straight face.  So I understand these folks' impulse, when writing, to get a little creative, to choose le mot juste, or, if not writing in French, the perfect word to express exactly what they want to say.  But they (or their editors) do need to make sure that their mot is, in fact, juste:

"A loss to Mr. Santorum in Ohio would blunt Mr. Romney’s latest attempt to portray himself as the inexorable nominee." ("Before Super Tuesday, Big Names Rally to Romney," emphasis added)

Now, given his rivals' constant criticisms painting him as an unprincipled, finger-in-the-wind conservative who will say anything to get elected, Mitt Romney would probably love to be considered "inexorable"--unyielding, constant, as in "the inexorable march of time."  The campaign itself is inexorable--or, better yet, interminable.  Romney's nomination, however, is not inexorable; it is (probably) inevitable--unavoidable, destined to happen--which is no doubt what the reporter meant to say.

Speaking of the Republican campaign, I must comment on Rick Santorum's purported "nausea" upon listening to John F. Kennedy's speech defending the strict separation of church and state.  Of course, as many have noted, if Kennedy had not made that speech, assuring a wary nation that he was not in thrall to the Vatican, he might not have been elected, and other Catholics like, oh, Rick Santorum wouldn't have as easily been accepted as plausible presidential candidates.  But that's not what  really bothers me--Santorum's hypocrisies having by now become just so much background noise.  No, what worries me is that, if Kennedy's fifty-year old speech causes Santorum to become nauseous, does he really have the intestinal fortitude to occupy the White House?

I certainly hope he never Googles humself; he'd probably need to be hospitalized.