Is Hot Bag of Air That Is Grover Norquist Finally Floating Away?

According to a lot of press lately, which was even accompanied by some minor scolding from his own party, it seems as if Grover Norquist might be losing his kung-fu grip on the balls of the republican party when it comes to anything and everything involving his favorite four letter word... tax. But in the harsh light in the post-election morning, GOP politicians are beginning to realize that the napoleonic GOP tax emperor has no clothes. Or more realistically considering the climate and how the Republicans are polling against the President on the so-called fiscal cliff, they realize that threat of Mr. Norquist holding (most of) their previous anti-tax pledges against them in a future primary battle is rather hollow in the face of refusing to let the Bush tax cuts expire against the highest two tax brackets (I am not even going to get hysterically started on how the Bush tax cuts were ALWAYS supposed to sunset after 10 years). The majority of people support the raising of the wealthiest and most will also blame the GOP if a deal gets done. The bet being made many is that it is a lot more dangerous to the electoral prospects of those involved to obey Grover rather than to ignore him.

The party has not put Grover in the corner yet, however. He is now trying to use the debt ceiling to get what he, and many far-right conservatives in the House as well (to be fair), wants on the fiscal cliff. Boehner has now even stated that "everything has a price" as an barely implicit threat to use the debt ceiling despite the fact that it threatens the full faith and credit of the US, led to a downgrade of the US' credit rating last year and 60% of Americans support raising taxes on the top 2% of Americans (oh, and that little 332 and 51% election win by POTUS).

Due to that last bit, and because the majority of Americans will blame the Republican Party for a failure to avert the fiscal cliff, the President is refusing to back down from either his promise to raise taxes on the top 2% OR his conviction to take the debt ceiling off the table for the future so it can no longer be used as a threat nuclear option bargaining chip by the GOP. As President Obama still appears to have a massive chip stack in front of him, it strikes me as the right play. Not only is the raising of taxes on the wealthiest something he ran hard on and won on this fall, but the debt ceiling argument last year cast a black cloud over the United States last year. The President did not get overly blamed on that, but it still caused many to doubt the sanity of the political process. These negotiations during this lame duck session may be an important step to illustrate that this past election was the first sign that sanity is starting to creep back into our Congressional halls.

Here's to hoping, because the world is still watching. Maybe only with one eye because they have their own shit going on over in the EU and China, but watching nonetheless.

IMAGE: Mediaite via Google Images

An Open Letter to President Obama

Dear Mr. President:

In all honesty, I have no idea how to start one of these things. Do I go fawning and describe how I was an insta-supporter after the 2004 DNC and that the support only strengthened throughout your eventual Presidential campaign/election? Do I mention my recent disappointment, not Andrew Sullivan-like but there nonetheless, at the first debate and the related tightening of the polls? I guess I go lazy and lead with those questions (what hackery!). I was not, however, one of those was most angered by your seeming malaise in the debate but was rather incensed at how easily Mitt Romney lied, obfuscated and changed tack throughout. I suppose he should have been called out, but the shamelessness of it all was almost unbelievable. Even sadder, the American people bought it and, at the very least, Mr. Romney is basically tied with you in the national polls and is right on the bumper in many swing state polls. Some say you should be as pugnacious as Vice President Smokin' Joe Biden, but I, for whatever that is worth, would pledge caution. Call Mr. Romney out, certainly, but do so calmly and civilly. This should not be your concentration, however, as the real reason Americans fell for Mr. Romney's schtick is because they believed it as a viable new course for America that would set them back on the path to prosperity (despite the fact that that path was actually lined with heaps and heaps of cow patties).

With that in mind, why not reframe the debate and bring your own vision for the future to the fore. For instance, the 47% Mr. Romney so easily dismissed are not too lazy or too downtrodden to find work that they must rely on the government dole, many jobs they would have been taking no longer exist because of productivity gains or because corporations looking to pad their already overstuffed earnings have shifted them abroad. Instead of counting them out or writing them off, let's empower them. They do not need redistributive "handouts," they need training for the post-recession new normal. How about we redistribute the money that we have, for far too long, pledged in corporate welfare? Oil companies making billions do not need billions more in subsidies and favorable tax treatment. The banks that have been the beneficiaries of the public's largess derived from our tax dollars are sitting on that money rather than making loans or lowering mortgage rates. They say they are in the business of making profits, not public welfare; I say the American public is no longer in the business of helping them do so. Mr. President, any Wall Street money you were getting is probably already in so there's no holding back now. Mitt Romney is the ultimate plutocrat, so why no embrace the populist within you? Instead of practicing corporate welfare, that money is going to be "earmarked" (let's take that word back too!) for education. And not just improving education in pre-K and kindergarten, areas where it is proven to have the most impact, but also job training to help those out of work land more highly skilled jobs. Lets create more of these jobs by encouraging the modernization of our grid and the retrofitting of buildings that will not only lead to more jobs but will have the added benefit of eliminating wasted in providing heating and electricity for our homes. It even has a tailor-made tagline: "It's not about welfare for people suckling at the public teat, it is removing the already fattened corporations from the teat so our middle class can start the American comeback." Or something. I'm sure your election team can work on that...

Once you've laid that out, ask Mr. Romney was his plan is. Specifically. Ask him how those that have been looking but cannot find a job are going to be helped by the Romney/Ryan plan. Ask him if we are REALLY just hoping for the magic tax cut bean to spur growth once again? How are the policies currently espoused any different from the previous Bush plan? Shouldn't the fact that R.Glenn Hubbard, main Conservative tax cut cheerleader for decades, is the chief economist and seeming architect of economic plans belie the fact that a Romney administration will just be repeating recent history rather than learning from it?

And if Mr. Romney brings up a plan to privatize social security, whooo boy! It could not be easier to point out that the only benefit such a plan would bring would be to Mitt's buddies on Wall Street who would be chomping at the bit to get their hands on that money. They could then charge hundreds of millions of dollars of management fees for the possibility to mismanage the American public's money as bad as the banks did before the Great Depression. Doesn't that sound great?!?

How about immigration? If it doesn't get brought up, bring it up. I think the vast majority of people who are against the DREAM Act were probably not voting for your re-election anyway Mr. President. Ask Mr. Romney where he stands and, if he changes his tune, why he is standing to the left of the spot he stood two months ago. Stress the importance of the need to keep highly educated and highly immigrants, especially those who came to this country for that education, in the country. These are the drivers of innovation and growth that we so desperately need.

I cannot even be bothered to go into the social issues as I've already run too long and I think almost everyone knows where Romney/Ryan stand on that anyway (aside from abortion; where do they stand on that? Okay, maybe bring up abortion after Ryan's VP debate performance). Do not run on the past, except where you need to emphasize that Romney/Ryan will be repeating past mistakes. President Bill Clinton already made the case for you record, it is time for you to make the case for why you are the man to look to for the next 4 years. The refrain from the DNC and from numerous commercials has been about "moving forward," so how about you show the American people where you will be driving us. Many of your supporters are already in the tank and are confident you are to lead us on the right path. It is high time to show the rest of America. You rode into office on the inspirational wave of the change you would bring and you need to inspire Americans to their better natures again.

Thank you for your time Mr. President. The American people are counting on you.

With the utmost sincerity,


NoMas Paine

The REAL Mittens: An Addendum

I am sure I am not the first to write about this and it this case has been written more eloquently elsewhere, most likely by Ta-Nehisi Coates, but it fits in so nicely with what I wrote yesterday. The above depicts a familiar talking point for those who've been following the 2012 Presidential race. Or even before, actually. Conservatives, once they got tired demanding his birth certificate, have been loudly demanding the release of President Obama's various school transcripts. As shown above, we all know Mittens is BAWSE because he graduated BYU with high honors and HBS/HLS in the top 5% but how do we know that President Obama really DESERVED to be the first black Editor in Chief of the Harvard Law Review (because, y'know, they probably just give that away). The clear implication, though never expressly stated, is that we do not know if President Obama has deserved any of this because blahblahblah affirmative action. Up to and including the Presidency; which is nicely exhibited by the "in over his head" comments on the President.

On the other side, of COURSE Governor Romney has worked hard for/deserved everything he has achieved. And I'm sure he as (just like President Obama). But both Governor Romney himself and, seemingly, the right-wing talking heads discount all the built in advantages that he enjoyed throughout his life. Prep school. A stock portfolio bequeathment that he and his wife lived off of while in school. And I'm sure it probably does not hurt that your father was the CEO of American Motors and the Governor of Michigan. It seems, and I could very well be wrong, that in Mittens' mind, this was all predestined. He earned ALL of it, with no help whatsoever, and he DESERVES the Presidency.

In my mind, the Romneys' green paper was/is a lot more advantageous than Barack Obama's black skin. It'd be nice if some people would step back and realize that from time to time.


IMAGE: some moron from http://polination.files.wordpress.com.

The REAL Mittens Showed Up... Or Did He?

Ever since Mother Jones' fateful unveiling of Mitt Romney's 47/53 opinion from a private fund raiser, there has been much talk across the journobloggingtalkinghead-o-sphere about whether we've FINALLY seen the real Mitt Romney. Depending on who you were reading, these opinions have taking both good and bad connotations. Personally, in your humble bloggers opinion (IYHBO?), I agree that it is impossible to pin down the REAL Mitt Romney politically and still think that this WAS the real Willard.

Wah, wah, wwwaahhhhh, you say? Well, I do not necessarily believe that the talk revealed much of anything about his political beliefs and that he would be anything to anyone to get elected POTUS. At the same time, from my long experience having dealings with self-entitled douchers, it fits a pattern where, at each turn, Romney peels a layer to further reveal his self-entitled doucher core. The first instance of this was revealed when it came out that he was the ring leader of a group that harassed a fellow student by pinning him down and cutting his hair. Many cried homophobe when this was revealed, but it sort of just seemed like the seedling of a self-entitled prep school doucher (of course, the most common of all douchers). This trend has continued with his absolute refusal to release any tax returns outside of the two years he already has, despite requiring his VP candidates to give him 10 years of tax returns, essentially telling the American public to just trust him on this. Self-entitled douchers who think their deserved presidency is an essential fait accompli do NOT show the general public anything more than what they want to. Facts. In his mind it is probably unfathomable that he would not be President considering that the markets would rise upon his election.

The truly indicative phrase in Governor Romney's talk at the fundraiser, however, was not about the 47% of the electorate who will never vote for him. Do no misunderstand me. That little tidbit was certainly damaging and the coup de grace of calling them too lazy to rise up was horrible. But to really get into the mind of Mitt Romney (the self-entitled doucher) look no further than these words:

By the way, both my dad and Ann's dad did quite well in their life, but when they came to the end of their lives, and, and passed along inheritances to Ann and to me, we both decided to give it all away. So, I had inherited nothing. Everything that Ann and I have we earned the old-fashioned way, and that's by hard work and…[applause] I see that—

I say that because there's the percent that's, "Oh, you were born with a silver spoon," you know, "You never had to earn anything," and so forth. And, and frankly, I was born with a silver spoon, which is the greatest gift you could have, which is to get born in America. I'll tell ya, there is—95 percent of life is set up for you if you're born in this country.  

These are the words on a man who was born on third base but continues to suffer from the misperception that he hit a triple. Or, to be fair to a man who did work hard to get where he is but still had a TON of help and advantages along the way, the words of a man who hit a blooper for a single and then got to third thanks to a series of unforced errors. Though it IS fantastic that he did very well for himself in private equity and gave away any money left to his family from both sets of parents, he still does not recognize that he was still born with a silver spoon and all the built-in advantages that infers. This idea was further reflected in Ann Romney's admittedly great RNC speech where she talks about their struggles living in Boston while Mitt pursued his graduate degrees while leaving out the fact that they were living off of a vast, and bequeathed, stock portfolio that most people couldn't dream of.

Though clearly not the same level of megalomaniac, Romney's self-perception reminds me of figures like James Dolan or Woody Johnson (sorry about the NY sports team references but they are the only examples I can bring to mind of this phenomenon, since they are the co-banes of my existence; pun not intended) who go about doing whatever they want, infuriating their fan base, because they think they deserve it.

Anyway, long story short, Governor Romney probably does not hold disdain for 47% of the voting public. I doubt that he really thinks about 90% of the voting public at all. He's just a self-entitled giant doucher, surrounded by people of his ilk, who felt comfortable to let out his dawgs contained douchiness. I think his own self-entitlement matter a lot more in that talk than any other entitlement that he addressed.


IMAGE: Mittens goes for the full Boehner at the Univision Forum from miamiherald.com

Nobody Likes The Color Purple Anymore, And We Ain't Talking Oprah

Dick Lugar, a six-term Republican Senator from Indiana, just recently lost a primary battle to new Tea Party (side note: I thought that whole thing had run it's course...) darling Richard Mourdock. Many supporters of this move, as Teabaggers are wont to do, state that Lugar has simply been part of the Washington establishment too long, is in the District more than he is in Indiana, and has lost touch with his constituents. Certainly, there is more than a small kernel of truth to this. However, the responses of many more, not least of which was Mr. Mourdock, lent credence to the idea that Lugar actually lost because he was not properly awash in the glorious flames of ideological purity and had the audacity to reach his hand across the aisle to attempt to deal with the other party. According to Mr. Mourdock, the opposite day definition of bi-partisanship, and the only way that he would be involved, was when Dems had the good sense to come to whatever crazy ass position he decided to grab a hold of. Additionally, as Jonathan Chait points out in the above linked article, one of Lugar's sins was voting for the very qualified Justices Sotomayor and Kagan after President Obama nominated them. As Chait points out that, outside of extreme circumstances, the practice of voting for the other party's Supreme Court nomination, much like votes to raise the debt ceiling, was quite commonplace until very recently. 

This primary, however, is just a symptom of a much larger and a much scarier ailment that is oft discussed, but without any serious worry about the future repercussions... the increasing partisanship acrimony between the parties. Lugar's end is one of many recent examples of relatively more moderate (cannot stress relatively more) Republican Senators getting labeled Republicans In Name Only, or RINOs, and then getting attacked by the fringier parts of the GOP. In fairness, there are also the pols formerly known as Blue Dog Dems Democrats In Name Only, or DINOs (RINOs and DINOs... totes cute, amiriight?), who are also getting weeded out, but to a much lesser degree. This level of polarization will increasingly become a problem if it continues. During the debt ceiling debates, the US' credit rating was threatened because people around the world are starting to think our political process is too dysfunctional to get anything done. And they are not far off. This whole development, which seems unique to the aughts in my mind, makes me more and more worried about the future each time it rears its ugly head. One can almost picture a post-apocalyptic political future where there are literally two America's with the Red team having a firm grip on the amber waves of grain, the Blue team holding it down from sea to shining "whatever demarcates the end of each coast," and not a majestic purple mountain to be seen because, as everyone knows, red and blue don't mix.

Such a future makes me sick to my stomach so I can only hope that those representing us wise the hell up and realize that the only litmus test that truly matters is if they are doing what is best for their country. Though many who hold similar political beliefs as me gripe about President Obama being too moderate or even GASP a bit conservative for a Democrat, I hope he continues to let his Purple freak flag fly. Pretty soon he might be the only one left.

Yes We Can!... Eventually.

President Obama, certified master of the long view (Andrew Sullivan (c) 2011), put forth his not so unequivocal support of the right of gay marriage. I've seen a lot of opinions already on this with many saying it is rank political opportunism, from both sides, and some on the left saying that he was not full-throated enough because of his support for federalism on the subject. I'm sympathetic to both views and, as always, the truth falls somewhere in the middle. I do not think that the POTUS truly believes, in his heart of hearts, that the states should be the ones to legislate on this issues, especially as a Constitutional law scholar (but, then again, what the fuck do I know about what is in his heart of hearts). His whole "I personally believe, but y'all do what you want" stance certainly seems to take some power (slash political liability) from this interview. I also believe that there is just as much risk as potential reward in coming out in support considering the disgustingly unnecessary passing of Amendment 1 in North Carolina and, in the same vein, articles like this.

But, bottom line, who the hell cares about the various calculations behind the decision or the fact that it was not perfect in everyone's minds. It was important. Momentous even. One of my great complaints about President Obama was not enough movement on Guantanamo, his absolutely ridiculous turn on his pledge regarding war on drugs/medical marijuana and support of the civil rights of the gay community. One out of three with just under 6 months to the election ain't bad. Not to mention that, by painting such a stark picture between himself and Mitt on this issue (see the Grenell fiasco) turns this election into a mini-referendum on the issue. We got to take this for what it is, be proud of this step, and appreciate the slow build that will eventually lead to real change.

And, as always, keep in mind the famous never said words of President Obama...

Donald Trump to Provide Voice to Romney Robocalls...

As reported by ABC news. I have nothing to add to that, apparently, non-joke. Paraphrasing the POTUS, good luck with that...


Image from: NY Post, via Google Images.

F@#k Yoo (and Bolton Too)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

John Yoo and John Bolton, enthusiastic torture supporters and haters of general Constitutional freedoms, wrote in aOp-ed in today's NY Times criticizing POTUS for agreeing to comply with a European code of conduct for space and thus, in their demented little minds, circumventing a Constitutional requirement that the Senate ratify any treaties. I don't even know where to begin with the hubris of it all so I will not say much. The fact that either of them are passing any judgment on Constitutionality is laughable. Even more hilarious is the fact that their analysis is borderline mentally handicapped. 

The Obama administration recently declared that America would follow, though not sign, a European Union code of conduct for outer space — a transparent end run around the constitutional requirement that the Senate ratify all treaties. This code, drafted by Europeans who do not bear America’s global responsibilities, restricts military activities in space as well as some peaceful dual-use technologies, like the multistage rockets used to launch commercial satellites.

Soooo, the President is NOT signing the treaty and agreeing to abide by its term and thus setting foreign policy? That is not in his purview since when exactly? And the fact that he is not signing, and thus committing, this course can be changed at any time. What the hell are they arguing? They attempt to address this point by baldly claiming to know the inner minds and objectives of the administration because of what some unnamed administration officials "loudly proclaimed" while in academia.

Really, an unbelievable piece of argument. My head is spinning with the stupidity. Good lord I hate them.

GOP and the Strength of (Malleable) Convictions

The GOP primary marches on as Mitt Romney wins both Arizona, by a large margin on the back of the Mormon voting bloc, and Michigan, albeit by an all to tight 3.2% margin as reported in the NY Times. The close margin in Michigan, ostensibly Romney's home turf, means that this primary will continue on with no absolutely definitive front runner for, at least, the medium term.

Part of the problem for Romney seems to be systemic problem when it comes to the Republican party in general; they have no actual convictions. As has been well documented, Mr. Romney has been on both sides of just about every issue. Honestly, as many times as he has changed direction in tune where the voting public's wind has blown (not a fart joke), his new nickname should be Weather vane (no, seriously. That's a good nickname. I'm trademarking it. (TM) No Mas Paine 2012.). Especially since his current nickname is Mitt (what's up with that? Oh, right, his actual name is Willard). This is true of almost every candidate who has run this primary though. Either they have changed their tune (Romney, Gingrich) or they never really knew exactly what their tune was to begin with slash were a joke (Bachmann, Cain, Trump). The only true core conviction that has seem to come from the GOP has come from Congressional leaders such as McConnell and Cantor (whose weaselly properties have been previously documented) in moments of candor (see what I did there) when they state that the real goal is to make the President of the United States a one term president. Not to lower the deficit or return to a smaller, better run federal government, but to defeat the current POTUS. Kind of a time limited goal that does not exactly qualify for a core conviction, dontcha think?

The GOP likes to fashion itself as the party of strength against the effete liberal elites on the other side. Strong on national security. Strong on family values. Strong on protecting religious freedom (if you are a Christian or Israel loving Jew). On all point, however, the party tends to go overboard. Statements declaring that Iran needs to be blown off the map, before any provocation or proof of possession of nuclear weapons, in order to protect the sanctity of Israel, where there is not such thing as Palestinians by the way, seems to belie an insecurity present in the Grand Old Party. It has shades of one walking around with a chip on their shoulder and going out of their way to prove their mettle. This also, along with the shift of focus to social issues, helps explain Santorum's surge (seriously, editor's choice in re: Santorum headlines have to be on purpose). Santorum may be extreme and an enemy of personal liberty who is not nearly as electable as Romney in the general, but at least he says what he believes (unlike Romney who only convinces himself to believe what he says). People can viscerally feel who is forthright and Romney does not fit the bill.

I do not think the Democratic Party, as a whole, is much different. One of the many reasons that I think the duopoly of political parties, which the founding fathers argued against from the beginning, is no bueno. In contrast to all this noise, however, President Obama (the head cheese) stands alone. He pisses off nearly everyone on the Right and a whole lot on the left, but he is who he said he is. Repeatedly. And clearly. He's a center left democrat who has come through on a ton of the promises he made during his initial campaign. He's cerebral and thinks things through before acting, but he's plenty fiery when he needs to be. Long story short, aside from the hot mess that is the Republican party, I think we are going to see four more years because the POTUS is nothing if not mostly consistent.

Cheers to that.


Image: From Boston Globe (via Google Images)

Keeping the Church Separate from the State... and Out of Our G*#damn Bedrooms

The latest uproar coming from the crazypants tag team of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church and the evangelical right has honed in on the Obama administrations requirement that religiously affiliated hospitals and colleges have to cover birth control in insurance plans they offer. Bishops, backed up by evangelical foot soldiers, screamed about the imposition caused by this attack on religious freedoms. Despite the fact that very few of the Catholic fold support the Church's position on contraception (or masturbation, or sex for pleasure, et al.), the ruckus was enough to get the administration to walk back from their position, but not enough to satisfy the Church hierarchy. This is not at all surprising considering that this is a battle that U.S. Bishops have been planning on for awhile.

Some commentators, such as Andrew Sullivan, believe that the U.S. Bishops, with the evangelical right hanging on to their cassock tails, have committed a great overreach. Much of the right, including some of the establishment, vehemently disagree and continue to screech about attacks on religion; I, however, fall wholeheartedly in Sully's camp surprise surprise. First and foremost, the Church cites moral authority when bringing down their ecumenical hammer on the use of contraception, or any type of sexual activity not for procreation. Call me crazy, but I do not think the Church has much capital when it comes to the boudoir. Let me know when the Church makes a full throated apology, that resounds from Pope Benedict on down, about the worldwide sexual abuse of the least powerful of their flock. That is just step 1. Second, the position they have chosen has almost no support. The fact that this is coming during the GOP primaries means that the Church is, probably quite literally, preaching to the choir. The party most likely to be against such moves, single white women, is a likely independent group that either party will need to win over to win. Smooth move on that one evangelical right.

The enormity of the miscalculation is playing out right now. Despite what some on the right are deluding themselves into believing, Rick Santorum is very much not electable. At least not in the general election. Due to that fact, however, he shouldn't be the current leader of the GOP primaries unless they are desperate to lose. However, the contraception issue, and the highlight of social issues over economic that it has caused, has propelled Santorum to heights that he would not previously have dreamed of just a month ago. And, in Michigan, the joke is quite literally on them yet they don't seem to realize it. The Daily Kos has asked Michigan Democrats, who are allowed to vote in the Republican primary, to vote for Santorum to help him win and help take Romney out. Further, and much more hilariously, Santorum has embraced this move; respectability be damned! According to Talking Points Memo:

It’s a controversial tactic. Bill Ballenger, a longtime Michigan politico and the editor of Inside Michigan Politics, spoke with TPM about the call earlier in the day. He said the call piqued his interest because it sounded like it could have come from a union targeting Romney ahead of the Feb. 28 primary. The call focuses on Romney’s opposition to the auto bailout and calls on Democrats to vote for Santorum Tuesday because of it.

“It went on and on like this and I kept listening because I kind of smelled a rat,” Ballenger said. “And finally at the very end, in a tagline it says, ‘this call was paid for by the Santorum for president committee.’

If I was a Republican, I'd probably be crying into my Vatican approved Wheaties and doing some Opus Dei style self-flagellation right now. I style myself a moderate, was feeling Huntsman a bit, but the state of the GOP since I came of voting age has prevented me from having any sane choice rather than the Dems.

#Team Obama. (with a Sully hat tip).