Ostrich Should Replace Elephant as GOP Mascot

The 19th century political cartoonish Thomas Nast is credited with creating the symbol of the Republican Party, an elephant. Perhaps the mascot should be updated. I suggest it be an ostrich.

An elephant, after all, is said to have a good memory, but today’s GOP fails to remember the values that once made it great—equality of the races (under Lincoln); reverence for the environment and anti-monopolies (under Teddy Roosevelt); disdain for the military-industrial complex (Eisenhower); strategic diplomacy and environmental protections (Nixon, yes Nixon); abhorrence of deficits (Reagan); respect for foreign alliances (Bush I and II).

Under Donald Trump the Republican Party has turned its back on all of these foundational blocks. Moreover, elected congressmen and senators have metaphorically put their heads in the sand so as not to see how Trump is clearly dismantling the rule of law and our constitutional protections of checks and balances.

With the House of Representatives embarked on an impeachment probe after a whistle-blower revealed Trump seemingly pressured the president of Ukraine during a telephone conversation to dig up dirt on Joe Biden, a leading Democratic contender for the presidency, and the subsequent cashiering of the transcript of their talk to a top secret file, perhaps we need to paraphrase one of Trump’s earliest examples of abuse.

Instead of “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 (Hillary Clinton) emails that are missing,” let’s say the following: “America, if you’re listening, we hope you’re able to see the transcripts of Trump’s conversation with Ukraine’s president and other transcripts of his talks with foreign leaders that have similarly been  hidden because his staff feared they would reveal Trump’s high crimes and misdemeanors.” 

Not everyone is convinced an impeachment proceeding is necessary or wise. Surely most Republicans don’t. Some worry it might turn people off, that they might feel Washington has sunk further into dysfunction. On the contrary. An impeachment investigation is the ultimate constitutional function.

This is a test of the American public. Does it want a democratic republic or an autocracy? If Trump is not held accountable for his actions, if his minions are not held accountable for their coverup attempts, we can expect him to continue to stretch the limits of presidential invulnerability. We’ve already seen the pattern being set—one day after Special Counsel Robert Mueller testified before Congress without clearly stating Trump was guilty of obstruction, Trump had his conversation with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky.

The Very Next Day!!!

The time to impeach has arrived!

The Bankruptor-in-Chief Gambles on Healthcare, N. Korea, and Dumping Mueller

If there is one thing Donald Trump knows how to do it is bankrupting a business. So even though the Republican controlled Congress has not been able to repeal Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act is still in jeopardy because the bankruptor-in-chief is committed to shutting it down without so much as a thought to the tens of millions whose lives would be placed in financial and physical jeopardy from illness that could lead to poverty and/or death. 

The irony in all this is that a healthier America is better for business, which is what Trump claims to be all about. 

For more irony, Trump is touting invigoration of the coal industry—a dying segment of the energy sector with dying companies that provide lethal work for coalminers—at a time when solar, wind and other alternative energy sources have far surpassed coal’s attractiveness as a resource and employment prospect, not to mention its environmental concerns. But then what do you expect from a businessman who could not turn a profit from gambling casinos?

Behaving like a spoiled child holding his breadth because his parents deny him an extra portion of dessert, a ticked off Trump has threatened to curtail subsidies that underpin many insurance providers. Without the subsidies insurers may abandon markets, leaving individuals without insurance options or with drastically higher premiums many couldn’t afford.

Trump is gambling his threat will force Republicans and Democrats to come back to Washington to vote to repeal and replace Obamacare. But keep in mind, four of Trump’s six bankruptcies came from his inability to run a successful gambling casino. Should anyone with such a sad, sorry record be playing with the health and safety of our citizens? 

How Big a Gamble: To get his way Trump has shown a willingness to gamble with the health of millions. He now has an international dilemma with even more certain deaths if he places his money on black and the roulette ball lands on red.

What should he do with North Korea’s relentless march to nuclear warhead and ballistic missile capability? Does North Korea pose an existential threat to America or any of its allies? Should he order a pre-emptive strike on the missile staging area?

Even if we could knock out the missile development region, we probably could not prevent massive conventional retaliation on Seoul with massive loss of life and physical destruction of the South Korean capital. Are we willing to sacrifice the citizens and capital of our ally so easily?

I’m inclined to think we should not. Here’s an analysis from the Centre for Research on Globalization worth reading: https://shar.es/1TwcYz

  

Breaking the Silence: In the war on Islamic terrorism it is often asked, where are the moderate Muslim voices? Sadly, under threat of actual death, they remain all too silent. 

But one can equally ask, where are the voices of reason within the Republican Party? How can they let this misfit of a president stand for the party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan? 

To be fair, many conservatives have spoken out and written about their disdain for Trump and his co-opting of the Grand Old Party and conservative values. Even some religious leaders have expressed consternation that their brethren have forsaken Christian teachings by supporting Trump’s extreme positions, including his stances against Obamacare, immigrants, Mexicans, Muslims and voting rights. 

Until recently, the real silence, however, has been heard in the halls of the Capitol. For eight years Republicans decried the power of the executive branch under President Obama. Now that a so-called Republican sits behind the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office, watching their reaction and their determination to express congressional authority is a study of evolving expectations. 

Now that he has removed Reince Priebus in favor of John F. Kelly as his chief of staff, commentators are saying Trump has severed his strongest ties to the Republican Party establishment. Will he try to push through an agenda without care or consideration for traditional GOP values, or will he try to work with an increasingly independent Republican controlled Congress?

Senators Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and John McCain showed profile-in-courage independence by voting down the last ditch GOP effort to repeal Obamacare. But others who privately did not like the “skinny repeal” bill voted for it anyway, a true example of profiles-in-cowardice.

Meanwhile, The House and Senate overwhelmingly voted for more sanctions on Russia, Iran and North Korea along with a proviso that Trump could not unilaterally lift sanctions on Russia. Trump has indicated he will sign the bill as he doesn’t want to risk the embarrassment of having a veto overturned. 

Republican senators have also been out front warning Trump not to dump Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Sen. Charles Grassley, chair of the Judiciary Committee, has threatened not to hold hearings on any replacement for Sessions nominated by Trump. 

The end game for Trump is to get rid of Robert Mueller III as independent special counsel. Aside from the investigation into possible collusion with Russia during the election last year, Trump fears Mueller’s probe into his finances. Trump well knows that developers are ripe pickings for investigators looking for shady deals. 

Trump might be looking alarmingly at Pakistan where the Supreme Court last week removed from office Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif because of alleged financial corruption. 

On the other hand, he might be gazing longingly at Vladimir Putin’s strong armed rule in Russia where opponents are jailed (“Lock her up”) or mysteriously die, or to the Philippines where President Rodrigo Duterte conducts summary executions of alleged drug dealers and users (Trump last week suggested police treat suspects more roughly), or even to Venezuela where President Nicolas Maduro has rammed through the election of a constituent assembly that will rewrite the country’s constitution more to his liking (Trump wants the Senate to abandon filibuster rules that he views as constraining his legislative agenda). 

He definitely won’t look for inspiration to Poland where President Andrzej Duda vetoed two proposed laws that would limit the independence of the judiciary.

This Isn’t Funny: OMG, how are we supposed to survive the Trump administration if our favorite foils keep getting whacked? First Sean Spicer resigns, no doubt moments before he would have been axed by his new boss, communications director Anthony Scaramucci. Then a short 11 days later Scaramucci is dumped by new chief of staff Kelly. 

Spicer and Scaramucci were made-for-TV-satire-comedy. Melissa McCarthy made Spicer into an Emmy-nominated caricature. And it was impossible not to be amazed and amused by Stephen Colbert’s spot-on mimicry of Scaramucci. 

It will be tough replacing these comic inspirations. Ex-Marine general Kelly just doesn’t have the same je-ne-sais-quoi. I guess we’ll just have to be content with Alec Baldwin’s Saturday Night Live send-up of Trump and Kate McKinnon’s portrayal of Kellyanne Conway. 

Déjà vu: The GOP House Seeks an Impeachable Offense to Stymie a Clinton Presidency

As per FBI Director James B. Comey and Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton learned this week she will not be indicted for her email indiscretions, but she may well face an impeachment process if she is elected president. If we have learned anything from Republican behavior during the Obama years and, yes, during the Bill Clinton presidency, it is that the GOP will do almost anything to obstruct a Democratic president from devoting the necessary time and energies to serving the country.

House Republicans are laying the groundwork for such a move after grilling Comey during a hearing Thursday for four hours. They are not convinced he was right in determining Clinton did not commit a prosecutable offense by handling top secret emails on her personal server. Indeed, they will seek further investigation by the FBI as to whether Clinton perjured herself during testimony before Congress. 

If she is elected president, and Republicans remain in the majority in the House, expect impeachment talk to be front and center from the start of her administration. Don’t expect Donald Trump to bring impeachment up during the campaign as it would hint he doesn’t think he would win. But if he loses, expect a fusillade of tweets and rants that Hillary should be impeached.  

The Constitution states a president may be impeached for “treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Clinton’s alleged failures fall under the vaguely-worded “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Former President Gerald Ford, when he was House minority leader more than four decades ago, defined an impeachable offense as “whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.” (http://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html)

A GOP majority in the House jumps that hurdle.

However, it is uncertain if actions taken before she was elected president would qualify Clinton for impeachment. Doubters need only look to Ford’s analysis to expect a positive take on that question from a Republican House.

Impeachment, though, would not kick Clinton out of the White House, as conviction would require a two-thirds vote by the Senate, a level of agreement difficult to attain in a forum expected to be almost equally divided by the parties. As more than a dozen Democrats would have to vote to convict, Hillary, like her husband, would remain in office after acquittal by the Senate.

For Republicans, however, the reward of impeachment is not necessarily in conviction as even then the presidency would remain in Democratic hands. Rather, the GOP goal is to stymie Clinton, to divert her attention from governing. 

Clinton would not be the loser. The country would, unless you believe in the Republican mantra first espoused by Ronald Reagan that “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem,” and any reduction in government is a benefit, even if it means harming, perhaps irrevocably, our national institutions.   

What's at Stake In Iowa and New Hampshire

Let’s get down to brass tacks. For Democrats the presidential election is not going to be about a revolution. Rather, it will come down to protecting the domestic legacy of Barack Obama and the myriad of progressives who preceded him and extended equality and opportunity to millions of minorities, be they of color, religious sects or gender, not to mention the tens of millions of middle class families of all backgrounds created by legislation and regulations that supported and protected workers. A Republican victory, whomever is the GOP standard bearer, would roll back 80 years of progressive legislation and enforcement.

So the question boils down to, which Democrat has the best chance of keeping the Oval Office blue: Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton or Martin O’Malley?

O’Malley might be a good man. He has not aroused any semblance of passion behind his candidacy. On the other hand, as much as Sanders engenders passionate followers his phenomenon is reminiscent of the debacles fostered four decades ago by anti-Vietnam War candidates Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern. Perhaps it is because too many Democrats are too young to remember or have not been taught the consequences of a quixotic candidacy, they are ignorantly eager to adhere to Sanders’ banner. They would follow him to sure defeat in a presidential election even against a divisive Republican such as Ted Cruz or Donald Trump. I’m sorry, but the country is simply not ready for a Social Democrat, a Jewish Social Democrat, born in Brooklyn, to be president.

Clinton is not an ideal candidate. But her pluses outweigh the minuses. Last time out in 2008 her campaign engendered more passion. Fatigue might have set in this time among many of her supporters, but as November grows nearer I believe they will be re-energized by the prospect of electing the first woman president, especially someone who has the wide-ranging experience she possesses.

Her challenge once securing the nomination will be to bring into her tent disaffected Bernie-backers. Otherwise, as Hubert Humphrey and the nation found out, a less than solidly unified Democratic Party will result in a Republican victory and this time the winner would be much more regressive than Richard Nixon.

Nixon had to work with a Democratic Congress and Senate. Both houses will be Republican in 2017. Imagine the social network legislation, the worker-consumer-environmental protections and the civil rights laws that would be gutted by a triumvirate of conservative Republicanism. (Are you shuttering at the prospect? I did when writing that sentence.)

Most importantly, the next president may well have the opportunity to nominate two to four Supreme Court justices and countless lower court judges. If you cherish the advances of the last 80 years you cannot countenance the prospect of a judicial system tilted to the right for decades to come.

So as Iowans go to their caucuses Monday and New Hampshirites troop to the polls eight days later let’s hope they have perspective. Bernie has been a useful diversion, especially in this age of Trump when crazy passion seems to be restricted to Republicans.

Hillary doesn't need a coronation. But the party, the nation, will not benefit from sidetracking her nomination.

Trump: A Real Life Man of the Year?

As I do many days while eating a late breakfast after driving Gilda to work, I turn on the television. It’s a good time to catch up on the prior night’s Daily Show with Jon Stewart. But this being a Monday, there was no Daily Show recording to view, so I channel surfed, stopping when I came across a 2006 Robin Williams film, Man of the Year. It is not a great film. Passably a good film. In the pantheon of political-based films it doesn’t rank up there with movies like The Candidate, or Wag the Dog, Bulworth, The Last Hurrah, All the King’s Men, or Gabriel over the White House.

But it’s a timely film, particularly since Donald Trump will be on the stage as one of 10 Republican hopefuls at the GOP’s first presidential debate August 6 in Cleveland, to be aired by Fox News. The movie’s debate scene alone is worth sitting through the near two-hour flick, which will be rebroadcast on HBOC at 2:35 pm Thursday, July 30.

Willams played Tom Dobbs, a TV host-comedian whose acerbic jabs at politics and politicians not only provoked laughter but also propelled him toward a spontaneous populist third party candidacy for the presidency. He generated sufficient support to garner an invitation to appear beside the Democratic and Republican nominees during the last televised debate weeks before the election.

Asked by the moderator why he chose to seek the Oval Office, Dobbs responded seriously enough: “I’ve decided to run because I’m fed up with party politics. I’m tired of the Republican Party,  I’m tired of the Democratic Party. There’s no real difference. They’re all Mr. Potato Head candidates. Basically, you’ve got a figure where here’s the operative word, “party,” because behind closed doors, phew,  I think they’re just having a real good time…the bottom line is they’ve lost track of what they are responsible for. They’re responsible to the people and not party loyalties and definitely not lobbyists. That’s why I’m running for president.”

Off stage, his staff yearned for him to be bombastic, like the comedian he is. But Dobbs remained serious until, until he couldn’t take the posturing of his opponents any longer. He reverted to form.

After riffing on security checks at airports, including body searches of old ladies, he said, “Meanwhile, at the southern borders of our country, four million illegal aliens are crossing the border with bedroom sets and night tables. 

“Let’s have real security and not the illusion of security.” 

Sound familiar?

He interrupted the other candidates with a free form rant. He vacated the sanctity of his podium and strode across the stage. Frantically, the moderator sought to restore order, admonishing, “Mr. Dobbs, please do not make a mockery of this process,” to which he replied, “Ma’am, this was a mockery a long time before I came here.”

The live audience loved it. So did much of the viewing public. In short, his performance was exactly what Republicans fear Trump’s will be next week. 

To see a clip of Dobbs at the debate click on this link: 

https://youtu.be/ihlVhZwj0fY

For a more reasoned analysis of what begat Trump and his impact on the GOP, read Timothy Egan’s commentary from The New York Times: http://nyti.ms/1LAbF2j

It's May Day, Time to Celebrate Unions

The closest person I had to a grandmother was a widowed Russian immigrant who, when her husband was alive, took my father in as a boarder shortly after he arrived in New York in early 1939. My father’s parents perished in Poland during World War II. My maternal grandfather passed away when I was around two years old. The only lasting memory I have of my maternal grandmother is visiting her in the hospital. She was resting inside an oxygen tent. She must have died shortly thereafter. I was about five.

Bessie Trachtenberg filled the void. She looked like a Jewish grandmother. She had grey hair pulled back in a bun. She was heavy set, with an equally heavy accent. She was a good cook. Like many mothers-in-law, even a pseudo mother-in-law, she waged culinary combat for the title of better cook. The battle with my mother raged over breaded veal chops. The victor—I, along with my brother and sister. We loved breaded veal chops.

My mother and Bessie would argue about all manner of food preparation, particularly when it involved Eastern European Jewish cuisine. The most vocal arguments, however, transpired between Bessie and my father. You see, Bessie was a card-carrying member of the ILGWU, the International Ladies Garment Workers Union (you know, the group that sang “Look for the union label”). She was a staunch union advocate, an organizer. My father, on the other hand, was an entrepreneur, an apparel factory owner who employed dozens of Blacks and Hispanics. To my knowledge, he treated them fairly, thus avoiding any unionization drives.

When Bessie would visit they invariably bickered about the treatment of workers in general. Bessie would justify the need for unions. Dad would call her a Trotskyite. Bessie’s blood would start to boil. She would threaten never to visit again. All the while I could sense my father was merely teasing her.

I am reminded of these mock fights by the celebration today of May Day, the international workers’ day, and the recent bill passed and signed in Wisconsin by the Republican-controlled legislature and the GOP governor and would-be president Scott Walker. Wisconsin, once a bastion of the labor movement, has become a Right to Work state under the new law. Union power will be diminished.

I know some unions and their leadership have stifled corporate growth. Some have abused their powers. Others have been corrupt. Whatever the crime you can probably find a union or a union officer who has perpetrated it.

But the true and honest bottom line is that without unions the lives of most workers and their families would be sorrier, with fewer benefits and lower wages. Moreover, as union member income rose, so did the wealth of non-union workers and exempt employees. Unions helped build the middle class. It can appropriately be argued that the comforts of middle class life, and the number of households that can claim middle income status, have eroded since union power and membership have declined over the last 30-plus years. 

When I worked at The New Haven Register I earned $200 a week in 1974. I was one of six bureau chiefs, one of the better paid on a staff of 100. We voted in a union, the Newspaper Guild. The Register immediately froze our salaries. It took more than two years to negotiate a contract. I left The Register before an agreement was reached. Had I stayed, my salary would have jumped to more than $350 a week. Without the aid of a union The Register would have had to bump my salary 10% a year for six years to reach the Guild-achieved level. Doubtful that would have happened.

Unlike my father’s playful goading of Bessie, the decades-long attack by Republicans to weaken and eliminate unions has profoundly impacted the vitality of the U.S. economy to the point where even some members of the Grand Old Party are recognizing the perils of the resulting income inequality and may be willing to do something about it. 

It might well be too late for unions to be resurrected as a driving force of financial growth for the family unit and the national economy. But let’s not forget to acknowledge the contributions unions have made in our lives, from safer working conditions, to retirement benefits, to limits on child labor and the number of hours individuals may work without receiving overtime, to the election of progressive, mostly Democratic, politicians who have enacted legislation that has expanded the opportunities, freedoms and rights of all, union and non-union members.

My Watergate Summer Link

Forty years ago this Friday afternoon before Labor Day, I was sitting in the third floor newsroom of The New Haven Register trying to finish up my Sunday feature story. I don't recall what it was about, but I do remember suburban editor Larry French calling me over to tell me I had been chosen for a special assignment that could only be done later that afternoon.

It was the summer of the Watergate hearings. Gilda watched most of the hearings as she crocheted a quilt we still have (but hardly ever use). I would watch highlights on the evening news. Folksy Sam Ervin (D-NC) chaired the Senate committee. Sam Dash, whose daughter, Judy, I would work with four years later on Nation’s Restaurant News, served as lead majority counsel of the committee. Howard Baker was the ranking minority senator on the panel. The most vocal and righteously aggrieved Republican was Lowell Weicker, the junior senator from Connecticut.

With Congress in recess, Weicker was back home in Greenwich. At the last moment he agreed to sit for an interview, a personality profile.

The newsroom was mostly depleted by early weekend evacuees. Looking over their options, the top editors chose me, a 24-year-old reporter with barely a year of small town reporting on my résumé.

It was a hot muggy afternoon. I drove my un-airconditioned Chevy Vega down the Merritt Parkway to the Round Hill Road exit, made a few turns, and came to the Weicker estate. An heir to the Squibb pharmaceutical company, Weicker had a stately colonial home which, like my Vega, I soon discovered, lacked air conditioning. No a/c, not even a fan to agitate the dank hot air.

We sat and talked for about an hour in the study. Or maybe it was the living room. I sweat onto the fabric of the couch I sat on. I took pictures of Weicker and his then wife Bunny and one or more of their children walking on the property. 

I remember little about the interview except Weicker’s stern admonishment that no one should seek political gain from service on the Watergate committee. He forcefully asserted he would not run for president.

That was my lead. The front page Sunday story was picked up by the Associated Press. My first national story. Seven years later, reacting to the increasingly conservative tone of his party, Weicker sought the Republican presidential nomination. He did not get it. Ronald Reagan did.

Weicker served in the Senate until 1989, losing his seat to Joseph Lieberman. His liberal leanings led him to leave the GOP.  He was elected governor of Connecticut as an independent in 1990. It was during his first and only term of office that Connecticut enacted a state income tax.

About two years ago one Sunday afternoon, while Gilda and I were enjoying one of the best pizzas anywhere in Sal’s on Wooster Square in New Haven, I noticed Weicker, most probably with his current wife, sitting at one of the tables near the kitchen. I resolved to say hello to him, but didn't want to disturb his meal. As we were sitting near the front door, I decided to wait till he was on his way out. 

The encounter never happened. I didn't realize there was a side door near the kitchen. Weicker had shifted passed me again. 

Brrr. Murphy's Law Strikes Again and I Beat Stephen Colbert

I believe in contingency planning. I’m a big “what if” man. Drives my family crazy. I constantly drill into them the need for redundant systems, such as the need to carry extra keys for the car or home. Just in case. 

Today, the coldest day of the year, was one of those days. For the first time in more than 25 years, I locked my car with the engine running while standing outside. No need to panic, I thought. Like the last time, I’ll simply dip my hand into my pocket and extract the just-in-case key I always carry. Only, this time there wasn’t any extra key in my pocket. 

Murphy’s Law—anything that can go wrong, will go wrong. I had just dropped off food at the apartment of one of the senior citizens I service in Yonkers. I opened the front passenger door of the Jeep to turn the motor on to heat up the car. I pushed what I thought was the button to open the other doors. Instead, before realizing I locked them, I slammed shut the passenger door. 

I won’t say I panicked, but I did express anger and disappointment with the only person who could hear me—me! I called 911. They referred me to the Yonkers Police Department. They informed they no longer made house calls for locked doors. Call a locksmith or tow truck company, they advised. I called AAA. Yes, they’d send someone. They’d put me on the “priority list” since the engine was running. Priority meant no more than an hour’s wait. Some priority—I always thought AAA has a one-hour response standard whatever is your problem.

Did I mention today was the coldest day of the year? 18 degrees at noon. Wind chill as a single digit. At least I was wearing flannel-lined jeans, earmuffs, a hat, scarf, my warmest winter jacket with hood and several layers of clothing. I tell you this because as a self-inflicted punishment I waited outdoors for most of the 45 minutes it took AAA to show up. 

When he arrived, the friendly AAA man demonstrated how easily and quickly carjackers can break into their prey. He placed a wedge between the driver’s front door and the car chassis, opening a slot sufficiently wide to insert a long probe that in my case pushed the button to roll down the electric window but just as easily could have shifted the door lock. He was there maybe 90 seconds. As I drove off to fulfill the rest of my Meals-on-Wheels deliveries, I couldn’t help but think of another life’s saying—no good deed goes unpunished.

Strike One: I’ve written about my feeling that inanimate objects have a mind of their own. For example, my company umbrella broke my last day of work. The handle hangs from the bookshelf above my desk as a reminder of inanimate articulation. 

I think the Jeep is worried its days are numbered. Yesterday, it assaulted me. The rear hatch is finicky. Sometimes it stays open, sometimes it refuses to. When the latter happens, I prop it up with a broom handle. But yesterday it was behaving when I had to unload three real estate signs. I had just placed the first one on the ground when I turned to retrieve another and was struck hard on the side of the head by the drooping hatch. Normally I would have just winced in pain, but I was reminded of a tragic, fatal accident one of my publishing competitors suffered some 10 years ago. He was returning a rental car when he somehow hit his head as he closed the trunk. Like me he thought nothing of it, but within an hour he had hemorrhaged and died. 

As you can read, I’m still around, but Tuesday’s Jeep incident was strike one, today’s strike two. I’m not interested in reaching strike three.

Colbert Bump: I think I’m entitled to a Colbert Bump for beating Stephen Colbert to the story about plans by Republicans to alter the way Electoral College votes are allocated (of course, we both got scooped by the Associated Press, but I reported on it Monday while Colbert waited till Tuesday).

Anyway, spend five minutes watching Colbert “analyze” this ploy being considered by the GOP. Here’s the link—http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/423114/january-22-2013/the-word---win--lose--or-redraw?xrs=share_copy

Inaugurating Change or Preserving an Outdated Legacy

Perhaps this happened to you when growing up. Perhaps you were the one who did it. Here's the scenario:  

Children gathered for a game are told by one of the group they have to play a certain way, by a different rule than normal. Or maybe that the owner of the bat and ball or the board game has to be picked first or else he or she will simply take his or her stuff home so nobody will be able to play. Or maybe in the middle of the game the owner of the equipment gets upset and decides to gather it up and go home.

Sound familiar? An adult version of that selfish, manipulative stance may be about to be played out across the country in the wake of President Barack Obama's second inauguration, the failure of Republicans to win the overall popular vote in five of the last six elections and a changing demographic that may alter GOP strangleholds in such states as Arizona, Kansas and even Texas. 

In states where Republicans control the governorship and the legislature, they are pondering changing the way votes are cast in the Electoral College. They would change the winner-take-all system with a proportional division of votes based on the percentage of popular votes cast for each candidate. The changes are meant to make it harder for a Democrat to secure the required 270 Electoral College votes to win the presidency, or at the very least reduce the mandate a candidate may claim.

Maine and Nebraska already apportion votes. As the Associated Press reported the other day, "Each state has the authority to shape its own election law. And in at least seven states—Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida and North Carolina—Republicans control both chambers of the state legislature and the governor's office" (http://news.msn.com/politics/gop-eyes-changes-in-electoral-college-dems-are-wary).

Thus, in a state such as Pennsylvania, where 20 Electoral College votes were at stake, Obama would have won just 12; Mitt Romney would have garnered the remaining eight votes. Nationally, Obama secured 332 Electoral College votes to Romney's 206. 

On its face, proportional representation in the Electoral College seems fair, a democratic advancement of the presidential selection process. But only if ALL states adopted the practice. This would even out the imbalance seen in recent presidential elections that focused on swing states. Candidates would spend lots more time in all states to improve their chances of securing at least some electoral votes. They'd really focus on states where they expect to win to earn even higher percentages of the popular vote. 

But like Republican attempts to pass more restrictive voter registration laws this last election, the real intent of proportional representation initiatives by GOP-controlled states is to preserve the dwindling status of the Old Order—white, male candidates.

All this potential maneuvering of election laws places more emphasis on the choice of governors and state legislatures, especially in the election before new census data is used to redistrict congressional seats every 10 years. Redrawn district lines make it harder for the party on the outside to oust incumbents. 

Politics is not a vocation for the faint of heart. Nor should it be for any citizen who cares about the future and path of his or her country. In their desperation to redraw the lines of combat, Republicans are poised to change the rules—legally, to be sure—but with the clear intent of making their restrictive philosophy of life a never-ending legacy to a country and population shifting away from their "white bread" society.

McChrystal Light in 2016

Twice in the last three days I have seen on TV the next Republican Party candidate for president. He is tall, slim, articulate, a young-looking 59, a man with vision, accomplishment and dedication. He commands, instills, inspires and practices loyalty.

He's a retired U.S. Army general, forced to resign for imprudent comments his staff made to a Rolling Stone reporter about their civilian leaders. But in the bizarro world of politics we operate under today, insulting Vice President Joseph Biden or President Barack Obama would be listed as an accomplishment on his résumé when read by the Republican elite. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the next Republican candidate for president, General Stanley McChrystal.

As a nation we have a long history of electing generals and other war heroes to lead our country. Washington. Jackson. Tippacanoe’s William Henry Harrison. Taylor. Grant. Teddy Roosevelt. Eisenhower. Kennedy. Bush 1. McChrystal would slide in quite nicely with that list.

McChrystal is making a publicity tour to promote his book, My Share of the Task: A Memoir. He's a darling of corporate America. Executives pay top dollar to soak up his leadership mantra as they sweat together jogging around the capital, stopping at various monuments so McChrystal can impart some leadership lore. 

I'm not sure he's fully on board with the main GOP planks. Heck, I don’t even know if McChrystal is a Republican. He actually has come out for limiting public access to military style weapons. That would be a novel position for any Republican standard bearer. Perhaps he would offer a more common sense alternative to the crazies who have crushed the mainstream of the party during the last two presidential elections. 

Perhaps he’s not as dogmatic when it comes to GOP platform planks. Who knows if he is anti abortion? Anti taxes? Pro debt reduction? Anti social services spending? Pro big defense spending? Blindly reveres Ronald Reagan? As a military strategist, he’s had to maneuver assets based on resources and capabilities. He’d figure out quickly what are electable positions. We might actually get a Republican candidate not so intimated to admit science proves global warming, science proves the earth is more than 6,000 years old, Creationism is bunk, evolution should be embraced, infrastructure is important to the military and our economy and money should be invested to upgrade it.  

I can't foresee any right-minded Republican presidential hopeful man enough to challenge him in the primaries. Sure, they might be correct in saying he has no government experience, but that might be appealing to Tea Party faithful and independents who consider normal politicians to be most of the problem in Washington. Let him pick a vice president with congressional experience, someone like senator Marco Rubio, and we might be looking at the ticket that restores the Grand Old Party to the White House, with perhaps strong enough coattails to sweep majorities along in the House and Senate.

McChrystal believes all Americans should engage in national service, not just military service. Having commanded troops most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan, he's fulfilled his military obligations. Now he's primed for public service at the highest level. There's no way Republican poobahs are not salivating at the prospect. There's no way Democratic strategists are not shivering at the possibility. Democrats will need a really strong counter-candidate, someone who can keep together the Obama coalition of women, minorities, East and West Coast liberals and independents. Are you up to the challenge, Hillary?

Human Infrastructure

His $447 billion plan to pump up the economy deflated by Republicans in the U.S. Senate, President Obama now is trying to reignite our fiscal health in piecemeal fashion. He’s pushing parts of his overall program one at a time, starting with a $35 billion package to keep teachers in the classroom and put more policemen and firemen on the streets. Though it might seem a laudable, even bipartisan goal, the GOP already has said it will vote to block its passage.

Which leaves me wondering, when did we as a nation turn against the public sector workers who are the foundation of our society? When did it become acceptable to strip away essential jobs in our communities while letting fat cats accumulate wealth beyond reason? When did we begin to demonize the very people to whom we entrust our most precious commodity, our children?

How would you like to leave your family every day for a job that puts you in jeopardy each work shift, that could cost you your life or could leave you injured for life because you were protecting society? Isn't it worth something to you to know others are ready to risk their safety for yours?

Sure, some cops are bigoted. Some overreact, are abusive. Some have behavioral problems. Haven't we learned anything from all the cop shows and movies about their tension-filled lives? How many of us would want to truly trade our daily routine for that of a policeman or fireman, knowing that around the corner on a mundane patrol or one alarm fire bell response death lurks? It might sound exciting for one day, even two, but as a constant condition of employment it would be hard to accept.

The infrastructure of a country is measured not just by the length and quality of its roadways, bridges and tunnels, but also by the soundness of its educational system. Teachers are its foundation. Sure, there are bad teachers, just as there are bad accountants, bad lawyers, bad doctors, bad truck drivers, bad waiters, bad you-name-it. Even bad bloggers. Tenure has been abused.

Let's reform the system but let's not abuse the teaching profession. If our children are our most precious asset, why wouldn't we want to pay the person who spends more daytime hours with them, the person who can influence their thinking and development, an above average wage? Aren't teachers doing a job at least as important as lawyers, as accountants, as stock brokers?

When it's my grandson Finley’s reading time, the books he chooses invariably depict heroes of the young—firemen, policemen, construction workers, teachers. Nary a computer wizard or Wall Street tycoon or lawyer or legislator or regulator or hedge fund trader in sight.

We are kidding ourselves if we believe society will be better off with fewer and lower-compensated teachers, policemen and firemen.

Politics, GOP Style

Chris Christie is no Sarah Palin.

Unlike the former Alaskan governor who left office midway through her first term to seek more fame and definitely more fortune, and possibly the presidency of the United States, Christie asserted Tuesday, “I’m just not prepared to walk away” from the job the voters of New Jersey elected him to do 22 months ago. He said he would remain governor and not seek the 2012 Republican presidential nomination as “now is not my time.”

Chris Christie is no Mitch Daniels.

Unlike the governor of Indiana, Christie did not invoke family restraints in making his definitive decision to put his ambition on hold. The decision was his alone, he said, asserting his family was behind him whatever his choice.

Christie’s announcement of his oft-stated stance, laudable to some, lamentable to others, raises some interesting contemplations. I find it hard to believe the pugnacious governor does not view himself superior to any of the announced and unannounced candidates seeking the GOP nomination. So why the hesitancy? Surely other politicians have shortened their stays in office to seek higher seats of power. If they win, they’re serving the greater public good. If they lose, well, they go back to their elected spot. It’s not as if Christie would have to vacate the governorship to run for president.

Let’s also consider what might happen if a different GOP candidate wins the White House. It’s conceivable that as a former federal attorney Christie might be tapped to run either the Justice Department or the Department of Homeland Security. Since hardly anyone turns down a president when asked to serve the country (e.g., John Huntsman), Christie might wind up in Washington before his term as governor expires anyway, just not in the office he really wants.

Moreover, if a Republican becomes president, Christie would have to wait eight more years before seeking the highest office in the land. Though he’d be just 58 in 2020, that wait is an eternity in politics.

Perhaps what Christie is really saying by choosing not to run this time is that despite the lousy economy, despite what he calls President Obama’s lack of leadership, he believes the incumbent will be re-elected. Perhaps an article in today’s NY Times detailing how Republicans want to cut spending on the new health care law, Planned Parenthood, Pell grants and education programs provides background as to why an enlightened but fiscally conservative Republican would have difficulty running on a platform that deprives the needy and the middle class of benefits while protecting the riches of the elite (http://nyti.ms/oK6aws). Perhaps that’s the true meaning of “now is not my time.”

Jobs and Shifting Allegiances

Did you catch the CBS Evening News report last Thursday on the Dawsonville, GA, company that produces customized steel plates using a laser controlled machine? (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7374087n&tag=mncol;lst;1)

The gist of the story was technology has become vital to economic success and a main reason why massive job creation may prove elusive. Impulse Mfg. is enjoying 60% profit increases, but it plans no additional hires because technology has negated the need. A laser-guided machine, for example, can turn out one steel plate in 30 seconds, a task 18 workers previously accomplished in 30 minutes.

There you have it. Manufacturing, formerly a foundation of the middle class, no longer can be relied on to provide a stable economic underpinning in the Rust Belt and other regions of the country. Job losses no longer just result from companies shipping work overseas. Even those companies committed to domestic production have limited opportunities for American workers.

When I studied economics in college, 4% unemployment was considered full employment. It’s not beyond the pale to suggest today’s definition probably is in the 7%-8% range, especially when one considers all the aging baby boomers who lost their jobs in the recession and are finding it nearly impossible to secure comparable work and pay. National unemployment was reported in June at 9.2%.

The subtext of this job dislocation is the impact on national and local elections. The party in power, regardless of fault, often bears the brunt of voter disillusionment. That partly explains Republican gains in the 2010 elections. As we enter the 2012 election cycle, embroiled as we are in the pseudo give-and-take of the debt ceiling extension debate, it’s a toss-up which party will be viewed as the more sympathetic.

Old allegiances are fraying.

As inconceivable as it might have been just a few years ago, poor, young, uneducated white folks are more inclined to support the Republican party in 2011 than they were in 2008. The Pew Research Center’s latest poll, released last Friday, shows these core constituencies of non Hispanic whites have deserted the Democratic party.

“A seven-point Democratic advantage among whites under age 30 three years ago has turned into an 11-point GOP advantage today,” according to Pew. “And a 15-point Democratic advantage among whites earning less than $30,000 annually has swung to a slim four-point Republican edge today.”

Furthermore, “Republicans have made gains among whites with a high school education or less. The GOP’s advantage over Democrats has grown from one point in 2008 to 17 points in 2011 among less educated whites. Republicans have made smaller gains among whites voters who have college degrees (http://people-press.org/2011/07/22/gop-makes-big-gains-among-white-voters/).”

Can the shift be explained away merely as frustration with the nation’s economic woes? Is it a racist response to a black president? Is it proof the GOP attracts voters who vote with their emotions, not their brains?

Probably a little, or a lot, of all those reasons.

What cannot be denied, even by the most ardent Republican booster, is the policies of the GOP are weighted toward the wealthy, its support for social welfare and higher education programs is squishy, to say the least, and its job-creation programs so far are non-existent save for calls for lower taxes for the rich, or as Republicans calls them, “job creators.” Of course, even with the Bush tax cuts for the upper crust new jobs have not been plentifully created. (Okay, they can deny it all but they’d be kidding themselves; regrettably, they’re already doing a good job fooling many of the young, poor and under-educated.)

How absolutely discouraging. How absolutely unfathomable. How absolutely implausible. But it’s true.

The safety net will be pulled from under them if the poor, the young and the least educated elect conservative, Republican politicians. But getting them to see that is like trying to prove a negative. Until they suffer and can be brought back into the Democratic fold, many will vote against their best economic interests. We have only to look at the eight years of George W. Bush to see the damage that can be wrought—failure to acknowledge warnings of an imminent attack on U.S. soil, 9/11, two wars seemingly without end, lower purchasing power for the middle class and working class, no job growth, federal budgets that went from surplus to deficit, and a loss of respect throughout most of the world.

Schepping No Nachas

It should be a source of pride, of “shepping nachas”, a Yiddish term for reaping pleasure and satisfaction. Jews, not just in the United States, but worldwide, should be basking in the glow of seeing their brethren rise to prominent positions in government and finance. But these last few weeks have been anything but times of joy and ego-fulfillment.

The perp walk began with Dominique Strauss-Kahn, former head of the International Monetary Fund, once thought to be a shoo-in to become president of France, now fighting to stay out of prison for an alleged sexual assault on a maid in a New York hotel room.

Anthony Weiner was a rising member (pun intended) of the Democratic party. Now the New York congressman, once considered a potential successor to NY mayor Michael Bloomberg, is suspected of shameful Internet activity, of having tweeted a lewd photo of his wiener (pun intended) to a Seattle college co-ed he follows on Twitter. He’ll be lucky to keep his seat, though not his dignity.

And then there’s Eric Cantor, Republican of Virginia, by all accounts a solid family man. While Cantor has not sexually offended or attacked any woman, he, perhaps, has done more to destroy my faith in my co-religionists holding higher office than almost any other, for he, in my opinion, has violated indecency laws pertaining to the treatment of fellow human beings.

As House Majority Leader, Cantor is in a position to help millions of people, especially those who have suffered through unspeakable trauma. Instead, Cantor has embraced Republican elitism hell bent on destroying social services programs that are the safety net for the underprivileged of society.

Okay, I’ll cut him some slack for being ideologically aligned with those who believe less government is better than more government. But what irks me is his lack of compassion for the victims of the tornadoes that ravaged the heartland a few weeks ago. Cantor says no emergency aid will be provided to tornado-tossed citizens unless there are offsetting cuts to other government programs. In other words, to help residents of Joplin, MO, recover, someone else must suffer a cutback in government services, like early child care support. That’s hostage-taking and blackmail of the cruelest form.

Speaking on CBS’ Face the Nation last Sunday, Cantor compared the federal government to a family on a tight budget.

"When a family is struck with tragedy, like the family of Joplin ... let's say if they had $10,000 set aside to do something else with, to buy a new car ... and then they were struck with a sick member of the family or something, and needed to take that money to apply it to that, that's what they would do, because families don't have unlimited money. Neither does the federal government," he said.

Delivering the weekly Republican address one day earlier, Cantor gave no indication the GOP would be playing political football with people’s lives. He said, “As we spend time with family this weekend, our thoughts and prayers are with the people of Joplin, Missouri, Oklahoma City, and other areas of our country that are facing unthinkable circumstances and terrible tragedy. Please know that Congress stands ready for a request for funding from President Obama to ensure that the resources are available to help these communities rebuild and recover.”

During times of crisis, individual family units often reach out to members of their extended family for help. A rich uncle, let’s call him Sam, might step forward and offer some assistance. He always has, in the past, without attaching strings. He’s even helped corporations get back on their feet. How churlish of Cantor now to play politics with the lives of disaster victims. Is everything the GOP does going to be tied to deficit reduction, a subject Republicans ignored and even pooh-poohed during the eight years George W. Bush sat in the White House?

It’s fascinating to observe Republicans willing to give tax breaks to the wealthy, which reduces government revenue, but unwilling to give relief to those who most need it. I’m apparently not alone in dismissing the shameful position Cantor has postulated. Governor Haley Barbour (R-Miss.) on Friday publicly disagreed with Cantor’s quid-pro-quo stance. We’ll have to wait and see if Barbour gets rebuked like New Gingrich did after he criticized Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan to overhaul Medicare.

Meanwhile, my disappointment with, even shame of, my fellow tribesmen grows deeper.

The Bin Laden of U.S. Politics

Sarah Palin is the Osama bin Laden of U.S. politics. She’d blow up much of the government we know if given a chance, all in a quest to restore America to its original state, much like Osama wanted to turn the Muslim world back in time, to an era when it was dominant.

Americans wonder with more than a little trepidation if the popular Arab spring uprisings in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Yemen et al will result in democracy or in a different version of tyranny, one tinged with Islamic fervor and intolerance. Our eyes seem to focus on the uncertainty overseas while unable to visualize that populism at home has its dangers, as well. Palin and Tea party members are intolerant of any principled position that doesn’t adhere to their vision of America. Too often they resort to ridicule and aspersion to de-legitimize their opponents, ignoring the foundation reasons why America has become vulnerable, economically and militarily. Most of those reasons developed from 2001 to 2009, during the Bush presidency.

Osama bin Laden got lucky when the Twin Towers collapsed, but his real strength was manipulating the media. For 10 years we waited with our hearts in our throats for his next electronic message. He commanded attention, though not a military response during the Bush years. Similarly, Sara Palin has the media wrapped and warped around her finger. The media desperately want a “story line” for the 2012 election, now that President Obama has seemingly cleared up doubts among all but ignorant, intolerant non-believers that he’s Hawaiian-born.

Trump proved to be a chump. Daniels’ on-off-on-again wife would have sent the press into a frenzy trying to dredge up details. Alas, Indiana Mitch chose family stability and privacy over national exposure. Huckabee (and his wife) learned it’s a lot comfier spreading the gospel of conservatism when handsomely paid to do so. For all his alleged credentials, Gingrich showed no more political savvy than a newt. He did perform a public service, however, enunciating the tyranny of the right’s attempt to socially engineer Medicare and showing the world what happens to a politician who dares deviate from party dogma. So much for the GOP being a party of ideas worth debating.

The media needs Sarah Palin to spice up a bland Republican primary season. Palin needs the media to keep her standing as America’s picture of lost innocence. Her poll numbers among all voters are paltry. Her reality show failed to secure a second season. She does, however, talk in sound bites, and for that the media is eternally grateful. She’s also the best looking GOP pol out there (sorry Mitt).

If she could only talk sense. It might be au courant to tweet, but the public deserves leaders who can think beyond 140 characters. 140 characters lets you get off some nifty one-liners; governing, however, requires nuance and complex programs. Of course, Palin decided governing the great state of Alaska was too limiting a challenge, so her bona fides as a leader working within the system are not especially developed. Her Fox News gig has netted her big bucks, but she has failed to put forward a creditable platform.

Yes, she wants to put America back to work. She wants a strong military. She wants to rein in spending. But what does it all mean? Would she have allowed GM and Chrysler to go under? Would she have sent troops to Libya? Would she have had the foresight to send backup helicopters on the Seal Team 6 mission to get bin Laden? Does she believe the economic stimulus plan prevented a worse disaster? Does she believe government has a responsibility to patrol the workplace to ensure workers do not toil in unsafe conditions? Does she believe the government has a responsibility to ensure the safety of our food and water? Does she believe corporations would act humanely if there were no government inspector looking over their shoulders? Does she believe we were better off in the Happy Days time when women mostly stayed home raising children?

It’s almost impossible to say. She refuses to talk to the media except if they are hand-picked and part of the Fox-wing conspiracy. Yet reporters and editors chase her more doggedly than Bush pursued bin Laden. Palin is a weapon of mass media destruction. Instead of focusing on issues, the media points klieg lights on her. I’m no fan of Michele Bachmann, but at least she has a record we can scrutinize (and shake our heads at).

(P)Raising Arizona

Finally, something from Arizona I agree with (at least at first blush). Now, I don’t know all the intricacies of Gov. Jan Brewer’s proposal, but on the surface it seems worthy of discussion.

Essentially, Gov. Brewer wants to impose a $50 annual fee on Medicaid recipients who are obese or smokers if they fail to follow their doctor’s regimens that presumably would help them lose weight or kick the habit. The fee would apply to non-disabled adults who are either childless or whose children are at least 19.

For sure the proposal would need refinement, so, for example, a person overweight because of a thyroid condition would not be hit with the fee. But as a practical matter, getting smokers and the obese to pay their fair share of the burgeoning health care cost is a plus. We’re all paying higher medical premiums because we are carrying some of the burden smokers and heavyweights impose on the medical system. Private enterprise has recognized this—insurance companies charge different rates if you’re a non-smoker. Some private employers carry a separate medical coverage option for non-smokers.

It’s no secret Gov. Brewer is not the most friendly person when it comes to entitlement programs. She’d prefer to do away completely with Medicaid. But if the $50 fee prompts people to stop smoking or lose weight, it might produce a positive outcome.

Of course, an objective look at her proposal might also raise an interesting question—since Republicans always trumpet the need to take government out of our personal lives, how could a GOP governor be in favor of imposing a fee based on personal behavior? I guess it’s not hypocritical when the GOP does it.

Just when I was about to give Arizona a favorable, though not passing grade, it reinforced the stereotype that its elected officials are just plain crazy. And back to their keep-government-out-of-our-lives mode. The Republican-controlled Arizona House has passed legislation allowing guns, even concealed guns, to be carried on university and college campuses, all in the name of providing a means of defense in the case of a shooting. The governor has not indicated whether she will sign the bill. I’m betting she will.

Making guns permissible on campus is catching on like wild fire across GOP territory. Similar legislation is being considered in Texas, Tennessee, Michigan, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Nebraska, Mississippi and Florida. Utah already permits it. Given the degree of drinking college students do, I am not thrilled with the mixture of alcohol and gunpowder. It’s a recipe for disaster, sooner or later.

It also gives parents another factor to consider when evaluating higher education options. Will the right to bear arms on campus be a positive or negative influence on their choice? There are some really good schools in those states. I’m glad I’m the father of college graduates and don’t have to confront this issue.


While we’re on the subject of guns, two groups, The Second Amendment Foundation and the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, filed a federal lawsuit against New York City this week because they say the cost to own a firearm in Gotham is too high, an “arbitrary financial constraint” to gun ownership. It costs $340 for an application and $94.25 to obtain a fingerprint check.

The fees seem reasonable to me, but to be honest, I think Chris Rock has a better suggestion. To cut down on random shootings, Rock proposes that each bullet cost $5,000. Too bad he’s a comedian so his idea won’t be seriously considered.

Charlie Sheen Isn't the Only One Who Can Rant

Am I the only one who thinks Charlie Sheen is auditioning to be Hugh Hefner's replacement when the dirty old man passes on? All Charlie needs is a pair of black silk pajamas. He already has an ex-porn star and a model as live-in bunk mates.

I try to avoid Charlie-Sheen-all-news-all-the-time coverage, but it's hard to avoid it when every TV newscast, except CBS, has fashioned this story as the second coming of OJ Simpson coverage, albeit without the blood and gore, though Charlie reportedly has threatened violence against his ex-wife and mother of his twin boys.

Sheen's breakdown is like a train wreck. You're almost compelled to watch it unfold in front of your eyes. The other day a friend sent me a YouTube of cars crashing as they sped through red lights. I wound up watching the full video. I couldn't take my eyes away from it. Sheen's meltdown is the same. Though most everyone is counseling him to stay silent, he keeps ignoring the red lights and plows ahead with rants that make Qaddafi seem almost sane.


Cry Babies: The other day I compared the GOP to bullies. Today I think they're also cry babies. Here's why:

In their attempt to beat back opposition to the draconian measures they have proposed in state and federal budgets, Republicans argue they are merely following through on what they told the voeters they would do if elected. Since they shellacked the Democrats last November, they should be entitled to enact their campaign promises, they say. Therefore, Democrats should just get out of the way and stop whining.

Sounds like a plausible argument. Until one remembers that in 2008 Democrats won a convincing national election on a platform that included passage of universal health care. We know, of course, Republicans fought to forestall passage of health care reform and continue to battle its implementation in the courts and in Congress. So much for accepting the will of the people when it doesn't agree with their view.

Disrespect for reality and the will of the people can also be seen in continuing efforts to deny Barack Obama's legitimacy as president. Georgia has before it a proposal to challenge the native born citizenship of the president unless he produces a birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii. Without it, the proposed legislation would not allow his name to appear on Peach State ballots. Of course, Georgia is ignoring documentation already released by Hawaii affirming Obama's birth status. But the Georgia GOP keeps crying foul.


Shades of the 50's and 60's: State and local budgets are being cut to the bone with school districts across the nation suffering major funding cutbacks forcing teacher layoffs that will result in more children per classroom per teacher.

What's the big deal? Back in the 1950s, my elementary school packed 35 per classroom taught by one teacher. A private Hebrew school, our school day ran from 9 am to 4:30 pm. Gilda's high school in the 1960s, Brooklyn's Erasmus Hall, was so overcrowded it required three different shifts to accommodate its 8,000 students. That's not a typo—8,000 students. There weren't enough desks and chairs for everyone in her class, so kids sat on the floor and the radiators.

We learned. We achieved. We had good teachers, we had bad teachers. Two critical factors helped us succeed—we were motivated and supported by parents who believed education was critical to upward mobility.

Until parents accept their responsibility, teachers will unfairly be cast as the villains for low tests scores and underachieving students.

Look in the Mirror of Reality

Late last year Sylvia landed in the hospital, followed by a rehab center stay. By the time she was discharged and went back to her apartment, she had missed the cutoff date to renew her registration for the Meals on Wheels I deliver in Yonkers each week. Her slot was assigned to another. A government cutback in funding denies program administrators any leeway in adding to their roster of subsidized recipients, so near 90-year-old Sylvia will have to arrange her own meals while she waits to reclaim a spot on the food distribution list. You can easily imagine how the next vacancy might occur.

Sylvia’s plight, and the juggling act social service providers must play given extreme reductions in funding for safety net programs, begs the question: What type of America do we want our parents and grandparents to live in during their sunset years? Alternately, what type of America do we want to leave to our children and grandchildren?

Will it be an America of opportunity or an America in retreat? An America that cares for its vulnerable citizens or an America that shuns collective responsibility?

Matt Bai of the NY Times framed the debate in terms of gluttony vs. neglect (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/us/politics/17bai.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=matt%20bai&st=cse). Democrats would lead us to decline by a spend, spend, spend mentality. Republicans would cut, cut, cut our way to second tier, or lower, status by failing to invest in infrastructure needs.

Are there any statesmen left in America to bridge the gap between these two philosophies?

Sadly, it’s not really the politicians’ fault. Their job is to get elected and re-elected. As the conspirator/patriot? Cassius said in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings.” Or, as Walt Kelly’s comic strip possum character Pogo related three decades ago, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

We are blinded by imaginary realities. We create mystical memories of politicians, sans warts. The victorious current candidate is the one who can channel his or her own image more strongly with those of heralded predecessors. Democrats fawn over FDR. And JFK. Republicans lionize Ronald Reagan. FDR and JFK created and extended the safety net and universal freedoms. They were not embraced by most wealthy Americans; their constituents came mainly from the working poor and the growing middle class. Reagan, on the other hand, managed to convince common citizens he served their best interests, a legacy Republicans have pounded into the electorate’s head over and over again. Every Republican swears allegiance to Reagan, hoping the public remembers the image, not the reality of his political arc.

When will the Democratic Party start broadcasting reality reports? When will they de-claw the GOP lion by pointing out he raised taxes in seven of his eight years as president, that he nearly tripled the federal budget deficit, that government grew under his tenure, that his adoption of trickle down economic theories hurt the working class and the middle class? Are the Democrats so cowed by the specter of Ronald Reagan they cringe at the prospect of running against his record?

In the play, Man of La Mancha, based on the book Don Quixote, the hero is brought back to reality by the Knight of the Mirrors. “Look in the mirror of reality and behold things as they truly are...thy dream is a nightmare of a disordered mind,” Don Quixote is told.

It is laudable to have a quest, a vision of greatness. But government based on falsehood would be catastrophic. Better to face reality.

Tax and spend is not the way to go, either. We need a reasoned, compromised approach to ensure America’s prosperous future. We cannot strip away funding for education, for social services, for health care, for infrastructure and expect our country will remain great. The other day an alarming report informed that many foreign students opt to return to their native lands, albeit countries where personal freedoms are limited, because they believe opportunities for wealth generation are greater overseas. Some might say, good riddance, but that would be turning our back on America’s history, a past built on the contributions of immigrants.

I want our country to respect the service and value the Sylvias of her generation contributed to American society. We should not force safety net providers to limit their administration of benefits while we dole out tax relief to wealthy individuals and corporations. I want America to challenge the next generations to think not just of themselves but also of the collective good of all. Societies that allow their citizens’ fortunes to bifurcate may survive for an indefinite period, but they invariably rot from within and topple, often in violent seizures. Our greatest threat is not from China, India, Russia or Iran, et al, it is from our failure to learn the lessons of history.

Playing Catchup

Gilda advised me when I woke up Thursday morning that Syracuse, NY, was under two feet of snow. I checked the weather forecast—over the next few days more dandruff from the sky is expected in the city I love to hate.

For those not familiar with my disdain for Syracuse, here’s a link to a blog I wrote last December: http://nosocksneededanymore.blogspot.com/2009/12/let-it-snow.html


Name That Feud: Baby Boy Forseter, our grandnephew, has an official name—Jacob Peyton Forseter, to be commonly called Jake.

I won’t weigh you down with the lineage from whom Jake derived his first and second names, but I would like to dwell a moment on Peyton. Though his father, Eric, hopes Jake will find a good playmate in our one-year-old grandson, Finley, I’m not sure he is aware of the challenge he has placed before them.

According to thinkbabynames.com, Peyton is of Old English origin; the meaning of Peyton is "fighting-man's estate". Finley, the Web site says, is of Irish and Gaelic origin; the meaning of Finley is "fair-haired, courageous one". I surely hope these English- and Irish-named Jewish kids get along.

The next Forseter grandchild is due in March. Eric’s sister, Karen, and her husband, David, live in London (he's a real English Jew). I can hardly wait to hear what name they’ll pick for their progeny, the sex of which we have yet to be told.


Dead as a Doornail: The mulcher is officially dead.

The mulcher my brother Bernie gave me last weekend lasted less than a day. It did not help matters that some of the leaves I mulched were slightly damp. Who knew that was a no-no? Nowhere in the instruction booklet—which I thoroughly read before using the mulcher—did it say anything about avoiding wet leaves. But that was the first thing the Black & Decker repairman asked me when I called for help. And it was the first thing Gilda asked about when I told her the mulcher died.

(Since Bernie does not read this blog on a regular basis, perhaps I’ll be spared his commentary.)

Next time, I will hark back to my tried and true method of handling yard work—I’ll pay to have someone else do it!


Yankee Misfortunes: I’m happy Derek Jeter and the Yanks agreed to a new deal, but the big news in baseballdumb (“dumb” because of all the dollars being thrown at players of questionable quality for contracts of too many years) is the vast improvement, on paper at least, posed by the dreaded Boston Red Sox with the signing of Adrian Gonzalez and Carl Crawford.

With their solid starting pitching and the expected return of injured players from last year, the Beantown Boys are the team to beat in the American League, even if the Yankees sign Cliff Lee.

To qualify for the playoffs next year, New York will need rebound performances from A.J. Burnett and Jeter, more well-rounded results from Curtis Granderson, Mark Teixeira, Brett Gardner, Jorge Posada and Joba Chamberlain, and at least comparable statistics from Nick Swisher, Robinson Cano, Alex Rodriguez, Mariano Rivera, Phil Hughes, Andy Pettitte (if he returns) and C.C. Sabathia.


Equal Opportunity Rant: It’s time to vent against Congressional Democrats for saying they won’t go along with the compromise President Obama stitched together with Republicans extending the Bush tax cuts and stimulating the economy, including renewing unemployment compensation for the long term jobless (including many of my former colleagues).

Before the November elections, House and Senate Democrats couldn’t get the job done despite their majorities. The time to push principles has passed. It’s now time to govern; governing often requires compromise. Rare is the person who likes compromise. It means you didn’t get all of what you wanted. But that’s the way it works in government, Democrats. Don’t allow the GOP to turn you into the “party of NO.”

Don’t let the electorate believe it was the Democrats who raised taxes on the lower and middle classes. That’s a sure way to creating even greater Republican victories in 2012.


For Shame: Yesterday, Senate Republicans again scuttled an attempt to fund medical care for 9/11 first responders and others who became ill breathing the toxic air around Ground Zero. To use a phrase made famous by Joseph N. Welch in rebuking Sen. Joseph McCarthy in 1954, “Have you left no sense of decency?”

How shameful is it that the party that professes to be all about patriotism, law and order and American values cannot see the morality of supporting those who put their lives at risk for the sake of their country and fellow citizens? The GOP is balking at spending $7.4 billion in medical benefits but is happy to enthusiastically back tax breaks for the wealthy that would add $60 billion a year to the nation’s deficit.

For shame. For shame.

Campaign 2012

It’s all over but the shouting. Actually, the shouting hasn’t really stopped, as the GOP and its Conservative/Tea Party cousins have already embarked on Campaign 2012 to make Barack Obama a one-term president. In the two-year run-up, they are determined to block any meaningful attempts at bi-partisanship and will try to roll back achievements of his first two years in office.

The first job of any politician is to get elected. The second job is to get re-elected. The third job is a source of contention. It is within that conflict we may distinguish leaders from parasites of the public trust. The countervailing forces confronting a politician are: a) faithfully representing his or her constituency (even if it is backward and bigoted), or, b) advancing the welfare of the country even if it runs against the grain of the voters who elected him or her to office and might mean defeat at the next election.

Whether written by JFK or Ted Sorensen, Profiles in Courage is a book that should be required reading for all who serve in government. Published in 1955, the book, in the words of Wikipedia, profiles eight U.S. senators “who crossed party lines and/or defied the public opinion of their constituents to do what they felt was right and suffered severe criticism and losses in popularity because of their actions.”

Obviously I disagree with the majority, if not all, of the “thinking” of the Republican/ Conservative/Tea Party. They have a right to their beliefs. What I object to is their disdain for the process of government, of compromise, their willingness to obstruct responsible stewardship of our land and people. Is there no one of principle in the Republican/ Conservative/Tea Party, no one with sufficient patriotism to put country ahead of conceit?

Equally fervent is my disappointment with the Democratic Party and its willingness to cave in. Instead of fighting brass knuckle tactics with equal measure, Democrats shrink from their responsibility. The failure of the Obama administration and the Democratic majority in Congress has been its inability to inform the American public. They allowed the opposition to frame the debate on health care, financial bailouts, Bush tax cut extension and other hot button issues. Instead they supplied a “could’ve been worse if we didn’t do anything” message.

Obama et al have no time to waste. They must start now lauding provisions of Obamacare, provisions that guarantee coverage for children post-college, that restrict insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. The Midwest is full of companies dependent on the auto industry. Without the bailout of GM and Chrysler, millions would have lost jobs. Democrats permitted the Republican/ Conservative/Tea Party to tarnish the benefits of the bailout program. Yes, it’s hard to defend an economy that tanked under your predecessor and has not responded to the financial stimulus package. But there have been success stories. Aside from the rebounds at GM and Chrysler, the bank bailouts will not cost anywhere near the billions originally forecast.

The American voter is fickle, shifting allegiance seemingly at whim, not sufficiently patient to “stay the course” beyond any one congressional election cycle. The next two years will be hell for those who care about responsible government. Republican/ Conservative/Tea Party spokesmen have vowed to downsize government. Democrats will fight to salvage consumer, social, workplace and environmental protections, but will be hard pressed to succeed. At the state level, given the new dominance of the Right, there will be massive changes. It is hard to imagine our country maintaining its infrastructure, educational system, and quality of life.

Perhaps that’s for the long term best, for without first hand exposure to what life in a Boehner-McConnell-Palin world would be, Americans might be deluded in 2012 into voting for a continuation of a government of “NO.”