He's No Anti-Semite But Sean Spicer Is A Peter Principle Poster Child

I don’t believe Sean Spicer is anti-Semitic. I think he is a living, breathing example of the Peter Principle in action, someone who has risen to his level of incompetency. 

By all accounts, Spicer served ably as a PR flak for Republican organizations before being named White House press secretary. He even founded his own public relations firm. But the daily glare and grind of having to justify, explain and defend a president and administration that is constantly shifting positions and oftentimes tweeting out falsehoods would trip up even the most agile wordsmith. Spicer got caught up in a moment of downward momentum. Who among us has not been tongue-tied when confronted by a penetrating inquiry from a boss or spouse or partner? Have you ever stood before television cameras under bright lights for 30 minutes answering question after question from skeptical, cynical interlocutors? 

No, Spicer was no anti-Semite. He was regrettably, for him, exposed as incompetent and more than a little ignorant. So send Spicer to a Holocaust study camp. Instruct him in the details of the Holocaust. 

Spicer’s ignorance of history fits the pattern of ignorance exhibited by Donald Trump’s appointments. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos doesn’t know basic education theories. Rick Perry has no knowledge of, or background in, nuclear energy which he is empowered to control as energy secretary.  Environmental Protection Agency commissioner  Scott Pruitt thinks he knows more about climate change than the overwhelming majority of scientists. 

I don’t think Sean Spicer does his job well. He should resign or be fired. But not because he is anti-Semitic. 

Trump 2.0?: Now that he has fulfilled his promise to restore a conservative balance to the Supreme Court with a probable anti-abortion stance, Trump may just may be on the verge of transitioning toward a more centrist presidency. At least that’s what numerous political analysts are spitting out these days. They cite his admission that running the government is more complex than candidate Trump thought it could be and that many of the positions he took on the hustings are just not viable or appropriate now that he’s in office. 

On Thursday the AP included the following list in a story on his reign (of terror—my descriptor): 

“Over the past 48 hours, the outsider politician who pledged to upend Washington has:

“- Abandoned his vow to label China a currency manipulator.

“- Rethought his hands-off assessment of the Syrian conflict - and ordered a missile attack.

“- Turned his warm approach toward Vladimir Putin decidedly chilly and declared U.S.-Russia relations “may be at an all-time low.”

“- Decided NATO isn't actually obsolete, as he had claimed.

“- Realized the U.S. Export-Import Bank is worth keeping around.”

Those are all fine and good transitions, but he remains a mean-spirited executive of uneven temperament, especially towards issues that affect women and the health of Mother Earth. Last week Bill Maher’s New Rules segment included a scorching rebuke of Trump administration actions. See for yourself: https://youtu.be/P2QXMGYluzo

Trump has declared war not just on American women seeking control over their bodies but on women throughout the globe who need affordable, attainable health care. On Thursday, he signed a bill rescinding an Obama-era rule prohibiting states from denying federal funding to organizations like Planned Parenthood if they also provide abortion services. Federal law already restricts funding for abortions. Trump’s signature now imperils the ability of organizations to have sufficient monies to offer preventive care to women including breast examinations, family planning and reproductive health services for mostly low-income families and the uninsured. 

In late January women the world over took a hit from Trump when he re-instituted a Reagan-era ban prohibiting foreign aid to health care providers who discuss abortion as a family-planning option. Those put at risk by Trump’s actions include many of the poorest women in the world who live in countries where abortion is legal. 

Low-Tech Protection: Here’s a low-tech way to protect pedestrians from terrorists driving trucks into crowds as has happened in France, Sweden, Israel and Germany—Erect cement or metal barriers in front of buildings such as department stores, museums, government offices, theaters and tourist attractions where people are known to congregate. 

After The Oklahoma City federal office building bombing in 1995, real estate owners began placing barriers in front of their structures. They were placed there to stop car bombs from getting too close to the buildings. But the barriers could serve the additional function of keeping trucks and other vehicles from mowing down people on the sidewalk. Though a test in Germany found concrete barriers to be less than ideal, they would limit the havoc from a terrorist attack (http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/791193/Terrorist-truck-attack-German-researchers-test-concrete-barriers). 

European cities already fence off parts of sidewalks where they don’t want pedestrians to cross. It would not seem to be too cumbersome an effort to shield areas where crowds gather. 

Speaking of crowds, Ted Bernstein, the legendary copyeditor of The New York Times, must be rolling over in his grave given the excessive mistakes that find their way into print on paper and on line. Since the Internet sharply reduced the time from article conception to distribution mistakes have skyrocketed. 

They’re not all typos. Many times they are the wrong words correctly spelled, as in this example from an article on the size of the inauguration crowd I read in the print edition of The Times earlier this week:

“Upon being sworn into office, the president began to silence federal agencies from speaking out on the social media platform after the National Park Service’s official Twitter account posted side-by-side images comparing the size of the crows at Mr. Trump’s inauguration.” 

Did you catch the mistake? Spellchecker didn’t as “crows” is spelled correctly. The online version of the story published the intended word, “crowd.” 

Change of Phrase: It used to be Israel was said to be the only true democracy in the Middle East. Now, with elections in Tunisia and Lebanon, among other states, Israel has begun identifying itself as “the Middle East’s only haven for free speech, women, and minorities.” 

It’s a commendable position but not nearly as solid as its former claim, made all the more slippery by its control over 2.5 million Palestinians in the West Bank.

Did You Know Dilbert creator Scott Adams is a conspiracy theorist?

On April 6, Adams posted an article on his website claiming that the fatal Khan Shaykhun chemical attack in Syria two days earlier was a “manufactured event” designed to provoke a response (http://blog.dilbert.com/post/159264981001/the-syrian-gas-attack-persuasion?utm_source=blog.dilbert.com/share-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=brand-loyalty).

That’s enough to make the bottom of my necktie stand up and shriek, “Noooooo, don’t make me put Dilbert on my no-read list!” 

Forgetting the Message Behind the Music

Another one died Wednesday.

I can’t say that as I approach my 67th birthday next month I find myself paying more attention to obituary notices. There’s no truth to the cliched joke that I check the obits each morning to make sure I am still alive. Truth is, I’ve always found the recounting of an individual’s life to be among the most fascinating and interesting articles in a newspaper. 

A few years ago, at a luncheon for mostly retired journalists eager to hear Gail Collins, an acquaintance from back in the early 1970s when her husband and I worked at The New Haven Register, I sat next to a veteran reporter from The New York Times. His career covering police and politics had downshifted to part-time work on the obit page. Most of the history of the renowned, he confirmed to me, was pre-written. Only the most recent news of the deceased required immediate input by deadlines made ever tighter because of Internet editions.

No doubt, like many of you, I’ve been startled and saddened by the seemingly weekly revelation that another icon of the rock scene of the 1960s and 1970s has passed away. Not that they were young. David Bowie was 69, Glenn Frey, 67, Paul Kantner, 74, Signe Anderson, 74, and Maurice White, who died Wednesday, was 74. To some it must have been amazing that they lasted as long as they did given the abusive lifestyle many rockers lived decades ago. 

Here’s another truth—I knew few if any of them by name (don’t fret, I knew David Bowie). Oh, I knew their groups, even sang along with many of their songs. However I would not survive the first round of a game show contest if I had to match a band’s name with a specific song.  

But ask me to identify the music from a Broadway show circa 1943-1970 and I’d possibly run the table. Perhaps that’s one reason I so enjoyed Ellie’s star turns in musical theater productions during her teen years, though the plays she performed in were written later than my sweet spot years.

I’m not trying to be sentimental in my appreciation of the music of the deceased and nearly so. Read Timothy Egan’s genre eulogy instead: http://nyti.ms/1UPVA9J.

If you must mourn, lament members of a generation now in their middle age who have forgotten the message behind much of the music of their youth. Love, peace, tolerance, equality. Instead, too many have embraced the message of anger and exclusion espoused by Ted Cruz and Donald Trump.

I get it. Not everyone was a liberal back in the 1960s. But there outta be a law, or at least an admonition—you can only listen to someone’s music if you share their values. I’m okay not playing Ted Nugent. Let’s check the playlists on Cruz’s and Trump’s iPhones. And those of Marco Rubio, Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and Rick Perry, as well.

Once Election's Over, Here's What to Expect

If you’ve ever wondered if I have a warped mind, here’s proof in the form of strange post-election scenarios that drifted through my mind as I tried to fall asleep Sunday night. Each one-step-before-absurdity prediction is not dependent on any other for it to come true:

*Michael Bloomberg’s third party candidacy will prevent Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump from securing the required 270 Electoral College votes to become president. As directed by the Constitution, the choice of president will be left to the House. As Congress is dominated by Republicans, the GOP representatives will promote their own Speaker of the House—Paul Ryan—to the presidency!

Fooled ya—Ryan is ineligible, as are all but the three highest polling candidates in the Electoral College election. Given the choice of Trump, Clinton or Bloomberg, the House will choose Trump.

*Hillary and Bernie Sanders will not make it through the nomination process. Hillary will be indicted for the classified email scandal and choose not to continue her campaign while Bernie will suffer a medical setback and have to withdraw. An open convention will select vice president Joe Biden as the Democratic Party candidate. Biden will tap either Missouri senator Claire McCaskill or Texas congressman Joaquin Castro or his brother, Housing & Urban Development secretary Julián Castro, as his running mate. Biden et al will win. 

*Showing how magnanimous in victory he could be, and in his desire to channel Abraham Lincoln’s “team of rivals” cabinet strategy, President Donald Trump will make the following appointments:

Secretary of State: Bombs away Lindsey Graham;

Attorney General: To return the nation and the Constitution to the late 18th century, Ted Cruz;

Secretary of Transportation: A governor of a state millions travel through every day, with lots of experience making poor bridge and tunnel decisions, Chris Christie;

Secretary of Energy: Who better to protect the coal industry than Kentucky’s own Rand Paul;

Secretary of Labor: Mr. union-buster himself, Wisconsin governor Scott Walker;

Secretary of Health & Human Services: A difficult choice from among a plethora of right-to-lifers and personhood advocates but Rick Santorum wins over Mike Huckabee;

Secretary of Commerce: Let’s see if Carly Fiorina is the face of America Trump wants to project to the world;

Secretary of Homeland Security: Trump wanted to keep this portfolio for himself but was talked into appointing Ben Carson as the perfect symbol of the danger of appearing to be sleeping on the job of protecting America;

Secretary of Agriculture: Bobby Jindal needed a job now that he’s no longer governor of Louisiana. Maybe being in charge of the nation’s food supply will fatten him up a little;

Secretary of Education: Rick Perry. Oops, I forgot. Perry wanted to kill this department when he ran the first time for president. 

Secretary of Interior: She wasn’t running but Sarah Palin’s endorsement should be worth something, especially since she’s such an avid hunter, even from aircraft. And let’s not forget her “drill, baby, drill” pro-oil, anti conservation battle cry.

Secretary of Treasury: Marco Rubio couldn’t handle his own finances, but let’s let him try balancing the nation’s books;

Secretary of Veteran Affairs: Another candidate from 2008—Trump considered him a loser for getting captured, so why not saddle John McCain with one of the biggest headaches in the country that will surely have more veterans to service given The Donald’s desire to increase our military involvement in the Middle East;

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development: Not a very sexy cabinet post, perfect for Jeb Bush;

Finally, a new cabinet post will be created—Secretary of Religion, headed by Mike Huckabee who has proclaimed, “Exercising Religious Liberty should never be a crime in America. This is a direct attack on our God-given, constitutional rights.”

*Hillary Clinton will be sworn in as president only to become not just the first female commander in chief but also the first to become part of the first husband-wife team of presidents of the United States to be impeached. 

I have no doubt the Republican-controlled House of Representatives would vote to impeach Hillary over the alleged misuse of classified emails contained on her personal computer while she was secretary of state. The Senate, however, will once again rise to the defense of a Clinton by failing to muster the required 67 votes to convict. The toll of the impeachment proceedings, however, will hamper Hillary’s first two years in office.

Uh-oh, this one could actually come true.

"Nothing Is Dearer Than a Daughter"—Euripides

Every pundit is talking about the inevitability of a Hillary Clinton Democratic party presidential run, if not election, so I thought I might as well give my take on her chances of securing the nomination and who would be her Republican opponent. 

With Euripides’ quote in mind, that “to a father waxing old, nothing is dearer than a daughter,” I researched the offspring of the last 12 presidents. During the 2012 election cycle, I determined that candidates with daughter(s) had greater opportunities to sit behind the desk in the Oval Office (http://nosocksneededanymore.blogspot.com/2012/06/political-offspring.html?m=1). Six of the last 12 presidents, including the last three, restricted their fatherhood to daughters. Only Dwight D. Eisenhower had exclusively male progeny. It was thus a no-brainer to predict Mitt Romney, father of five boys, would fail in 2012 to unseat Barack Obama and send him and his two daughters, along with Michelle, back to Chicago. 

Hillary has only one daughter, Chelsea, whose magic might have been used up to elect her father in 1992, leaving her mother to be double-teamed in the 2008 primaries by Malia and Sasha Obama. 

Fast forward to 2016: Now, Hillary faces the prospect of running against the three daughters (no sons) of Andrew Cuomo and the two daughters (plus two sons) of Joe Biden. My money, nonetheless, remains on Hillary, especially if Chelsea rewards her with a granddaughter later this year (it wouldn’t hurt Chelsea’s own chances in, say, 2036, if she delivers a girl).

Clinton, Biden and Cuomo have the early star power, but if they falter or choose not to run, pundits see these other Democratic wannabes: Maryland governor Martin O’Malley, two girls, two boys; Virginia senator Mark Warner, three daughters; Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren, one daughter, one son; New York senator Kirstin Gillibrand, two sons; and Minnesota senator Amy Klobucher, one daughter. 

Clearly Warner has the advantage in the second tier grouping. 

On the GOP side, Rand Paul strikes out. Not one of his three children is a girl. And my dark horse candidate of retired general Stanley McChrystal comes up short. He has but one son. 

For sheer numbers of offspring, Rick Santorum can’t be beat. Nine, count ’em, nine children, four of whom are girls. But Santorum’s a wacko only the far right, besides his wife, can love, which doesn’t automatically eliminate him from primary contention but surely does from the general, thinking, electorate, assuming there still is a majority of those voters around in a sufficient number of states to electorally elect Hillary.

Another wacko, with one daughter out of two spawns, is Rick Perry. No “sane Republican” (hopefully, that is not yet an oxymoron) could vote for him. 

With one daughter out of their respective three children, Congressman Paul Ryan, ex-Florida governor Jeb Bush, Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal and former Arkansas governor and current talk show host Mike Huckabee just didn’t try hard enough during their family formative years. 

Chris Christie and Marco Rubio each have two girls among their respective four children. They could be serious contenders for the Republican nomination and the general election. But the clear, focused winner for the nomination is Texas senator Ted Cruz. Cruz’s cruise missile twice bombarded his wife with Y-chromosomes. The result: Two daughters.

So there you have it—it’ll be Hillary Clinton vs. Ted Cruz, a pairing that will make both sides shutter at the possibilities. 

Tales of Men from the Bible, WWII, the Election

It has taken me longer than I would have wanted, or care to admit, but I finally completed reading The Preservationist by David Maine at a most opportune time. The book is an imaginative re-creation of the story of the Noah and the flood, coincidentally the portion of the Torah read this past Saturday in synagogues throughout the world.  

The Preservationist is not a great book; it’s part of a genre, like The Red Tent, known as midrash that transforms Jewish Bible stories into extended prose, in this case beyond the 125 verses dedicated to Noah in the Old Testament. It allows the writer and reader to delve into the personalities of the family saved on the ark, of Noah, his wife, their three sons and their wives. It creates back stories for all of them, humanizes them, and gives only the faintest hint of what must have gone through their minds when the waters abated and they were left devoid of any other humans. They might not have had to worry about marauders or any others bent on the injustices that caused God to wipe out the rest of humanity, but they were all alone. Not even God talked to Noah anymore after He set the rainbow as a sign there would be no more all inclusive and destructive floods. 

Here’s how Noah’s wife interprets God’s silence: “The test doesn’t end when the flood does. It’s only the start. Without Yahweh whispering in your ear you’re no more nor less than anybody else. No special assurance that you’re blessed or that God gives a rat’s ass what happens to you ... Now you’re just like the rest of us.”

According to the Bible, Noah lived another 350 years as an ordinary man. 

George McGovern considered himself a prototypical American. “I’m what a normal, healthy, ideal American should be like,” the former South Dakota U.S. senator and 1972 Democratic presidential candidate told The NY Times in 2005, seven years before his death Sunday at age 90. “May dad was a Methodist minister, I went off to war (World War II). I have been married to the same woman forever. I’m what a normal, healthy, ideal American should be like.”

Which got me to thinking that we have entered an era when most of our political leaders never experienced the horrors of war. Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Joe Biden, Paul Ryan—none of them fired a weapon at an enemy combatant or was targeted by one. Not that it takes combat experience to lead a nation into battle, but it does seem that the strongest voices for peace, from Eisenhower to JFK to McGovern to John Kerry, were tempered by their time at war. 

Speaking of temper, what jumped out at me from watching the three presidential debates, and some of the Republican primary debates, is that Mitt Romney is petulant and does not have a high opinion of those who would question his judgment, whether it be Obama, Rick Perry, or the debate moderator. Time and again Romney displayed a haughtiness that transcended acceptable behavior. To be fair, I didn’t find Biden’s cheesy smiles too endearing during his debate with Ryan, either. 

I thought Obama did better than Romney in the last two debates, but Romney’s rapid salesman’s litany of negative commentary on the performance of the current administration no doubt scored points with those who favored his positions and, regrettably, with those who valued image over substance. When rehearsed, Romney has the gift of gab. He’s much smoother than the plodding, thoughtful Obama. 

The election will boil down to substance or sizzle. 

Arise Sleeping Beauties

It is finally dawning on some women that a Republican in the White House backed by GOP control of Congress would set back women's rights by more than 50 years, perhaps even to a time when women lost their jobs after World War II in favor of returning GIs. This time our veterans are coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan to a still dismal labor scene. I can just hear Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney vying to be the first to proclaim Marabel Morgan was right, a woman's place is in the home, not the office or factory and, heaven to Betsy, for sure not on the construction site or in a police or fireman’s uniform. They should be home baking cookies and meat loaves, not writing legal briefs or news stories.

The NY Times reported Saturday women are squeamish about the prospects of Republican control of their reproductive rights (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/us/politics/centrist-women-tell-of-disenchantment-with-gop.html?_r=1). Excuse me, but were they Sleeping Beauties during the last 18 months when newly elected Republican state governors and legislators rolled back social, educational, health, welfare and labor laws? What did they expect people like Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Santorum and Romney to do if elected? Hadn't they been listening to Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann and the other right wing crazies tell us they preferred a country of the past?

This sudden awakening by Republican and independent women really ticks me off. Had they rallied before to the reality of a conservative mindset on social and cultural issues, perhaps we wouldn't have been subjected to the spectacle of candidates trying to out-Neanderthal each other. Perhaps we wouldn't have tolerated during the debates applause for the death penalty, calls to let a sick person without health insurance die, and the Dark Ages idea that higher education is for snobs.

Seriously. I know Obama has lots of faults. But seriously, how can any thinking person truly consider voting for candidates with so radical a view of our future that they would take us back to our past and beyond?

Politics, As Usual and Unusual

You might have noticed I’ve taken a short hiatus from political commentary. It’s hard, repetitive work continually finding fault with politicians. Look what Gail Collins of the NY Times has to do—each time she writes about Mitt Romney she has to figure out some way to include the fact he strapped the family dog to the roof of the car when he took his family on a vacation to Canada. If I were paid to write about politics, I’m sure my keyboard would be ablaze with fiery ire. But since this is just an avocation. I’m trying to keep my biases in check. At least for the short term.

Speaking of my biases, I’m against men showing skin when they cross their legs. So it was comforting to see President Obama learned his lesson and wore appropriate high socks during his Sunday 60 Minutes interview. Correspondent Steve Croft, on the other hand, exposed his shins to America. Disgusting.

(Real long-time readers of this blog might recall one of my earliest posts railed against the “shins of the president.” As it’s a short entry, I won’t make you click a link to it, I’ll just reproduce it here:

“Now a word about proper sock length. Watching a clip Sunday of Barack Obama on "This Week With George Stephanopoulos," I was struck by the fashion no-no displayed by the president. Sitting with his legs crossed, Obama showed viewers several inches of bare skin where his pants leg did not meet the top of his socks. It is inexcusable, it’s a fashion faux pas, especially considering his wife’s keen fashion sense, that the commander-in-chief of the United States does not wear knee-high socks when he is dressed up. Indeed, anyone, anyone who is in politics, in business or in any way in a public situation, should wear knee-high socks. There is nothing appealing or sexy about seeing a man’s shin-bone skin. Bottom line—if you’re going to wear socks, make sure they cover all of your lower leg. Here’s hoping someone in the White House reads this before Obama’s appearance on Letterman tonight.”)

Someone with sartorial sense and a keen eye must have gotten to Obama.


My “vacation” from political writing has coincided with the ascent of Newt Gingrich as a key player in the Republican presidential sweepstakes. How interesting that many evangelicals and other supposedly values-oriented religious voters have made light of Gingrich’s rather sordid past. They’ve thrown their support to the twice-divorced former speaker of the House. They’ve chosen to ignore his abandonment of the Protestant religion in favor of Catholicism. They’ve accepted his admission of past sins, even the one where he told a previous wife he was leaving her while she suffered from cancer. They don’t hold it against him that he twice (at least) had affairs while married, that he hypocritically tried to impeach Bill Clinton for actions from inappropriate extra-marital sexual activity while he himself was guilty of the same vice. How beguiling that he ignored one of Jesus’ most famous precepts, “Judge not lest ye be judged.”

But then, it is hard to fathom an electorate blind to the failings of their anointed leaders. Ronald Reagan impregnated Nancy Davis before they were married. Not to be outdone, Democrats stood by Clinton and John F. Kennedy. It’s only when they flaunt their improprieties, as Gary Hart did, or try to cover them up, as John Edwards did, that voters rebuff them. Gingrich, with his deep, stentorian tones, has embraced his imperfections, has recanted his sins, so attractive to an evangelical community that sees salvation in faith by atonement.

What they don’t see is how destructive GOP policies on health care, unemployment compensation, pollution, education support and other social issues have been and would be to the family. There can be honest disagreement over abortion rights, but when did the Bible lose its compassion for the poor, for the downtrodden, for the orphaned? When did it become religiously acceptable for the community to abandon the less fortunate? When did the Bible end its advocacy that the rich take care of the needy? The Bible is not a capitalist manifesto. If anything, it is a social contract where those better off are instructed to help the rest of society.

Perhaps if they studied which political ideology has time and again worked to make life easier and more comfortable for the vast majority of our nation, and not an exceedingly small sliver, they will rethink their support for those who would strip away benefits from the masses while safeguarding the treasures of millionaires and billionaires.


If Only He Had Taken the Bet....I’d be $10,000 richer. Like Mitt Romney during Saturday night’s Republican presidential candidate debate with Rick Perry, I proffered a $10,000 bet, the subject of which was, who hosted the mid-1950s CBS TV show, You Are There?. My adversary, a much smarter fellow than I, whose adult education class I attend, and who shall remain nameless so as not to embarrass him, said it was Edward R. Murrow. He said he had tapes at home with Murrow as the host.

I, on the other hand, vividly remember the host being Walter Cronkite. One of my earliest TV memories is watching You Are There. Cronkite would relate the background for the half hour program that recreated historical events as if they were developing news stories, then place an earphone to the side of his head while intoning, “You are there.” The show’s dramatization of the David and Goliath story stays with me even to this day. At least in my mind’s eye, the climactic scene begins with David reciting the 23rd psalm as he walks out to confront Goliath.

Google “You Are There Walter Cronkite” if you need validation of my claim. Murrow, it turns out, hosted another show, See It Now, a newsmagazine and documentary series, also on CBS.

Send In No More Clowns or Lucifer

With Chris Christie and Sarah Palin holding onto their hats, the three-ring circus featuring more than half a dozen clowns, commonly called the Republican party presidential nomination process, seems to be settling into a Mitt Romney-by-less-than-happy-acclimation affair, unless Rick Perry can learn how to debate better, talk without affronting people, and keep any more skeletons from his past from appearing. (Herman Cain might be rising in the polls, but I seriously doubt the Republican establishment will allow a total outsider to garner its most prestigious prize.)

Which brings up an interesting face-off, as described by Stephen Colbert Tuesday night—It’s “a match-up between a Republican that nobody’s excited about and a Democrat that everyone’s disappointed in.”

Hard to say who’d win such a contest. Most pundits would tell you, as Rick Davis, campaign manager for John McCain in 2008 said to Colbert, the choice would come down to the economy. Who would the voters trust more to right the economy and safeguard their financial interests?

There’s no doubt Barack Obama will shoulder lots of blame for the continued economic malaise affecting our country. There’s also no doubt, at least in my mind, Republicans have not acted in the best interests of the country by thwarting almost all of his efforts in their relentless pursuit of making Obama a one-term president. They are coy beyond contempt in their posturing Obama as the stumbling block to effective compromise. Just today House Speaker John Boehner said, “It takes two to tango,” apparently forgetting that after the last go-around with the president he said he had secured 98% of what the GOP wanted. Now that Obama seems to have rediscovered his backbone and does not appear ready to cave in more than, say, 50%, Boehner seems miffed at the prospect of having to give up more than a fingernail in negotiations.

What’s always perplexed me, and other Eastern Establishment liberals, is why so many heartland working class voters opt to support Republicans and not Democrats who favor progressive legislation to make their lives easier. The answer was revealed in an NPR interview today of Dante Chinni, co-author of “Our Patchwork Nation,” an examination of 12 different types of communities that make up America.

Among the communities profiled is a Christian fundamentalist one in southwest Missouri. The people there and in similar religious centers care more about social issues such as abortion than economics. If asked, “Why aren’t you voting your economic interests?”, said Chinni, they’d respond, “Why are you condemning yourself to hell?”.

It’s hard to pull the lever for Obama when you see him as Lucifer incarnate.

Giving a Mulligan

Do you get a mulligan—a golf term for a do-over for a bad shot—for ill-advised comments if you’ve served in the military?

That’s what Tony Bennett is hoping after the 85-year-old singer and WWII veteran made some injudicious remarks on the Howard Stern radio show last week suggesting the 9/11 terrorists might have had reason to attack us.

“They flew the plane in, but we caused it. Because we were bombing them, and they told us to stop,” said Bennett, a native New Yorker. Subsequently, Bennett apologized if anyone misconstrued his words, adding, “I am sorry if my statements suggested anything other than an expression of my love for my country, my hope for humanity and my desire for peace throughout the world.”

I have no reason to doubt Bennett’s patriotism. He put his life on the line for all of us. He’s earned a mulligan, as this is the first instance I know of where he stumbled publicly. He’s different from other communications-challenged celebrities like Mel Gibson who is a multiple affronter.

What Bennett does provide, however, is a civics lesson on our expectations of public figures, especially politicians. As a nation we’ve arrived at a point where we demand perfection and strict adherence to dogma, even if it’s disseminated by a small, vocal minority.

It’s not a new story. In 1976, President Ford misspoke during a debate with Jimmy Carter when he said Poland, Rumania and Yugoslavia were not under Soviet domination. The gaffe cemented thinking Ford was not intellectually worthy of earning a full term as president.

Under the klieg lights and pressure to perform, candidates may stumble. As long as they don’t do it repeatedly, thus showing a lack of education and historical context, as Sarah Palin continually does, we should be tolerant of their mistakes. Give them a mulligan, when warranted. We’re too judgmental if we think they are not fallible. Choosing a president is not like voting for the best vocalist on American Idol. What we’re seeing today, from both sides of the presidential field, is a beauty contest of personality rather than ideas, a talent contest of sound bites versus careful exposition of principled positions, a my-way-or-the-highway evaluation of candidates.

I cringe at the prospect of a Rick Perry presidency. But I find myself sympathetic to his plight. He is not a good debater. Like most politicians, he takes credit for achievements that should be shared. Most of his policies would be repugnant to me. But I agree with Perry’s views on the need to integrate the children of illegal immigrants into our society so they can become contributing members and not burdens. I also believe his advocacy of a vaccination of young girls against the human papillomavirus was in the best interests of his state’s citizens.

Yet, because Tea Party Conservatives do not share those beliefs, and because they are so powerful in today’s Republican party, Perry has seen his candidacy suffer. The narrow base of the Republican party choosing the GOP standard bearer demands 100% adherence to its narrow-minded platform. It will accept no independent thinking.

Left wing Democrats express similar disdain for President Obama for deviating from the programs they espouse and which they thought he should implement. They do not accept Obama’s willingness to compromise, to govern from the center.

Given the state of our politics today, when neither side appears willing to work with the other, we seem to be at a tipping point. Will we choose our next leaders based on a clash of ideas or a clash of one-liners? A discussion of principles or a popularity contest? A thoughtful analysis of our national strengths and weaknesses or an emotional appeal to return to an era no longer relevant to our current and future global standing?


Wednesday night marks the beginning of the Jewish New Year, Rosh Hashanah, followed 10 days later by Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. It’s a period of reflection intended not just between humans and their concept of an Eternal Being but also, mainly, as a time when men and women must focus on and seek forgiveness for any wrongs they might have done to other people. It’s a Jewish version of an interpersonal mulligan. You’re supposed to request forgiveness in person, but this being the Internet age, let me ask your indulgence if during the past year this blog, or any personal contact we might have had, offended you in any way.

A happy and healthy New Year to all.

Passing Hail Mary

With the clock ticking down the final seconds of a close game, a trailing football team often resorts to a last-ditch scoring effort. The quarterback fades back and lofts toward the end zone a long, arcing “Hail Mary” pass, so named because it will take an answered prayer to succeed in overturning a seemingly inevitable loss.

With his address to the nation in front of a joint session of Congress Thursday night, Barack Obama is about to launch a Hail Mary pass, aptly timed to coincide with the opening night of the new National Football League season after a spring and half-summer of labor-management unrest and ultimate compromise.

Unlike the owners and players who worked out a deal to get the games going again, there is no realistic partner to work with Obama. Despite vague language from some Republicans about the need to stimulate the economy to jumpstart more hirings, anyone who believes the president and the GOP/Tea Party will reach a fair, equitable and non-acrimonious settlement also believes the Cincinnati Bengals will hoist the Lombardi Trophy at the conclusion of the next Super Bowl.

Obama’s ratings are lower than a quarterback who throws more interceptions than completions, who fumbles the snap before he can hand off to a running back. Even a rookie presidential candidate, the nationally untested governor of Texas, Rick Perry, beats Obama in a head to head contest, 44% to 41%, according to a new Rasmussen poll.

The president’s Thursday night speech will define his intentions over the next 14 months. He will either involuntarily concede his impotence by tossing out an often repeated and unaccepted pitch for bi-partisan compromise, or he will morph into a chief executive with backbone by staking out an irreversible battle plan to rekindle the passion of those who supported him in 2008.

He has shown an inability to connect with Republicans. So why bother extending an olive branch. They’d only reject it. How often must he be humiliated? When push comes to shove, they’ll corner Obama and the Democrats into accepting their cuts, their budget, on their terms, which means no tax increases for the wealthy, continued loopholes for the rich and corporations, no viable plan to energize job growth except by reducing or eliminating consumer and environmental protections.

If Obama recognizes, at long last, the GOP prevent defense, he can perhaps salvage his re-election drive by forcefully decoding the X’s and O’s that differentiate the Republican agenda from his own. He shouldn’t be afraid to use tables, charts and graphs (a la Ross Perot and even Michele Bachmann) to illustrate how under Republican stewardship the nation’s working and middle classes suffered while the rich benefited, and how more of the same could be expected should they succeed in the next election.

Don’t think for a moment a measured tone in the well of the Congress will accrue civility and points from the opposition. Obama can and must use this forum to get the attention of Congress and the American people that he intends to fight for the welfare of the country as a whole, not for an elite, special interest minority.

He needs to convincingly detail how supporting GM and Chrysler when they were bankrupt saved the American automobile industry, how millions of jobs were saved, from the small shop that supplies new car mats to the huge plant that makes car batteries. He needs to push for jobs to rebuild infrastructure, for teachers to educate future generations.

Republicans already label him a deficit spender. He needs to reassuringly explain why short term debt is necessary to rebuild an economy shattered by two wars started by a Republican president, by that president’s profligate Medicare drug reimbursement plan, by that president’s eight year reign of terror on government oversight of the financial markets that led to the current woes on Wall Street and around the world.

Does he have it in him? Does he have the arm to reach the end zone? Hail Mary passes seldom work, but when they do they can be a game changer, turning a loser into a winner. Obama has nothing to lose by playing offense. Indeed, it’s his only hope of reaching the end zone—securing four more years in a residence paid for by The American taxpayer.