The Age of Nuance

Here’s a word you need to get familiar with, if you have not already done so—"nuance." It has a soft, lilting sound to it. A sort of Dance of the Seventh Veils spelled out in six letters. Lots of tease, little of actual substance. 

Webster’s New World Dictionary defines nuance as a noun meaning “a slight or delicate variation in tone, color, meaning, etc.; shade of difference.” A classic definition, one that fails to capture the potent force hidden within the modern usage of nuance. Nuance is the best friend of politicians, the bogeyman of an ill-informed or forgetful electorate.

Ever since Mitt Romney emerged as the presumptive Republican presidential nominee with the departure of Rick Santorum and the awaited capitulation of Newt Gingrich from the field of GOP candidates, Romney and the Republican party elite, along with play-along media, have been talking up his need to appeal to mainstream voters, independents who will determine the outcome of November’s election. They’ve been using words like nuance or “pivot” or “redirect” to explain what Romney needs to do to soften the conservative positions he espoused to secure primary victories and delegates. 

Now, we are being told, the real Romney will emerge and present himself as someone who the full electorate can embrace. Are they kidding? Do they hold us in such contempt and disdain that they think we will quickly forget how reactionary Romney has been to any thoughts of compassion for the needy and investment for the country?  

Sadly, I believe they are right. American voters have soooooo little memory it is easy with enough dollars to propagandize yourself to victory—and clearly in this year of the super-PAC advertising blitz it will be easier to warp the truth than ever before. 

Romney’s Achilles’ Heel in all this pivoting and nuancing is the belligerency of his fellow Republicans who continue to ratchet up their attacks on women, children and the less fortunate. Take, for example, their proposed budget, which Romney has labeled as “marvelous.” As a NY Times editorial the other day pointed out, the GOP-controlled “House Agriculture Committee voted ... to cut $33 billion over the next decade out of food stamps. That would immediately end benefits for two million people, and reduce benefits for the remaining 44 million people who use the program. A family of four would find their benefits lowered by $57 a month beginning in September, according to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The committee trimmed job training for food-stamp recipients by 72 percent; 280,000 students would no longer be eligible for free meals.”

How does that square with Romney's promise to preserve the safety net? Perhaps the nuance of his words is that he will preserve it—in cold storage!

You could argue Barack Obama has not been a great president. But you can’t blame him for the lousy economy, or the growing deficit, at least not if you have a memory that goes back before January 20, 2009. Romney et al would have us believe the Bush years never happened. They’re hoping for collective amnesia. 

Or they’re looking for a scapegoat for all of our troubles. Stephen Colbert came up with one Democrats and Republicans could agree on. Take a look: 

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/413205/april-25-2012/the-word---united-we-can-t-stand-them?xrs=share_copy

Game Change, True From the Heart

Gilda and I watched a very good but very disturbing movie over the weekend. It made us angry and distressed. “Game Change” is a HBO film based on the book of the same name about the 2008 presidential campaign, specifically about the decision by Sen. John McCain to pick Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska to be his running mate and the consequences of that selection.

No doubt, Palin lit up the campaign trail. She electrified the conservative Republican base. She performed well in the vice presidential debate with Sen. Joe Biden. But, as the movie revealed, her appearances were performances, staged answers to conceal her almost complete lack of knowledge about the federal government, the economic crisis enveloping the country and foreign affairs. It was disturbing and distressing to think this woman could have been a heartbeat away from being president. It angered us that political hacks put party, not country, first. It disappointed us that so many of our fellow Americans could be hoodwinked into believing she was qualified.

It’s almost four years later and the level of deceit—even outright lies—politicians are willing to engage in taxes our ability to believe in them. Last year about this time, when Planned Parenthood was under attack as it still is, Arizona senator Jon Kyl asserted on the Senate floor that 90% of Planned Parenthood’s money is used to provide abortions. When the truth was revealed, that the figure is really just 3%, Kyl did not see fit to issue a retraction or apology. Rather, his spokesperson said the “remark was not intended to be a factual statement.”

Before losing the Puerto Rican primary last weekend, Rick Santorum said while campaigning on the island that before it could attain statehood it must comply with federal law, “that English (not Spanish) needs to be the principal language.” Trouble is, there is no such law. Santorum tried to contain the damage of his remark, but it is becoming painfully obvious from other statements the former Pennsylvania senator has made that he rarely thinks through how his comments will be received or perceived (for example, his statement that he almost puked when reading a copy of John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech on the separation of church and state).

He speaks from the heart, his handlers say. At least that is how his press secretary whitewashed the following Santorum explanation as to why he opposes socialized medicine:

“In the Netherlands people wear a different bracelet if you’re elderly and the bracelet is, “Do not euthanize me.” Half the people who are euthanized every year, and it’s 10% of all deaths, in the Netherlands, half of those people are euthanized involuntarily at hospitals because they are old and sick.” (Here’s a clip of his comments: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/dutch-puzzled-by-santorums-false-claim-they-practise-forced-euthanasia/)

As the article with the clip states, Santorum’s claims are highly inaccurate. Perhaps Stephen Colbert summed it up best last Thursday when he opined, “Yes, in Rick Santorum’s heart, Dutch doctors push old people up to windmills and let the blades chop their heads off. And then they grind them into a paste and use that paste to plug cracks in the dikes, and turn their skulls into wooden shoes.

“The point is, as long as it’s in your heart, it is true.”

Game Change, True From the Heart

Gilda and I watched a very good but very disturbing movie over the weekend. It made us angry and distressed. “Game Change” is a HBO film based on the book of the same name about the 2008 presidential campaign, specifically about the decision by Sen. John McCain to pick Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska to be his running mate and the consequences of that selection.

No doubt, Palin lit up the campaign trail. She electrified the conservative Republican base. She performed well in the vice presidential debate with Sen. Joe Biden. But, as the movie revealed, her appearances were performances, staged answers to conceal her almost complete lack of knowledge about the federal government, the economic crisis enveloping the country and foreign affairs. It was disturbing and distressing to think this woman could have been a heartbeat away from being president. It angered us that political hacks put party, not country, first. It disappointed us that so many of our fellow Americans could be hoodwinked into believing she was qualified.

It’s almost four years later and the level of deceit—even outright lies—politicians are willing to engage in taxes our ability to believe in them. Last year about this time, when Planned Parenthood was under attack as it still is, Arizona senator Jon Kyl asserted on the Senate floor that 90% of Planned Parenthood’s money is used to provide abortions. When the truth was revealed, that the figure is really just 3%, Kyl did not see fit to issue a retraction or apology. Rather, his spokesperson said the “remark was not intended to be a factual statement.”

Before losing the Puerto Rican primary last weekend, Rick Santorum said while campaigning on the island that before it could attain statehood it must comply with federal law, “that English (not Spanish) needs to be the principal language.” Trouble is, there is no such law. Santorum tried to contain the damage of his remark, but it is becoming painfully obvious from other statements the former Pennsylvania senator has made that he rarely thinks through how his comments will be received or perceived (for example, his statement that he almost puked when reading a copy of John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech on the separation of church and state).

He speaks from the heart, his handlers say. At least that is how his press secretary whitewashed the following Santorum explanation as to why he opposes socialized medicine:

“In the Netherlands people wear a different bracelet if you’re elderly and the bracelet is, “Do not euthanize me.” Half the people who are euthanized every year, and it’s 10% of all deaths, in the Netherlands, half of those people are euthanized involuntarily at hospitals because they are old and sick.” (Here’s a clip of his comments: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/dutch-puzzled-by-santorums-false-claim-they-practise-forced-euthanasia/)

As the article with the clip states, Santorum’s claims are highly inaccurate. Perhaps Stephen Colbert summed it up best last Thursday when he opined, “Yes, in Rick Santorum’s heart, Dutch doctors push old people up to windmills and let the blades chop their heads off. And then they grind them into a paste and use that paste to plug cracks in the dikes, and turn their skulls into wooden shoes.

“The point is, as long as it’s in your heart, it is true.”

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?

Sanitizing Santorum

I'm getting tired of always hearing about Rick Santorum’s humble background, that his grandfather was a coal miner, so he can easily identify with working class voters.

Why is it never brought out that his father was a clinical psychologist and his mother a nurse? (Both worked for Veterans Administration hospitals.) D’ya think it's because coming from educated, decently well-off parents might shatter Rick’s working stiff image?

Pundits were quick to point out Santorum has three higher education degrees and his older children attend college, even as he mocked President Obama for advocating post-high school education or training for everyone. But I’ve yet to hear anyone talk about his parents.

Santorum’s choice to ignore for the most part his parents’ background in favor of his grandfather’s is just the latest Republican camouflage of not so presidential behavior. Ron Paul disavowed bigoted newsletters that went out under his name for years. Newt Gingrich twice cheated on wives, even as he now professes to be religious and a faithful defender of marriage.

Santorum and his wife of 21 years, Karen Garver, are hyped as a model couple, with seven living children, all home schooled. But imagine, if you will, what Republicans would say about Michelle Obama if she had had an affair with a doctor 40 years her senior. And not just any doctor. This physician not only was the obstetrician who delivered Karen as a baby but also, during their six year relationship, was an abortion provider. GOP leaders and pundits would be excoriating Michelle if this had been her. But nary a word is said about Karen Garver’s years-long flirtation with Dr. Tom Allen of Pittsburgh.

Aside from policy, politics is an industry built on image. Newt may truly have loved each wife during her time with him, but his callousness in tossing them aside underscored his political treachery when he was a leader of the House Republicans. He gave his word to support a tax increase compromise under George Bush 1, then reneged on the deal when it came up for a vote. Ron Paul can’t say he was unaware of the newsletters, that they went out just once. His failure to stop their continued distribution spotlights his latent, true feelings. Santorum, and his wife, can claim to be straight-arrow Catholics. But let’s not be ready to superimpose their values on the rest of society.

Casting a Political Line to 2016

Let’s cast our political line a little deeper than November of this year, all the way to the Republican nominating convention of 2016.

(For the record, I’m assuming Republicans reluctantly will embrace Mitt Romney as their standard bearer this year. The rest of the country will not see the wisdom of the choice. Barack Obama will be re-elected.)

After another grueling primary battle in 2016, Republicans will pick...Rick Santorum, first because their hard core members will turn even more right wing following Obama’s presidency, and second, it has been Republican practice, for better and worse, to place the mantle of leadership on the next in line. They did it with Reagan after Ford, Bush 1 after Reagan, Dole after Bush 1, McCain after Bush 2 and now Romney after McCain. Unless they break the mold, the GOP will anoint this year’s runner-up, Santorum, as the favored son four years from now.

During these next four years, rather than soften his rhetoric, Santorum will stiffen his resolve to remake America into a Christian nation in law as well as custom. He will seek to reduce personal privilege when it conflicts with his dogma, in areas such as gay rights, contraception and abortion rights. It’s been widely reported the former Pennsylvania senator said he almost puked when recently reading the text of John F. Kennedy’s famous 1960 speech outlining the separation of church and state that he, Kennedy, would follow if elected president. Though Santorum apologized for his graphic, insulting language, he did not recant his distaste for the doctrine Kennedy espoused.

It is interesting to note conservatives often cite the Founding Fathers when they look for foundational support for their beliefs. Yet when the Founders offer contrary evidence, they ignore them. So it is with Santorum’s failure to embrace Thomas Jefferson’s clear call in 1802 for a “wall of separation between church and state.” Perhaps Jefferson wasn’t of sufficient Founding Father status for Santorum to abide by his words.

Let’s be clear—no one is suggesting clergy of any faith cannot voice their opinions on issues confronting the country. Indeed, we have a long history of involved, though not always wise, clerics speaking out. In the 1930s, Father Coughlin spewed anti-Semitism from the airwaves; Reverend Falwell rallied a moral majority 40 years ago; the Berrigan Brother priests protested the Vietnam War, to name a few examples of religious leader involvement in the national dialogue.

A line must be drawn, however, when a religious leader seeks to impose his or her values on the rest of the nation. While polls show 98% of American Catholic women use some form of contraceptives, how disingenuous is it for the Catholic hierarchy, and Santorum, to want to curtail their use and to demean those who want to practice responsible family planning?

Many are quick to demonize Islamic countries for basing their laws on the Koran. How different would we be if we adhered to civil and criminal codes locked into the teachings of religious leaders instead of the rule of law we have followed since the inception of the republic?

Yes, it will be an interesting four years. Rick Santorum is only 53 years old (he’ll turn 54 May 10). He’s going to be with us a long time. He’s not going away.

The GOP Cries Foul. Duh!

Republicans have cried foul, protesting President Obama’s newly submitted federal budget is nothing more than an election year campaign screed.

Duh! What did they expect? From the beginning of the republic politicians have used budgets and perks of office to advance their one true interest—getting themselves re-elected. If there is any shame in this process it is not the president’s blatant advocacy or the GOP’s “surprised” response, but rather the willingness of the media to extend time to the partisan debate without delving into details of what Obama and his detractors propose in their alternate visions of America going forward.

Actually, we have Newt Gingrich to thank for a preview of what any newly elected Republican president’s programs would be. Speaking after he lost the Florida primary to Mitt Romney, Gingrich previewed conservative action: repeal of Obamacare, repeal of Sarbannes Oxley financial reform and accountability, repeal of Dodd Frank banking reform and accountability, executive orders to end any overseas funding of abortions, a shift of the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, immediate approval of the controversial oil pipeline from Canada to Texas.

In short, a Republican president would tear up any progressive legislation or rule enacted over the last 50 or so years to protect the health and rights of citizens and the environment.

Mitt Romney might have wanted to tack toward the center to enhance his appeal to independent voters in the general election, as was reported last week, but the rise of Rick Santorum as a “true conservative” alternative will prevent the former Massachusetts governor from doing anything but expressing his resolve that he is a “severe” conservative as he struggles to secure his party’s nomination.

Fallout from the Republican primary bloodbath is the rise in Obama’s favorability ratings, helped, no doubt, by more buoyant economic news. After a year in which the Republican-controlled House of Representatives failed to have any significant legislation to reduce unemployment enacted, after a primary season that has shifted its focus from the economy to social issues such as reproductive rights, Obama and his fellow Democrats are more confident of their prospects in November.

The GOP will continue to claim the president is engaging in class warfare. And they’d be right. Obama has tapped into latent anger, or Americans’ innate sense of fairness and desire for equal treatment under the law, to challenge the idea that wealthy citizens can legally pay less in taxes than their secretaries. It might be a touch of demagoguery by Obama, but it is playing well in the hinterlands.

As long as the GOP can be colored as the party that protects the rich while cutting benefits to the middle class, the working class and the needy, Republicans will have a tougher time unseating Obama, retaining control of the House and securing control of the Senate. A sure sign the GOP brain trust (is that an oxymoron?) understands this is the decision by Congressional Republicans to agree to an extension of the payroll tax reduction through the end of the year without demanding budget cuts to pay for it, a position House Speaker John Boehner adamantly held just a week ago.


Nixon’s the One: Imagine this—Democrats choose Nixon for president.

No, not THAT Nixon. I mean Jay Nixon, or more formally, Jeremiah Wilson Nixon, 55th governor of the Show Me state of Missouri.

The 2012 election hasn’t even come and gone, yet punsters already are calculating the field of possible 2016 Democratic candidates. Here’s a paragraph from David Leonhardt’s recent article in the NY Times.

“Several other governors — Deval L. Patrick of Massachusetts; Tim Kaine, another former Virginia governor; Christine O. Gregoire of Washington; John Hickenlooper of Colorado; Jay Nixon of Missouri — may also be tempted. Even some current mayors, including Cory A. Booker of Newark, Rahm Emanuel of Chicago and R. T. Rybak of Minneapolis, may be potential future candidates.” (For the full text from the paper’s Washington bureau chief, click here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/sunday-review/the-2016-election-already-upon-us.html?_r=1&scp=9&sq=nixon%20democrats&st=cse)

I don’t know much about Jay Nixon or his politics, but I am fairly confident there are lots of Democrats out there, especially those 40 and older, who would have a hard time pulling the lever, punching the chad or doing whatever else is necessary to vote for a candidate with the Nixon surname.

My Wife's Better Than Yours

Did it surprise you that all of the remaining Republican presidential hopefuls think their current wives would make suitable first ladies? (I say “current” in deference to Newt Gingrich’s prior two wives, the second of which he left because he reportedly did not feel she was fit enough to hang around with him in the White House, the way he feels about current squeeze Callista.)

During last night’s 19th GOP presidential primary debate, the candidates were asked why their wives would make great first ladies. I turned off the television right before they answered, reasoning it would be fluff. But when I viewed it this morning (here’s a link: http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/26/gop-candidates-gush-about-their-wives-gingrich-points-out-callista-is-artistic/), I realized there was more insight into the candidates from their responses than from almost anything else they said last night or in prior confrontations.

Ron Paul had the least to say about his wife of 54 years, with another anniversary coming up February 1. Carol has been a mother to their five children and grandmother to 18. Paul’s “aw, shucks” attitude reflected his homespun values. He plugged the Ron Paul Cookbook she authored.

Mitt Romney’s condescension of the common man came through immediately. After Paul took just 19 seconds to praise his wife, Romney started his 87-second dissertation by saying he would take a little more time and be more serious. To his credit (?), he quickly realized his gaffe and apologized to Paul for dissing his response. Ann Romney, he said, is a real champion and fighter, having survived multiple sclerosis and breast cancer. Unspoken, but clearly obvious to anyone who has followed Gingrich’s marital history, is Romney’s allegiance to his wife of 42 years, while Gingrich walked out on his first two wives during their periods of illness (cancer and multiple sclerosis). Romney also used his wife’s beliefs to encourage marriage before babies.

Newt Gingrich came off as the Uriah Heep of presidential prospects, pandering to one and all. Earlier in the debate Romney accused him of shifting his message and promising multi-million programs based on the states he was visiting. Now, answering CNN’s Wolf Blitzer’s question, Gingrich fawned over all the wives, acknowledging their credentials to be first lady (of course, he doesn’t believe their husbands would make great presidents, compared to him, that is).

For 80 seconds he gushed over Callista, his wife of 11 years, and her artistic bent, saying she would encourage the study of arts in education. How that jibes with budget-slashing efforts across the country to remove art and music programs from school curricula was not addressed. But Gingrich did manage to slip in a veiled thrust at current first lady Michelle Obama when he said his wife was “very patriotic about American exceptionalism.”

Passion has been one of the hallmarks of Rick Santorum’s candidacy. It clearly came out when talking for two minutes, two seconds about his wife of more than 20 years (by the way, CNN, would it have been too much trouble to display a still picture of Karen in her absence from the debate audience?). The Santorums have gone through a lot—one of their eight children dying two hours after birth, their youngest suffering from a genetic disorder.

Santorum speaks from the heart when he espouses family and religious values. No one can judge personal decisions made by another, but I found myself wondering about Karen Santorum’s drive and career—a neo-natal intensive care nurse for nine years who went on to earn a law degree. “And then when she got married, she gave that up, she walked away and walked into something that she felt called to do, which was to be a mom and to be a wife,” said Santorum.

I’m a little uncomfortable with anybody “called to do” something.

On another personal note, Gilda and I will celebrate 39 years of marriage tomorrow. As I’m not running for president, she has no chance of becoming the nation’s first lady. She’ll just have to continue her role as first lady (and chief executive) of our household.