Large Points

There is a great Curb Your Enthusiasm episode from Season 7 in which Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David discuss the proliferation of the phrase, “Having said that.”  They point out correctly that the phrase “Having said that” can be translated to mean “I am about to contradict what I just said seconds ago.”  Curb is one of the best shows on television.  Having said that, it is an acquired taste, not for everyone.   

Let’s practice:  “I believe the Nationals have a great chance to win the World Series in 2012.  Now, having said that, they face an uphill climb against several teams with more post-season experience.” 

See what I did there?  One little phrase allowed me to take both sides of an argument, thereby covering my bases for all eventualities.  Regardless of the outcome of the playoffs for the Nationals, I can argue that I was right.  It’s a handy little phrase, and there are others like it.

My current phrase of choice around the house is “In any event.”  I place these three words in front of any sentence to draw my children back into a discussion.  My kids, like yours and everyone else’s, love to change the subject when the topic veers too close to household chores, homework assignments, or an attack on their general sense of entitlement.  “In any event” makes it clear to them that I am ignoring any attempts to distract me and avoid the conversation at hand.

Here’s how it works:

Me:  This weekend we need to clean the bathrooms and scrub the kitchen floor.

Kids:  Hey, did you see that the neighbor bought a new car?  By the way, my hand hurts.

Me:  In any event, we’ll start first thing Saturday morning.

In this example, “in any event” can be loosely translated to read “I will pretend you weren’t speaking and we will remain on the topic of chores until your ears bleed”, or something like that.

I am finding that as the presidential campaign heats up, the political intelligentsia (I know, oxymoron) has been pushing a new phrase that has deeper meaning just below the surface:

“….but the large point still stands…”

This simple little comeback conveys to the listener that “While my initial statement is misleading or false and cannot be defended, I am right regardless.”  “But the larger point still stands” is a bit easier to say and doesn’t on its face give you the sense that your arguments are being ignored.

Here’s an example of this phrase in action:

Fox and Friends had a report Thursday morning on “Talk Like a Pirate Day,” a strangely popular holiday destined to inspire a series of associated greeting cards at a Hallmark outlet near you. The Obama campaign celebrated, tongue firmly in cheek, by tweeting a picture of the president posing in the Oval Office with a pirate. “Arrr you in?” read the tweet.  See?  The President is not a robot.  He’s someone you’d like to have a beer with.  Pretty harmless fun from the campaign, and another attempt to humanize the candidate prior to the election.  The Romney folks should be paying attention.

Instead of the Romney campaign trying to mimic the lighthearted approach of the frontrunner, his morning campaign press conference (aka Fox and Friends) instead featured this headline across the screen: 

“TOO BUSY FOR ISRAEL / PRESIDENT FINDS TIME FOR PIRATE, LETTERMAN”

 “This pirate got a sit-down in the Oval Office yesterday,” Fox and Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade said on-air.  “So much for the Middle East peace (which Romney admits in his 47% video is so impossible anyway that he will not even try during his term if elected). The White House doesn’t even have time to meet with Israel, but the president got a private sit-down with a pirate yesterday in the Oval Office.  Sorry, Bibi,” Steve Doocy added.

Clearly Doocy has no time for fact checkers, but they could have helped him out in this instance.  The photo in question was taken in May 2009 as part of a joke used at the White House Correspondents’ dinner.  Not to single out Fox and Friends, Romney’s other campaign arm, the Drudge Report, filed the same story.  You can be certain that Sarah Palin saw this photo and thought, “There he goes again, palling around with high seas terrorists in the Oval Office.  ARRGGHHH!!”

The Fox and Drudge headlines allude to Obama reportedly denying Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s request to meet during the United Nations General Assembly. The White House version, admittedly weak, is that scheduling conflicts prevented the face-to-face meeting.  Whether they instead spoke on the phone, etc. is not clear.  The point of the Fox story is unambiguous.  Obama is not committed to the security of Israel, and he is too busy having fun and campaigning to focus on our national problems, including a potential nuclear armed Iran.  And we have the photo to prove it.

Except the vehicle used to advance this argument is unrelated to the President’s current schedule.

Fox and Friends’ Twitter account later admitted that the photo was not exactly breaking news, but offered no on-air correction.  Without question, the defense from Fox and Friends is simple – “…but the larger point remains…”  I say that if the underlying facts are false when you are making your point, then the larger point does not remain.

Paul Ryan is using the same comeback to defend Romney’s “inarticulate” words to donors in May about how 47% of our citizens believe they are “victims” and out looking for free health care, free food and free housing.  Yes, Romney was “inarticulate” (just what we’re looking for in a Commander in Chief), “…but the larger point remains.”

Let me be honest with you.  No, it doesn’t.  When you make stuff up, the “larger point” should not remain.

Uh oh, “let me be honest with you” is another one that means a lie is coming next!  Except in this case, of course, because my larger point remains.

Finally Legal

Today marks the 21^st anniversary of my marriage.  Our marriage is now of legal drinking age, so here’s a toast to us.

Like most marriages, we consider ourselves a couple…a couple of survivors.  First we overcame the immoral influence of Bert and Ernie living together, and then we lived through the Will and Grace years.  Most recently, the destabilizing effects of the DADT repeal on our unit cohesion caused challenges, but we are still standing as one.  We fought back and never allowed the threat of legalized gay marriage to weaken our heterosexual union.

In our case, I guess the GOP was wrong.  Our institution remains intact despite the cultural headwinds.

As a married couple in America 2012, we are becoming outliers at the tender age of 21.  The institution of marriage has lost some popularity over the years.  According to the Pew Research Center as of 2010, only 51% of adults in this country are married.  The other 49% is on Match.com or hanging out in the bar at Applebees playing online trivia games with strangers.  Such is the nature of long-term relationship hunting in modern America.  “Text me if you think I’m cute.”

The marriage rate for the 18-29 age group has fallen from 59 percent in 1960 to 20 percent today. People are marrying later in life these days, mostly because it’s harder to find a mate when you’re 30 and living in your parent’s basement, waiting tables and keeping one step ahead of the student loan shark bill collectors.    Today the average groom is 29 years old, which coincidentally was my age at our wedding in 1991.  I guess I was average before my time.  Many of you, including my bride, are nodding your heads in agreement.   

Fewer adults are married for a number of reasons, some cultural and some economic.  Murphy Brown made single motherhood fashionable.  Cohabitation does not carry the same stigma it once did.  Reality TV remade the image of unmarried parents to be chic and a symbol of wealth.  Kim Kardashian sets the bar high, as does Tom Cruise.  They seemed so certain of their love at one time that to see it all fall apart makes everyone question their own relationships.  They turned marriage into sport and not everyone is as athletic in that endeavor as they are.  They make jumping the broom look easy, and undoing their mistakes even easier. 

Economics plays a large role in the trend.  More people are delaying the big wedding because of the Great Recession.  The Great Recession means fewer people feel economically stable and ready to take on the responsibilities of marriage and family.  Of course, Obama supporters blame this trend on George Bush, and GOP supporters blame this on Obama secret pan to destroy the American family.  There must be a video of his secret planning meetings on YouTube…

There are tax benefits to marriage and filing joint returns, so the government does encourage permanent contractual hook ups.  Families are the engine of economic growth!  Those that follow the gyrations of politics recognize this part of the tax code as right wing social engineering, something Newt Gingrich is against and maybe Mitt Romney too, but ask him tomorrow.  His position might have changed.  Despite the tax advantage of marriage, the numbers continue to decline. 

There are significant tax advantages to having children, so much so that the more you have, the bigger the federal income tax break.  In fact, if you are poor, divorced and have too many kids, you could find yourself amongst the irresponsible moochers in the 47% Club.  We all wish that Mitt Romney could teach you personal responsibility, but he admits that he can’t.  Again, this can be blamed on right wing social engineering so it’s ironic that GOP tax policies actually have helped increase membership in the 47%.  Rest easy, though.  Soon Mitt will raise taxes on the poor so they can have ‘skin in the game’.  You may not be able to afford the shirt off your back, but surely we can get some skin off your back if we scrape hard enough.

But marriage is more than tax policy and texting.  It’s much more.

For us, it means kids.  We have 3 beautiful and healthy ones, and we’ll know if they are smart by the time interim grades are released in November. They fill up our days and they fill up our hearts.  They simultaneously empty our bank accounts, but that’s the result of left wing social engineering.  We need to be sure that they are given everything they ever ask for so their self-esteem is protected. 

It’s been a helluva road but one helluva ride.  That’s describes life too, but we’ve found it’s better and smoother with a competent co-pilot who will occasionally navigate, occasionally let us know when we’ve made a wrong turn, and occasionally help us stay alert during the long trip.  Marriage is becoming the road not taken in America, but 21 years later, I can say that I took the right turn on September 21, 1991.  We have miles to go before we sleep and miles to go before we sleep and I’m not tired.

So happy anniversary to us.  We are doing our part to help the nation during these challenging economic times.  Marriage is good for the GDP**, and we are contributing as best we can.  Dinner and a movie. 

lym

** GDP = Global Domestic Peace

Costume Decision 2012

Halloween is a time when we all enjoy a good scare, and what could be scarier than the fall Presidential election season.  When the weather turns cold and the leaves change colors, creatures like blood sucking politicos and zombie campaign surrogates come out of the darkness through our TV sets to spook us with tales of death panels and fiscal cliffs.  On Halloween, the scares are contrived.  When the election is upon us, the fears may be real.  By the morning of November 7^th, we will either all be forced to endure a slow march towards a socialist dictatorship led by the anti-Christ, or we will be forced to watch the Magician of Massachusetts turn back the hands of time on 50 years of social progress.  Boo!

Politics and Halloween have much in common.  Both offer good excuses to pretend we are something we are not.  Both involve going door to door asking for things to which we are not entitled.  Both are multi-billion dollar industries.  Both have pumpkin heads in common.  Both can be fun as long as you don’t take them too seriously.

This Halloween, political monsters across the country are looking for a competitive edge for their candidates and for their costumes.  I can’t help them with their candidates who may speak “inarticulately”, but I can offer some suggestions on this year’s hottest costumes:

Scary Costumes:  Conservatives will favor the Obama costume this year as the best option to scare their neighbors.  This is the 4^th year in a row that the Obama costume tops the list on Fright Night for Republican partygoers.  Add a 6 foot scythe to unambiguously associate fear and death with Obama. 

Liberals will understandably counter with the scary Mitt Romney costume, albeit with a twist.  The liberal version of the Mitt costume will feature a face on the front and back of the mask.  Spice up the look by carrying a copy of Mitt’s Michigan birth certificate.  Funny AND scary! 

Scary, but Not Recommended:  Gentlemen looking to meet a nice girl at the local Halloween bash should shy away from the infamous Rep. Todd Akin costume this year.  While you may see the humor in impersonating a man who believes that pregnancy is impossible as a result of forcible rape, the ladies may not appreciate your wry sense of humor.

Sexy Costumes:  Every Halloween, the sexy costumes are top sellers for good reason.  84% of likely voters prefer sex, and 68% of those like the idea of incorporating some kind of mask.  For the conservative man, the Paul Ryan get-up is the pro choice.  Throw in a vintage Santorum sweater vest, and the ladies will know your faith is strong and your pectorals are divine. 

Liberal ladies, nothing says ‘available’ this Halloween like a Sandra Fluke ensemble.  The men will testify to your fortitude while you ‘re being called a slut, all in good fun of course.  Throw on a pair of Tina Fey glasses if you’re feeling sassy. 

Anthony Weiner costumes are so 2011.

Funny Costumes:  There are several conservatives out there with a sense of humor, and for you, we have several madcap selections.  For starters, consider the Newt Gingrich as Astronaut costume.  Stuff a few pillows under your shirt to expand your profile and wear a fishbowl on your head or perhaps a halo of stars and planets.  Enlist some friends and have your own moon colonists bar crawl. 

Liberals are encouraged to dress like the Timman from The Wizard of Oz and add a Romney mask to complete the look.  Your progressive friends will get the joke – two characters without a heart in one costume.  For a more nuanced choice, you could invent your own version of Mitt Romney as a Latino (watch his 47% video to get the joke).

No one will know who you are but you’ll feel clever Costumes – Conservatives can give their friends a fright when they arrive at the big costume party dressed as Saul Alinsky, complete with worker gray shirt, fedora and round Commie spectacles.   Liberal ladies, scare their party guests with a custom Ayn Rand mask and convince your date to don the John Galt look.  No one will have any idea what your costume represents, but you’ll have a great conversation starter.

Just Spitballing Here Costumes – Dress up as this campaign season’s biggest star: SuperPAC Man.  This costume requires a little imagination and even less expense.  Throw a white sheet over your head, cut out 2 eye holes, and voila!  You are a Pacman.  Now eat the truth and you're a SuperPAC Man.

Wrap yourself in a piece of cylindrical card stock held up by some suspenders, write Pepsi on the front, add a giant straw and go out as a 20 oz. soda.  Tell your friends that next year, you’ll be banned.

Seamus breaking out of his cage is a can’t miss laugh riot.  Consider going as an empty chair.  It’s easier to pull off than you might think.  Go as Bibi Netinyahu  with a toy bus on your head.

Wear your regular clothes but grab every girl you meet.  Why?  You’re the Invisible Hand of the free market.  Want to go out with me?

Finally, there is always the old standby – a ghost.  That’s right, George Bush or Jimmy Carter.  Both are haunting the current candidates, right?

Heaven Sent

At the Democratic National Convention, the platform committee removed references to God.  At a Republican event soon afterwards, Mitt Romney vowed to keep God’s name on all of his currency, even his Cayman dollars.  With the name of God becoming a political football this year, it was inevitable that God would have to comment directly.  Instead of a brief statement, God has treated us to an October Surprise.

Expressing His dissatisfaction with both major party candidates for the presidency this year, God has tossed His halo into the ring and will run as an independent in November.  The shocking announcement instantly shook up the race between President Obama and Mitt Romney, both of whom had prayed for God’s endorsement over the past months.  The announcement was transcribed by Congresswoman, Michelle Bachmann, to whom God speaks directly.  

God’s ambition for the nation’s highest office was resurrected after weeks of sniping between the President Obama and Mitt Romney about His proper role in government.  After listening to both parties attempt to claim the mantle of having “God’s chosen candidate” on their side, God was convinced that He needed to intervene.

God had considered running in 2004 and 2008, but after discussions with His family, decided that He was not sufficiently conservative enough to win the GOP nomination, and was too ambivalent on tax reform to win in the Democratic primaries.  The Libertarian Party aggressively courted the Creator for their ticket, but party members preferred former Governor Gary Johnson.  With time running out and neither candidate breaking 50% in favorability polls, He decided to enter the fray as a 3^rd party candidate.

While He enters the race with high name recognition, His candidacy is not without its challenges, and both Obama and Romney are quickly gearing up to take advantage of His perceived weaknesses.  Both campaigns singled out God’s preference to speak in vague platitudes.  He has been short on specifics, relying on a platform of two “principles”, namely to love Him and to love your neighbor as yourself.  Campaign observers believe that might give Him a bump initially, but He is going to have to supply some policy details.  How do these concepts inform His China policy?  Domestic energy policy?  Tax reform?  No one knows at this juncture.   

Supporters counter that His 10 point plan to reform America is filled with specifics.  It is heavy on law and order issues, such as prohibitions against killing, lying and stealing, but is designed to attract social conservatives with His commandments favoring two parent households and monogamous marriage.  Obama and Romney are expected to contend that there are no new ideas among His 10 points.  Romney has been more pointed in his criticism, stating in a press release that “There is nothing more anathema to free markets and capitalism than God’s proposed prohibition on coveting goods.  It’s reckless and anti-business.” 

President Obama piled on.  “Fear mongering about eternal damnation instead of laying out a positive vision for the next 4 years may be a way to get elected but it is no way to govern.”

Insiders for Obama and Romney believe God’s foreign policy experience can be exploited in a short campaign.  He has a consistent record of smiting His enemies while advocating a turn the other cheek diplomacy that has opposition forces yelling “Appeasement!”  And God’s uneven Middle East policies may cost Him in important swing states, such as Florida.

Seeing an opening, Mitt Romney attempted to position himself as the only real friend to Israel in the three way race.  “Obama throws Netanyahu under the bus and God lets the Israelites wander the desert for 40 years.  So who is the real friend?”

“Obama may have gone on an apology tour, but God invented the apology tour,” said one Romney surrogate.  “Saying ’forgive them for they know not what they do’ does not project strength internationally.”

With Middle East unrest continuing to fester, a campaign advisor said that God needs to distance Himself a comment made by His Son in a speech that “blessed are the peacemakers.”  The prevailing wisdom is that comments like this from someone so close to the candidate can only project weakness at a time of global unrest and embolden our enemies. 

God supporters reject this line of attack, claiming that anyone who has deployed a plague of locusts cannot be accused of being soft on terrorism.  They argue that God has nothing to prove since He has demonstrated that He is not afraid to use the power of wind, rain, and fire when challenged.

Romney staffers insisted that protesters in the Middle East would seize on His record of mushy language and threaten more U.S. personnel.  President Obama sought to straddle the middle ground and embrace the idea of blessing peacemakers while criticizing the remarks as “inarticulate and not well timed.”  This, in a nutshell, is the challenge the candidates will face in a short election cycle against a well-known late entrant like God.

Beyond policy challenges for God, He faces the daunting task of executing a strategy that sufficiently differentiates Him from Obama and Romney.  “The Father”, as He is known to campaign insiders, plans to humanize Himself by focusing public attention on His Family and their working class roots.  He plans to re-introduce His family to the public using simple media, such as imprinting their images on pieces of toast and other mundane household objects.  Ultimately, insiders concede that God’s hopes are pinned on a plurality of voters clinging to their religion once they enter the voting booth.

In order to improve the tenor of the campaigns for the remainder of the season, God is seeking the High Ground.  He has issued a pledge to both Obama and Romney that He would not take either of their names in vain if they would both agree to extend the same courtesy.  The other campaigns have not yet responded.

One undecided voter summed up the situation this way: “He’s no Ross Perot, that’s for sure.”

On Thin Ice

(Name the player in the photo above to win a prize...ok. have no prize, but can you name him?)

Hockey and politics have a long history together.

The owners of all 30 National Hockey League franchises voted last week to lock the players out pending the completion of a new collective bargaining agreement.  The existing agreement, ratified in 2005, expired this week with owners seeking reduced player salaries and players insisting that owners implement a team revenue sharing system to address the league’s fiscal problems.  No new talks are scheduled.

NHL players struck in April 1992, causing 30 games to be postponed.   The 1994-95 lock-out ended after 103 days and the cancellation of 468 games.  A year-long dispute forced the cancellation of the entire 2004-05 season when the league successfully held out for a cap on player’s salaries.  This represents the third labor stoppage under the leadership of avowed hockey-hater Commissioner Gary Bettman, but not every player holds the commissioner responsible this time.

Tim Thomas, star goaltender for the Boston Bruins, blamed the lock out on a likely source – President Barack Obama.  Thomas has been an outspoken critic of the President, even skipping his team’s traditional White House visit as a protest after winning the 2011 Stanley Cup.  Blaming the U.S. President for the hockey lock out, however, represents a new level of vitriol in the pitched election battle between Obama and Mitt Romney, former Governor of a rabid hockey state.

“Obama claims he can be a friend of job creators, but during his administration, not one new job in hockey has been created.  Zero.  The NHL expanded under the Bush administration, adding Columbus and Minnesota.  Under Obama, Atlanta left town and went to Canada.  The record is clear.  Obama is good for Canadian jobs, but not for American jobs,” Thomas asserted during a rambling news conference in which he took shots from the assembled media.  “He just doesn’t give a puck about people.”

Mitt Romney, locked in a tight battle with the President for the Presidency, agreed with Tim Thomas’ comments.  “I am from Michigan and I love hockey.  I have many friends in the game that own franchises.  I agree with Thomas even though he is a goalie.  If the owners make more money, it’s common sense that those earnings will trickle down to the players.  A rising tide lifts all yachts.”

“You know, as a young hockey player, I once scored a double play during the first quarter of a game.” 

Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan, a product of Wisconsin, has deep roots in the game of hockey as well and joined in Thomas’ condemnation of Obama’s policies.  “The game of hockey and this country need another Miracle on Ice, and with Barack Obama in the White House, all we can expect is a warming trend causing smaller ice surfaces.  Hockey cannot thrive with a basketball fan in the Oval Office.”

President Obama was quick to support the players’ union, saying that a 10% reduction in player salaries across the board proves that ownership is not serious about a deal, and that they have only one objective – breaking the union.  The Romney campaign immediately tweeted, “How sad.  Hockey owners are attacked, and his first reaction is to apologize for foreign hockey players.”  

The lock out is expected to be lengthy.  Some players cannot wait until a collective bargaining agreement is signed and are taking their talents overseas.  Penguins star forward Evgeni Malkin, brother of Fox News conservative firebrand Michelle Malkin, has signed to play in the KHL (Kommunist Hockey League), and Alex Ovechkin, the overweight Capitals’ former superstar, is prepared to join him.

Ovechkin was quoted in the Moscow Daily Worker as saying, “I like Russia to be playing in.  I can see my house from here.”

Tim Thomas saw these player defections as another example of Obama’s anti-hockey policies strengthening his socialist benefactors.  “I thought Obama was supposed to be pro-union, but I guess he meant pro-Soviet Union.”

When a reporter reminded Thomas that the Soviet Union no longer existed, Thomas waited until no one was looking and then he slashed the back of the reporter’s legs with his stick and applied a forearm blocker to his face. 

"Hey," Thomas shouted.  "This is my area.  Come near me and you'll get hurt."

High Net Value Voters Summit

This was a big weekend for politically active social conservatives.  The Value Voters Summit took place in DC and the agenda was filled with conservative speakers singing their favorite tunes.  Looney tunes might be more appropriate.   The speeches focused mostly on the invisible boogeyman sitting in that empty chair in Tampa and the damage he would do to Real America over the next 4 years unless we elected someone else.  Romney’s name was mentioned in passing.

Michelle Bachmann was there, blaming Obama for the Kennedy assassination and the Jon Benet murder.   Mike Huckabee was there, telling us that Obama is a secret Muslim that is hated by the Muslim world.  Kamal Saleem was there speaking as a converted former Islamic terrorist, even though no one can independently verify his claims about his past, not even a fact checker. 

Mitt spoke via a recorded message, reemphasizing that he was not Barack Obama which made him uniquely qualified to be President.  Ann Romney was supposed to speak in person, but backed out at the last minute.  This was her gentle way of saying that ”we love everything you stand for in the abstract but need to distance ourselves from your actual words so we cannot be attached to any small minded, incendiary or racist remarks your speakers may spout during the event.”  I guess the Todd Akin thing still stings. 

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor spoke and warned that this election was more than a Presidential contest.  It was a battle for the very soul of the country, and promised that another term for Obama would continue the nation’s decline.  “This election is going to determine whether or not the very moral fabric of our country will be upheld, or whether it will be torn apart,” he said.

If Obama wins, the “moral fabric of our country…will be torn apart.”  Thank goodness he didn’t resorted to exaggerated fear mongering to make his point.  Lord knows what he might have said.

One piece about the speakers at the Summit caught my eye.  Here’s a summary about what Gary Bauer told the assembled crowd:

By Evan McMorris-Santoro of TPM, September 14, 2012

Conservative pundit Gary Bauer, the former president of the Family Research Council, which puts on the Values Voter Summit each year, told the crowd at the 2012 conference Friday that it needs to turn out in great numbers to defeat President Obama’s army of welfare recipients and fraudulent votes.

After his speech, Bauer told TPM “voter fraud is rampant in urban areas” and he expected that to help Obama.

Bauer also told TPM that “there are a lot of people who will vote this November because they depend on government largesse,” meaning checks from Washington. He expects those voters to go Obama as well.

“They will vote for their own perceived interests, which is they don’t want anybody cutting back the size of the checks,” Bauer said.

As I read Gary Bauer’s words, three thoughts crossed my mind.  First, he was supporting 2 of my 5 proposed GOP excuses for why Romney might lose the election (see my post from Friday).  He is advancing the argument that if Obama wins on November 6^th, it is due to racism and voter fraud.   Second, how could an Italian magazine devote 26 pages to topless photos of Kate Middleton?  And during these two thoughts I had a third, and I rewrote his remarks in my head to quickly make the anti-Bauer argument:

By Me of MSRP, September 14, 2012

Environmental pundit Eddie Bauer, the former president of the Family Retail Council, which puts on the High Net Value Voter Summit each year, told the crowd at the 2012 conference Friday that it needs to turn out in great numbers to defeat Mitt Romney’s army of corporate welfare recipients and bought and paid for votes.

After his speech, Bauer told MSRP “bought and paid for voters are rampant in suburban areas” and he expected that to help Romney.

Bauer also told MSRP that “there are a lot of corporations who will vote this November because they depend on government largesse,” meaning checks from Washington. He expects those “people” to go Romney as well.

“They will vote for their own perceived interests, which is they don’t want anybody cutting back the size of the checks,” Bauer said.

While the real Gary Bauer thinks only the poor and disadvantaged vote for a candidate that serves their interests, my imaginary Eddie Bauer thinks that the opposite is also true – the rich and advantaged vote for a candidate that serves their interests.  Apparently, we both share a class bias.

The real Gary Bauer continued to make his argument to MSRP:

“There’s a lot of people out now around America who depend on checks from their fellow taxpayers being in the mailbox every day,” Bauer said. “They will turn out in massive numbers, but so will the entrepreneurs, the small businessmen and women, the military families, the soldiers in harm’s way, the millions of Americans that want to hope again.”

That last set of voters, Bauer said, will turn things for Romney.

As for voter fraud, Bauer claimed Republicans will have to contend with lots of fake votes from the big cities. But he said those Obama votes won’t be enough either.

“My prediction is after all the votes are counted — even the dead votes of Democrats in Chicago, Detroit and Cleveland — I predict that we will win, that this nightmare will be over and America will finally be on the road to recovery,” Bauer said.

Bauer was focused on the types of votes he said Democrats rely on, but his talk about people who rely on “government largesse” is not far from the mainstream Republican view of the election. Mitt Romney has said several times that Obama is creating a “culture of dependency” in which more and more people become reliant on government checks.

The little Eddie Bauer voice in my head rewrote the remarks to reflect the counter argument:

“There’s a lot of corporations out now around America who depend on checks from their fellow taxpayers being in the mailbox every day,” Bauer said. “They will buy votes in massive numbers, but so will the small businessmen and women, the military families, the soldiers in harm’s way, the millions of Americans that want to hope again.”

That last set of voters, Bauer said, will turn things for Obama.

As for bought and paid for votes, Bauer claimed Democrats will have to contend with lots of bought and paid for votes from the big companies. But he said those Romney votes won’t be enough either.

“My prediction is after all the votes are counted — even the votes of the Republicans on Wall Street,  — I predict that we will win, that this nightmare will be over and America will finally be on the road to recovery,” Bauer said.

Bauer was focused on the types of votes he said Republicans rely on, but his talk about corporations who rely on “government largesse” is not far from the mainstream Democratic view of the election. Barack Obama has said several times that Romney is creating a “culture of dependency” in which more and more corporations become reliant on government checks.

So according to Gary Bauer, if Obama wins, it will be because of the poor looking for a hand-out and the votes of dead people.  According to my Eddie Bauer, if Romney wins, it will be because of the rich looking for a hand-out and the votes of living corporations with their dollars. 

I believe that my imaginary Bauer is more grounded in reality than the real Gary Bauer.

Well Excuse Me!

The election is still 7 weeks away, and much can change.  At this point, the tracking polls indicate that Obama has a better and more likely path to victory in November than Romney, but again, I no longer trust polls.  There are too many of them, the questions are often biased towards a preferred answer or the analysis of the results is biased towards a preferred answer.  

For example, if I was asked if the country was headed in the right direction, I might answer no.  This would be interpreted as an obstacle to Obama’s reelection, when the fact of the matter is that I think the country is headed in the wrong direction because of Republican GAINS in recent years.  My poll response may not be interpreted correctly.

But I digress.  While I am not certain of the President’s reelection, conservatives are planning their excuses now in the event Romney loses, and that, my Republican friends, is a bad sign.  Once you start planning your excuses, a death spiral begins.  Funding starts to get diverted to other election battles perceived to be more winnable.  Competitors for the 2016 nomination start to distance themselves in subtle ways from the current candidate.  Pundits blast Romney’s campaign movements so they can position themselves to be able to say “I told you so” later.  It will help them sell more books.  

It can get ugly fast.  Remember, 75% of Republicans wanted a different nominee during the primaries, so searching for political cover early should not be a big surprise.  But the exercise can become self-fulfilling if they are not careful.

The excuses that are being auditioned by the Right include:

Voter Fraud – Republicans have spent the better part of two years enacting strict voter ID laws that on the surface would seem to be designed to insure the elimination of in-person voter fraud.  Of course, as has been well documented, this is a solution in search of a problem because in-person voter fraud has not been shown to be widespread or even likely, and is in fact a terribly inefficient way to steal an election.  What the voter ID laws have accomplished is to make voting more difficult and therefore less likely for those groups that historically support the Democrats.  Should Romney lose, (the myth of) voter fraud will be blamed, and this will only encourage more laws to be placed on the books in time for the GOP’s next bite at the apple in 2016.  “If we had even stricter voter ID laws, Obama couldn’t have stolen this election from us!”

Racism – Those pesky Democratic racists will be blamed for Romney’s loss.  Obama gave his base (aka ‘welfare recipients’ according to Mitt Romney) ‘free money’ without the inconvenience of work, and that base votes for Obama by 102%.  Had Obama not played the race card by waiving the welfare work requirements, Romney would have won.  He had his henchman, Biden, talk about the GOP putting blacks in “chains”, after all.  This is the most twisted of all the possible excuses, but it will be the excuse that sells the most conservative incendiary books in 2013.  The excuse will be “Obama pandered to blacks and Latinos to stoke racial animus against whites.”

Not severely conservative enough – The pundits on the Right are actively trotting this excuse out today.  This is Limbaugh’s and Sarah Palin’s favorite excuse and they are not afraid to use it.   This will soon be the narrative of choice for 2016 possibilities like Rick Santorum, Donald Trump and Todd Akin.  If Romney quit bending to the liberal media in order to sound more reasonable, he would have won.  “By his actions, Romney tried to apologize to independents for his conservative views, and we won’t make that mistake in 2016!”

Too nice – Sarah Palin and Bill O’Reilly are pushing this line.  Sarah, who was essentially banned from the GOP convention in Tampa and certainly has her own axe to grind with the “establishment”, said on Fox News that Mitt should be calling Barack names, like “incompetent” and “socialist”.  Without a full schoolyard, immature, naming calling filled attack, how could Romney have had any hope of winning against the Anti-Christ?  “To beat Satan, you need to fight dirty!” 

Disband the Electoral College! – Liberals tried this one when Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the Supreme Court vote.  If you look at a map of the country, we will be told in mid-November, Romney lost the election even though there is more red on the map than blue.  That’s not fair and clearly illustrates that the will of the people is not being heard.  Anyone can see that the nation is mostly red, and therefore favors Romney, and except for that prehistoric Electoral College, Romney would be President.  Of course, this flies in the face of Founding Father infallibility, and large red states without residents should not count as much as small blue states that are heavily populated, but the picture of the map will speak a thousand words to the GOP base.  “The system was rigged against us!”

The Media – Now that Fox News has Obama up 48-43 among likely voters, this one should be out the window but that is wishful thinking.  This excuse will begin to ramp up quickly over the next few weeks.  Obama gets easy questions.  The media never talks about Romney’s charitable giving.  Fast and Furious would be on the front page every day in every newspaper if Bush were President.  Losers always blame the media; winners never thank the media.

The list of excuses will grow as we get closer to November 6^th and they will collectively serve one purpose: to build the case for an illegitimate Presidency.  Since Obama’s victory cannot be because the majority of Americans believe his policies, his character and his accomplishments make him the better choice than Mitt Romney, it has to be something else.  Anything else.

“Now I know why tigers eat their young.”

UPDATE:  Conservative Gary Bauer of the Family Research Council must be reading my stuff.  At the Values Voter Summit in DC today, he trotted out 2 of the excuses I mentioned above - Obama will be reelected by welfare recipients (code for 'blacks') AND by massive voter fraud!  Classic!  http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/gary-bauer-voter-fraud-welfare-recipients.php