Circling the Wagons

Once the first puck drops, the first basketball is tipped, the first football is kicked, or the first pitch is thrown, the betting windows close.  You can no longer stake your claim to one team over another with some skin.  All bets must be placed prior to the beginning of the contest.  For obvious reasons, you cannot wait to bet until after the game ends.  Your loyalties must be clear from the outset and your money speaks volumes.

So it should be dismissed that GOP leaders are now coming out publicly with their endorsement of Mitt Romney.  Could there be a less meaningful endorsement than the Speaker of the House deciding to promote his party’s presumptive nominee?

“After careful deliberation, and after reading in the papers and seeing on TV that no one else has a snowball’s chance in Hell of winning this thing, I have decided that I will endorse the last one standing, Mitt Romney, for the Republican Party nomination.”

Really?  And I would like to add that my favorite baseball team at the end of 2011 is the St. Louis Cardinals, my favorite football team after the Super Bowl is the NY Giants, and my favorite hockey team is….(I can’t type the Boston Bruins, even in gest; I haven’t liked the Bruins since Derek Sanderson and Terry O’Reilly prowled the ice).  Endorsing winners after the games have been played is easy, and gutless I might add. 

 

In sports and in politics, no one respects a bandwagoner.  For the uninformed, a bandwagoner is someone who claims fealty to whatever team happens to be winning at the time.  You know, the guy who shows up at your Super Bowl party and at the end of the game reminds everyone that he’s “always been a Giants fan” and that he was in favor of moving up in the draft to pick Eli Manning from Day One.  Too bad the bandwagoner doesn’t have his pre-season picks up on Twitter or YouTube.

The main reason for endorsing Romney at this stage has not been expressed as a belief in his steady conservative principles.  It has not been said that his charismatic persona on the campaign trail engenders trust and loyalty among swing voters.  It sounds to me from all these late lukewarm endorsements that Mitt has one definable quality that will lead him to victory: he is not Barack Obama. 

 

That is far from a rallying cry that can carry independents in November.  Lots of people are not Obama.  Not surprising, however.  Romney won the nomination by not being Perry, Bachmann, Gingrich or Santorum.  He’s like that Survivor cast member who drifts through the first few tribal councils while the stronger and more combative tribe members are vanquished.  After 8 weeks, the audience is left saying, “So how is this guy still on the show?”  At some point, he can only win if he can occasionally win that weekly immunity idol.  Otherwise, he’s toast.

Not everyone is endorsing Romney yet.  Ron Paul and Gingrich both have campaign events scheduled for today.  These guys have become modern equivalent of the Japanese soldier who was never told that WWII had ended.  Both will soldier onward, Paul in pursuit of legitimacy for his beliefs, Gingrich in pursuit of his own reflection.  When these 2 finally endorse Romney, I could write the press release.  “I fully support our party’s nominee.  He is not Barack Obama.”

Santorum left the campaign trail and he has not yet endorsed He Who He Must Endorse to Have a Chance in 2016.  His conversion to a true believer in his rival will be quite the hurdle, and a hurdle of his own making.

Santorum had a direct mail drop in Iowa this week, the week after he withdrew from the campaign, which read in part that the prospect of Mitt Romney as the nominee “truly frightens me.”  He will most likely need a few more news rinse cycles to wash that quote off of the front pages of the online political junkie rags.  Once the “truly frightens me” is forgotten, Santorum can jump on the bandwagon, too.  After all, he knows better than most that the GOP loves to nominate its runner up from one presidential primary cycle in the next presidential primary cycle (see Romney 2008, McCain 2000, GHW Bush 1988, Reagan 1976, etc.).  A ringing endorsement from Rick in the not too distant future will begin his rebranding from “insurgent” to “team player”.

The election in November will be a battle for that 4-6% of the electorate that hasn’t already decided.  Will any of these endorsements, made after the outcome was determined, by loyal Republican Party members, under tremendous political pressure, truly make a difference in the outcome?  I think not. However, there is one endorsement that could persuade independents to cast their lot in one direction or another:

Justin Bieber. 

 

I will respect him only if he endorses while the outcome is still in doubt.  Nobody likes a bandwagoner, even one named Bieber.

Bonus Endorsement:  My favorite Romney endorsement of the season comes from Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas (R), who said this week:

“But let me just tell ya, if you are not sure about wanting to support Mitt Romney, whether you are liberal, whether you are very conservative, you ought to be excited because he’s been on your side at one time or another.”

With friends like that...

Faith Based Dissent

Apparently trumped up threats to religious freedom do not trump all Catholic concerns about GOP hostility to social justice.  It’s a good week.

I am becoming optimistic that Catholic leaders may be beginning to recognize that they are being used to promote an overall conservative agenda that does not meet their doctrinal definition of social justice.  At least it seems as if their lock step support of the GOP based on a single issue may be showing some cracks. 

 

In 2011, after Ryan’s last budget proposal, the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Timothy Dolan, wrote a letter that did not endorse Ryan’s plan, but did not condemn it either.  The letter commended the Wisconsin Republicans’ “continued attention” to Catholic social justice “in the current delicate budget considerations in Congress,” and praising his attention to fiscal responsibility, the role of the family, the dignity of human life and attention to the poor.

This week, the tone has changed in the wake of the release of Ryan’s new and improved War on the Lazy Poor.  The same U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that softly pedaled its support of Ryan’s blueprint last year served up a stinging critique of the Republican budget this year, which it said “fails to meet … moral criteria,” of protecting human dignity, prioritizing the needs of the hungry and homeless and promoting the common good.

Lord, have mercy!  That’s one welcome flip flop.

This year’s statement objects both to the GOP budget blueprint in general, and to its specific requirement that the House pass legislation cutting food stamps and other domestic programs to offset the cost of rescinding “sequestration” — the across-the-board cuts to national security and domestic spending programs set to take effect on Jan. 1.  (By the way, the sequestration is the budget law of the land right now, and for the GOP to reject it at this point demonstrates enormously bad faith in negotiating, and serves as fodder for those who claim the Democrats should NEVER bargain with the GOP in the first place.)

“Just solutions,” the Bishops said in their statement, “require shared sacrifice by all (emphasis added), including raising adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary military and other spending, and fairly addressing the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement programs.”

Since the GOP refuses to increase taxes because that would represent an “attack” on rich people, it proposes to hold down deficits with massive cuts to Medicaid, SCHIP and most of the domestic budget.  Don’t worry.  A child with health coverage thanks to the SCHIP program will not lobby the Congress because they are under “attack”.  The sick poor children’s SuperPAC is low on funding and we can safely anticipate a non-existent ad buy in major media markets highlighting their plight.

Rest assured, the benevolent GOP would never attack a fellow American, as Mitt Romney today accused Obama of doing as a matter of habit.  It would prefer to allow its favored policies to do that dirty work for them.  In this way, they can maintain the cloak of plausible deniability.  “Republicans aren’t gutting Medicaid to pay for tax breaks for those who need them least.  The policy is doing that.”

On Friday, 59 Catholic leaders wrote a letter to Congressman Ryan, a practicing Catholic, saying in part that “Simply put, this budget is morally indefensible and betrays Catholic principles of solidarity, just taxation and a commitment to the common good. A budget that turns its back on the hungry, the elderly and the sick while giving more tax breaks to the wealthiest few can’t be justified in Christian terms.”

Lord, have mercy!

The signatories include the leadership team of the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas, a women’s Catholic organization, and the former Associate General Secretary of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.  What really set them off was Ryan’s assertion that his Catholic faith helped him to shape the latest budget proposal.

John Gehring, the Catholic Outreach Coordinator for Faith in Public Life, the organization that put together the statement, put it best: 

 

“If Rep. Ryan thinks a budget that takes food and health care away from millions of vulnerable people upholds Catholic values, then he also probably believes Jesus was a tea partier who lectured the poor to stop being so lazy and work harder.   This budget turns centuries of Catholic social teaching on its head. These Catholic leaders and many Catholics in the pews are tired of faith being misused to bless an immoral agenda.”

Maybe the tide is turning.  Maybe the myth of the monolithic Catholic vote, which never existed anyway, can be put to rest.  If things keep rolling in this direction, maybe Paul Ryan could be denied Holy Communion for his socially destructive policy beliefs.

Lord, have mercy!

Borrowed and clipped ‘liberally’ from the following Politico sources:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75109.html#ixzz1rxFcrYRP

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74990.html

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75109.html

Health Nuts

The recent oral arguments in front of the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the individual mandate portion of the Affordable Care Act should never have happened. 

Had the Democrats done what the GOP accused them of doing, namely ramming through a health care reform bill, we’d have something closer to a single payer system and this circus would be unnecessary.  Unfortunately, the Democrats did not ‘ram’ a health care reform bill through Congress.  It was debated and massaged for almost a year before final signature.  The Democrats negotiated away the public option.  Obama outsourced the fight to Congress for months before getting involved.  Democrats put in the individual mandate to appease Republican concerns and include an idea of Republican design.  And now they are paying for that decision by suffering through a relitigation of the law.

Here’s one of the exchanges that we could have been spared:

Justice Antonin Scalia:   Could you define the market -- everybody has to buy food sooner or later, so you define the market as food, therefore, everybody is in the market; therefore, you can make people buy broccoli.

Solicitor General Verrilli:  No, that's quite different. That's quite different. The food market, while it shares that trait that everybody's in it, it is not a market in which your participation is often unpredictable and often involuntary. It is not a market in which you often don't know before you go in what you need, and it is not a market in which, if you go in and -- and seek to obtain a product or service, you will get it even if you can't pay for it.

We’re discussed whether or not requiring people to be included in the health insurance pool is the same or different than requiring them to eat broccoli.  I weep for America.  Using the Justice’s analogy, health care is to food as a knee replacement is to broccoli.  We will all consume health care and food in our lifetimes.  We will not all opt for knee replacements or all eat broccoli.  His analogy is talk radio caliber nonsense.

Regardless of the outcome of the Court’s deliberations, what we need to remember is that the verdict has absolutely nothing to do with the economic effectiveness of the Affordable Care Act.  The only question that will get an answer is whether or not the federal government can tell us to buy insurance under the commerce clause of the Constitution.

This decision will not solve the problem of the uninsured going to the emergency room when they have the flu on someone’s else dime. This decision will not solve the problem of the uninsured accident victim needing care that costs premium payers hundreds of thousands of dollars before they regain consciousness. This decision will not address that the individual mandate was a compromise solution that kept the private insurance industry involved and profitable while forgoing the need for a single-payer system.

This debate about health care should be about demanding personal responsibility, something the Right used to encourage.  Demanding people contribute to something to their care that will save everyone money makes sense.  In fact, isn’t this the exact argument made by conservatives about the federal tax code?  If everyone had skin in the game, they would be more engaged in the tax process.  Why isn’t that true of health care? 

We are already under an individual mandate.  Part of my premium is paying for the uninsured.  If I can opt out of paying the portion of the premium every month that covers the uninsured, we’ll talk.  Until then, I am mandated to pay money each month that supports those without insurance.

But perhaps we are all debating about a small issue.   Only a small percentage of the public would even be subject to the individual mandate, if it’s found to be constitutional. A new Urban Institute study finds that 98% of Americans “would either be exempt from the mandate -- because of employer coverage, public health insurance or low income -- or given subsidies to comply.”

So we get to stew over the issue until June when the Court makes its decision.  That is when the real fun will begin, however.  Regardless of the ruling, the ripple effects will be massive and long-lasting.  The ironic things is that the central issue before the Supreme Court was once opposed by Obama, supported by conservatives and Republicans, and won’t even affect most Americans.

And GOP voters, don’t get too excited about your nominee on this issue.  Here is what he said this month on Jay Leno:

“As long as you have been continuously insured, you ought to be able to get insurance going forward, but only if you have been continuously insured.  If they are 45 years old and they show up and say, ‘I want insurance because I have heart disease,’ it’s like, hey guys — we can’t play the game like that!”

If we must provide emergency care services regardless of ability to pay, then what’s the answer, Governor?  Are you saying that this person should be obligated to participate in health insurance prior to this event (an individual mandate), or are you saying that we should deny him life-saving care at the hospital?  If your position is “let him die”, we need to know that before election day. 

In the meantime, we wait.

 

Behind the Iron Curtain

Former presidential candidate Rick Santorum announced this week at an NRA meeting that he has purchased a lifetime NRA membership for his 3 year old daughter, Bella.  Bella, who at the age of 3 understands the concept of object permanence but not that stuffed animals are not living things, fully supports the right of Americans to keep and bear arms.  Of course, it is entirely possible that she believes that the right to bear arms means you can hug any teddy bear and expect the bear to hug you in return.

Newt Gingrich announced this week, also at that NRA meeting, that the right to own a gun in America comes from God.  The right to use the gun is sometimes granted by Satan to our enemies abroad, but Gingrich did not include this caveat.  Now at least I know what God was doing on that 7^th day.  He was over at Smith and Wesson cooking up some tools for His chosen religious freedom fighters.  Can I get some celebratory gunfire into the air?!!?

   

If the right to own a gun is God given, and children below the age of reason can be gun-rights advocates, it won’t be long before an unborn fetus will be allowed to exercise his or her right as a person to own a firearm.  I guess asking for trigger locks on rifles implanted in a mother’s womb would be too restrictive a measure for this crowd, although the forcible implant of that rifle would be perfectly reasonable. 

    

In Rick Santorum’s America, over a million card carrying members of the NRA are aborted each year.  Had the fetuses been armed, perhaps this tragedy could have been prevented.  What doctor in his right mind would try to terminate a pregnancy if they could face down the barrel of an assault weapon carried by a multicellular being acting on pure instinct?  It would be difficult to argue that the fetus wasn’t acting in self-defense given the circumstances, however.

This might seem to be an exaggerated idea of how far gun rights advocates could take their argument, but we need not pretend.   It’s already gotten ridiculous.

The city of Tampa, in preparation to play host to the Republican National Convention in August, released a long list of those items that will be considered security threats.  As we all know, the protection of our political leaders is crucial to maintaining faith in our democratic system.  The list includes such dangerous weapons as water pistols (could be confused with real pistols), masks (could be worn by Occupy protestors, and we heard on Hannity that they are dangerous), and pieces of string (these could be woven together to make a piece of yarn, and we know how yarn can be used to torture cats).  Clearly, this is a comprehensive list, as well it should be.

Somehow, guns did not make the list of security threats in Tampa.  We all know that pieces of string don’t kill; people do, but why are guns not consider a security threat at the GOP convention?  Guns can be infinitely more deadly than a mask (assuming the mask has air holes).  Real guns can cause more damage than a water pistol, unless it’s a real big water pistol and drowning from a well-placed head shot becomes a possibility. 

 

The answer is simple.  The party of law and order is having their convention in the state of law and order, Florida.  Florida law prohibits any local restrictions on guns beyond state law.  Therefore, guns are good to go this summer in Tampa.  It’s the Eisenhower MAD (mutually assured destruction) philosophy gone micro.  If everyone in Tampa is armed, everyone will be afraid to shoot anyone else for fear of massive retaliation in the form of a shower of bullets.  This might be true, but if I were at the convention, I’d still steer clear of Rick Perry after he’s had a few drinks, just in case.

In a twisted way, it makes sense that if we are all in constant fear of one another, we’ll be safer.  If I am always worried that the guy next to me has a 12 gauge while all I’m packing is a Saturday Night Special, I am more inclined to get along with my neighbor.  After all, he could kill me, and that should be motivation enough to be friendly.

There could be another way, couldn’t there?  Do we have to carry the childhood lessons of “Stranger Danger” with us our whole lives and be prepared to shoot first, or can we occasionally disarm and engage one another as mature adults?  Maybe I’ve hugged too many trees and the bark really is worse than the bite.  Given the trends in housing, the people have spoken with their mortgages and Stranger Danger is winning in a landslide.

According to the NY Times, more than 10 million homes in the United States are located within gated communities.  That number represented more than 10% of all occupied homes in this country.  Even more troubling is the trend.  There has been a 53% increase between 2001 and 2009 in the number of homes behind these voluntary iron curtains.  Apparently, as gun laws are weakened across the country, and gun ownership is on the rise, the level of fear is rising too.  Fear must be good for business.

Wayne LaPierre, the head of the NRA, did his best pitch for more gun sales with this paranoid rant late last year:

“[The Obama campaign] will say gun owners — they’ll say they left them alone.  In public, he’ll remind us that he’s put off calls from his party to renew the Clinton [assault weapons] ban, he hasn’t pushed for new gun control laws… The president will offer the 2nd Amendment lip service and hit the campaign trail saying he’s actually been good for the 2nd Amendment.”

“But it’s a big fat stinking lie!” the NRA leader exclaimed. “It’s all part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and destroy the 2nd Amendment in our country.”

“Obama himself is no fool. So when he got elected, they concocted a scheme to stay away from the gun issue, lull gun owners to sleep and play us for fools in 2012. Well, gun owners are not fools and we are not fooled.”

He may be completely irrational and consumed with conspiracy theories, but the man certainly knows how to sell guns.  He’s pretty good at selling real estate in gated communities too, just like the gated community where Trayvon Martin was gunned down.  Good lots are still available there, now at a discount.

If you’re headed to Tampa this August, I recommend you stay in your hotel room and watch the convention on TV.  You might bump into Rick Perry while jogging, and that will probably end badly for you.

Secret Servicing

Yesterday, the news reported that 11 Secret Service agents assigned to guard the President were temporarily relieved of duty pending an investigation into allegations of sexual impropriety, specifically engaging the services of Columbian prostitutes while the agents were in that country preparing for Obama’s visit.  This particularly salacious story seemed like as good as example as any to illustrate how the politics function in modern day American.

I receive daily email solicitations from both Organizing for America (Obama’s campaign) and Believe in America (Romney’s campaign) for contributions (I am kind of a political junkie), and these solicitations typically leverage the news of the day to motivate the base into reaching into their wallets/purses.  Given that the Secret Service prostitution scandal currently powering the news cycle has all the elements of a political bombshell (sex, power, and sex), I have put together a primer for you on the types of spins and fundraising solicitations we can expect to see in the next few days.  I trust that this will illuminate for all of my readers how politics work during a Presidential campaign.  A sampling:

Received:  Saturday, April 14, 2012 at 9:07 PM ET

From:  Believe in America

For shame, Mr. President.

Today we learned that President Obama’s “laser focus” on jobs does not include the protection of American prostitution jobs.  Under his watch, these high paying jobs are being outsourced to low wage countries like Columbia.  Who suffers when these jobs are shipped overseas?  That’s right.  Our economy.  Our women.

We need to keep these American jobs in America.  Help us send a message to Obama that we will not tolerate the outsourcing of these predominantly women’s jobs to a socialist nation without a fight.  Women have suffered enough under this administration.

Can you spare $5 to give this story a happy ending?

God Bless America.

Beth Myers, Senior Romney Advisor

Received:  Saturday, April 14, 2012 at 11:14 PM

From:  Organizing for America

The Republicans are at it again, showing us their true heart, and today, it is clear that they do not have one.  They are shamelessly exploiting the indiscretions of a few low level federal employees to attack women who have taken control of their bodies to survive.  Instead of standing up in the War on Women, they have chosen to take up arms against women to score cheap politic points.  We cannot let them get away with this.

Women can make their own decisions, and Mitt Romney doesn’t understand that or respect that.  We need a friend and advocate in the White House, not a serial misogynist who does not trust women to take control of their own bodies.  Prostitution may be the world’s oldest profession, but Romney’s attacks are truly the oldest trick in the book.

Send a message with your $8 contribution today that you stand against the Republican War on Working Women.

God Bless America.

Stephanie Cutter, Deputy Campaign Manager

Received:  Sunday, April 15, 2012 at 3:42 AM ET

From:  Believe in America

How long will it take before Barack Obama comes clean with the American people about what he knew and when he knew it?

At least a dozen of this President’s most intimate circle of companions have been having glorious group sex with women of color in exchange for money for an indefinite period of time.  If the President was unaware, he is out of touch and needs to be replaced.  If he was aware, impeachment proceedings are in order.  Either way, it is past time that this President stand up and tell the American people unequivocally that he “is not a pimp and has not participated in lewd and immoral sex acts with the Secret Service, prostitutes, or any class of animals”, ever.

Mitt Romney can say that.  Can you, Mr. President?

Your contribution today of at least $10 will tell this President that we demand an honest accounting of his sex life.  We deserve better than Slick Barack.

God Bless America.

Beth Myers, Senior Romney Advisor

 

Received:  Sunday, April 15, 2012 at 6:00 AM

From:  Organizing for America

It is a sad day in America when federal employees can no longer afford high priced, clean American hookers and are forced to solicit low wage Columbian hookers to satisfy their natural urges. 

Under this Republican Congress, pay increases for public servants, including those public servants who put their lives on the line every day to protect our national security, have been denied a cost of living increase and have seen their wages stagnate.  So they seek cheap labor elsewhere. 

Tell Congressional Republicans to stop their unpatriotic obstructionist tactics and deliver a living wage for our public servants.  Can you donate at least $15 to support your fellow citizen soldiers of the Benevolent Lawmen Of Washington’s Membership Establishment (BLOWME), today?  These workers have certainly demonstrated that they are ready for a raise.

God Bless America.

Stephanie Cutter, Deputy Campaign Manager

Received:  Sunday, April 15, 2012 at 9:10 AM ET

From:  Ann Romney

The Obama campaign would be happy if we ignored how this prostitution scandal has shed light on his administration’s woeful record on women’s issues.  In his Harvard world, women are objects to be bought and sold for his personal pleasure.  Mitt Romney found his partner the old fashioned way – through a church arranged meeting followed by a long, monogamous marriage.

We should not be talking about Obama’s friends who pay for sex with strangers.  We should be focusing on those poor women who Obama exploited for his own devious purposes.  The next woman who is kidnapped during a Columbian vacation and forced into sexual slavery could be your mom or your daughter, but that doesn’t concern Barack Obama.  He is laser focused on doing and saying anything to get elected.

Will you help us send a message to the Obamaians and the ultra-liberal Democratic Party that you stand with us against forced sex slavery for your moms and daughters?  Contribute today and receive a pastel pink car magnet that reads, “We love unprotected LOVE within a heterosexual, monogamous marital relationship”.

I am the luckiest woman in the world to have Mitt.  I’d like you to have him, too, for the next 4 years.

God Bless America.

Ann Romney

Received:  Sunday, April 15, 2012 at 4:12 PM

From:  Michelle Obama

The Romney campaign has crossed the line this time, and I am here to set the record straight.  I know the real Barack, and he is nothing like the sexual predator that is being described in Republican fundraising emails.

The Barack I know does the dishes without being nagged.  He listens to me without judging or offering advice on how to ‘fix’ things.  He understands that women need to vocalize their feelings, and he lets me be me.  He is a gentle, patient and attentive lover, always focused on my needs first before gratifying himself.  He is a decent family man who would never consort with prostitutes and live to tell the tale.

Wouldn’t you rather have a handsome, athletic President who can sing well and clean the house than a stiff, emotionless man who may or may not believe in polygamy? 

Stand with my man.  Contribute $25 today to make your voice heard.

God Bless America.

Michelle

I think you get the picture.  Now, who is selling themselves?

Throwing Out the First Pitch

It is Opening Day Weekend in Washington.  This is my favorite time of year.  It is the time when all things are possible.  No one can say with any certainty who will be left standing at the end of the season.  The only certainty is the unpredictability of the outcome.  It is (home) Opening Week for the Washington Nationals and Opening Week for the presidential election season. 

Spring training is over and the regular season has begun.

The primary campaign season is over and the general election season has begun.

Throughout the pre-season, eager ballplayers, both new and returning, showed off their skills in the hopes of making the final roster.

Throughout the primary season, eager politicians, both new and returning, showed off their skills in the hopes of making the national ticket.

Fans cheer for the players that get their uniforms the dirtiest.  They like to see hustle.

Fans cheer for the dirtiest candidate.  Voters are getting hustled.

Some promising players had their dreams of making the big leagues cut short by injury this spring.

Some promising players had their dreams of making the big leagues cut short by self-inflicted injury this season (I’m looking at you, Rick Perry).

Some players arrived at camp out of shape and ill-prepared for the rigors of a major league season.

Some candidates arrived to the campaign out of shape and ill-prepared for the rigors of a major national campaign (I’m looking at you, Tim Pawlenty).

Every year, a surprise player has a great preseason, never to be heard from again.

Every 4 years, a surprise candidate has a great primary surge, never to be heard from again (I’m looking at you, Paul Tsongas, Bill Bradley, and Herman Cain).

Some of these wannabes will have their pre-season miscues play endlessly on YouTube.

Some of these wannabes will have their primary season miscues play endlessly on YouTube (I’m looking at you, Michelle Bachmann).

The money that professional players make these days is obscene, and it cheapens the game.

The money that professional candidates take these days is obscene, and it cheapens the process.

If a player’s career doesn’t pan out, they can always get a gig in broadcasting.

If a candidate’s career doesn’t pan out, they can always get a gig in broadcasting.

Sometimes the only thing a player needs to win is a lucky bounce.

Sometimes the only thing a candidate needs to win is a lucky gaffe.

The season can seemingly drag on forever.

The season can seemingly drag on forever.

Nothing really matters until a champion is crowned on the field in November.

Nothing really matters until a President is elected from the field in November (actually, control of the Senate may even matter more).

Batter up.

Oh Yeah? Your Mama!

Obama hates your mom, but Ann Romney believes that “we need to respect choices that women make”, which we will assume includes decisions about her reproductive systems.  Welcome to the fall campaign.

In 1996, my wife and I made the decision that it was in the best interests of our new child (and hopefully future children) that she forfeit the income from working outside the home and stay at home to raise the kids.  In some ways, it was an easy decision.  We both believed that having one parent at home during those formative years (and by formative, I mean through high school graduation), our kids would have a better foundation for life, both intellectually, morally, and emotionally.  It was not an easy decision in that we had to make financial sacrifices in the immediate present, but also in the future.  We both knew that Cherie’s earning potential after decades at home raising a family would be diminished.  We would struggle at times, have a less secure personal safety net and a delayed retirement, but we did it anyway.  That was our choice, and I am grateful that we had the option.

Let me also say that Romney and Obama should both be on safe ground when it comes to a comparison of personal family values.  Both appear to be model husbands and fathers.  You can’t say that during every election cycle, so you would have hoped that this “Obama hates your mom” rhetoric wouldn’t get much traction.  I obviously underestimated the silliness that could result from Romney’s poor poll numbers among female voters.

Everyone knows the story by now.  I won’t defend Hilary Rosen’s poorly crafted answer to a question from Anderson Cooper that included the offending phrase that Ann Romney “never worked a day in her life.”  Any husband out there knows that if you don’t include the phrase “…outside the home” after that sentiment, you are sleeping on the sofa.  It should be noted, however, that the second part of Rosen’s answer, the part that doesn’t fit in the headlines, is more to her point:  Ann Romney has “never really dealt with the kind of economic issues that a majority of women in the country are facing.”

Sorry, but that is factual.  The Romney family income is estimated at $56,000 per day.  Obama may be a lettuce snob, but I’m pretty sure Mrs. Romney is unfamiliar with Ramen noodles.

Not sure how many denunciations of Rosen’s remarks need to be made by the Obama campaign and Democrats in general before someone realizes that, hey – no one hates your mom or any mom that stays at home.  To claim that a political party hates mothers is unfair.

To show my bipartisanship, I will go as far as to say that Republicans don’t hate women who cannot conceive biological children.  I say that in order to defend the GOP from this conservative group’s tweet yesterday: 

“Lesbian Dem Hilary Rosen tells Ann Romney she never worked a day in her life,” the Catholic League For Religious and Civil Rights, a conservative group, tweeted.  “Unlike Rosen, who had to adopt kids, Ann raised 5 of her own.”

Less than 24 hours after the leadership of the Democratic Party had to disavow the comments of a person not at all involved in their presidential campaign, the Republican Party had to do the exact same thing.  All’s fair, as a friend told me yesterday, so I guess this is the proof.

In a classic Rovian reversal of the issue, I would argue that the Dems aren’t anti stay-at-home mom; the GOP is anti-working mothers, and I can point to a variety of GOP policy positions that make life more difficult on working mothers.  Their opposition to the Family Medical Leave Act would be first on my list.  Protections for breast feeding mothers and pregnant women in the workplace – just let the market handle that, right?

Discrimination in the workplace is a private matter that independent business owners (the job creators) should be able to manage without government interference; reminding viewers that Ann Romney did not have to consider the workplace or financial implications of staying at home with her kids, well that’s discrimination.  The GOP has become the victim again!

Hilary Rosen’s point was simply that Ann Romney did not have to struggle with the negative financial impact of choosing to stay at home and raise her kids.  Yes, she would be sacrificing a potential career perhaps, but the decision to remain at home would not delay retirement for the Romneys; it would not force an uncomfortable choice between a vacation to Six Flags or food on the table; it would not cause financial hardship, one of the major causes of stress in most American’s mother’s lives.  In this sense, it is true that Ann Romney never worked in order to survive economically.  That is far different than most moms out there.

The connection of Rosen’s comments to the Obama campaign reminds me of the dubious path that some grade school children have taken to connect Ray Charles to God (Love is blind, Ray Charles is blind, God is love, therefore Ray Charles is God).  This is not much of a stretch.  The most common argument connecting Rosen to Obama is that she’s been to the White House 35 times during his administration.  Romney has appeared on the Rush Limbaugh program.  Does that mean Mitt agrees with Rush that women seeking contraception are sluts?  Of course not.

For those of you who still believe that this firestorm is about anything except pure political gamespersonship, read the actual fundraising email that I received yesterday from the Romney campaign (wasting no time getting this out):

Joe,

If you're a stay-at-home mom, the Democrats have a message for you: you've never worked a day in your life.

That's exactly what Obama adviser Hilary Rosen said about Ann Romney last night.

Ann Romney represents the best of what happens inside the American home every day. Family. Something to be cherished, not mocked.

Her choice was to stay at home and raise her five sons. That is no easy task for any mother -- especially a woman who battled through breast cancer and multiple sclerosis.

As a mother and a former Chief of Staff to Governor Romney, I can say first-hand that raising my kids was the toughest job I've ever had. 

We stand with Mitt and Ann in saying that all women play an important role in our country. America deserves a president who will bring us together -- not pit us against each other.

Donate $6 to get your Moms Drive the Economy bumper sticker and send a message to President Obama today.

First of all, the Democrats do not have a message for me, since I am not a stay-at-home mom, but thanks for asking.  Secondly, does anyone else find it a bit unseemly that the Romney campaign is fundraising by highlighting Ann Romney’s MS and cancer?  I find it particularly offensive because should Romney win in November and repeal the Affordable Care Act (as he has vowed to do), Ann Romney would become uninsurable because of her pre-existing conditions.  I know that Mitt could afford to pay for her care out of pocket, but methinks he would be the exception.  Thirdly, how in the world does the last sentence pivot this to an example of Obama pitting “us against each other”?  That line is a bridge to nowhere.

Here is where the Romney attack will flounder.  Romney has no specific plans to improve the lives of women in this country.  None.  Obama of course can point to the first law he signed as President, the Lily Ledbetter Act.  When Romney’s team had a campaign call with reporters and was asked if Mitt supported the Ledbetter Law, there was a 6 second pause before a voice came over the phone and said, “We’ll get back to you.”  Way to be prepared for a call your campaign initiated about women’s issues.

Later in the day, the campaign did release a statement in support of equal pay for women in the workplace, the kind of vague, meaningless platitude that allow limitless wiggle room.  And Romney will need that wiggle room once conservatives explain to him that Ledbetter created undue hardship on American business through its burdensome recordkeeping requirements, and it practically eliminated any statute of limitations on gender based pay discrimination claims, a boon for trial lawyers.  Someday, he’ll need to come out against Ledbetter and explain why this new position is not a flip flop and why his new position is actually pro-women.  Oh my.

Let’s understand this brouhaha for what it is.  Romney has a gender gap in the national polls that is fatal to his election chances.  He is down in some polls by 19% with women voters.  He has got to close that gap to have a chance in November.  So he took a page from the Rove playbook and is attempting to project his greatest negative onto his competitor, Obama. 

 

The most inflammatory schoolyard taunt is against someone’s mother.  Rosen voluntarily stepped in it.  GOP overreached in response to change the discussion.  Mission accomplished. 

 

Beware, women out there – the Romney campaign will next accuse Obama of hating apple pie, and it will be as true as this current accusation about motherhood.