Letters From Santa's Mailbag

Latest Newspaper Column:

Once again, we bring you another beloved holiday tradition: selections from Santa's mailbag.

Dear Santa: OK, so I went on Fox News predicting a 325-electoral-vote Romney landslide. And yeah, I did it over and over, with complete confidence. As you probably heard, that didn't exactly pan out. But is it fair that the TV network that's more of a home to me than my own living room says that they're going to stop having me on? I mean, Bill Kristol's wrong all the time too, and he gets his phone calls returned.

I  need work, Santa, and fast. The hookers say they're going to start charging me double if I'm not on TV.

- Dick Morris, somewhere in hiding

(Note to staff: Send Dick a copy of "Polling For Dummies.")

Dear Santa: I have to say, I've had a pretty good year. I won the election by a comfortable margin. We kept the Senate and made gains in the House. The Republicans are in disarray and starting to turn on each other.

I've got the upper hand in these budget negotiations, since all I have to do is wait for all the tax cuts to expire, then ask the House to introduce a cut that only includes the middle class and dare the Republicans to vote against it. The economy continues to get better. I guess what I'm saying is, I'm good for this year, and I don't really need anything for myself. Well, maybe some socks.

- Barack Obama, Washington, D.C.

(Note to staff: Get the guy some socks. It's the least we can do.)

Dear Santa, you socialist piece of [censored]: The soulless fools who voted for economic and spiritual suicide this past November may want stuff from you, like support for their obesity booze cellphones birth control abortions. But let me tell you something, you commie pinko [censored]!

I'm a free American, and I don't want any [censored] handouts from anyone, especially some [censored] who dresses up in red and sneaks into people's houses at night. So stay the [censored] away from my house, you got that, fatso? I mean it. I've got guns. Lots of them.

- Ted Nugent, Michigan

(Note to staff: Goodness. This is one angry fellow. Can we maybe bring him some nice warm milk or some meds or something to calm him down?)

(Note to Santa: No can do, boss. The reindeer refuse to go near his place after Dasher nearly took a crossbow bolt in the haunch.)

Dearest Father Christmas: Warm regards from her Royal Highness, the Duchess of Cambridge. I trust you have been made aware of the recent good news regarding Her Royal Highness' delicate condition.

Her only wishes for this Christmas season are that the people of the British Isles enjoy greater peace and prosperity, and that, if possible, you could provide something to ensure she is not, as I believe the Americans put it, blowing chunks every 10 minutes. With best wishes for the holidays and for the New Year, I am, very truly yours,

- Percy Uppington-Smythe, Personal Assistant.

(Note to staff: Poor kid. Hard enough being pregnant and sick, but I can't imagine having to deal with those ghastly in-laws of hers. Send her a keg of ginger ale to settle her stomach.)

Dear Santa: Who is this guy in the White House? We'd gotten used to a president who started his negotiating from the center-right and just kept giving us what we wanted so we could demand more.

This guy, this so-called "second-term" Obama, acts like he's actually got a backbone. He's demanding that we agree to the things he ran on and that people voted for! You'd think he'd won the election or something! We want the old, pliable, easily bullied Barack Obama back! If we don't get it, I might start crying again. I'm warning you.

-John Boehner, Washington, D.C.

(Note to staff: Sorry, looks like that model's been discontinued.)

Dear Santa: Please bring me a new iPad. And an Xbox360. And a Play Station3. And a Wii. And a bunch of movies, books and games, all rated "G" or "PG". And hurry. Mitt Romney, La Jolla, Calif.

(Note to staff: Looks like someone suddenly has a lot of time on his hands.)

(Note from staff: Good thing he doesn't drink, huh?)

(Note to staff: I don't even want to think about it.)

Hope you all get what you want under your tree.

Life Of Illusion (The Director's Cut)

Latest Newspaper Column: 

[Note: this is the unedited version. The one in the paper eliminates the first paragraphs because the editor was afraid the Party of Love might firebomb the newspaper office.] 

So now, at long last, the election is over, and President Barack Obama will have his second term. Before we get to our discussion of what happened and why, let me just take the time to say: HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!

Ahem. On to the post-election analysis.

I’ve said before that Mitt Romney was destined to be the John Kerry of the Republican Party. Each man was a rich, entitled Massachusetts moderate trying to convince his party's skeptical base he was one of them, despite having once supported the thing that that base purported to despise most (the Iraq War in Kerry's case, the individual mandate in Romney's). Both Kerry and Romney ran against controversial incumbents, with a central message that amounted to “I’m not him.” And both fell short. But Mitt Romney fell much shorter than Kerry. Why? Perhaps because the “him” Romney was running against didn’t exist.

The imaginary Barack Obama that the Republicans were running against bore little or no resemblance to the actual man in the White House. Imaginary Obama was a scowling, far-left radical, a socialist, a fascist or a communist, depending on who was yelling into the mike at the time. Imaginary Obama was simultaneously an evil schemer who was plotting 24/7 to destroy America and a guy who was too dumb to get into college without affirmative action or to speak without a teleprompter. Imaginary Obama was a divisive, harshly partisan figure, hated by all, even his former supporters. Worst of all, he was an incompetent, a miserable failure at absolutely everything he touched.

The problem with this strategy is that the actual Barack Obama that non-delusional people could see was a smart, calm, moderate with good likability ratings who’d brought the unemployment numbers down at a steady if sometimes maddeningly slow pace, saved the auto industry, and brought Osama bin Laden to justice. People heard the Right dismissing every bit of good news, crying doom and gloom, and insisting “everything’s getting worse,” looked around, and went, “hmmm, it really isn’t.”

Then along came Sandy. The quick Presidential response to the hurricane and the grateful reaction of Republican New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who only a few weeks before had been savaging Obama at the GOP convention, blew away any lingering doubts non-delusional voters may have had about both the President’s competence and his ability to work with Republicans.

As the polls showed the President pulling further and further ahead in crucial swing states, Republicans began pulling the blanket of delusion over their heads. Pundits like Dick Morris, Karl Rove, Michael Barone and even the usually sane George W. Will predicted a Romney landslide, with Will predicting 321 EVs for Romney.

 One expects this sort of thing from hacks like Morris, Barone and Rove, but Will really should have known better. The polls were “skewed,” they insisted, because they assumed that Democratic voter turnout would be the same in 2012 as it was in 2008. That wasn’t going to happen this year, they asserted with the all the misguided and uninformed bravado of a latter-day George Armstrong Custer.

Actually, had you asked earlier in the year, I might have said you had a point. There were a lot of disaffected Democrats, particularly on the Left. (Anyone who says liberals all think the same has clearly never been around any). But that was before the GOP, some of its prominent supporters, and its candidates began taking extreme radical positions on things like abortion, contraception, gay rights, and immigration, and saying things that frightened, offended or ticked off Latinos, LGBT people, African-Americans, and especially women. That fired up the very constituencies the GOP had told themselves would stay home.

So thanks, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Bachmann, Todd Akin, Rick Santorum, John Koster, Richard Mourdock, etc.! You fired liberals up and damaged the GOP brand with moderates, probably for years. And right wingers, dwelling as they do in their tightly woven cocoons where only Fox News and talk radio can penetrate, never even saw it. They still don’t. But numbers really don’t lie.

Now that the Republican leadership has failed in their stated number one goal of making Barack Obama a “one term president,” what will they do? Will they actually start pushing bills other than futile grandstanding attempts to “repeal Obamacare”? Will they actually deal in good faith on the budget?

Well, we live in hope. But first they’re going to have to do is stop deluding themselves that everyone hates the President and the Democrats as much as they think they do and that they’ll be rewarded for obstructionism. Reality, it’s said, has a well-known liberal bias, but it’s still reality. 

A Night Of Blown Chances

Latest Newspaper Column:

For Obama supporters, Wednesday's debate was a frustrating exercise as we watched the president let one easy pitch after another go by him without taking a swing that could have let him hit the ball out of the park.

For instance, during the debate over taxes, Mitt Romney continued to make his absurd assertion that he could make his plan to lower tax rates "revenue neutral" by eliminating unspecified "loopholes and deductions." Obama could have turned to him and simply asked, "So which of these deductions and loopholes do you plan to close, governor?"

In the past, Romney has tried to weasel his way out of answering this question, saying only that he'll have to "negotiate with Congress on that" (in other words, we have to elect him and pass his tax reform bill to see what's in it). But nonpartisan tax policy analysts have stated that the only way to make up the revenue would be to eliminate popular tax breaks like the deduction for home mortgages and the child care tax credit.

President Obama did bring up that study, and made a reference that the "arithmetic" didn't add up, but when Romney intimated that his "plan" didn't include eliminating those middle-class tax breaks, he failed to press him to be specific. Romney hates being specific, largely because the more specific he and Ryan get about what they really want to do, the more horrified voters become.

Likewise, the president missed an opportunity to point out Romney's hypocrisy on the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan. "The president should have grabbed that," Romney said. But Obama could have easily pointed out that Romney's running mate, Paul Ryan, voted against sending the final proposal of the Simpson-Bowles commission to Congress. "Their proposal is a serious and credible plan, but I cannot support it," Ryan said at the time. Obama just let that one go by.

On health care, President Obama forgot the wise words of Sun Tzu that the best policy in waging warfare is to "attack the enemy's strategy." Mitt Romney's strategy is based entirely on lying through his teeth.

Remember, this is the campaign that said they weren't going to let the fact checkers dictate to them, and Obama let him get away with some whoppers.

For instance, Romney hearkened back to Sarah Palin's mythical "death panels" when he talked about "an unelected board that's going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have."

But as fact checkers, including The Associated Press, have pointed out, the health care law "explicitly prohibits" the Independent Payment Advisory Board "from rationing care, shifting costs to retirees, restricting benefits or raising the Medicare eligibility age." So the board doesn't have the power to dictate to doctors what treatments they can prescribe.

Romney also continued to double down on the thoroughly discredited claim that Obama is "cutting $716 billion from Medicare to pay for Obamacare." As the fact-checking site Politifact points out, Obamacare "does not literally cut funding from the Medicare program's budget." They go on to say that "the cuts are from future spending, not the program's current budget" and that 'the spending reductions were mainly aimed at insurance companies and hospitals, not beneficiaries."

This has been debunked so many times by so many fact checkers that for Romney to keep bringing it up is an act of sheer outrageous chutzpah, but I can't imagine that, as commentator David Gergen put it, Obama was caught by surprise by Romney telling a bald-faced lie. And that is exactly what it was.

Romney wasn't expressing opinions upon which reasonable people can disagree. He said things that were factually untrue, and the president let him get away with it.

I don't know what this was all about. Maybe Obama went into this debate assuming he could coast on the lead he has in the swing states. Maybe he thought going for Romney's throat (metaphorically, of course) would look "unpresidential."

He may have thought Romney would do the job for him by saying something egregiously stupid, like dismissing half of the American people again (another thing he inexplicably failed to mention). Maybe he was just unhappy because he was having to do this on his anniversary.

But Obama needs to get his head back in the game here. You give Mr. Etch A Sketch the chance to weasel and lie, he'll take it. Please, Mr. President, don't let it happen again. Next time Mittens serves up a slow pitch, you need to pound it over the left-field wall, then go upside his head with the bat.

Metaphorically, of course.

Romney Camp: REMAIN CALM! ALL IS WELLLLLLL!

Latest Newspaper Column:

Well, it looks as if in the Battle of the Conventions a couple of weeks ago, the Democrats came out on top. The Republicans got a weak-to-nonexistent “bounce” in the polls, and Barack Obama surged ahead.

One way you can tell that the Democrats took that round is the way the Romney campaign is trying to pretend that conventions and post-convention “bounces” just don’t matter.

Romney pollster Neil Newhouse sent out a memo that reminds one of that Kevin Bacon character from “Animal House” screaming, “Remain calm! All is well!” before the panicked crowd runs him over and literally stomps him flat.

“While some voters will feel a bit of a sugar high from the conventions,” Newhouse said, “the basic structure of the race has not changed significantly.”

Well, Neil, if you mean the structure where Barack Obama has been leading for months in enough states to give him more than the 270 votes he needs to win the Electoral College, then I guess you’re right.

But that doesn’t really help you. And it doesn’t explain why your campaign is pulling ad buys in crucial high-electoral-vote states like Pennsylvania and Michigan. It also leaves out the significant gains President Obama has made in the crucial swing state of Ohio.

It doesn’t explain why Mr. Etch A Sketch suddenly backpedaled on the bill the right loves to hate (the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare) by saying, “Well, I am going to keep some parts that people like.” Then he had to backpedal yet again when the Rabid Right went back into its customary full-blown tantrum mode.

Remember, the Republicans are the party that’s “not letting fact-checkers determine their campaign,” the party that believes that if you just repeat a lie enough times, it doesn’t matter that it’s not true.

And I think they’d really like it to be true that nobody’s affected by conventions, because the image of their convention that’s burned into everyone’s mind is that of a old man stumbling through an argument with a chair.

In contrast, the Democratic convention was forward-looking and upbeat. Again and again, the Democrats took R-Money’s tired old talking point that “Obama can’t run on his record” and stuffed it back in his face like Shaquille O’Neal dunking on a hapless defender.

I confess, when Joe Biden’s speech began, I was holding my breath hoping he wouldn’t say something stupid. But he delivered one of the best lines of the convention, the one that sums up not only why Barack Obama can run on his record, but why he is: “Osama bin Laden is dead, and General Motors is alive.”

Because here’s the thing. In many ways — not all, but many — we really are better off than we were four years ago.

The stock market is up, and corporate profits are at all-time highs. Statistics from the National Association of Realtors show that national sales of existing homes are up about 10 percent from July 2011 to July 2012. Auto sales are up as well. If, for some reason, you don’t think these numbers helped the economy, then I guess you’re telling us that the kind of trickle-down economics espoused by RomneyCorp isn’t working, right?

Add to this the fact that we’re well out of the quagmire that The President Who Must Not Be Named created in Iraq, and are on our way out of the morass in Afghanistan. I’d have to say that the people fighting those wars, and their families, are better off.

Of course, since Mitt Romney doesn’t seem to think those soldiers and their families are “important” enough to be mentioned in his convention speech (according to a campaign spokesman), I suppose that doesn’t count to him.

As for the president’s own speech, it concentrated on shared sacrifice and hard work rather than soaring “yes we can” rhetoric. It was a reminder that we’ve come a long way, but we still have a long way to go, and that “we” means all of us.

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, blew smoke about how he was going to create “12 million jobs” (a figure which some economic forecasters say is going to happen no matter who’s president) but offered no forecast of how he’s going to do it, other than pursuing the same policies that were in place when the economy tanked.

He says he’s going to cut taxes and still balance the budget by closing loopholes, which he refuses to identify. He’s already proven he’ll say anything to get elected. Meanwhile, Barack Obama talks to us like we’re grown-ups. And that’s one of the many reasons I’m voting for him.

How to Speak Wingnut

Latest Newspaper Column

Talking or conversing online with a member of the Rabid Right can often be a frustrating experience. It often seems like the two of you are talking past each other.

This is because while wingnuts speak something that appears to be English, they're not really speaking the same language as you. They use a sort of argot or cant, made up of dog-whistles and code words whose full and deeper meaning is only understood by them or people like them.

So here's a helpful guide in understanding wingnut speech, or, as I call it, Wingspeak:

What they say: "Obama was never properly vetted. We don't know anything about him."

What they mean: "We've dug and dug but none of us has ever been able to turn up a shred of credible evidence for all of the ridiculous stuff we've made up about Barack Obama."

What they say: "The press is covering up this story."

What they mean: "The press won't report our half-truths, distortions and outright lies as if they were facts."

What they say: "The press has a liberal bias."

What they mean: "The press keeps finding out true but damaging things about us."

What they say: "We need to cut spending."

What they mean: "We need to stop giving money to black and poor people so the government can pay for my retirement and health care."

What they say: "We need entitlement reform."

What they mean: "For every entitlement but the ones I get."

What they say: "Government can't create jobs."

What they mean: "Government shouldn't spend money to create jobs except for ones resulting from defense, road or bridge projects in my district."

What they say: "I know it isn't politically correct to say this, but..."

What they mean: "I am about to say something incredibly racist, sexist or just pig-ignorant, and I want to look like I'm daring and edgy instead of a brain-dead boob."

What they say: "You just call everyone who disagrees with you a racist!"

What they mean: "I say racist stuff all the time, but maybe if I play the aggrieved, falsely accused victim, I can get away with it."

What they say: "You just call people names because you haven't got any real arguments!"

What they mean: "I'm going to hope people ignore the fact that you just used actual evidence to clean my clock in this argument by self-righteously feigning indignation over the way you said it."

What they say: "Barack Obama isn't a real American."

What they mean: "Obama is black."

What they say: "Barack Obama doesn't love America."

What they mean: "Obama is black."

What they say: "Barack Obama wasn't born here, he was born in Kenya."

What they mean: "Obama is black."

What they say: "Barack Obama should release his college transcripts."

What they mean: "He couldn't have legitimately gotten into college and done as well as he did without getting special treatment, because he's, you know, black."

What they say: "Mitt Romney should release his tax returns only when President Obama releases his school records."

What they mean: "We're positive there's something in those tax returns that will destroy Romney's candidacy, so we'll come up with any flimsy non sequitur to try and excuse why he shouldn't release them. Also, Obama should release his school records because he's, you know, black."

What they say: "Obamacare is socialism!"

What they mean: "We don't really have any idea what's actually the Affordable Care Act, but we know this: We don't like socialism, we don't like Obama, and we don't like this plan, even though it was originally proposed by Republicans, because this time it was backed by a guy who's a Democrat and, you know, black, so we're going to call it something that sounds impressive and ominous, even though it clearly shows we know as much about socialism as we know about quantum physics."

What they say: "President Obama is engaging in Chicago-style gutter politics."

What they mean: "Obama's using the same hardball tactics against us that we've used to win every election we've succeeded in, and doing it better, since the stuff he's saying is actually true."

What they say: "The Obama campaign is getting desperate."

What they mean: "We're getting hurt badly by the latest round of revelations."

As a general rule of thumb, when they say, "How dare those awful liberals (fill in supposed outrage here)," what they mean is "You can't do that! Only we can do that!"

Hope this helps.

27 Percenters: Still Crazy After All These Years

Latest Newspaper Column:

There's been a lot of talk lately about the 1 percent versus the 99 percent. But there's another number that's at least as important in American political discourse these days. That number is the "crazification factor": 27 percent. 

The crazification factor was first noticed by, of all people, television writer John Rogers. He first wrote about it as far back as 2005 on his blog, titled "Kung Fu Monkey." He'd observed the 2004 Illinois Senate election, in which Barack Obama ran against Alan Keyes. Keyes, as you may remember, was trotted in from out of state a mere 86 days before the election after the campaign of the Republican nominee, Jack Ryan, imploded because of a bizarre sex scandal.
Keyes was clearly a sacrificial lamb, a guy no one expected to win; not only did he have no base in Illinois, but he was also, as Rogers put it, "plainly, obviously, completely crazy ... head-trauma crazy."Both candidates were black, so race wasn't a factor. And yet, Rogers noted, Keyes still got 27 percent of the vote in Illinois.

"They put party identification, personal prejudice, whatever, ahead of rational judgment," he said. "Even 5 percent of Democrats voted for him. That's crazy behavior. I think you have to assume a 27 percent crazification factor in any population."

It seemed like a joke to me at first. But then I noticed that that 27 percent figure kept cropping up more and more, in poll after poll. Give or take a couple of percentage points, pollsters often find about 27 percent of Americans who believe in things that are against their own self-interest or that are just mind-bendingly ridiculous.

For instance, in the darkest days of the 2008 economic meltdown, after the bankruptcy of Lehmann Brothers, the federal bailout of AIG and the collapse of Merrill Lynch, approval ratings for President George W. Bush were still at 27 percent, and hovered around that figure for quite some time before taking their final nosedive.

(Yes, He Who Must Not Be Named, and not Barack Obama, was president when the economy tanked, with his beloved tax cuts firmly in place, something you probably won't learn from watching Fox News.)

After Sarah Palin flamed out in spectacular fashion and took John McCain's presidential campaign into the ground with her, 27 percent of people surveyed in one poll still thought she would have made a good president.

A poll in January of this year on the subject of gridlock in Congress found that 60 percent of those polled believed that President Obama was trying to work with Republicans; 27 percent believed that Republicans in Congress were trying to do the same. In January, an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that 27 percent of people still supported the tea party.
Give a couple of points margin for error, and crazification becomes more obvious. After the 2008 election, 26 percent of those polled believed that it had been stolen for Barack Obama by ACORN, even though there wasn't evidence of a single fraudulent vote actually being cast as a result of a few registration workers boosting their paychecks by signing up nonexistent voters. (No, Mickey Mouse did not try to vote, something you probably won't learn from listening to Rush Limbaugh.)

During the health care debate, when polled as to what kind of reform bill should pass, 26 percent of respondents told a CBS poll "no bill at all."

Note well: We aren't talking about people who simply don't agree with the administration. That figure is, of course, higher than 27 percent. We're talking about people who do so for reasons that are completely and incurably crazy, people wedded to "facts" that simply aren't true and opinions with no support in reality.

They're immune to persuasion. They're aided by right-wing media outlets that reject the idea of objective facts and objective proof; any evidence you care to provide that does not fit their narrative is, to them, the product of "bias" or an "agenda," no matter how unimpeachable the source. That's one of the hallmarks of true delusional thinking: It's immune to reality, and so are the 27 percenters.

So what can you do? Well, if you're one of those people who roll their eyes at the idea that President Obama is going to send federal agents to check on your light bulbs, or who shake your heads in disbelief when people, after all this time, still put up billboards and bumper stickers asking "Where's the Birth Certificate?" - then you need to get out and vote.

Because the crazies surely will.

My Open Letter to President Obama

Dear Mr. President:  

I saw a news story today about a little argument you apparently had with Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona. Apparently, you were unhappy with the way she described a meeting she'd had with you a while back. At the time, she'd said the meeting was "cordial," but in the book she said you were "patronizing" and "condescending." She apparently got a little heated up about it, and ended up shaking her finger in your face after which one of you stalked away, it wasn't clear which.  

Now, Mr. President, I've always been a big supporter of yours. I haven't always agreed with you on some things, like Libya,  the public option, and the detention provisions of the NDAA,  but I agree with you on a lot more than I disagree. And even if we were discussing things I disagree with you about, I would never dream of being disrespectful or shaking my finger in your face. At least not normally.  

But here's the thing. I also read that, after the finger-shaking incident, Governor Brewer's book " “Scorpions for Breakfast: My Fight Against Special Interests, Liberal Media, and Cynical Politicos to Secure the Border,’’ went from 285,568 on the Amazon sales list to 20.

20! That's the biggest one day jump in Amazon's history. Which leaves me with a bit of a conundrum.  

As you may or may not know, I'm a published author in addition to being a lawyer and newspaper columnist. (If you weren't aware of this, just call up the guys downstairs and have them bring you my Homeland Security file. After all the stuff I said about the guy who was President before you, I'm 99% sure I have one).

The books have done okay. I've gotten some great reviews and letters from fans, and the respect of some of my fellow writers. That means the world to me. But, sadly, none of them have cracked the top 20,  at least so far.

I think you can see where I'm going with this.  

See, I've always been one of those people who thinks outside the box. When something controversial occurs, and other people are saying "this is terrible, how could such a thing happen?" I'm thinking "how can I get me some of this?"

Like I said, I have nothing but respect for you. But could you do me a solid? I know you're probably going to be in North Carolina a lot in the coming months, what with it being a battleground state and all. One of those times, could I maybe come by and be a jerk to you? It wouldn't take too long, maybe a couple of minutes.

I'm not talking about any kind of threat or anything, because I don't want to get my butt kicked by the Secret Service or get indefinitely detained. But maybe I could make fun of your tie or tell you I don't like Al Green or something. A little sneer, a little finger shake, I'd flounce off, and we'd be done.

If I could do that, and if we could make sure that there are cameras there, I'll bet my sales would go through the roof. I might get invited on Jon Stewart or Conan or even--dare I say it out loud?-- Craig Ferguson. Like I say, I wouldn't normally even dream of asking something like this, but it's always been a dream of mine to leave the day job behind and write full time, and this may just be my ticket.

The books, by the way, are The Devil's Right Hand; Good Day In Hell; Safe and Sound; Breaking Cover; Storm Surge; Lawyers Guns & Money; and the new one, Gallows Pole. All are available in Kindle and Nook formats. I think we can both agree that those are much snappier titles than “Scorpions for Breakfast: My Fight Blah Blah Blah." They also make great reading on airplanes. Just saying.

Thanks, Mr. President. You're the best.

Your fan,

J.D. "Dusty" Rhoades

I Don't Care How Ragtag They Are, This is A Terrible Idea (No Matter Whose It Is)

Latest Newspaper Column: The Pilot

When I first heard of the growing rebellion in Libya, one of the first things I thought was, “Well, this must be a relief to the Obama ­administration.”

It wasn’t like Egypt, where, despite our support of democracy and freedom, we had to deal with the embarrassing fact that the corrupt and brutal dictator was a longtime ally. In contrast, we’ve never been fond of Moammar Gadhafi. In Libya, we know whom we’re supposed to hate.

Later, however, when I heard that the British and French were advocating a “no-fly zone” over Libya to keep the rebellion from being crushed, I thought, “Fine. Let them impose it.” We are, after all, a mite busy right now, what with trying to wind down one Middle Eastern war and simultaneously trying to get another war zone at least stable enough to hand it back to the people whose country it is.

I felt an increasing sense of dread, however, when I realized that ­practically every news report about the rebellion in Libya described the rebel forces as “ragtag,” because let’s face it, we Americans sure do love the ragtag.

The word evokes images of Colonials with their ­hunting rifles facing the British at Lexington and Concord, or Luke Skywalker and his plucky rebel pilots going up against the Death Star in their motley ­collection of obsolete fighters. Mark well: When the media start describing a force as “ragtag,” we’re going to be in on their side before too much longer.

And soon we were.

Those of you who are always wondering, often rudely, when I’m going to say something critical of Barack Obama, this is the day you’ve been waiting for. Mark it on your calendars, because I think this is a terrible idea.

Granted, Gadhafi, Qaddafi or Gadaffy, or however you spell it, is a brutal nutcase. He oppresses his ­people. The rebels were about to be savagely crushed. I grant you all of these things. But just like I said back before George Dubbya’s Wacky Iraqi Adventure, the world is full of brutal, oppressive thugs, from nearby Bahrain, to Africa’s Cote D’Ivoire, to North Korea.

Why Libya? Why not any of those other countries?

The only answer seems to be “because in Libya, we can, and at a low risk to us.” Their air force is relatively weak; in fact, British Air Vice Marshal Greg Bagwell was quoted by the BBC on Wednesday as saying it “no longer exists as a fighting force.” Great. No-fly zone accomplished. Can we come home now?

Of course not. That’s not how these things work. Now, with no air power against us, NATO warplanes and missiles are targeting ground forces loyal to Gadhafi. We have become, effectively, the rebel air force. Can you say “mission creep,” boys and girls?

And as for “low risk to us,” seems to me we’ve heard that before. Not just in Iraq, but back in 1999, when we and other members of NATO intervened in Kosovo. That started as an air war, too, a mission to save ethnic Albanians from massacre by Serbs. The goals seemed simple at the time: “Serbs out, peacekeepers in, refugees back,” according to a NATO spokesman. At the time, I confess, I thought this was a great idea.

Time has proved me wrong. In the Balkans, as in the Middle East, nothing is that simple. “Ethnic cleansing” actually increased. NATO planes bombed civilian ­targets, some accidentally, others deliberately.

In the end, it’s true, Serbian thug Slobodan Milosovic stepped down. But we ended up sending in ground troops as “peacekeepers,” who nearly got into a ­shooting war with Russian “peacekeepers” over the ­airport at Pristina. Twelve years later, Kosovo is still a mess and still requires thousands of NATO ­peacekeepers on the ground.

Seems we never learn. Even so-called “limited” air campaigns invariably end up being a lot messier than we plan for. Add to that the fact that the president committing U.S. forces to a war without any authorization or even consultation with Congress is exactly the kind of exercise of “plenary executive power” that I detested in George Dubbya Bush, and which, lest we forget, was one of the things Barack Obama ran against.

I mean, jeez Louise, even the Bush administration had the decency to lie to Congress about WMDs to get them on board with an ill-considered war.

Airstrikes to aid “ragtag rebels” certainly may seem like the right thing to do. But then, most terrible ideas do.

Addicted to Drama

Latest Newspaper Column

First, a correction. Last week, I wrote that Sen. Rand Paul, son of Congressman Ron Paul, was named after 1950s novelist Ayn Rand, whose long-winded, preachy novels are big among what the tea party likes to think of as its "intellectual" wing. Ron Paul is an avowed fan as well, but Rand is not, it seems, named after her. It's just a coincidence. We regret the error.

Now on to your regularly scheduled column.

My friends, there is an epidemic of addiction sweeping America. It is, I firmly believe, the root cause of the angry and violent rhetoric that everyone's been talking about the past few weeks. This addiction has divided us, polarized us, and damaged our nation.

I'm talking about our addiction to Drama, with a capital D.

We've become a nation of hysterical teenage Drama queens for whom every issue is The Most Important Thing In the World to Me Ever, and every denial or obstacle triggers a tantrum in which it is tearfully asserted that You've Ruined My Life, I Hate You, and I Wish You Were Dead.

To a political Drama addict, everything is a Threat to America's Very Existence. The loss of a Senate election may require an armed insurrection (aka "Second Amendment remedies") to save the Republic from "tyranny," because if "ballots don't work, bullets will." If the presidential candidate you don't like wins the election, he's a "usurper" who's probably not even a real American, and we must fight him to Save the Constitution and Take Our Country Back Before Our Entire Way of Life is Destroyed. A health care bill you don't like means that your special-needs baby may be euthanized by order of shadowy "death panels." And so on.

Sad to say, there are those on the left who seem addicted to Drama as well. (I'm talking about the real Left, not the notch just to the left of center where the president actually resides, and which most right-wingers mistake for the real Left.) In the short time between the election of President Obama and his inauguration, I quit reading some of my favorite blogs in disgust because they were overrun with liberal Drama queens, crying out that there was No Difference Between Obama and Bush, that OMFG We Are Betrayed, and I'll Never Vote for a Democrat Again.

The catalyst for this overwrought opera of betrayal and electoral revenge? The selection of evangelist Rick Warren, who's said ignorant things about gay people, to deliver the invocation at the inauguration ceremony. Hey, I'm not crazy about the guy either, but I wasn't ready to write off Obama's entire presidency before it began over a two-minute prayer.

It's amazing that a country so addicted to Drama in its politics managed to elect as president a man who's famous for his abstinence from that intoxicant. He's made "No Drama" an ironclad rule for his staff. This, you may remember, drew no end of criticism from both right and left during the BP oil spill, when the president of the United States failed to break down and weep or to "yell and scream" as the press clearly wanted him to do.

It's hard to break ourselves of Drama addiction. For one thing, there are so many people pushing it, including a famous talk show host who only stops weeping long enough to feverishly sketch out history-spanning conspiracy theories on his chalkboard, spinning a web of Nefarious Threats to Our Way of Life that would make Dan Brown go "nah, too far-fetched."

Another titles a regular segment of his show "The Worst Person in the World." (The difference, I'll admit, is that Keith Olbermann, in his ham-handed way, is trying to be funny. I stress the word "trying.")

Like all pushers, they do it for the money. You don't get a fat contract with cable news or talk radio for being reasonable. You don't get a million views for your YouTube video by filming yourself saying "I respectfully disagree." Push a little Drama, though, and you can get millions to inject a big ol' hit of that sweet, sweet hysteria into their veins, and my Lord, how the money rolls in.

Maybe we need a 12-step program for Drama addiction, with meetings and everything. "Hi, my name's John, and I'm a Drama queen. Yesterday I burst into tears on camera over closing a corporate tax loophole."

Until that day, I'll just keep making fun of them.

Betrayed By the Obama in Your Head

it seems that filmmaker Michael Moore has joined the chorus of people claiming that they've been betrayed if Barack Obama sends more troops to Afghanistan.

Well, Mike, as well as anonymous ex-Marine who began haranguing my wife and daughter at a gas station over their Obama bumper sticker, I don't know who you thought was running, but this is the guy I pulled the lever for:

"The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan. We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as President, I won't. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps, and to crack down on cross-border insurgents. We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights." -Barack Obama, July 15, 2008

I've said since the beginnings of Dubbya's Wacky Iraqi Adventure that we needed to be concentrating on Afghanistan and that Iraq was going to be a long and costly diversion. And part of the reason I backed Barack Obama in the first place was that he felt the same way, and wasn't afraid to say so:

We need more resources in Afghanistan. I have been arguing for this since 2002, when I said that we should finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban instead of going into Iraq. I have called for at least two additional combat brigades to support our efforts there. "-Barack Obama, June 18, 2008

You can have disagreements as to whether or not this buildup is a good idea. Personally, I'm waiting to see the rest of the plan. By which I mean, "30,000 troops to do what, exactly?"

But for people to be weeping and wailing "OMG we are betrayed!" because Obama's sending more troops simply ignores history or worse, rewrites it to suit some image in your head. Leave that for the wingnuts.

UPDATE: The Rude Pundit provides even more Obama quotes on sending more troops to Afghanistan.

Huh. I Did Not See That One Coming.

President Barack Obama awarded Nobel Peace Prize.

The Nobel Committee announced early this morning that President Barack Obama has won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” Obama has “created a new climate in international politics,” the committee said in its announcement, referencing Obama’s agenda to reduce the world’s nuclear stockpiles through international institutions, restart peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians, and build greater alliances with the Muslim world.

I confess, my first reaction was the same one articulated by my son: "For what?" I mean, the guy was apparently nominated two weeks after becoming President. Of course, that wasn't too early for some people to start declaring his Presidency a total failure, but still.

But as it turns out, the prize isn't just awarded for efforts that have already paid off. According to this piece at CBS.com:

more often, the prize is awarded to encourage those who receive it to see the effort through, sometimes at critical moments.

Interesting. Of course, the "new climate in international politics" bit could be a polite way of saying "we're just so damn glad you didn't elect Bomber McCain and that crazy hillbilly from Alaska who thinks she's Metternich because she can see Russia from some frozen windswept beach."

So, which wingnut's head will explode first?