Confessions of a Barack Blocker

Traditionally, opposition parties in America don't exist to simply oppose the president on everything. Though conflict is a central element to democracy, so is compromise. It is rare that a president can achieve his or her entire agenda over the course of their time in office, but there has always been common ground in Washington. Convincing people that the current obstruction is unprecedented is an uphill battle because most people who don't really pay attention assume that "both sides do it." Then when you ask for specific examples, they admit their lack of knowledge won't allow them to give a comparative analysis. You could turn around and gloss their eyes over with data on the constancy of the filibuster since Obama has been president, but what's the point? 

That's why it's so gratifying when a Republican slips up and admits clearly what the Republican modus operandi regarding the Obama presidency is. For example, following the 2008 election, a slew of states where Republicans held legislative majorities passed voter ID laws. The public justification for this was to combat voter fraud. The main argument against these measures was that the voter fraud they were claiming to combat was nearly non-existent as the data proved and that the new laws would overwhelmingly and adversely effect lower income, and minority voters who tend to vote Democratic.  As it turned out, that was the point of passing the voter ID laws in the first place, but no one would publicly admit it until Mike Turzai, Pennsylvania's Republican House Majority Leader stated publicly that voter ID laws were "gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania."

Turzai's brain fart was a full admission that voter ID laws were designed to weight voter turnout. No one besides Turzai would admit this because tactics like this are nefarious and immoral. Also, it would only help prove the charge that Republicans dislike the very people voter ID laws would adversely effect, a charge that Republicans vehemently deny. Unlike the old days, it is not politically advantageous to cop to racial or economic prejudice. So what are biased people to do? They disguise their true motivations with fake nobler sounding bullshit. So when Republicans want to  suppress Democratic voters, they pass laws claiming they want to combat voter fraud. 

So how can someone like me further prove the racial motivations for opposition to Obama or Obam-ositition? I have not been alone in alleging that much of the enmity for Obama and his agenda is racially motivated, but without confessions one can only extrapolate from people's behavior what their motivations are. As I stated, it is not the American legislative tradition for the opposition party to stonewall everything the president wants to do. Obama slanderer Newt Gingrich still brags about the bipartisan budget deals he made with Bill Clinton in the nineties. It took a government shutdown for the two to get together, but they finally found common ground.

The difference today is that more frequently than not, Republicans who are seen as cooperating with the president are targeted for ostracism and ousting by a hostile and vindictive Republican electorate. What accounts for cooperation these days can be as little as suggesting discussing negotiating with Obama. The proof is ample as in this excerpt from Sam R. Hall blogging for Mississippi's Clarion Ledger:

"On local conservative talk radio, [Sen.] Cochran has become a favorite target of guests and some hosts alike. He was recently berated right along with Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, both Republican lawmakers who were part of a dinner Obama hosted for several Republican lawmakers two weeks ago."

So a group of Republicans have dinner with Barack Obama and draw ire from constituents and critics. Hall's post goes on to mention how Cochran is in the crosshairs of Tea Party Republicans, a group that has successfully reappropriated the word "primary" as a verb since 2009 with their goal to "primary" any Republican with with a reputation for being bipartisan. Whereas bipartisanship has previously been a virtue among our legislators, since 2009 Republicans have branded any of their own that have been deemed to be bipartisan as traitors. In their eyes, a bipartisan Republican in Washington is not a practical representative, but an Obama collaborator. 

This is part of the extreme reaction to the Obama presidency and anyone who suggests that "Democrats do the same thing" needs the neurological equivalent of a punch in the mouth if only as a corrective measure. To set the record straight, no Democrat has ever been "primaried" for their bipartisan tendencies. Imagine Ted Kennedy being ousted for helping craft W's No Child Left Behind. It just don't happen. 

It also didn't used to happen in Republican ranks, but something is different. What can it be? It's not Obama's policies, really. The signature items in his agenda include returning tax rates to what they were during the Clinton years. Bill Clinton was never reviled by Republicans as a socialist for the tax rates he marshaled. When the super conservative Heritage Foundation called for an individual mandate for health insurance, no Republicans cancelled their Heritage Foundation newsletter or membership. What exactly is it about Obama that incites extreme, over-the-top histrionics from the right? Quite simply, Obama's (half) black. 

Republican David Gergen commented during the 2012 presidential race how the use of "code" was being used to trigger a racial call to arms against Obama. Code is necessary in an era when you can't openly refer to race as a reason to oppose someone. After all, race is an unacceptably shallow reason to object to a person or so I thought. Thanks to South Carolina Republican State Rep Kris Crawford, the code has been cracked. Crawford, a physician has supported the expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare, but admitted politics prevents the expansion from becoming a reality in many states including South Carolina. Said Crawford in a January, 2013 interview: 

"The politics are going to overwhelm the policy. It is good politics to oppose the black guy in the White House right now, especially for the Republican Party."

 In the end, the politics ended up overwhelming the policy to the point where Crawford voted against the position he supported. what makes it good politics for people like Crawford to oppose the black guy in the White House? There is a proportion of the Republican electorate who can only see things in an adversarial light. When they hear Democratic calls for equality, fairness, justice, and universally accepted notions of the like they assume it to mean (simplistically speaking) taking things that belong to the hard-working white people and giving it to the lazy undeserving black people. By that measure a black Democratic president, according to them would be most aggressive at that mythical model.

I enter as "exhibit A" excuses made by Mitt Romney following his loss in the 2012 presidential election. Romney claimed that he lost because he could not compete with the trillions of dollars in "gifts" Obama gave to minority and young voters. He cited free health care in perpetuity as an electoral inducement. So by Romney's claim, black and brown loafers showed up to the polls in droves because a provision in the law that had not yet taken effect. This is a lie of course. Black and Hispanic people did vote overwhelmingly for Obama, but it probably had more to do with historical trends and backlash from Republican attempts to curb the votes of minorities. Also, Obama won 71% of the Asian vote while Asians only make up 5.6% of the nation's uninsured. I'd almost pay money to hear Romney's racist out-of-touch assessment of why Asian-Americans preferred the black guy. 

My point is that even after losing the race, Romney continued his attempts to capitalize on racially adversarial sentiments of white people who are angry and resentful at the idea of a black president. Why bother? Romney is political toast. On the other hand, it's clear why people like State Rep Kris Crawford ride the race bait bus. He has political potential in a party that has proven itself to be vindictive against members who carry on normally with the people's business as if the president was white. 

I appreciate Kris Crawford's honesty and I see the short-term practicality of him opposing the black guy in the White House, but I don't agree with him that it's "good politics." Compromise in good faith is good politics. Encouraging race bias is not. It is odd to watch a party indignantly deflect charges of racism again and again then continue to cultivate false stereotypes that feed the ill-will of its most extreme members. 

It kind of reminds me of Atticus Finch's closing statements in the Tom Robinson trial from "To Kill a Mockingbird."

"The witnesses for the state with the exception of the sheriff of Maycomb County have presented themselves to you gentlemen, to this court with the cynical confidence that their testimony would not be doubted, confident that you gentlemen would go along with them on the assumption, the evil assumption that all Negroes lie. All Negroes are basically immoral beings. All Negro men are not to be trusted around our women. An assumption that one associates with minds of their caliber."

Minds of that caliber still exist and serve on juries and vote. They have taken control of the Republican Party and they don't take kindly to any of their elected officials doing anything that would contribute in any way giving a black president a legislative victory. They will cross any number of state lines to get back at that person by "primarying" them out of office. You would have to go back over 60 years to the 80th Congress when Republicans used their majorities in the House and Senate to block Harry Truman. No, Harry Truman wasn't black, but because of that, his opponents could not rely on racial appeals to bolster their agenda as can members of the 113th Congress. Lucky for Harry S., the Republican domination of Congress only lasted for two years after which both houses were returned to Democratic control. 

The U.S. census does not account for racists so it is really difficult to determine how many people are responsible for the lagging pace of progress in Washington. It is elementary that we do not suspect white liberals of harboring this anti-black president sentiment. A million dollars says that not one of the authors of the scads of racist tweets about Barack Obama considers themselves a Nancy Pelosi San Francisco liberal. If I am wrong, please tell me because I am dying to meet the person who HONESTLY tweets "I think Obama is a watermelon eatin' ape nigger, but I'm all for gay marriage and gun control."

The fact is, scientifically speaking, the anti-blacks (and anti-hispanics, etc.) will tend to identify as conservatives. If we're all mature about this, we can accept this as true. I'M NOT SAYING ALL CONSERVATIVES ARE RACISTS. Some conservatives like Grover Norquist are just over-reactive financial obsessives and actually draw ire from racist conservatives because they happen to be married to a Muslim person. Mitch McConnell has some love for at least one Asian person, his wife Elaine Chao (unless those gay rumors are true). Former Defense Secretary William Cohen is married to a black woman. 

Now that I have shamelessly qualified myself to judge, let us revisit the ugliness of Kris Crawford's statement. He fully acknowledges, perhaps cynically, that racism is a major factor in the Republican base's opposition to Barack Obama. In order to keep their seats, elected Republicans have to be on board with their base. To do this, elected Republicans must not only stand counter to nearly anything Barack Obama wants to do, they must create a cogent sounding justification for their position that doesn't make them seem that they are being as petty as they are. In addition, they play up any fears or ignorance that already exist. When the 112th Congress met, one of the first actions of the Republican House was to repeal the Affordable Care Act. They called HR 2 (112th) "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act" because it sounded scary. Incidentally, House Speaker John Boehner instructed his caucus to drop the "job-killing" because it wasn't polling well. 

Upon becoming chair of the House  Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in 2011, Darrell Issa vowed to uncover corruption in the Obama Administration. As chair, Issa's method has been consistent. He takes an event. He exaggerates or twists the event into some type of travesty. He accuses Obama of creating the travesty Issa made up. He holds hearings. Testimony contradicts his fake travesty. Then the issue silently goes away. Here is Issa's track record as committee chair:
Solyndra probe - fail
Fast and Furious probe - fail
EPA emissions ruling probe - fail
Benghazi probe - fail
IRS probe - fail
Everything else Issa has pursued - fail

In all these cases, Issa's impotence is not a function of his ability, but of his choices. The same goes for the Republican party as a whole. In the scope of the interest of the American public, they are dead-ending. In their own eyes, they are placating and pandering to a constituency that is dying for Obama's blood. They are programmed to fulfill the outdated Republican agenda of "we just need to scare enough white people." That may have worked at one point, but whatever demographics used make that a winnable scheme are shifting, which is part of what is causing all the racial resentment in the first place. If their response is to double down to placate a shrinking ill-willed few, they have set the alarm for their own demise. Several Republicans warn that their party is in danger of extinction, but if this is how they're going to act, good riddance. 

News Update Feb 21, 2013

And Now, the Comedy Stylings of Mitt "yuk yuk" Romney

According to the New York Times, the Romney campaign has been preparing to create memorable debate moments with rehearsed zingers and one-liners from Romney. Oh boy. The man in Costco shirts has some ground to make up and has shown a penchant for jocularity, which is often marred by his nervous laughter. But the right zinger can live on forever, being trotted out like Christmas decorations every four years during presidential debate season. Among the favorites we still see are veep candidate Lloyd Bentsen telling Dan Quayle "You are no Jack Kennedy." ZINNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGG. And then Quayle became vice president. So even if Mitt Romney doesn't win, with the right one-liner, we can look forward to seeing him being trotted out twenty years from now on a video that'll make us say "look at that 2012 hair."

Zingers in a debate are not something that you presell. They're supposed to seem spontaneous. The danger of hyping your zingers is that expectations get set high and when they come, everyone is sure to be disappointed. The only way not to disappoint is by being super-inappropriate which can be a game-changer, but not in any good way. But now Mitt has to deliver because if he doesn't, it will be the first of his campaign promises to be broken. 

Welfare = Race Baiting: Not a Conspiracy Theory

In my previous post I was pretty tough on the old GOP - tough but fair. I introduced the term chalkboardism for their propensity to desperately throw around untrue notions and conspiracy theories ala Glenn Beck in attempts to vanquish their Democratic foes. It made me wonder what someone in Tank Tea Bag would consider a left-wing conspiracy theory. Just being honest, they would consider anything they didn't want to believe a conspiracy theory because they create their own truths, but I did think of one issue in particular - the use of welfare as racial code.

As I mentioned in the previous post, the Romney campaign has ceased on a lie that Barack Obama has dropped the welfare requirement. Critics like me say that using welfare in cases like this is used to incite a certain segment of white America. Republicans deny this of course. They think they have their tracks covered. They challenge "how can it be about race when no one says anything about race." Oooo. Very tricky. Very tricky indeed. 

Well, it would be tricky except some racists just can't keep their mouths shut. Again, I refer to a previous AOTL post. In it I chronicle some Tea Party shenanigans including a Tea Party gathering in Arkansas at which the host opened with this joke (audio only). Did you click on the link and listen? Well if you didn't, here it is: 

"A black kid asks his mom, 'Mama, What's a democracy?'
"'Well son, that be when white folks work every day so us po' folks can get all our benefits.'
"'But mama, don't the white folk get mad about that?'
"'They sho' do, son. The sho' do. And that's called racism.'"

In all fairness, while the "comedienne" who delivered the joke resigned from her Tea Party group, there were plenty of people in the crowd who were comfortable with the joke as evidenced by the applause. And if you think that these attendees were the only people in America who instinctively correlate welfare with blacks, then the burden of proof is on you. It doesn't take calculus to figure out that there are people like that all over America, most of whom give white people on welfare a pass as evidenced by the fact that the joke was specifically about a BLACK family on welfare. Maybe AOTL should offer a bounty for a recording of any Tea Party group that kicks off with a joke about WHITE people on welfare. I'm guessing they don't think those are as funny. 

Those people in the room who clapped and laughed at that joke and the people like them are the lynchpin (pun intended) of the narrow coalition Romney needs to turn out and vote for him.You would have to be a real brand new type of dumbass to think that Mitt Romney and his campaign are not aware that these people with the racial raw nerve exist. Aside from blacks on welfare, these same people probably get just as ireful at the thought of private equity firms coming in and busting up their factories for scrap metal, but Obama beat Romney to the punch with that commercial bent. 

A Better Late Than Never Review of the Republican Convention

Curiously, two names that were barely mentioned at the Republican National Convention were George W. Bush and Mitt Romney. At least Romney received an invitation. Barack Obama was slandered about once a minute, but as they say, there’s no such thing as bad publicity.

The Republican party is a big tent as Republicans say when they act like they want to be more inclusive. It is a big tent that’s come along way. The sign outside must have said “5 blacks allowed.” Of course, one of those blacks had peanuts thrown on her by an attendee who commented “that’s how we treat animals.” No Republican has uttered a word about this, but if they did they would dutifully point out that the same exact thing happens at Democratic (sorry, Democrat) conventions, only there blacks actually throw the peanuts on whites.

It was a show-stopper when Oprah possessed the body of Ann Romney who came out to speak on behalf of her husband saying things like “I love youuuuuu womeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeen!” and “Mitt wasn’t handed success. He built iiiiiiiiiiiiiiit!” The latter was a variation of this year’s “drill baby, drill” and we know how successful that slogan was. Ann was assigned the double duty of reaching out to women and humanizing Mitt. It was said by some that she should have concentrated on one or the other, but even then, the outcome of zero sum would have probably have been the same. It would have merely allowed her to spend more time doing a half-assed job at whichever. The stories she told of their courtship were pretty underwhelming.

Ann Romney was followed by Chris Christie who talks like he’s got a gun in your face. Okay, so your mother took three buses to get to work. Just don’t shoot me! The word is that people like his tone. They find it real. I find it real off-putting.

Christie and other Republican governors talked mainly about themselves. Guys like Ohio guv John Kasich boasted about how well his state was doing economically, which conflicted with the overall message that Obama effed up the economy. Everyone talked about how their family immigrated here with nothing but holes in their pockets and a dream in their heart so apparently they now have the moral high ground to decide that the wealthy deserve more breaks and the middle class should pay for it.

Paul Ryan did his most important bit for the campaign yet by delivering a speech some say consisted of lies. The truth is that Ryan was intentionally deceptive, leaving out important elements of his telling of events for the purpose of making Barack Obama the villain and Paul Ryan the hero. Oh the skilled orator he was, Ryan delivered his deceptions with the earnestness of a high schooler delivering a Model U.N. speech. Ryan's fact challenged summary of the past four years led the headlines the next day. That just led to more digging which has turned up that Ryan lied about his finish time in a marathon he ran over 20 years ago. Add this to Ryan's claims he never requested Stimulus funds in spite of the existence of signed letters in which he requests Stimulus funds and one can see the impulse of a few people to do a jig in Chicago. 

One of the things polls and pundits dictated Romney put on his convention laundry list was to convey he was made of heart and not hardware. Like Barack Obama and his accomplishments, Mitt Romney does not wear his good deeds on his sleeve. This precipitated an awkward parade of members from his community coming forward to attest to all the nice stuff Romney did for them. There’s no reason to doubt any of the testimony given, but neutral people are more convinced when they are shown and not told.

One key to winning the presidency is to be less fodder than the other guy for the late night funny folks. Mitt avoided flubbing for the most part, but it was Clint Eastwood who really sent things a-Twitter with his comedy routine.  Clint became a surrogate gaffer for the Romney campaign and while Mitt didn’t take the initial heat, he gaffed by association. In all truth, Eastwood did nothing wrong. In another venue it would have just been more funny and less jaw-dropping. Being that it happened at a political convention, judgment tends to be on the puritanical side. Maybe it was his stuttering. Maybe it was his suggestion that the president is profane. Maybe it was that it was prop comedy or that it was a comedy routine at all. Word is that the performance got the Palin vetting, which is to say they had a warm body and a good feeling that things would just work out until something otherwise happened.

The moments during and immediately after Eastwood were like a slow poisoning. Only those with their finger on the pulse were aware that something wasn’t right. As for the floor of convention, he brought down the house, but those were all people who hate Obama, for the most part. I know I found the whole thing surreal and the MSNBC panel had a WTF response. For better or worse it was the Twitter response that delivered the verdict that the Eastwood routine was a near mortal blow.

While the Eastwood appearance was in the process of becoming a controversy, the remaining hour of the convention passed with Marco Rubio introducing Mitt Romney, again by talking about himself and his family’s immigrant past and predictably likening Obama’s America with Castro’s Cuba.

Finally, it was Mitt’s turn. The biggest risk Romney took was walking through the crowd like the president does during a state of the union address, shaking hands on his way to the stage. The speech itself was risk-free and perfunctory signaling Romney’s strategy to let any victory come not from any boldness on Romney’s part, but from the perception of Obama’s failure – that and the oodles of super pac money that will assist his campaign.

And then it was over. The assessment was much like the assessments of everything else Mitt Romney has done in this race which was lukewarm at best. Poll trackers are chomping at the bit looking for Mitt’s bounce and thus far, all indications there is little if any. Some say to wait a little longer, but it fits with Mitt’s designation as a guy that doesn’t strike chords.  That’s cool for a guy that runs companies, but in electoral politics the rich guy that won’t let anyone see his taxes needs to show more than placeholder emotions. Romney did not do that. Now we begin the Democratic convention which will be capped off with speeches by working class hero Joe Biden and chord striker Barack Obama.  Though most people are locked in as to whom they are supporting in this election and it is a close race, more people like Barack Obama personally. More people will be inclined to watch his speech and that event is not likely to be overshadowed by an iconic coot with an empty chair. 

Paul Ryan's Hair: Before and After

As long as all the talk from the Republican National Convention is on the comedy stylings of Eastwood and Chair, it affords me the occasion to be just as petty. I do have a review of the week in the works, but while that is simmering, I would like to address something a little less pithy. I'm talking about Paul Ryan's hair.

I have never been into style or fashion, which makes it more peculiar that for me, the most notable feature of Paul Ryan (pre-Romney-Ryan) was his hairstyle. It totally fit with what we knew of Ryan's political persona. The above portrait on the left is typical of the veep nominee's do prior to his elevation to the next person to lose the race for the vice presidency. Notice the proximity of the hair part, running about an inch to an inch and a half off the centerline of his scalp. There are many ways to describe this look: Hokey, nostalgic, kooky, Norman Rockwell, strange, 1930s, old timey, cultish, holdback, offbeat, patronizing, 1830s, Third Reichy, cornball, supercilious, quaint, sanctimonious, aberrant, etc.

So, I'm no fan of Paul Ryan or his politics and I have always figured that line he hacked just askew off his widow's peak was a metaphor for his personality. "How can I get people to respect me as a real jerk from the past" I imagine him asking himself one day in the mirror. If that was what he was going for, hang a "Mission Accomplished" banner over his pate.

Just watch this now famous propaganda video. In it, Ryan extolls the virtues of Ayn Rand's philosophy of a humanity void of humanity.



The only other hairstyle appropriate for tossing this chum has horns rising out of it.

The reason Ryan finds himself running against Joe Biden now is because of his fan base among hardcore modern Republicans. Republicans love the austere persona Ryan has adopted since a Democrat with a Kenyan father was elected president. Everyone knows, but does not talk about Ryan and the Republicans' desire to shut down America as long as they are not in control. Ryan has become a star of that cabal by talking up more tax cuts and spending cuts, a fierce combo which guarantees a cessation of any agenda, and not to mention an economic standstill which puts any sitting president on the spot.

Ryan is a poster boy for Republican activism, but as Romney needs to shift to the center, optics matter. Ryan can continue to believe the same crazy crap, but I'm guessing that hardcore fuddy-duddy look had to go. It's just like how the list of speakers at the convention was far more moderate than the actual platform. In the same fashion, Ryan had to moderate his hardline hair into something a little less scary and freakish. When Ryan was (erroneously) introduced as the next president of the United States he was sporting the less severe coif we see on the right side of the above photo. Whereas the left photo says "I don't care about your problems unless you're rich," the photo on the right says "Let's all barbecue."

The old hairstyle was fine for Paul Ryan, the suddenly severely fiscally conservative chairman of the House Budget Committee, but there was no way he could address the nation as the VP nominee for the GOP looking like the ghost of Simon Legree. It just is not a sympathetic look. If you rant to the nation about how much more wicked Barack Obama is than you are with that passe hair part that looks like it was combed with shard of glass, people will know you are lying. If you want to lie and get away with it, your odds are better if you bring the parting of the hair closer to zero degrees latitude.

I believe the hair was addressed in the vetting process. Five bucks says the "before" hair was a deal breaker. Someone in the Romney campaign knew it looked like Ryan was wearing his a-hole on his sleeve and gave a "lose the strangeness" ultimatum. One Fantastic Sam's visit later, the Pride of Janesville was ready to go. As a proper toady Ryan kept his mouth shut on Romney's own hair issues, and for that matter, the fact that Romney walks like he still has Gingrich's foot up his butt.

Why Does Mitt Care About Welfare?

Say "Mitt Romney's Rich" Five Times Fast

Mysterious Mitt has spoken, and the one thing he isn't flip-flopping  on (so far) is that he won't divulge any more tax returns than already promised. 


"The Opposition research of the Obama campaign is looking for anything they can use to distract from the failure of the president to reignite our economy... And I'm simply not enthusiastic about giving them hundreds or thousands of more pages to pick through, distort and lie about" Romney said. 


The second part of Romney's statement is what should put a curious look on your face. Here are a few other things Romney could be saying there:
 -"And I'm simply not that good enough to run against him."
-"And if this is how he's pummeling me when I don't release my taxes, imagine how he's going to pummel me when I DO!"
-"And I'm simply not enthusiastic about revealing what I'm trying to conceal."


It's a really hollow excuse. The Obama campaign doesn't need tax returns if they just wanted something to "distort and lie about." They could "distort and lie" about anything. That's what's great about lying and distorting, but by pressing Romney for his tax returns, they are taking the path of least resistance. They won't need to devote any energy to lying or distorting because according to Romney's steadfastness, there is a doozy of a whopper in Mitt's 1040s. 


Order a large popcorn if you're going to follow this story because it will be good. Even in a best case scenario for Romney where he coughs up the paper and there's nothing to hide, it still looks weird. That is where Obama should be hitting him now just in case this was all a red herring. It should be pointed out how Romney is stonewalling the people he is running to serve and how his penchant for obfuscation shows a lack of character and leadership.


And that's the best case scenario. If Romney refuses to show his taxes, he is toast even if unemployment goes up to 20 percent. He most likely knows this which is why he is probably just looking for a way to figure out how he can put it all on the table with the best spin possible. Whatever he is hiding, whether there's a year or two that he didn't pay taxes or that son Taggart is a pre-op human, he needs to reveal it in the best possible light instead of just letting the press have at it.


Good luck to him. He's going to need it. After all the effort to pass those voter ID laws, and keep the economy on ice, it all may have been for nothing. This is not one of those things that could go either way in the mind of the public. If a majority of people already think that Mitt Romney should show us his taxes, chances are that same majority, if not more aren't going to like what Romney is hiding. By the time the Republican convention comes around they may be looking for a way for Romney not to show up. Things are not looking good for the arrogant one.


Is it November yet?

A Surrogate of One (rated R for language)

Here’s a model of partisan debate between the gop and the dems from the 1980s to a time not too far ago: Democratic partisans would be winning on an issue. That is to say they would have the support of a majority of Americans behind them. Let’s say the winning issue was “kids should eat less sugar.” Of course kids should eat less sugar, but if control-obsessed conservatives went along with the issue, it would mean (to them) ceding a victory since it was a Democratic initiative in the first place. So instead of giving away an easy victory by agreeing with Democrats, the Party that Lincoln Would be Ashamed of would scuttle it all by accusing the Democrats of being “soft on vegetables.” Instead of sticking to their message, Democrats would go on the defensive and try to prove that they weren’t soft on vegetables resulting in an abandonment of an issue they could have won if they had just had enough backbone not to be scared off message. The Republicans would take a bunch of money from Big Sugar and use that to beat more Democrats.

Nothing like a little redux as Barack Obama runs for reelection without the help of any real surrogates. As Obama was getting some traction going after Mitt Romney for being a Bain Capital vulture, a coterie of  cowardly Democrats disavowed the Leader of the Party’s message. They were scared of being associated with what Obama was saying, and the worst part is that no one from the other side even had to do anything. Democrats, including a former two term president actually self-wedgied. They self-swirlied. They became a Republican’s wet dream: Democrats that are predisposed to scaring themselves off message. It’s not a big deal that those Dems revealed their own lack of fortitude, but to not have the back of the president who was on the winning side of a message was repulsive.

The likes of shithole mayor Corey Booker were scolding Obama’s Bain angle as if Booker was the teacher and Obama was a fifth grade scamp. WTF? And it seemed for a while as if Obama was scared away from using Mitt’s “business experience” against him, but no. Obama is like the Marvel character Blade, the half human, half vampire vampire fighter. It’s like Obama has enough Republican in him to successfully fight Republicans. The Bain strategy is out of the Republican playbook – take Romney’s strength and use it against him. The Bain ads are back up and playing in the strategic markets. Wherever there’s a white man who didn’t go to college, who is living close to the margins, but wouldn’t vote for a black guy in a million years, there’s a Bain ad. Wherever there’s a dude who worked for a company for years and then suddenly got fired when a private equity company liquidated his firm, there’s a Bain ad. Wherever people live in a place that looks like the “Silence of the Lambs” scene where Jodi Foster is investigating the disappearance of Fredrica Bimmel, there’s a Bain ad.

Romney’s only comeback to this attack is that “Obama wants to punish success,” but that line’s got no grip on anyone outside of the people carrying water for the 1%. When it comes to the contest of which candidate more people see as out of touch, Romney wins! He’s the one that don’t get it, with his patrician underbite and shit.

Someone was recently deriding Obama for the fact that he isn’t grooming any underlings to follow up after him. No wonder. Fewer people in Romney’s own party like him yet he seems to get more respect. At least there’s no one sabotaging his strategy. Obama is probably in the process of looking for someone to take under his wing. It’s just that the frisking procedure takes so friggin’ long. Before you take on an apprentice, you’d like to know that said apprentice won’t go on the Sunday morning shows and talk shit about you. It’s insulting, especially when you know what you are doing is right. You would think that the guy who killed Bin Laden could get some props from his own party. How many times has Corey Booker been elected president? Exactly.

I have no doubt at the amount of shouting and cursing going on at the Romney campaign HQ coming from Romney himself. Obama is bringing up just what Romney dared not thought anyone would have the balls to call attention to – his record. “Of all the nerve” must be what Romney is thinking as this strategy sinks in. For him it must be frustratingly effective. It does no good to think about how effective the message would be if high-profile Obama “supporters” pitched in. They have their motivations, which may include trying to stay in the good graces of the fat cats. Whatever their situation, we may have a Little Red Hen going on in the barnyard. The leader of the Democratic party has an idea, direction, and goal, but he can’t seem to get the rest of the farm animals to get on board. When Obama wins a second term, the shirkers and wusses will be filled with congratulations and hopes of selective senility. I’m sure Obama is a better man than me and when that time comes, he won’t tell them to go fuck themselves.