The Spencerian

The Blessings of Liberty: Supreme Court Upholds the Affordable Care Act

by Benjamin J. Kirby

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Constitution of the United States of America

I may be the luckiest man you know.

Most of us gauge our luck using a number of indicators: good job, supportive family and friends, enough money and free time to do the things you like.  I have all of those things, and though they are indicative of some luck, real luck comes in the form of good health.  

After all, if you don't have your health -- if you're sick all the time, if you're in pain -- just how good are any of those other things to you?  

I am a healthy man.  I have been to the emergency room twice that I can remember.  Once, I was around ten or eleven and I flipped my go-cart in the parking lot of War Memorial Stadium, just down the road from our house.  I scraped all the skin off my knee and had stitches and a lot of pain.  I didn't even spend the night.

The second time, I was playing a drunken version of kill-the-man at the Curry College football field with my friend Dave when I took either a boot heel or patch of ice to my eyelid and sliced it wide-open.  I'm not even sure they gave me stitches then.  They did, however, make me throw away my bloody, muddy clothes.   

I get a cold every now and then, and yes, there is the liver thing, but overall, I am a very healthy man.

It was a few months ago -- around January or so -- and Emeline was still getting used to her new "big girl" bed.  She was teething, too, so the nights were pretty long.  In and out of her bedroom, in and out of ours.  It was just awful.  

So we decided to put her back in her crib.  Just for one night.

Just to get a little sleep.

I'll never forget it.  The sickening thud.  I knew what it was before my eyes even registered the time on the clock by the bed -- 3:36 am, the digital black numbers on the glowing blue background, burned into my memory forever.

I felt myself say it, didn't even hear it: She fell out.  Duncan was up, too, and she said it out loud.  I heard the words, but I could feel her panic.  

My legs moving, hard, efficient, on the balls of my feet, my toes.  Fast.

It's amazing the things you can think about in the time it takes to get from my side of the bed to Emmy's bedroom, which is all of twelve steps away when you're not in a hurry.  Going full throttle, all I could think about was what might be broken.  That maybe we'd be lucky if she landed on the rug just right.  Then the worst.  Did she split her head open on the dresser?  Did she snag her foot in the slats, break her ankle?  Break her arm?  Break her neck?  

Yes, I thought about the trip to the ER.

And yes, somewhere in the usually-dormant but coldly analytical part of my mind, I began calculating it.  Some piece of my soul acknowledged it, and somewhere in my racing, breaking heart, I considered it: what is this going to cost us?  If you are a parent, or care for a loved one, you may not like it, you may not admit it, but you know you've made those same calculations in the back of your mind in a time of crisis, too.  

I threw my shoulder into her door and knew right away she was at least a little bit okay.  She was sitting up, crosslegged -- criss-cross applesauce! -- sobbing her eyes out.  Sitting up.  That meant she could move.  There was no visible blood, and as I grabbed her up -- "Baby, baby, baby, it's okay, baby..."  -- I felt her small body shudder against me, and, too slowly for my taste, her little arms finally wrapped around me and she sobbed through the tears, "Daddy..."

I was so scared.  So was Duncan.  So was Emmy, but once we calmed her down, she was fine.  I think she even slept (though I do think we thought about keeping her awake in case there was a concussion).  Duncan and I, on the other hand, were fried for the night.  

We were scared when it happened.  And I'll admit I was scared at the prospect of driving her to the ER.  Scared of what it would be like to wait by her bedside for scans and x-rays and test results to come back.  Scared of what it'd be like driving her home.  

I'm kind of still scared, I guess.  

Maybe that's just part of having people in your life whom you love so much you know you could never live without them.

After the Supreme Court ruling on the Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, maybe now I won't have to reserve part of my brain -- part of my already overloaded system of emotions -- worrying about costs, about what may be covered and what is not.  And I'm a guy who has good health coverage.  

Or if I'm still going to be mildly neurotic, at least maybe the millions and millions of other Americans who didn't have coverage before now won't have to worry about it when something -- the unthinkable or just a close call that makes you think of the unthinkable -- happens with their own babies and loved ones. 

The Supreme Court did something remarkable today.  There is an abundance of analysis out there, and you can find it as well as I can. 

From my view, it's a new day for many Americans who may not be as lucky as I have been.  Perhaps it is an opportunity to -- finally, at long last -- think about our national health care not in terms of cost, or what we can afford, but in terms of our loved ones, their well-being, their "general Welfare."  

Democracy, like my daughter, is a thing in constant motion.  I'll let the legal experts explain to you what happened today.  And you can bet I'll come back with more political analysis on this later.  In the meantime, I've got a little girl to tuck in one last time. 

She finally sleeps straight through without a problem in her big girl bed.  Tonight, may we all sleep straight through, tranquil in our domesticity.

Off the Radar Things Go Around Edition

by Benjamin J. Kirby

I've mentioned it here and there before, but the Supreme Court ruling on locking up children for life really was a milestone.

The 5-to-4 majority opinion by Justice Elena Kagan, with Justice Anthony Kennedy joining the moderate liberals, held that the mandatory punishment is unconstitutional because it fails “to take into account how children are different, and how those differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing them to a lifetime in prison.”

"[C]hildren are different" indeed.  

Having been at the outer perimeter, in the lower staff levels of the criminal justice world (at the Department of Justice, and for five years at the Office of National Drug Control Policy before that), I've long been depressed that our backwards, anachronistic, and too-often barbaric prison system -- especially as it relates to juveniles -- is never discussed or even much considered in the public square.  

I have a suspicion that this is one of the areas where our system of slow democracy will ultimately serve us well, if not expediently.  It's wrong to lock children up for life, even if they do something truly awful and it makes us feel good in the short-term.  By the way, it's wrong to lock up small-time drug offenders with ridiculously long sentences, too.

By the way, it's wrong not just morally, but fiscally, too.  It's expensive as hell to keep these people in prison for a lifetime.  Yes, the cost to our collective American soul is even greater when you consider that we know the answers, here.  We know the better investment, which is prevention.  It's early education, it's engaged parenting, it is a society that values children.  It is a society that recognizes prison isn't a place to lock away our problems for a generation.  

Maybe this ruling is a first step in that discussion.

# # # #

There are some early, early signs Obama may be pulling away -- just a bit -- in Ohio between he and Romney.  They may be tightening up in Pennsylvania.  

But the interesting one, via Talking Points Memo, is -- big shocker -- Florida:

Look at that.  It's just steady, steady, steady.  

I know: it's awfully early to be looking at polling match-ups.  We haven't even had the Conventions yet.  

Still, the early signs point to a tight race.

# # # #

Speaking of conventions, someone please explain to me why it's a good idea for big-name Democrats to skip the convention in North Carolina?  Because candidates should be in their districts?  

On one side that, from DCCC chief Congressman Steve Israel, sounds kind of weird to me.  On the other, I get what Senator Claire McCaskill is saying:

Sen. Claire McCaskill, who is running a tough reelection campaign in Missouri, gave the same reasoning for her decision not to attend. “You’ve got to say to people at home, ‘Which is more important?’” McCaskill said Wednesday on “Morning Joe.” “Going to a place with a bunch of party honchos and having cocktail parties, or being at home talking to them?”

# # # #

And speaking of Congressman Israel, I just got an email from him asking me to donate to Keith Fitzgerald's campaign.

Sure, crooked thug Buchanan is under a lot of fire these days, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have a fortune to spend against Keith.  And he will.  So help Keith if you can.

# # # #

Debby left quite a mess here in Florida, but those interior-west wildfires are awfully scary, too.  Mass evacuations continue.

# # # #

Even though he's leaving public service, we still have a lot to learn from State Rep. Rick Kriseman: he's having a presentation on our new PIP -- Personal Injury Protection -- law, along with a press conference.  Check it out:

Presentation on PIP with Press Conference to follow
10:15 a.m., Friday, June 29, 2012
West St. Petersburg Community Library
6605 5th Avenue N, St. Petersburg, FL 33710

If you're around, it'll be worth going to, I am sure.

# # # #

Over at Talking Points Memo, they have compiled some great photos from the Obama White House over the last three years.  There are a lot of good ones.

Of course, I'm a sucker for iconic images, so this one -- Obama and the late Senator Ted Kennedy -- is my current favorite.  

It is particularly poignant this week, given that health care reform -- Senator Kennedy's lifelong passion -- is in the balance.  

 -- More later -- 

A Random Health Care Guess

by Benjamin J. Kirby

I don't know what the Supreme Court is going to say on the Affordable Care Act -- "Obamacare".  

I've read a lot about the Court, but I'm still an amateur at best on what they may say or why they may say something.  After all, with their conservative tilt, who might have guessed they'd basically gut the barbaric Arizona immigration law? (And Jan Brewer can call it victory all she wants, but what the beating heart of the Justice Kennedy-written opinion was that "the State may not pursue policies that undermine federal law."  A blow for the states-rights conservatives if I ever heard it.)  Indeed, who would have thought this Court would have banned states from imposing inhumane mandatory life sentences on juveniles.

Still, everyone acknowledges the Obama health care reform efforts are something else entirely.  

There are a handful of different scenarios out there, all of which amount to versions of three different things: they uphold the entire law, the strike down the entire law, or they uphold most of the law but strike down the individual mandate piece.  

If you're making me guess, I'd suppose they might look at the third one, there.  

But then again, I'm not so sure.  Maybe not.

Like I said,  I've read a lot about the Court recently, but I'm not a lawyer.  I don't know what the individual members of the Court might be thinking.  I've also read a lot about Chief Justice Roberts lately, too, and there may be one thing I know about him that I am pretty sure is true: he is aware of the image of the Court, and he is aware of the history and the gravity of the moment.  It is for these reasons he almost assuredly orchestrated things so that he would author the majority opinion in the case.    

I know that Supreme Court Justices do not decide cases based on poll numbers, popularity, or -- theoretically -- their own political biases or opinions.  They decide them based on the Constitutionality of the law before them.  

I'll say it one more time: I'm not a lawyer, but I can't imagine that there's not more than just the Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act on the Chief Justice's mind.  

In closing, let's shift to the Executive Branch quickly.  Suppose the Court overturns Obamacare, or even just the individual mandate.  This may be a short-term defeat for President Obama, but I'm not so sure it is not a longer term policy gain if he wins re-election.  

All the progressives and lefties squawked for forever when Obama basically dropped the idea of universal coverage.  

But if the individual mandate -- the Federal government requiring you to purchase something from a private health insurance provider -- is overturned, doesn't he have an interesting opening?  Couldn't he come back in January of 2013, just after his inauguration, and say, Well, the Supremes said no-go on the mandate.  Let's just do universal coverage.  A long-angry wing of the base would have nowhere to go, the right-wing whackos -- presumably still running at least half of Congress -- would be hemmed into the ultimate box, and Americans would be on the verge of universal health care coverage.

Easier said than done, I know.  We've got an election to get through, after all.

That, and a Supreme Court decision to read.

You Survived Tropical Storm Debby, and All You Got was This Lousy Post

by Benjamin J. Kirby

We're fine, though a lot of downtown Gulfport is flooded.  A great little place down the road called Pass-a-Grille was hit pretty hard.  Hopefully they'll all land on their feet.

Anyway, it was one of those days where I think we were kind of recovering from spending a weekend cooped up in the house.  Duncan had a doctor's appointment, and brought Finn by work.  So today was just sort of odd, too.  

And now apparently Debby has changed course again and is headed back east.  Just weird.

So I'm keeping one eye on that, one eye out for my neighbors, trying to get a lot done at work, and a little time to do it, and watching for a lot fo political fallout this week with the Supreme's health care ruling.  Today was already a big deal with the ruling on juvenile offenders, which didn't get enough play because it was overshadowed by the immigration stuff, which was kind of a win for Obama, I thought.  

We'll see how the rest of the week goes -- weather-wise, and in our world of politics.

Komen and Planned Parenthood Part II: The History Revision Begins

by Benjamin J. Kirby

It is called re-writing history, and here is how it works.

The Susan G. Komen for the Cure organization essentially torpedoes its own brand back in February or so.  They do this by cutting their support and funding for Planned Parenthood.

There is outrage.  Well-earned outrage.

The explanations about why they cut their funding are ambiguous.  The outrage grows.  The explanations change, evolve (devolve?) until the truth we all knew comes out: it was politically motivated.

The V.P. at Komen who started the mess resigns in disgrace.  The V.P., if you'd forgotten her name, is Karen Handel.  She ran for Governor of Georgia and got an endorsement from a pretty big name in Republican politics: Mitt Romney.  You'll want to remember that for later. 

Breast cancer survivors like Linda Burger bravely speak out against Komen.  The Komen folks reverse themselves under a mountain of pressure.  Komen, run by a well-credentialed Republican named Nancy Brinker, tries to pick up the pieces.

You would think the lesson might be fairly clear.  But apparently Campbell Brown -- she of the Obama condescension complaints --  is at it again.  This time it's Planned Parenthood.  They are... wait for it...  "driven by blind partisanship, electing to burn bridges instead of building them."

Rule Number One when re-writing history: figure out what the bad guys did wrong, then say the good guys are doing it now.  

Turns out Planned Parenthood wasn't nice enough to Senator Susan Collins of Maine.  Or something.  

Whatever.  My favorite part has to do with Brown's foray into judgeships:

Senator Collins once had close ties to the group. Planned Parenthood endorsed her in 2002 because of her strong record of votes supporting abortion rights. Yet in her 2008 campaign, Planned Parenthood turned on her. The issue was her vote to confirm Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court. While the vote was a challenging one for Senator Collins, she says she came to it after speaking with Mr. Alito about his respect for precedent and whether he considered Roe v. Wade settled law. (Senator Collins has since also voted to confirm Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.) Ms. Collins was acting in the traditional (and admirable) spirit of the Senate, which tends to confirm judicial nominees unless the person is clearly unqualified.

So... the "Senate... tends to confirm judicial nominees" huh?  

Obama has 72% of his judicial nominees confirmed, the lowest percentage in a generation.  The average waiting time for an Obama appointee to the Circuit Court to get confirmed is 136 days.  Under W. it was 28.  For an Obama District Court Candidate, it's 93 days.  Under W., 22.  

It is obvious the Republican Senate is deliberately blocking Obama's judicial nominees.  Period.  

This is information I'm sure Campbell has ready access to, and if not, she can ask her husband, Dan Senor, a W. flak and senior Romney -- he who endorsed Karen Handel, let's not forget -- advisor.  At least last time she mentioned in the piece that she was married to a high-ranking Republican.    

As for supporting Samuel Alito to the high Court, since Planned Parenthood said this...

Alito has a record of hostility toward women's rights, and we believe he would likely vote against protections for women's health in Carhart v. Gonzales and any other abortion case to come before him as a Supreme Court justice. We call on the Senate to reject his nomination.

...don't you think they might've closed the door on any support for Alito and his allies?  

But of course, they haven't.  More recently, Planned Parenthood has said this...

Under separate cover, Republican Senators have also expressed opposition to these extreme proposals. Senator Lisa Murkowski and Senator Olympia Snowe have publicly stated their support for the preventive health care that Planned Parenthood provides. And Senator Scott Brown and Senator Susan Collins have highlighted the importance of family planning and women’s health programs.

A paragraph littered with Republican names!  Blind partisanship!  Bridges!  Burning!  

The actual best part of the piece comes when Campbell desperately tries to show the "blind partisanship" of Planned Parenthood.  Here's their quote:

“Though in recent years, we have disagreed on a few key pieces of legislation, we look forward to continuing to work with Senator Collins on issues that are mutually important to her and to Planned Parenthood.”

Wow.  Um.  Harsh... words?  

I genuinely don't know what to say.  They look forward to continuing to work with Senator Collins, and Campbell seems to read that as "losing... an important ally." 

Is it that she's just not that smart?

Jesus.

The stuff about Congressman Dold -- a Republican who has, in fact, introduced legislation to save federal funding to Planned Parenthood -- is a bit more nuanced.  But what Campbell fails to mention is that Dold has also voted to strip Planned Parenthood of funding.  

Tell me: why would Planned Parenthood call him an ally?  Why wouldn't they support his opponent, especially if they could count on that person's support?  

I think it's a little bit low-brow for Campbell to offer that she is a person who "believes abortions should be safe, legal and rare."  If that is true, then why support the positions of those who would defund Planned Parenthood, an organization working to do just that?  

And so two things are happening here.  Yes, the revisionist history has begun.  This whole mess from a few months ago wasn't about Komen and their political leadership acting in a what we might call a blindly partisan way.  This was about Planned Parenthood and their offending ways!

The Reagan quote at the bottom she uses is the tip-off for the second thing: it's what I call the both-sides-er-isms, what some other blogs call high broderism.  It's this idea that both sides of the political aisle are kind of terrible -- which, when you peek behind the curtain, isn't really what is being insinuated at all.

Now, go with me on this for a minute.  If you can stomach it, go read Sally Quinn's virtually insufferable latest where she announces the end of power in Washington, DC (take note of who is in the picture, there at the top) 

In April, at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner, my husband, Ben Bradlee, and I found ourselves sandwiched between the Kardashians and Newt and Callista Gingrich. Heavily made up and smiling for the cameras, the reality TV family and the political couple were swarmed over by the paparazzi, who were screaming and shouting the celebrities’ names to make them look toward the cameras for that million-dollar photograph.

I was shoved up against Callista’s hair and nearly broke my nose. It was scary. I felt as if I had been caught in a crowded theater and someone had yelled fire. Ben and I (he spouting expletives all the way), grabbed onto each other and managed to escape to the equally crowded hallway where desperate celebrity guests were heading toward the ballroom, murmuring to us as they passed, “Get me out of here.”

It was telling that Vanity Fair had bought more tables at the dinner than most of the Washington news organizations.

On the way home (we skipped the after-parties), I suddenly realized that this grotesque event signaled the end of power as we have known it. That dinner — which seemed to have more celebrities, clients and advertisers than journalists and politicians — was the tipping point.

Goodness.  Whatever is a girl to do.

Now, same damn newspaper that I still try with all my heart to love, go read the equally insufferable Kathleen Parker on how Ann Romney's dressage horses are really all about physical therapy for her MS.  I shit you not:

For Ann Romney, riding has been helpful in dealing with her multiple sclerosis. Indeed, horseback riding is a commonly recommended activity for MS sufferers. Because the natural walking gait of the horse is similar to a human’s, riding helps restore balance, coordination and posture, all of which can be affected by the disease’s assault on the spine and central nervous system.

Why, then, have some seen fit to ridicule Ann Romney’s choice of activities? Stephen Colbert can be forgiven his fun with the news, which focused on dressage as the not-so-common-man’s sport. But others have been less funny. Leading the charge on the political side has been MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell, who, while insisting that he wasn’t commenting on Romney’s MS, pointed out that the Romneys treat the horse as a business rather than a health expense.

Pro tip, friends and neighbors: if the Supreme Court overturns the Affordable Health Care Act, you probably won't get a dressage horse for your MS.  Sorry, dude.  

What does all of this mean?  How does it all tie together?  

Why, as Ms. Parker asks, this war on success?  Why so condescending, Barack Obama?  Why won't Barack and Michelle go out and be the "leaders" of social Washington (as Sally Quinn sobs, apparently without a lick of shame)?

Why won't Obama just nominate qualified judicial nominees that can be supported by the filibuster-happy Republican Senate?  Why are they such political ogres Planned Parenthood?

Gosh, if only those uptight liberals, progressive and Planned Parenthood types were more social, shit might get done in Washington!

It's a load of baloney.  

I'm not sure why the New York Times continues to publish this hack nonsense from Campbell Brown.  I sort of wish they'd stop.

And before I get the sideways glares and under-the-breath mutterings than I'm a sexist bastard -- anti- Brown, Quinn, and Parker -- let me proudly note that Betty Cracker and Anne Laurie were here first.

Vern Buchanan Scandal Reaches National Audience

by Benjamin J. Kirby

This will likely get overrun by the Sandusky verdict, which is due to be read any moment now, but it should not go without comment that the Vern Buchanan campaign cash scandal is garnering national attention.  Anderson Cooper had a segment on his CNN show tonight:

What else can you say about that?  

Here's what the FEC had to say about the most corrupt Congressman in Washington:

There is substantial reason to believe that Representative Buchanan attempted to influence the testimony of a witness in a proceeding before the FEC...

As Drew Griffin reported, the House Ethics Committee is not known for expediency.  However, the grand jury in Tampa may be a lot faster.  So may the IRS -- also investigating Buchanan (at this point, can we just assume everyone is investigating him, and just make a special note when someone is not?).

Enough is enough.  It's time to support one of the good guys. 

Go help Keith Fitzgerald -- an honest man and a guy who will be the kind of Representative the people of the Florida 13th Congressional District actually deserve.  

Finally Friday I'll Try Edition

by Benjamin J. Kirby

I realized the other day that maybe you needed a Finn update.  

He's doing great.  We're all doing great, actually.  He is huge -- up around 14 pounds, I think.  Already getting to where he can't fit into 3 month-old stuff.  Remember, he's only two months old on July 2, a week from Monday.  

But we've gotten him to smile and laugh, and if you talk to him for a bit, he's starts to "talk" back a little, cooing and making noises.  

Emeline is amazing with him.  She loves her little brother, a lot.  She holds him, very gently, likes to pat him, and loves to bring him toys.  

Duncan is doing well, too.  So am I.

I think we're all really very happy, in fact.  Still kind of trying to find our way with respect to a routine -- and that won't happen until Duncan goes back to work.  

I'd kind of forgotten how fun babies can be.  Not that I don't love having a two year-old -- they're fun, too... just different.  Finn is a very cool little boy, and we're just so lucky to have him in our family. 

# # # #

I think it's unconscionable the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has a "perfect" record with the U.S. Supreme Court this term.

I'm hopeful for the Affordable Health Care Act, but this is not a promising sign.

# # # #

As you know, I love it when government's do innovative things.  

It looks like the Mayor of Tampa is doing just that with Hack-A-Thon 2012.

# # # #

A day after the Romney Campaign openly scolded Florida Governor Rick Scott about staying on-message, it would appear that the hospital grifter is not listening.

If Rick Scott got an order from Mitt Romney to temper his cheery talk about the Florida economy, it clearly didn’t take. The Republican governor proudly boasted that his state was booming in a speech in front of Latino officials just hours before President Obama was scheduled to speak at the same event.

Can the Romney Campaign control anything?

# # # #

Peter Schorsch at SaintPetersblog has honored me by nominating me for a long-elusive Netroots Award in the category of Best Writer.

Best Writer: Anyone whose writings is published at any of the above websites is eligible for this one. Winners should have one or more of the following qualities: good grammar and presentation, provides original reporting, has a good sense of humor, shows creativity, has a strong personal touch, or has an effect on the real world because of their writing. This is the one award I wish I would have won by now, but, alas, there are much better writers out there than me.  One of them, Benjamin Kirby of The Spencerian, is my nomination here. When I think of Ben’s writing, I think of the scene in the West Wing when Sam (Rob Lowe) is asked who his favorite non-fiction writer is, with an answer like David McCullough or Jon Meachem expected to be given. Instead, he replies that his favorite writer is his colleague, Toby.  That’s how I feel about Ben.  Yes, there are many, many more famous political writers out there, but Ben Kirby is someone who speaks to me.

Anybody who does any writing at all -- whether fiction, non-fiction, blogging about politics or whatever -- knows that the real joy of it, indeed the reason to do it at all, is recognition, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant.

Well, Peter's recognition and nomination is significant, and I would hope he knows how grateful I am.  

My only question now is, does this make me Toby?

# # # #

The blogging week goes from great, to even greater, when my friends at Progress Florida pick me among a handful of other blogs for a Best of the Blogs post, as they did this week.  This week it was for my June 17 post on the ongoing GOP immigration fumble.

Thanks, gang.

# # # # 

It's always a big deal when the President of the United States travels anywhere.  This quick, behind-the-scenes look of what it's like when he comes to New York City -- a city that's pretty used to presidents and dignitaries -- gives you an idea of just how complex the process really is:

It's a cool video, and reminds me of one of my regrets of my time in Washington, DC: not volunteering to work a trip for the President.  Sure, there was a Presidential Advance Office -- the folks who planned and staffed presidential trips -- but they would use you in some capacity if you signed up and asked to go on a trip.  

I never did.  What a dope.  I should have at least tried.  

# # # #

I'm not perfect, just another man.  

It's finally Friday.

The Bully Election

by Benjamin J. Kirby

If you think about it, you really can't be surprised by what the theme of this presidential election will inevitably be: bullying.

Yes, this is the Bully Election.  

This first hints of the theme actually first emerged before the last election, five years ago when the Boston Globe published the story of the Romney Family dog tied to the roof of a car for a road trip.  Think what you will about animals, love dogs or hate them, can you imagine anyone but a near-caricature of a bully doing that?  Again, whether you think Romney is in the wrong on this particular story or not, you certainly cannot deny that the powerful imagery persists even today.  

Then the meme appeared to resurface several months ago, back in the thick of the GOP Primary, when Mitt Romney said he "likes" being able to fire people.

To be fair to Romney, it was widely acknowledge that the line -- "I like being able to fire people who provide services to me." -- was largely taken out of context.  But the damage was done.

Later, Romney would express his lack of concern for the "very poor."  

"I’m not concerned with the very poor. We have a safety net there," Romney told CNN. "If it needs repair, I’ll fix it."

It wasn't a gaffe.  It was his explanation of his campaign's strategy.  A picture of who Mitt Romney is and the kind of campaign he was going to have was beginning to appear.

Then in early May, the Washington Post featured an in-depth story of a young Mitt Romney, a high school senior at the prestigious Cranbrook School, who not only apparently maintains no real friends from that time (certainly not many who would defend him), but who also apparently held a classmate against his will and cut his hair with scissors.   

John Lauber, a soft-spoken new student one year behind Romney, was perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality. Now he was walking around the all-boys school with bleached-blond hair that draped over one eye, and Romney wasn’t having it.

“He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!” an incensed Romney told Matthew Friedemann, his close friend in the Stevens Hall dorm, according to Friedemann’s recollection. Mitt, the teenage son of Michigan Gov. George Romney, kept complaining about Lauber’s look, Friedemann recalled.

A few days later, Friedemann entered Stevens Hall off the school’s collegiate quad to find Romney marching out of his own room ahead of a prep school posse shouting about their plan to cut Lauber’s hair. Friedemann followed them to a nearby room where they came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground. As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors.

Though Romney offered an unhelpful apology later, again, the damage was done.  Something more that just a picture of a campaign with a mean-spirited message was now beginning to develop.  

More recently, Romney decided to pick on firefighters, police officers and teachers. 

"He [Obama] says we need more firemen, more policemen, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It’s time for us to cut back on government and help the American people."

Picking on these public sector employees goes beyond bad campaign tactics.  Frankly, these are more than just the words of a guy who "doesn't get it."  But more on that in a moment.

There is news out today that Bain Capital, the company run by Mitt Romney, moved American jobs overseas.  

Mitt Romney’s financial company, Bain Capital, invested in a series of firms that specialized in relocating jobs done by American workers to new facilities in low-wage countries like China and India.

During the nearly 15 years that Romney was actively involved in running Bain, a private equity firm that he founded, it owned companies that were pioneers in the practice of shipping work from the United States to overseas call centers and factories making computer components, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Is outsourcing American jobs bullying behavior per se?  Probably not, but it certainly doesn't help what we have to say is a very real image problem for Romney.

Of course, this has gone beyond Romney.  In fact, it may be that Romney, the candidate who simply outlasted the competition and for whom the GOP base simply settled, is the perfect choice after all.  In what other moment could Newt Gingrich actually fire up the base by calling President Obama the "food stamp president"?  In what other campaign could Texas Governor Rick Perry actually make executing people in his home state an applause line?  When else could the Republican audience in a GOP debate cheer the idea of letting a man die simply because he didn't have insurance?  

This is the campaign of interrupting the President during an address to Congress.

This is the campaign of threatening to throw acid on women Senators.

This is the campaign of using your power to throw legal voters off the rolls for no other reason than they may not vote your way -- or look like you.

Bullying, of course, has transcended politics (and in fact, was gaining momentum as an issue long before political types like me were talking about it; for more about bullying as a national phenomenon and what it means, go read my friend Shelba's blog, here.).

Most folks were transfixed by the awfulness that New York bus monitor Karen Klein had to endure.

There's even a movie out this year about bullying.  I have not seen the film, but I don't think there's much to do with politics.

And that's too bad, because they could have almost assuredly used the clip of idiot doofus Neil Munro interrupting President Obama.  Though I think it may be tough to "bully" the President of the United States in the traditional sense -- What are you going to do?  Take his lunch money? -- the intensive verbal degradation of America's first black President is very obvious and very real.

But before we declare President Obama the hapless victim of the Big Mean Bully GOP, let's think about what Obama was doing during those remarks where he was interrupted: 

As I said in my speech on the economy yesterday, it makes no sense to expel talented young people, who, for all intents and purposes, are Americans -- they’ve been raised as Americans; understand themselves to be part of this country -- to expel these young people who want to staff our labs, or start new businesses, or defend our country simply because of the actions of their parents -- or because of the inaction of politicians.
...

Effective immediately, the Department of Homeland Security is taking steps to lift the shadow of deportation from these young people. Over the next few months, eligible individuals who do not present a risk to national security or public safety will be able to request temporary relief from deportation proceedings and apply for work authorization.

He's not the victim of bullying -- he's the guy coming in to rescue you from the bully.  He did it with his action on immigration.  He did it with the public sector employees.  He's doing it with health care (though next week we'll find out if the Supreme Court will take up the bullying mantel and throw millions of young people off health insurance rolls, or take away the coverage of those with pre-existing conditions by overturning health care reform.).  

As a campaign strategy, this is the best Obama can do.  As America's top government official, this is the right thing to do from a policy perspective.

From an anti-bulling point of view, calling out a bully on his bad behavior is absolutely the right thing to do.  (The first sign you're doing the right thing is when an avowed bully accusses you of bullying.)    

At this rate, you'll have to wonder if there will be anyone left for Romney to represent.  That is, aside from other privileged bullies.

Immigration Continued: Mitt Continues to Fumble in Florida

by Benjamin J. Kirby

I would be willing to bet you lunch that there's no way the Obama Campaign people thought they'd get this much play out of what's been called the President's mini-DREAM announcement last week. 

The GOP message machine began to veer sharply off-course as the announcement happened when some boob from GOP "reporter" has-been Tucker Carlson's vanity project interrupted President Obama as he made his remarks.  

Now, here we are six full days later -- a lifetime in the world of political campaigns and the 24-hour news cycle -- and Romney still doesn't seem to have a rebuttal or an answer, or really even anything coherent to say on the issue:

....Romney's continued vagueness in this matter of fundamental justice, his opposition to the DREAM Act, which ought to be utterly uncontroversial, and his failure to put forth anything even slightly innovative, indicates that immigration is not one of his priorities anymore than are the young people who, up until last Friday, were being deported by the tens of thousands each year.

If this is going to be the Romney Campaign's response any time President Obama does or says anything, then I'm not sure why we would even bother having the election.  Who would vote for this guy?

I know what you're thinking:  POTUS caught them flat-footed.  This is just an anomaly.  

You'd think so, but not really.  This response is now beginning to tie itself to the Senator Marco Rubio-is-not-being-vetting-oh-yes-he-is! flap.  

Marco Rubio on self-deportation for undocumented immigrants: "I have never understood self-deportation as a policy."
— @Chris_Moody via TweetDeck

A Republican who doesn't understand and embrace the concept of making brown people's lives so miserable that they flee the United States? Heresy!

What's a GOP nominee for president to do?  Pick the guy from the gigantic swing-state who is saying normal, reasonable (read: counter) things about an issue sacred to the GOP base?  Remember, this is a base where 55% of the people "have always believed President Obama was born in another country," and "8% of Republicans used to think Obama was eligible to be president by birth, but now think he wasn't."

Come on!  They've already made the "Deport Obama" bumper stickers down at GOP headquarters.  What are you going to do? 

To be real honest with you, I was ready to chalk up Florida to the Romney camp.  Now I'm not so sure.  They seem to be doing their level-best to piss off Marco Rubio supporters.  And if they're not going to piss them off, they'll either end up pissing off the immigration whackos, or immigrants themselves.

And if all of that's not enough, the Romney folks have had to publicly reprimand our hospital grifter Governor Rick Scott for dancing off-message on the economy. 

Mitt Romney's message that President Obama is holding the economy back and everything would be better under President Mitt is a tough one to sustain in key swing states that have seen their unemployment rates drop. In Florida, Romney's answer to the problem of Republican Gov. Rick Scott's statements touting falling unemployment was to ask Scott to please tone it down and get on message.

To be vaguely fair to Scott -- the most unpopular governor in the nation -- it's kind of a tough message to sell.

So am I ready to chalk up the win for Obama, here in Florida or nationally?  No -- not even close.  Summer has just started, and there's a long way to go.  Still, if the last week or so has been indicative of what we can expect from the Romney campaign, it may be a very long summer -- for all of us.

The Taxmageddon Man Cometh

by Benjamin J. Kirby

For political junkies, there is so much out there to write about.  

What will come of the President asserting executive privilege in the ongoing "Fast and Furious" dust-up with Congress?  Congressman Darrell Issa had the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee vote to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress over the issue.  The GOP, of course, is doing everything they can to make themselves look like total asses over the issue (which began in the W. Administration, but nevermind the facts...).

In other national news, a Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Health Care Act is expected any time now.  It's a virtual guarantee that whatever the Court decides, it's going to be confusing:

“If you force me, I’d come up with more and I’m really not joking,” he told The Daily Beast. In no particular order, they are: The court allows the law to stand; it strikes the mandate; it strikes the mandate and insurance market reforms; it strikes down the entire act; it strikes the Medicaid expansion (which requires the states to expand coverage); it strikes the Medicaid expansion and the mandate; it strikes the Medicare expansion, the mandate, and the insurance market reforms.

Still, I just finished the must-read Ryan Lizza piece in the New Yorker on what an Obama second term looks like, and all I can think about now is "taxmageddon".

As my daughter sometimes says when it's all too much, "I'm freakin' out!"

Reëlected Presidents often enjoy a brief respite after their second campaign. The new Congress isn’t sworn in until January, and the interregnum is used to hire new members of the Administration and plot out a fifth-year agenda. But the aftermath of the 2012 election will be unlike any other transition in memory. Election Day is November 6th. Fifty-five days later, on New Year’s Eve, the size and the scope of the federal government are scheduled to be radically altered. Federal tax rates for every income group will shoot up to levels not seen since 2001. Payroll taxes for employees will jump by two percentage points. Unemployment benefits for some three million Americans will be cut off. The Pentagon will start the new year with a fifty-five-billion-dollar budget cut. The budget allocated to everything from the F.B.I. to the Park Service to meat inspections will be slashed by the same amount. Soon after, federal payments to doctors who treat patients using Medicare, the federal health program for the elderly, will be slashed by about a third.

The huge increase in taxes and the precipitate drop in government spending would equal an economic contraction of more than five hundred billion dollars, more than three per cent of G.D.P. The impact could send a fragile economy back into a recession. “It’s two to three times bigger in negative terms than even the biggest year of the stimulus was in positive terms,” Austan Goolsbee, Obama’s former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, said. It is this frightening confluence of fiscal time bombs, starting on December 31, 2012, that has earned the name Taxmageddon.

What’s more, sometime in mid-February the government will reach the limit of its authority to borrow money. If Congress doesn’t raise the debt ceiling, the United States will default on its loans and will no longer be able to pay all its bills—to doctors, defense contractors, Social Security pensioners, Chinese bondholders, and almost anyone else who receives funds from the federal government.

As it happens, I don't have anything profound to say about this except this: how in the hell is it that this isn't the ONLY thing we're talking about in this campaign?  

Hello, anyone?  "...an economic contraction of more than five hundred billion dollars..."  Anyone?  Anyone at all?  

I think the Obama Campaign stratagey should be: "The economy is going to fall off a cliff around the middle of November.  Here's our plan.  Whatcha got, Mitt Romney?"  

And if his answer is anything to the effect of "tax cuts for the rich," the Obama campaign need only cut a sinlge one-mninute ad: 30 seconds of nothing but an extreme close-up of Obama laughing uncontrollably followed by 30 seconds of breadline images from the Great Depression montaged together.

I'm Barack Obama, and I approved this message.

Surreal, I know.  But come on.  

Like I said, I don't have an answer for this.  I'm not an economist.  I don't pretend to know what to do.  

But I do know that this problem is tailor-made for a guy like President Obama.  For starters, it's complicated.     

“It’s two to three times bigger in negative terms than even the biggest year of the stimulus was in positive terms,” said Austan Goolsbee.  

Second of all, it's boring -- and wasn't that an (under-reported, under-appreciated) draw of an Obama Presidency to begin with?  That he would begin the hard work of rebuilding our complicated economic universe with some new and innovative ideas?  

Which finally ends up being a strong argument, if not for Obama, then against Romney.  Sure, he's Mister Business.  But I'm not sure if you're already viewed as a flip-flopper and a power-grabber that you're really ready to address what may be the toughest political challenge in a generation.

Off the Radar Whammo! Edition

by Benjamin J. Kirby

When it comes to politics, you can never take your eye off the ball.  You can never say never, and you have to remember that there is almost always a second act (now that they're perfecting holograms, maybe we'll get third, fourth, fifth acts, acts ad infinitum...).  

So it is with Nina Hayden, the Democratic Congressional candidate looking to unseat long-serving Republican C.W. "Bill" Young.  Something happened with a signature on some paperwork last week, and she was declared ineligible to be on the ballot.  Hayden is pretty smar, though -- smart enough to appeal her case.

And she won. 

A Leon County judge ruled her eligible for the Democratic primary, a week after the state Division of Elections declared Hayden ineligible for the Aug. 14 contest after the notary who confirmed her signature failed to sign the paperwork. Hayden submitted her paperwork and fees on time.

On Friday, Judge Terry Lewis issued a temporary injunction that blocked election officials from leaving Hayden off the ballot. Hayden properly filled out the forms, Lewis wrote, and therefore "is entitled to have her name appear as a candidate on the ballot."

I couldn't be happier -- not just for her, not just because she's going to be on the ballot, but alos because it is proof positive the system can work.  

Congratulations, Nina.  I look forward to seeing your name on the ballot.  

# # # #

Why are the West Virginia Democrats acting like idiots?

I'm not asking as a snarky question: I genuinely want to know.  Someone explain it to me. 

# # # #

There is a lot of weird stuff coming out about Florida Senator Marco Rubio and how he is not being considered for Vice President by the Romney people.  ABC's Jonathan Karl broke the story:

Even before the Republicans chose a presidential nominee it was widely assumed that Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., would be at the top of anybody’s list of vice presidential candidates. The reasons are obvious: Not only is he young, charismatic and wildly popular with conservatives, but he could also help Republicans win a key state (Florida) and make inroads with Hispanics.

But knowledgeable Republican sources tell me that Rubio is not being vetted by Mitt Romney’s vice presidential search team. He has not been asked to complete any questionnaires or been asked to turn over any financial documents typically required of potential vice presidential candidates.

From there, the story has evolved at breakneck speeds.  Already the Rubio people are blaming someone.

A top ally to Marco Rubio suggested that a prominent Romney aide was the source of the ABC News story today that Romney is not considering the Florida senator as his running mate.

"Do remember that Stuart Stevens was Charlie Crist’s guy," Ana Navarro told BuzzFeed, referring to Rubio's Republican-turned-independent opponent in the 2010 Senate race. "The guys who did all of that oppo and attacks on Marco were none other than [Romney advisers] Stuart Stevens and Russ Schriefer."

Navarro, who receives a thank-you from Rubio in his memoir, "An American Son," voiced concerns earlier today about the leak, which came out on the day the book was published.

Okay, first of all, I will admit that no one loves the he said, she said of a political campaign more than me.  Yeah, I'm a pretty terrible guy.  [As a brief aside, I will note that Republicans seem to be a lot worse at this, somehow, than Democrats.  Perhaps it is because Democrats naturally eat their own, whereas the Republican tendency is to take care of one another, and so it appears all the more unseemly when they bite one of their own.]

Personally, I think the Romney people are total idiots if they're not considering Rubio, for all the reasons Karl laid out in his opening paragraph.  Second, I think they are considering Rubio, but that this was really a sort of testing of the waters to gauge outrage from the base if there were to really be throwing Rubio under the bus.*

Anyway, it's hard to imagine this is what has driven the news cycle today, when there is this: 

Throughout the Great Recession and the not-so-great recovery, the most commonly discussed measure of misery has been unemployment. But many middle-class and working-class people who are fortunate enough to have work are struggling as well, which is why Sherry Woods, a 59-year-old van driver from Atlanta, found herself standing in line at a jobs fair this month, with her résumé tucked inside a Bible.

Shame on us.

*I have to credit Matt Spence here a little bit, since he mentioned this idea to me, which I think is right. 

# # # #

You know, the Ybor City Stogie is still doing amazing work highlighting the homeless in the Tampa Bay area. 

That's the stuff of great blogs, right there.

# # # #

Follow this and other garbage on Twitter: @bkirby816

Find it on Facebook, too.

 -- More later -- 

Immigration: The GOP Fumble

by Benjamin J. Kirby

I have always thought one of the least appreciated -- and least understood, in many respects -- "job descriptions" of the President was that of leader of his political party.  Though he's the President of all the people, to be sure, and he shapes the agenda for the nation, he also shapes it for the rank-and-file who support the policies of one party over any other.  

This question is made more interesting when you look at the roles of ex-presidents, too.  I think this is one of the underlying, and under-reported themes you see in the tensions between former President Clinton and President Obama: Obama is leading the Democratic Party in ways President Clinton, still the active political animal, never would have.

As I said, though, the President of the United States is the agenda-setter -- the decider, the last guy might've said -- for the whole country first, not just his own political party.

But boy, is it sure nice when those two things can align.  And so they did this past week.  In the midst of dopes like me who were preoccupied with Tucker Carlson's irrelevant interrupter, something remarkable happened, and it was good for America, good for the President, and good for immigrants.  President Obama announced that he would be dramatically changing our immigration policy for the better:

Over the next few months, eligible individuals who do not present a risk to national security or public safety will be able to request temporary relief from deportation proceedings and apply for work authorization.

Now, let's be clear -- this is not amnesty, this is not immunity. This is not a path to citizenship. It's not a permanent fix. This is a temporary stopgap measure that lets us focus our resources wisely while giving a degree of relief and hope to talented, driven, patriotic young people.

Read the full remarks here.

This is good policy, of course -- it's good immigration policy, it's good economic policy.  And with an expanding base of Hispanic voters, it is, of course, good politics.  

Which is why the GOP is crapping their pants.  

Proof the Republican clown train is 100% off the rails is two-fold.  The first comes from Republican lawyer John Yoo, who writes in the National Review that this is "executive overreach."

John Yoo writing that this immigration action is executive overreach is like a two-bit government lawyer testifying to a Congressional committee that it is just fine for the President of the United States to have the testicles of a child crushed.  

To the former, perhaps Yoo just needs to understand that "it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that."  I don't know anyone insane enough to speak to the latter.  

(As an aside, somewhere the late William F. Buckley, founder of the National Review, in which Yoo writes this nonsense, is spinning in his grave at the ham-handedness of having a Yoo, George W. Bush's torture memo author, lecture us about violations of executive power and violations of the Constitution.)

The second bit of proof of the GOP train wreck is the Romney Campaign response.  Of course, the Republican nominee for President of the United States -- and the new standard-bearer of the GOP brand and platform -- fell right into the Obama trap: Romney knocks Obama’s immigration move but struggles to offer an alternative plan.

Mitt Romney criticized President Obama’s decision to stop deporting some illegal immigrants who were brought to the United States as children as an election-year political move, but he repeatedly declined in an interview Sunday to lay out an alternative plan.

I suppose he had no other choice, but can you imagine if he'd came out in full agreement of President Obama's plan?  

Ah, jeez:

...a Romney administration would press for an immigration policy designed to maximize America’s economic potential. The United States needs to attract and retain job creators from wherever they come. Foreign-born residents with advanced degrees start companies, create jobs, and drive innovation at an especially high rate. While lawful immigrants comprise about 8 percent of the population, immigrants start 16 percent of our top-performing, high-technology companies, hold the position of CEO or lead engineer in 25 percent of high-tech firms, and produce over 25 percent of all patent applications filed from the United States.

• Raise visa caps for highly skilled workers
• Grant permanent residency to eligible graduates with advanced degrees in math, science, and engineering

Just to give you a quick refresher, here's a key piece of what President Obama said:

As I said in my speech on the economy yesterday, it makes no sense to expel talented young people, who, for all intents and purposes, are Americans -- they’ve been raised as Americans; understand themselves to be part of this country -- to expel these young people who want to staff our labs, or start new businesses, or defend our country simply because of the actions of their parents -- or because of the inaction of politicians.

...

Effective immediately, the Department of Homeland Security is taking steps to lift the shadow of deportation from these young people. Over the next few months, eligible individuals who do not present a risk to national security or public safety will be able to request temporary relief from deportation proceedings and apply for work authorization.

And while we're comparing websites, Romney's -- prominently -- says this:

President Obama has failed to solve our immigration problems. Indeed, he has failed even to address them.

Of course, the truth is...

In the absence of any immigration action from Congress to fix our broken immigration system, what we’ve tried to do is focus our immigration enforcement resources in the right places. So we prioritized border security, putting more boots on the southern border than at any time in our history -- today, there are fewer illegal crossings than at any time in the past 40 years. We focused and used discretion about whom to prosecute, focusing on criminals who endanger our communities rather than students who are earning their education. And today, deportation of criminals is up 80 percent. We've improved on that discretion carefully and thoughtfully. Well, today, we're improving it again.

My guess is we will see a lot of things like this between now and November: policy announcements, executive orders (which have the added benefit of cutting out the inactive Congressional middle-man, by the way), and statements in which everyone knows Romney probably agrees with, at least to some degree.  

The problem is, this is the anyone-but-Obama strategy for the Republicans.  Obama says up, you'd better say down.  Obama says left, well, you'd better say right.  Obama says, "smart, sane, humane immigration," you'd better say... "With regards to these kids who were brought in by their parents through no fault of their own, there needs to be a long-term solution so they know what their status is."

Your political leader, GOP.  Good luck this summer.

Happy Father's Day 2012

by Benjamin J. Kirby

Happy Father's Day.  This is my dad, me, and Finn.  

And because I am a terrible person and an even worse blogger, here's my late entry for Mother's Day:

Sorry for the late entry, Mom.  (In my meager defense, I had a ten day-old baby.)

A Father's Day Special Reprint: Penn State, Revisited

by Matt Spence

Introduction by Benjamin J. Kirby

Back in November, when news of the Penn State sex abuse scandal was just breaking, Matt Spence -- a friend, colleague, and someone with personal connections to Penn State -- offered to write a guest post on it for this blog.  I jumped at the opportunity, and not just because I knew Matt was a good writer and would have something important to add to such a terrible story.  

I knew it would be worth reading because Matt's parents both attended Penn State, and I worked with Matt's late father, Browning, at JWB, where he was a good colleague and mentor. 

Though seen through the backdrop of the unspeakable tragedy still unfolding at Penn State (the Sandusky trial continues today), this article is really more about Matt and his father, who we all miss -- none of us more than Matt and his family.  This Father's Day, with Matt's okay, we agreed to run it again, not just in honor of Matt's dad, but for all father's.

Here's to remembering Matt's father, Browning, in better times and places for the places he loved.  And here's to all our fathers on this Father's Day. 

# # # #

I can’t look away.  I can’t stop myself from watching the TV coverage, reading the articles or listening to radio hosts discuss it.  Something, many things really, captivate me about this story and just will not allow me to rip my eyes, ears or focus away from the unfolding horror.  Jerry Sandusky is the most vile of all perverts – a predator pedophile – and as little as I want to think about this inescapable fact, it is consuming me this week. 

I was born in State College, Pennsylvania – at the campus hospital.  My mother likes to say that I saw my first college football game when I was one day old, looking out of the hospital window at Beaver Stadium at the Penn State Nittany Lions.  It isn’t true (I was born a week after their last regular season game) but it might as well have been.  Between them, my parents have 3 degrees from Penn State University.  We left Happy Valley when I was 7, so one of my only vivid memories of my early childhood in the shadow of PSU is our annual family day of football and tailgating for the Blue and White spring football game.  I loved it.  My father loved it.  It was our easiest and most frequent connector – college football.  My bedroom was blue and white for years and my father and I spent countless hours watching, discussing and play-acting Penn State football.  And that is what this story is really about for me.  My father.

My father was, and still is, my hero.  A fantastic dad and a great person, I have always looked up to him like no other figure in my life.  I didn’t have the need for many heroes because I had my dad.  My dad didn’t have many heroes either, but Joe Paterno was definitely one of them.  My father always appreciated JoePa’s commitment to the State College community, to the University and the ideal of the “student-athlete”, to his faith and to his family.  JoePa held himself up as an example to the world and my father was one of the first in line to cheer that designation.  

The terrible irony, and probably the reason for my rubbernecker’s syndrome on this story, is that my father spent his professional life working to put an end to child abuse and maltreatment and to support programs that actually were what Sandusky’s Second Mile claimed to be.  My father passed away almost a year ago.  Every day of the past year I have thought of him.  Some days more than others.  I would have loved to watch the Rays playoff run with him, to talk about life, my new job and house, to share with him that he has a third grandson on the way.  I wish that he and I could have had our usual PSU or FSU, Bobby or JoePa back and forth discussions over yet another college football season.  I wish he was still with us and that cancer hadn’t taken him from my mom, me and my sons.  But this week, for the first time, I found myself saying something I didn’t expect. 

“I am glad my dad isn’t around to see this.”

Granted, I would much rather him see this and still be with us than the reality.  Anything for another day.  Yet, I am glad that he didn’t know that Jerry Sandusky is a child rapist.  I am glad he didn’t know that Joe Paterno failed to do the decent and moral thing for the victims.  I am glad he didn’t have to see his alma mater embarrass itself so heinously over the past week.  I am glad he never knew that his beloved PSU and the football team he so adored harbored such darkness.  I am glad he will not receive next week’s “Blue and White Illustrated” football insider paper as he did so many others.  I just can’t picture him poring over the roster and the recruiting tidbits and the game stories in the same way knowing that his hero was complicit in a decade of child endangerment, that his hero’s inaction led to who knows how many young boys being victimized. 

I do not have any words of wisdom to offer, only sorrow.  Does any other reaction fit?  Anger, sure.  Indignation and fury, yes.  Regret, I sure freaking hope so.  But for me, it will mostly be sorrow.  My hero’s hero has fallen from his pedestal.  I am glad my dad isn’t around to see this.  But if I could talk it out with anyone, I have no doubt who it would be.  One hero isn’t tarnished, he just isn’t here. 

President, Interrupted

by Benjamin J. Kirby

 I'm incensed over this: 

Maybe more than I should be, but I am.

Yes, I know it is in vogue to criticize the mainstream media for not doing what they should be doing, for not often asking hard questions.  There is validity to this, to be sure. 

But there is an order to things, and when it comes to the President giving remarks on immigration policy -- on anything, really -- we owe it to the democratically-elected leaders to hear them out.  

This guy -- Daily Caller "reporter" Neil Munro -- was just making an ass out of himself.

Someone told me that I probably shouldn't blog about this guy, that it'll just give him more of the attention he deserves.  But i'm with Eric Deggans of the Tampa Bay Times on this one: talking about it is important.  

Frankly, I'm not so sure this is a win for Munro, or Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller, or the whatever nonsense conservative agenda they're trying to push.  The point President Obama was trying to make in his earlier speech on the economy which so frustrated Dana Milbank (that bothered John Cole in that link above) was that Republicans have been obstructing his jobs plan.

Nothing in Obama’s speech came close to a proposal to fix the debt problem; he dealt with that only at the end of the speech — largely by complaining about Republicans’ refusal to consider higher taxes on the wealthy.

Obama alleged, correctly, that Republicans’ refusal to countenance tax increases scuttled the Bowles-Simpson plan and the Senate’s Gang of Six plan. He argued, also correctly, that Republicans’ refusal to budge on taxes is “the biggest source of gridlock in Washington today.” He’s on solid ground, too, in saying Republicans would end Medicare as we know it.

(By the way, only a guy as obtuse as Milbank could write an entire article detailing the Obama Plan and then argue in the same article that Obama doesn't have a plan.)

I hope this Munro guy gets more Twitter followers, or raises his Klout score, or the Daily Caller gets more hits, or whatever their goal really was.  They'd better hope for it, actually, because in reality, all they've really done is make the President's case for him.