Obama Down Plays the Nuclear Option, I mean, the Constitution

A legitimate argument has yet to be presented against the 14th Amendment case.  Yet, President Obama, in his Twitter Town Hall Forum downplayed his use of the option.  "I don't think that we need to make it a constitutional issue." he said during the hour long session today.

Which is weird because I thought that all branches of government kind of had to deal with things that were constitutional or not.  

(And, quick sidebar, how weird was it that he had a Twitter Town Hall Forum??  I mean, I'm not upset or frustrated, just perplexed.  It... it was... eh.  I don't have the energy.)

And Sen. Mitch McConnell said today that his side wasn't "absolutist".  "We have a better term for it -- common sense."  Now, say what you want about liberals being condescending, what McConnell said, that is condescending enough for Barbara Streisand.

Think of the debt crisis as this:  You have a credit card that you're way, way, way over.  You've been on time on payments, so you're credit is good, but you're getting to the point where you are going to make sacrifices.  Otherwise, men in black suits are going to break down the door and take you and your family away in silent helicopters to a compound in Nebraska.

You could a) stop spending money on the card in the amounts that you have, b) raise your income level or c) both of these things.  The "common sense" option is C!  You deal with the issue that much faster and you don't have to have it continual hanging over your head!  

But then you're spouse comes in and says "Don't get a better paying job!!!  Why would you do that?  You're going to stifle the growth of this house if you get a better paying job!!!"  And all you can really do is stare back and wonder how is it that you've been married for so long.  

"But we have to do something to deal with this credit card."

"Well, turn off a light switch when you leave a room."

"That's not going to help with the debt I owe, just the amount of bills that I would have coming in."

"If you get a better paying job, it's socialism."

Okay, it's not a perfect metaphor, but it's sound.  By insisting on spending cuts, the GOP are only fixing the issue of the amount of debt that will be owed, not the current amount of debt.  Obama/WH/Democrats/Rational people are trying to take a balanced approach, one that appeases the Right by making drastic (and I mean drastic cuts to spending) but one that shares the burden of supporting the government to those that afford to take a hit.

And it's not to say that having a balanced approach is always the right thing to do, but in this case, it makes good sense.  It's good economics, it's the only way that the debt is going to be taken care of any time soon and that must be the only reason why the GOP is so adamant against it.

But back to the Nuclear Option/14th Amendment/The Constitution:  Obama downplayed his thoughts on the option.  He didn't say "I will not cite the 14th Amendment to prevent the country from defaulting on it's debt." He's given the process another two weeks.  In two weeks, we will either have a balanced approach on the matter or you'll need a Geiger Counter to start walking through the halls of Congress.

On a side note, I'm going to starting writing this blog on a site called www.nuzcom.com.  Please go over and give the site a once over.  It's a good forum and has good writers about the place.  Check it out!

Shattering the Ceiling: The Opportunity Behind (or Under) the Debt Crisis

Normally, I would focus on the GOP campaign for the presidency, but the issue of the debt ceiling is on the forefront of most people's minds, so I'll focus on that.

Since 1939, before the major US involvement in WWII, there has been a "ceiling" on the amount of money that the US government is allowed to owe.  As of this posting, the "ceiling"$14.46 trillion. Most of the debt that the US owes is actually to the citizens and states in the form of government bonds.  About 47% of the debt is owed to other countries, like China (at about 14%).

For the past six months in the USA, the major question has been the debt ceiling, whether to raise it or not.  The GOP controlling the House at first insisted that the ceiling should not be raised under any circumstances.  Now, their argument is that they would consider raising the ceiling, but not without substantial budget cuts (always to education or public programs but never with an eye on wasteful defense spending) and absolutely under no circumstances with a cent raised in taxes.

The Democrats, currently in direct leadership from President Obama have argued that nearly anyone with half a brain on the issue knows that the best way of dealing with the debt situation is to take a balanced approach.  Substantial cuts, sure, but there has to be an increase in revenue.  The GOP have staunchly refused.  They won't even look at the possibility of closing tax loopholes for higher income tax brackets.

Think about that.  The law is already on the books.  The GOP bemoan that the tax on corporations in the US is the highest in the industrialized world (it's not:  Japan's stands at 40%) and ignore the fact that the rate is topped at 35% and that most corporations don't pay that much.  GM, Bank of America and Citigroup (the major recipients of gov't funding in the previous few years) paid no taxes and BOA got a tax return to the tune of one billion.  By closing loopholes, they simply making the requirements that are already expected of the corporations in the US.

The tragedy of a democratic republic is that, at some point, you're going to have to compromise.  To compromise means that you get something that you want, but you have to give something up in the meantime. Give a little, take a little.  Here with the debt crisis, the GOP have a chance to show that they are reasonable people who are capable of governing.  But they're throwing the chance away.  They are almost going out of their way to make it easier for Obama to get re-elected.

While all this back and forth is going on, an intriguing legal argument is coming up.  The 14th Amendment, which by and large deals with equal rights and the citizenship status of those in the US, but also deals with the question of public debt.  Originally, the clause was inserted to protect the Federal government from people looking to collect money that they had lent to the Confederacy.  In the early 20th century, the Supreme Court went a step further and said that the public debt extended to all the debt that the US government owed.  So, the debt ceiling is unconstitutional and, in another sense, those that pursue to maintain it are acting unconstitutionally.  Which may seem strange for the Republicans, the party that passed a measure that would require that all laws cite what part of the Constitution they draw their powers from, but the GOP have always been selective in their outrage.

So, the real opportunity for the GOP in this instance is to follow the writing of the Constitution and remove the debt ceiling entirely.

The Single Issue Voter and the Thrill Is Gone

I'm pretty liberal.  At least, that's what I consider myself to be and have considered myself to be that way for a while.  But, more so, I consider myself practical.  That's why when I started reading this article: Progressives Break Up With Obama, I was pretty frustrated.

Reason being is this:  the problem that many have with conservatives and the GOP is that they are narrow-minded or corridor thinkers.  They focus on one thing and they run with that.  I'm not talking about something general, like the economy or any of the wars that we are engaged in at present but, bar none, the most important thing that we get done is marriage equality!  And immigration reform!  But NOOOOOOOOO, he hasn't paid MEEEEE enough attention, so I'm going to create a fissure in the party and the movement until I GET WHAT I WANT and I don't care if a Rep gets elected in the process.

To these "progressives", I refer to the following website: http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

In there, you will find that the prez has done quite a bit and a lot of his political capital was spent on health care reform, which goes to help ALL groups and minorities in the country, not just legislation to focus on specific groups of people.

I remember in 2008 (a lifetime ago) when there was talk about why people were supporting the Obama campaign.  And I remember reading a round-table discussion wherein several people were talking about why they were there.  And a young, single mother was talking about how tough things had been for her as late.  And then it got over to an older guy who was asked why he was there and he thought for a moment and responded:  I'm here to help people like the mother over there.

Don't get me wrong.  While I support Obama and I hope that he gets re-elected, I'm not in the disillusioned world that everything is perfectly fine, that he's not without flaws.  But at the same time, I think that he's a stronger candidate than the GOP has to offer at present.  And please not, its that I think he's a strong choice, not because I think he's the lesser of two evils or something like that.  A vote for Obama shouldn't be a vote against the GOP, it should be an affirmation for the Obama.

So, when people come out and they say that they begrudgingly support Obama but he hasn't done everything that every liberal/progressive wants him to do.

Sorry, guys, I guess we'll have to wait until next term to get our gay caliphate up and running...

Weiner Shrinks to Nothing: the Political Obituary of a Horny Democrat

Weiner Gone but Boehner Remains?

This sort of thing happens to the best of them.

I think that the first thing to point out would be that the sex scandals are by no means a strictly Dem problem.  The last several have included the GOP (John Ensign, Mark Sanford and Mark Foley... I hate thinking about that last one...) but it seems like a stigma that is on the Donkey Party.

While there is a feeling that this one is different, mostly because there was never any real physical contact, it doesn't FEEL as much like cheating as crossing the line of touching.  But emotionally and spiritually it IS cheating.  That's something that Clinton never cleared up properly.  You have to remember, kids, in the 90's, we didn't talk about Oral Sex that much and there was, if only for a brief moment, a conversation as to whether or not BJs counted.  Then, we lost our minds as to the fact that we actually asked that question.

Now, Weiner is resigning and there's one thing that should be made abundantly clear.  This isn't a move from the constituents of Weiner's own district in NY.  This is a plain and simple move from the Dem Leadership.

On the one hand, I feel bad because Weiner, in all honesty, was good for business.  He was a firebrand, unashamed, unabashed liberal and he was fun to watch.  And he stood up to dicks on Fox News and in the halls of Congress.  At the very least, he was funny and most of the time, he was passionate.  Which is rare on both sides.

Then he had to take pictures of his cock and send them to people online (first mistake).  Then he got caught (second mistake).  And then, he lied about it (third and biggest mistake).  Reason why the last one is the biggest is because for the few weeks that have followed the scandal, everyone said the same thing for criticism:  if he's going to lie about this, what else would he be willing to lie about?  And THAT was the moment Weiner lost everything.

But, again, his decision to step down from the seat is strictly because of pressure within the party, notably from Pelosi from the beginning and now, in the last few days, Obama, who sent a quiet "Fuck you" through the media by saying that if he were in the same position, he would have resigned.

As much of a fan of Weiner (hehehehe) as I am, I also have to give it to the Dem leadership.  They're not taking any chances and their cutting a guy out from a district that more than likely is going to be safe the next time around.  Sure, it has a history of going between the two parties, but I think that with the current Dem fervor going through NY, it's going to be safe.

I suppose if the Congressman was in any higher position or if the district he represented wasn't a swing one, the Dems would have fought harder for him.  But, in my opinion, everything turned out the way that it should have in any case.  You fucked up.  You got to go.

In a related note, since we lost Weiner, can we go back and pronounce Boehner as Boner?

Rick Perry. Sigh and Yawn.

Rick Perry Running For President?

I don't feel that I have to remind the public about the rule against voting for former Govs of Texas for Prez, but I think that I'm going to anyway.

DON'T SUPPORT FORMER GOVERNORS OF TEXAS!  That state doesn't get to send another person to be prez.  And if Republicans have a problem with that, I would cite Jimmy Carter.  You want another Georgia Peach heading to DC?  No?  Good... now Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich should drop out any time now...

But most pertinently to the case of Governor Perry is that he said specifically that he didn't want to be Prez.  What does it say when he says something very specific like "I don't want to be President of the United States." and then goes to "I'm going to think about it."?  I mean, for a group of conservative intellectuals (I use the term loosely) that don't allow for ambiguity or shades of grey, this is showing some depth.

It's not that I think that Perry shouldn't run for president.  I mean, he shouldn't but that's not the point.  The point is when you are specific with your constituents about a campaign promise, you have to follow through.  There are some cases when these things change.  A guy running for president usually says that the system is broken and that they are going to change it and, once elected, rarely get to affect the change that they want (at least in Obama's case, he tried.)  You have to go back and talk to the people that put you into office and rationalize everything that happened in the interim (between when you were elected and what happened once you got there.)

But there are certain promises that are EASY to maintain!  "I'm not going to run for President." is a gimme!  Just don't run for president.

Also, I'm not entirely comfortable with a guy who thoughtlessly talked about Texas' "special" case re: secession.   Because I thought that the Civil War settled the whole thing.  And the answer was "No."

But is it just me or is Perry a little boring?  I mean, he doesn't have the colossal  fuck-up comments like W. and everyone in TX seems to be pretty happy with him.  Feel free to correct me.

And here I go correcting myself.  This is a guy that has invited all the other govs. of the nation to get together in TX and have a big prayer pow-wow so that Jesus will come off his Moon Base and help the rest of the country... even though we have God on our side... WAIT, Jesus isn't on the Moon, that's what Mormons think...

But, joking aside, there's no fire in the belly, there's no passion for the office of the presidency, not like when he was running for Gov. of TX.  I don't think that he's actually going to do it, in the end.  After all, he'd have to fight for the Xian vote in the GOP with Bachmann (I almost wrote Palin), but honestly, he doesn't seem like the kind of guy that wants to fight head-to-head with Craaaaazeeeee.

Huntsman Is In! Countdown to Crazy Shit Happening...

I think that he's not a bad candidate, but like so many others (Gingrich, Romeny), he's going to be punished for at one point in time being reasonable.

What gets me is that he took that position as Ambassador to China under the Obama administration.  Why?  He would have done as well staying in Utah.

He hasn't thrown mud as of yet, but he might be measuring his targets a little more.

As a former Mormon (I left the church in 2008), I'm still kind of excited that two TBMs are running.  I wonder how this is going to affect the dynamic, especially with the potential of bigoted comments coming from the opponents.

I think the first one will come from Michelle Bachmann, but it wouldn't surprise me if Cain took it by a nose.

Also, everyone was talking about how cordial the debaters were with each other last night and how focus they were on Obama.  However, I give it two months before they really start throwing feces at each other.

Let the monkey parade begin!

GOP Debate - Pick Romney and Cut the Fat

If the moment could be crystallized and maintained, it would seem that the GOP would be able to rectify the mistake that they made last prez election cycle by supporting Mitt Romney.  The fact of the matter is that he is the most sensible of the entire group, both in 2008 and now again in 2012.  Reports seem to indicate two things: first, he's the man to beat.  Second, that he would be the only chance at diversity that the GOP would have.

Michelle Bachmann also quietly announced that she was running for prez.  I can only imagine that she feels qualified because she took care of so many foster kids and, oh yeah, GOD told her to run for prez.  Because we will live in a country where when we tell others that a voice told them to do something, unless it was child rape or murder, we accept it.  Here's a woman who said that God told her to run for the House, but still had to raise the most money EVER for a House Campaign.  What, even with God on your side, you don't have the capital necessary?  I thought you just need the go ahead from the Big Guy Upstairs?

Also, on behalf of the state of Georgia, I would like to apologize for Herman Cain.  People are getting excited about him, but they also got excited about Alan Keyes (which nothing ever came of, I would remind the audience.)  The fact that the man hasn't apologized for the comments regarding Muslims and, in addition, hasn't resigned from the campaign entirely is ludicrous and shows that there are still bigots that can run for office and bigots that are going to support other bigots.

Even when given more than ample opportunity to redact the statement, he just doubled-down and said that he wouldn't hire those that were trying to kill him.  Well, what a brave fucking position!  Unlike Obama, who hired assassins and thugs to surround him... what President would hire people that are trying to kill him?  Even for the flourish and rhetoric, Cain is just a distraction.  If the GOP is smart, they'll ignore him and drop him like a bad habit.  But, as an Obama supporter, I hope he stays in the race through several primaries.

Back in 2008, the GOP had a very simple choice to make:  first, they had to find someone who was willing to run for president that didn't have strong or blatant ties to the previous administration.  They managed to cock that up relatively quickly.

Second, they had to find someone that appealed to the center more than Bush II.  They had (and have) that in Romney.  Romney managed to get elected Gov. of Mass. as a Republican!  And everyone that I've talked to from Boston that remembers the Romney years all said, "he was a great governor!"  Understanding of course that during the primaries and caucuses you have to appeal to the base, but the smart campaigner will be able to appeal to the base and convince them that they have to think about the general election now.

Having said all that, I will reiterate that I'm an ardent Obama supporter and will advocate for his re-election.