WHERE KOOKS COME HOME TO ROOST

         What is it about the Republican Party that attracts so many kooks?  I am not referring so much to rank and file Republicans as people in prominent positions in the GOP.

         Don’t get me wrong, we Democrats have our share of kooks and weirdoes, too, but in terms of sheer weirdness, we can’t hold a candle to the GOP.  Pound for pound, they win hands down.

         I was going to take you back to Joe McCarthy, the John Birch Society, Father Coughlin, the China First lobby, and people of that ilk, but let me spare you the history lesson.

         Let’s just start with this current crop in the spotlight, or those who have recently run or are now running for public office:  Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, Michele Bachman, Christine O’Donnell, Todd Akin, Ann Coulter – to name just a few off the top of my head.  I’m sure that if I went to Google and typed in “GOP weirdoes” I would get more hits than I could deal with or that you would want to hear about.

         And, now, just joining this kooky group is Richard Murdock, a Republican running for the vacant Senate seat in Indiana to replace Senator Richard Lugar.  Lugar is the distinguished Senator who was kicked to the curb by the Tea Party for “selling out” and cooperating with the Democrats to get the nation’s work done.  Senator Bob Bennett of Utah suffered the same fate.  By and large, the GOP has kicked out of the party virtually all its moderate members.  The Republican Party and the Tea Party have become virtually synonymous.

But, I digress.  That’s a whole other scary story for another time.

         Let’s go back to Richard Murdock who is all over the news.  In case you missed it, in a recent debate with Democrat Joe Donnelly and Libertarian Andrew Horning, Murdock stated:

         “"I believe that life begins at conception. The only exception I have to have an abortion is in that case of the life of the mother. I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is a gift from god -- [so far, so good, Richard] -- and I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that god intended to happen.”

         Just run that through your head again:  “I think … that is something god intended to happen.”  “… Hmmm, I wonder what god he is referring to.  Doesn’t sound like any God I know from reading the Old and New Testaments – or any other god I am familiar with through my readings.  Shows once again the human tendency to create God in our own likeness rather than vice versa.

         In the face of outrage and denunciations from across the political spectrum, GOP and Murdock’s campaign aides rushed to try to clean things up, and former Senator Rick Santorum tried gallantly to spin Murdock out of the bind he’s in.  But, there’s no airbrushing what Murdock said that would make it acceptable.  Not just to women, but to any reasonable, sensitive person regardless of their gender or faith.

         The statement itself is outrageous, of course, that’s a given, but what lies deeper is that Murdock’s pernicious attitude reflects a centuries-old patriarchy and subjugation of women even in areas that are unique to women such as their own reproductive rights.

         Governor Romney denounced Murdock’s statement, but wants to keep him in the race because control of the Senate is at stake.  We’ll see what women voters in Indiana have to say about this.  Women in Missouri also have to decide whether they want Todd Akin to replace incumbent Senator Claire McCaskill after his outrageous statement that in the case of “legitimate rape,” the woman’s body provides a shield against conception.

         But, again, it is important that this not become just a women’s issue.  Men need to step up en masse and repudiate it as well and reject candidates who spout such dangerous nonsense.  Otherwise, we’re just halfway where we need to be as a country in eradicating this underlying patriarchy and sexism that spawns such attitudes and, worse yet, promotes public policies that still treat women as less than full citizens without the same rights as men.

Gerald E. Lavey

HARRY HOUDINI REINCARNATED

          If one were scoring the debate in Boca Raton Monday night, President Obama clearly won.  Unfortunately, I’m not sure it makes all that much difference.  The President’s poor performance in the first debate allowed viewers to see Governor Romney as Presidential by comparison and the Governor has been riding that rising tide ever since.

In any debate on foreign affairs, the President is expected to prevail.  Moreover, Governor Romney just won points by not giving the impression he was in over his head and could sit next to the President and sound Presidential.  He did that.  Cleverly, he agreed with the President on most issues because he knows that foreign affairs are the President’s strength.

          No wonder the President tried to steer the debate back to the economy.  But, even in his attempts to unveil the clear fraudulence of the GOP’s proposal, I’m not sure the President is not fighting a losing battle there either.  Sure, the math doesn’t work.  It’s basic arithmetic.   It has been widely debunked by fact checkers and independent analysts.

          Then, why is it still on the table?   Because Governor Romney is a consummate magician and escape artist.  Like Harry Houdini, he is able to escape situations that would tie most other people in knots.  But, since he has no core political beliefs, he is free to roam and choose whatever position is good politically for the moment.  So, when challenged to defend his economic package, he just smiles and says, “Sure, the math works,” without providing any specifics.  And he looks aggrieved that anyone could question his integrity. 

And it works.  At least it works politically with a frighteningly large segment of the American voting public which never let facts get in the way of their own political beliefs and dreams. 

          There is a long history for this in American politics.  Some will remember Reagan’s famous campaign pledge in 1980.  He promised to build up the military, cut taxes, and balance the budget.  That math didn’t work then either, and George H.W. Bush running against Reagan in the 1980 GOP primaries rightly called Reagan’s plan “voodoo economics,” a charge he later retracted when offered the Vice Presidential slot on the ticket.

          But, math be damned.  Reagan won by a landslide -- first, because he had the considerable advantage of not being Jimmy Carter and, second, because he promised Americans what they wanted to hear and believe.  For Reagan it was always “morning in America” in that “shining city on a hill.”  (See Reagan’s 1980 campaign brochure and see if it doesn’t sound like Romney has taken a page or two from it.  http://www.4president.org/brochures/reagan1980brochure1.htm ) 

          Once he got into office and realized what his plan was doing to the economy, Reagan raised taxes eleven times while managing to triple the deficit. But it didn’t matter to many, if not most, Americans, leading Vice President Cheney twenty years later to tell Secretary of the Treasury Paul O’Neill: “You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter.”  At least they don’t seem to when Republicans are in charge.

          As for the current Presidential race, there is still hope.  First of all, Mitt Romney is no Ronald Reagan.  And, luckily, Barack Obama is no Jimmy Carter.  Secondly, Obama has a slight edge in some key swing states. 

          Let’s review what’s at stake here:  It took a Democratic President, Bill Clinton, to clean up the deficits that President Reagan left us.  Clinton handed over a record surplus to a Republican President George W. Bush who turned that into a record deficit.  And, now we have another Democratic President, Barack Obama, who inherited a mess, including record deficits, from Republican President George W. Bush.  Despite entrenched GOP opposition to virtually everything he has sent to the Hill, President Obama has done a remarkable job pulling us back from the brink and putting us on the right path for the future in terms of the economy, health care, energy independence, and education.  But the hole he dug us out of was so deep that he needs more time to complete the job.

          If math and logic were the defining factors in elections, President Obama would win by a landslide. Instead, we have an extremely close race that will likely go down to the wire.   Go figure.

          It’s not early morning in America; it’s late in the day.  But it’s not too late and we have a lot of work to do in these last two weeks.  If nothing else, let’s show the rest of the world that a majority of Americans at least understand basic math and can add and subtract.

Gerald E. Lavey

          

SNATCHING DEFEAT FROM THE JAWS OF VICTORY

       A photo of National’s pitcher Drew Storen on the Washington Post website says it all.  Stunned and disconsolate, he is sitting in front of his locker long after midnight staring into the distance trying to figure out how he could have given up four runs in the 9^th inning to allow the St. Louis Cardinals to steal the National League East Division title.

         Much as we fans were depressed at last night’s turnaround, it’s hard not to feel terrible for Storen, who understandably -- if not correctly -- feels he has let the team and city down.  Fortunately, his teammates kept coming up afterwards to give him hugs and reassure him that it was a team letdown, not his entire fault at all.  But try telling that to the so-called closer who had the Cardinals down to a final strike five different times and let them get away.

         My fear is that Drew Storen will join the ranks of Bill Buckner of the Boston Red Sox whose error led to the Red Sox losing the 1986 World Series; Georgetown’s Freddy Brown whose errant pass in the closing seconds of the 1981 NCAA Championship final robbed them of a chance to defeat North Carolina; Cleveland Brown’s Ernest Byner’s crucial fumble as he was about to score the winning touchdown against the Denver Broncos in the 1987 AFC Championship Game; and the Minnesota Vikings Jim (“Wrong Way”) Marshall in 1979 who picked up a fumble and ran it back the wrong way into his own end zone.  Their numbers are legion.

Perhaps best known is Fred Merkel of the 1906 New York baseball Giants whose base-running error earned him the lasting name of “Bonehead” despite a career that included playing on four National League Championship teams.

Sadly, all these players will be remembered primarily for miscues and errors that live on indelibly and overshadow all their other accomplishments.  These mistakes haunt them even after they are gone, usually ending up in the first or second line of their obituaries, calling to mind Shakespeare’s rueful observation in Julius Caesar:  “The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones.”

         Is it unfair?  Of course it is.  But, unfortunately, it’s not only sports; it is  life.  Some of us have drunk deeply of that bitter cup of our own mistakes made at crucial times in our lives.  If we personally haven’t experienced such moments, perhaps we can remember it happening to a spouse or to one of our children in little league sports or playing for a high-school or college team.  Or to a friend or colleague.

         Whatever the case, after watching a gut-wrenching game like last night’s, before self-righteously lashing out at players in frustration, we should step back and reflect on similar failures in our own lives and the lives closest to us.  It helps foster perspective along with a gentleness of judgment and better understanding of those involved in professional sports.  Sure, most sports figures earn a lot of money and are well paid for their labors. But they are still fallible human beings trying to do their best.   And when they are trying their best, they deserve our support and appreciation, not our boos, catcalls, and condemnation.

         After all, that’s us out there making those mistakes and bonehead plays, and that’s what makes it personally painful, I have always believed. We can see ourselves doing the same thing.  At least I can.  If not us, our sons or daughters or nieces and nephews.  If we think of players that way, we will become much different and much better fans and supporters.

As for the Drew Storen and the Washington Nationals, I have only this to say after the magnificent season they gave us:  Well done, lads, you made us proud, and we can’t wait till next year.  And the wonderful thing about sports is that there’s always next year.

Gerald E. Lavey 

WHAT WAS HE THINKING?

               As I was out running errands this morning, I heard on the radio a Democratic ad replaying Governor Romney’s comments about the “47 percent of Americans” who allegedly consider themselves victims, who pay no taxes, and are dependent on government.

         Even though I had heard the comment reported widely before, for some reason it just now got me thinking about what prompted this remark and why he made it.  And I am trying to get my head around the circumstances and the reasoning that made him say it.

In other words, what was he thinking?

As a former speechwriter for government officials, I am aware of the dynamic between speechwriter and speaker.  Maybe it’s different in the private sector or when running for office, but I don’t think so, based on my reading of speechwriters’ memoir and speaking with speechwriters in those other venues.

It should come as no surprise that many speeches seemingly impromptu and off-the-cuff are anything but that.  Even responses to questions in a press conference are usually scripted and well prepared.  As a result, I can smell and hear a sculpted taking point a mile away.  And, frankly, I am not in favor of them, and wasn’t even when I was in the business because they rob the official or candidate of their instincts and personalities, the very reasons that got them to where they are in the first place.  And they place too much importance on the unaccountable ghost writer in the backroom.   But, in this “gotcha” world and the instant sound bite age, regrettably it’s probably necessary.

So, my strong suspicion is that Governor Romney’s comments about the 47 percent were not a slip of the tongue or an abberation, despite his later apology saying he was “completely wrong.”  You can be wrong about a statistic or a fact or an opinion based on erroneous information.  But this was far more than that.  To me, it represented a way of thinking, reminding me of instances where celebrities are found making ugly ethnic or religious slurs, and apologize later saying they were drunk or just misspoke.  I don’t buy it.

Comments caught in unguarded moments indicate where your heart is.

Do I think Governor Romney is a bigot or a racist or hates the poor?  No, I do not.  But, I don’t think he has a clue as to how most people live and the economic challenges they face.  The 47 percent remark reflected that.  Patricians like Roosevelt and the Kennedys somehow understood it, despite their privileged backgrounds and cushy upbringing.

But, Romney doesn’t seem to get it, as multiple comments he had made over the course of the primaries and in the general election campaign bear witness, e.g. the $10,000 wager he made to a competitor in a primary debate, and suggesting that young men and women might borrow money from their parents to pay for their educations.  These plus the economic plan his running mate has crafted and that he has endorsed.  Its effects on the poor and marginalized in our society would be disastrous, as the Nuns on the Bus and others have shown.

What Romney really doesn’t seem to get is the indispensable role that Government plays – and must play – in the lives of millions of people, not moochers or slackers, but people genuinely in need.  It’s the role that Republican President Lincoln described so well long ago:  Government must do what people cannot do at all, or cannot do so well, for themselves.  And, as Sister Simone Campbell at the Democratic National Convention spoke so movingly of this social compact that is one of the hallmarks of America’s greatness:  “I am my brother’s keeper.  I am my sister’s keeper.” 

Will Governor Romney get it over time?  Maybe.  But we have a President who gets it already, based on his own upbringing and his work as a community organizer in Chicago, so why take a chance on someone who doesn’t?

         Gerald E. Lavey

EXTREME MAKEOVER

“Extreme Makeover: Weight Loss Edition is a unique undertaking that's unlike anything you've ever seen on TV. The show documents the amazing makeover of eight courageous, obese individuals who set out to safely lose half of their body weight over the course of a year. The metamorphosis is truly amazing.”

          This excerpt is directly from the ABC website describing the network’s show broadcast Sunday evening in prime time. I have never watched it.  Just seeing the trailers makes me feel sad and embarrassed for people so desperate to change their looks in such a dramatic, pubic fashion.  It appears so unseemly.  Yet, apparently these people are so desperate, they are willing to do whatever is necessary.

          Which brings me to Mitt Romney.  The “metamorphosis” he pulled off the other night in Denver was “truly amazing.” It makes those folks on “Extreme Makeover” look like pikers.  I didn’t feel sad and embarrassed by Romney’s extreme makeover.  I was alarmed.

          I also was stunned by the President’s apparently willingness to let “the severe conservative” – as Romney described himself in the primaries -- get away with his disappearing act and reappear in the form of a moderate Republican. 

          But, the more I think about it, the more I can understand the President’s limp performance.  He must have been flabbergasted.  The person he had prepared to debate didn’t show up.  All the President’s talking points, his zingers – they were useless.  Was this some kind of cruel joke?

In retrospect, he could still have used them, of course, but his advisors had warned him about being too aggressive and arrogant and dismissive.  So apparently feeling stymied, he just watched incredulously while Governor Romney jettisoned his conservative persona and – presto! -- donned a new one.  It was a masterful, if unseemly performance.

To be fair to Romney, running as a conservative or liberal in the primaries to pander to the base and then racing towards the center once you have secured the nomination of your party is not unusual among Presidential candidates.  In fact, it’s fairly standard.  But, dramatically changing one’s persona overnight late in the general election campaign when you’re slipping in the polls is unprecedented, at least in my memory.

And it helps feed into the image many of us have of Romney, namely, that he wants to be President so bad he is willing to do whatever is necessary to achieve that goal.  And to paraphrase the old cliché, “anyone willing to do what he thinks it takes to get a job should not be entrusted with it.”  It also resurrects the concern that has dogged Romney from the beginning of his political career:  Who is he?  That’s pretty scary this late in a politician’s career as lengthy and as public as Romney’s when even his supporters can’t answer that question.

If elected President, would he be the moderate Republican some claim?  If so, they why did he choose Paul Ryan as his running mate to be just a heartbeat away?  Just to reassure the base?  If elected, would he put Ryan on ice, pivot to the center, and work with Democrats to achieve a moderate agenda?  Highly unlikely, with the strong influence the Tea Party and Grover Norquist have on House and Senate Republicans?

Which leads me to conclude:  If consumers are legitimately wary of buying from a company or sales staff with a reputation for “bait-and-switch” sales gimmicks, why wouldn’t they apply that same concern when voting for the next President of the United States and leader of the Free World?

Gerald E. Lavey

        

GAME ON, MR. PRESIDENT

         As a strong Obama supporter, I was stunned by last night’s debacle in Denver.  Governor Romney brought his A Game to this crucial debate, and President left his game… well, in the locker room, in the words of my good friend Jim Burns.  The President looked passive, quietly dismissive of Romney, and, as Democratic pundit James Carville said afterward:  He looked like he didn’t want to be there.  Governor Romney, on the other hand, was crisp, looked like he was enjoying himself, and clearly won the debate.

          To continue the sports imagery we started last time, the President came into last night’s game with strong lead and could have essentially closed it out with a strong performance, considering the advantages he has in key swing states, like Ohio.  Instead, he gave Governor Romney and the GOP a huge boost and now we’re into extra innings.

          Game on, Mr. President.

          To be fair to President Obama, he has a few other things on his mind besides getting ready for the debate whereas for Governor Romney last night’s debate was do-or-die and he obviously prepared well for it, at least in terms of the optics.   As for the substance, that’s another matter.  His facts were riddled with distortions and the President didn’t call him on those -- at least not forcefully enough.  Instead, he just looked down, set his jaw, and shook his head.  As a result, he looked petulant and peevish.  And resigned.  And, non-Presidential.

          One of the advantages Governor Romney has is that he is flexible.  A chameleon, if you will, not fettered by the facts or consistent positions.  He is “all things to all men,” and not in the sense of 1 Corinthians, but in the sense of “tell me what you want to hear and I’m your guy.”   As the late Senator Kennedy so aptly said of Romney in their 1994 Massachusetts Senatorial debate: “I am pro-choice, but Mitt Romney is multiple choice.”

          So, when Governor Romney denied that he had proposed a $5 trillion tax cut, that’s not true.  As the President said, it’s a matter of arithmetic.  Romney’s denial was based on the vague promise that to offset the lost revenue, he would eliminate some of the deductions and loopholes in the tax code.  Which ones?  Well, that’s something he would talk about later.  Why didn’t the President press the advantage on this? 

When Governor Romney charged that the President had doubled the deficit since taking office, that simply is not true either.  As Michael Cooper reports in today’s New York Times:  “When Mr. Obama took office in January 2009, the Congressional Budget Office had already projected that the deficit for fiscal year 2009, which ended Sept. 30 of that year, would be $1.2 trillion. (It ended up as $1.4 trillion.)  For fiscal year 2012, which ended last week, the deficit is expected to be $1.1 trillion – just under the level in the year he was inaugurated.”

Why didn’t the President press Romney on this point?  Does he think that people already understand this and he doesn’t have to explain it?  Some of the “people,” I must remind the President, still believe he was not born in the United States, that he is a Muslim, that men really didn’t land on the moon (the landing was shot in a Hollywood studio), and that the world is flat.  Check it out; I am not exaggerating.  Oh, yes, and millions of these people follow Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck religiously.

To be fair and to his credit, the President is not your typical politician – and certainly not a good politician like President Clinton. He doesn’t like to schmooze; he doesn’t like to explain what he thinks is “perfectly obvious;” and that if he gets the policies right, the polls will take care of themselves. He is at heart a college professor, but so was Woodrow Wilson, and we saw how that worked out.  Obama’s qualities are admirable in a President in his roles as head of the Executive Branch and Commander-in-Chief, to be sure, but not good qualities when it comes to leading a major political party.  Case in point, as Jody Kantor reported in her book, THE OBAMAS, the President invited politicians from the Hill to a Super Bowl party at the White House. Then, instead of working the room and schmoozing with his guests, he sits in the front row and watches the game.

“Come on, man,” as Chris Berman might say, to continue the sports imagery.   Seriously, with all due respect, the President has to regard last night’s performance, first as a debacle, and secondly as a wake-up call.  And he must up his game in the remaining weeks of the campaign, and certainly in the next two Presidential debates.  There’s more at stake than just four more years for him and his family.

Otherwise, we’ll have the scary prospect of President Romney, and we have no idea of which Mitt Romney will show up for that job.

Gerald E. Lavey

IT’S ALL IN THE GAME

Last night, the Washington National won the National League East; just two days after the Washington Redskins beat the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in the waning seconds –- in Tampa, no less.  And now we have a Presidential debate coming up tomorrow in Denver where the early talk is about tamping down expectations and Romney possibly being able to close the ratings gap  with the artful use of zingers.

          Can it get any better than this, sports fans?

          You may object to me lumping in the Presidential debate with football and baseball games, but even though the stakes are obviously much higher, these debates have taken on all the aspects of a sporting event.  Rarely are they ever decided or even judged on substance.

          In the Kennedy-Nixon debates in 1960, the deciding factor was really all about perception.  People who listened to the debates on radio thought Nixon had won, but those of us watching on television gave the clear advantage to Kennedy.  JFK understood the medium better, used makeup whereas Nixon, with his 5 o’clock shadow and his haunted look, didn’t.  Not sure there is a makeup that could make Nixon not look dark and paranoid.

But, as I recall, in terms of substance, the only hot issue which turned out to be a non-issue were the islands of Quemoy and Matzu, tiny islands off the coast of China.   Remember those?  Most people don’t.  The point is that the debates – especially the first one -- were mostly about perception and Kennedy’s pledge that “we can do better” and his promise to get the U.S. moving again after the quiescent years of the Eisenhower 1950’s.

          In 1976, President Ford’s unaccountable comment about there being “no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe” reinforced the false and unfair impression that he was not the sharpest knife in the drawer and helped boost Carter’s chances even though he had no foreign relations experience.

The Carter–Reagan debate in 1980 is remembered mostly for Reagan’s rejoinder, or a zinger, if you will:  “There he goes again,” delivered with a classic Reagan aw-shucks turn of the head and his winning smile.  Veteran journalist Sander Vanocur called it “devastating” and most experts believe it helped turn the race in Reagan’s favor.

          In the George H.W. Bush – Bill Clinton debates, the most memorable moment was when President Bush looked at his watch, as if to say, when is this nonsense going to end.  Again, it was another turning point.  Plus the fact that earlier in the campaign it was reported he didn’t know the price of a quart of milk or a loaf of bread, which pundits declared put him out of touch with the American people.

          As I recall, the turning points in the debates between George W. Bush and Al Gore and then between George W. Bush and John Kerry hinged on the fact the Bush could hold his own against two perceived smarter and better debaters.  The fact that Bush didn’t do anything self-destructive was enough.  Again he was helped immensely by lowered expectations.

          This is what troubles me about the Obama – Romney debate.  If Romney can avoid making a huge gaffe and holds his own, he might get a bounce coming out of the debate.  In addition, the President has to make sure he doesn’t come across as arrogant and dismissive.  Remember Senator McCain refusing to look at Obama, as if this amateur shouldn’t even be on the same stage with him.  Obama wouldn’t be that rude, but he can be arrogant, and he has to make sure he doesn’t betray that for a second even when the cameras are supposedly not focused on him.

          Presidential debates are all about show business and perception.  So, don’t expect an intellectual debate of the critical issues facing our country.  Rather think of the upcoming debate as a game, with fumbles and errors and pass interceptions.  Plus trick plays and zingers.

          And, remember, as with sports, the best person or team doesn’t always win.

Gerald E. Lavey