I’m sure I will blog again.  Perhaps when my frustration with politics becomes too great for me to keep my mouth shut, perhaps when there is important news to be spread… But for now, there simply isn’t the time.  This little guy keeps me too busy.  I’m doing my writing during naptimes and once he’s asleep for the night.  Blogging doesn’t enter into the realm of priorities.

Politics-wise, we are living in bizarro world at the moment.  Much to say, but no time to say it.  I will share one link for now, which is a dispatch from the Borowitz Report that is all too familiar to anyone who has read my book (and thanks to you all for sharing this link with me).

Finally, a reminder (warning: book plug approaching) that during this politically charged holiday season, you should consider giving your loved ones the gift of reading, specifically the gift of political satire, more specifically, The Scandal Plan, which you can now purchase in paperback for $1.30 (yes, $1.30! That’s with free shipping!) on Amazon (click to purchase).

A happy holidays to you all.  I’ll close with a couple more pics of what I’ve been up to lately.

THE CATCHPHRASE EVERY DEMOCRAT SHOULD BE USING

Republicans are good at slogans. They are good at catchphrases. They are good at simplicity.

We Democrats are not.

We don’t have a Roger Ailes or a Grover Norquist coordinating our message, so we rarely speak with the same voice. It is no wonder that our party consistently underperforms in its fight to control the political narrative.

We can change that now. This is our moment to craft a winning message and a winning strategy for 2012 and beyond. Here’s how I would do it. It starts with a simple catchphrase. Are you ready?

The Republican War On The Middle Class

I know I’m not the first one to use this phrase, but it’s time we ALL started using it. Say it again with me:

The Republican War On The Middle Class

Now let’s say it a million times until it sticks. And don’t just say it because it’s a simple clean message, don’t just say it because it’s good strategy—say it because it’s the truth.

Historically, our party has shied away from such hyperbolic catchphrases because we don’t like to stray too far from the truth. I suffer from this same reluctance myself. I will stop mid-thought and scold myself, saying, “Let’s be fair. You know that Republicans don’t actually hate middle class Americans; they just happen to pursue misguided policies that unintentionally hurt them.”

But this type of rhetoric will get Democrats nowhere, and now is not the time to mince words. I may not INTEND to kill someone, but if I draw a gun and pull the trigger, I’m still a murderer. By this same logic, while Republicans may not INTEND to screw over the middle class, if their policies are designed to enrich millionaires and corporations while cutting the pay, benefits, bargaining rights, safety nets, and social services enjoyed by the middle class, they have effectively declared a:

Republican War On The Middle Class

Now, here’s the important part: sticking to our guns. Usually, when I see a Democrat get close to using a phrase like “The Republican War On The Middle Class,” he or she is slapped with the following Republican counter-argument:

“Here go those Democrats again. Playing class warfare!”

… to which the Democrat in question usually cowers, steps back, and waters down his rhetoric. HUGE MISTAKE! Here’s the conversation I want to see:

SEAN HANNITY: You sound like a typical Democrat, always playing class warfare.

DEMOCRAT: Exactly! Because it IS class warfare! This is a Republican War On The Middle Class! I wouldn’t make this accusation except for the simple fact that I have eyes and I can see! What sort of country do we live in where rich corporate criminals can nearly bankrupt our financial system and the middle class gets asked to foot the bill? What sort of country do we live in where teachers—of all people—are being called greedy fat cats for wanting the right to bargain as a group?

SEAN HANNITY: But collective—

DEMOCRAT: (interrupting) Let’s be clear. We are not in an economic crisis because of the salaries we pay teachers or because public employees have decent pension plans. We are not in an economic crisis because of PBS or the EPA or Head Start or community health centers or heating assistance for the poor or Pell grants or housing vouchers for homeless vets. All these things are unrelated.

(and here’s the slogan to go with the catchphrase:)

… Republicans are exploiting the financial crisis to attack programs that help the middle class and the poor—even though these programs have nothing to do with the cause OR solutions to the problems at hand.

These attacks are all just a part of The Republican War On The Middle Class.

HANNITY: You keep using that phrase, but I don’t think it’s fair.

DEMOCRAT: Fair? Is it fair that the wealthiest 400 American citizens have more money than half of the entire U.S. population combined? Is it fair that the middle class in this country keeps shrinking even as the rich get richer?

(you can insert your own rant here, but this is how I’d proceed…)

Sean, “fair” would be attacking the issues that caused our financial meltdown: tax cuts we didn’t pay for, a war we didn’t pay for, and the financial deregulation that led to our housing meltdown. And yet your Republicans drag their feet on regulating Wall Street, they drag their feet on reducing military spending, and they INSIST on giving more free tax money to rich corporations and the wealthiest Americans.

Would it be so terrible for the wealthiest Americans to pay the same tax rates they did in the 1990s? That would net 690 billion dollars—compare this to the 61 billion dollars in federal budget cuts Republicans have proposed which come largely at the expense of less fortunate Americans.

Shared sacrifice needs to start with those at the top, but Republicans seem to think it should start with everybody else. The only logical conclusion one can draw is that they have declared…

(say it with me)

A Republican War On The Middle Class

************

Class warfare is real. It’s happening. And we mustn’t shy away from calling attention to it. If you want to know more about the decline of the middle class in this country, read your Robert Reich (he writes with fierce passion and intelligence on the subject). Arm yourself with facts. Rant your own rant. But please, let’s use the same language. Let’s talk about The Republican War On The Middle Class until we’re blue in the face–or at least until they stop waging it.

1. You don’t want a future of economic crashes and bubbles. If you don’t like the mess we’re in now, then we need to elect leaders who are willing to crack down on Wall Street–something Republicans have a lousy track record with. Over the last 30 years, Republicans (along with moderate Democrats) have eliminated key regulations that were put in place after the Great Depression in order to–you’ll never guess–prevent a second Great Depression. While both parties share the blame, the Republicans have been the ones leading the deregulation charge, and they continue to be the party pushing for more relaxed rules. This year, Democrats passed the most sweeping regulatory reform in half a century to try and restore sanity to our financial system. Today, many Republicans are hoping to repeal this legislation–and the important consumer protections that go with it. Don’t let them.

2. You want health insurance. You’re in luck. The health care bill passed by the Democrats is going to make it easier and cheaper for you to get insurance if you happen to be self-employed, working part-time, or working for an employer who does not provide coverage. If you are a young person, you can now stay on your parents’ plan until you are 26 years old. If you have a preexisting condition, insurance companies can no longer deny you coverage. These are big important changes. The health care plan is not perfect, but as problems crop up, we can address them by adjusting the current legislation. Give control of Congress back to the Republicans, and they’ve promised to try and repeal the whole plan, putting us back to square one. Which brings me to …

3. We cannot afford 2+ years of gridlock in Congress. At a different time in our history, there might be nothing wrong with a few years where very little gets done, but not today–not when we are in the midst of multiple crises. And make no mistake: this current crop of Republican candidates is practically campaigning on the promise of gridlock. You’ll notice that none of them are talking about reaching across the aisle or finding common ground. Instead, they promise to be unyielding and to use valuable time revisiting and repealing legislation we spent the last two years passing. Mitch McConnell recently said that his key goal in retaking the Senate was to win back the presidency in 2012. Not to create jobs. To win back the presidency. Does this sound like a future senate majority leader who is ready to compromise for the good of his country?

4. You want American education to get better. If you have kids or are planning on having them, then a strong public school system should be important to you. If that’s the case, don’t vote Republican. Even though our schools are falling behind, the Republican’s “Pledge to America” promises to cut our education funding by one-fifth. Republicans will tell you that education reform is not all about money, that there are problems with bureaucracy, and this is true. But guess what? Much of the problem IS money. How can we attract the best and brightest teachers if we aren’t willing to pay them competitive salaries? How can we avoid students falling through the cracks when we have 30 kids in a kindergarten classroom and not enough books for the high schoolers? These are money issues. You can talk all you want about private schools and vouchers, but most of our kids are going to go to public schools–and we need money to make them better. Incidentally, money invested in education is money we get back in the form of lower crime rates, increased tax revenue, and a more skilled workforce.

5. You want the Internet to remain a free and level playing field. Democrats have been trying to pass legislation to guarantee net neutrality so that broadband providers will not be able to discriminate between “preferred” websites and those run by Average Joes. Republicans have thus far blocked such legislation. If they get control of Congress, then net neutrality, and the web as we know it, may be gone for good.

6. You want leaders who aren’t afraid to pass unpopular legislation when necessary. The Tea Partiers may hate to admit it, but most of this ugly bailout and stimulus stuff passed by Bush and Obama actually worked. TARP achieved its goal of stabilizing the banks and is almost completely paid back. The American auto industry has been saved, and, along with it, countless jobs. As for the stimulus, serious economists of both parties agree that without it, we would have lost twice as many jobs. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says employment increased by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million people, compared with if there had been no stimulus. Today, the same Republicans who bad mouth the stimulus on the campaign trail are quietly applying to receive money from the stimulus budget to fund projects they know will create jobs. These emergency measures weren’t pretty and they weren’t perfect, but they have helped.

7. You hate the deficit. In order to climb out of debt, the U.S. government needs to take in more money and spend less. Republicans, unfortunately, seem to think they can solve the entire problem through spending cuts alone. They are deliberately vague on the details because the numbers don’t remotely add up–and because they know their cuts are going to be most painful to middle and lower class Americans and seniors. Some Republicans are even talking about cutting Social Security, which would be an immense disaster (click here to read the truth about Social Security). Democrats know that any cuts need to be sensible, so that they don’t hurt the people who most need help. They also must be balanced both by strategic investment and by the biggest no brainer of the election: allowing President Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to expire. Don’t fall for the bogus Republican scare tactic about this “hurting small business”; less than 2% of small business owners are in this top bracket, and they’ll do just fine under the generous Clinton-era rates. Republicans talk tough on the deficit, but their strategies for dealing with it are too limited and too reckless. It is no wonder that the only president in the last 30 years to turn deficit into surplus was a Democrat.

8. You care about the earth. You are worried about having clean drinking water and breathable air in thirty years. That’s why you need to vote for the party that consistently pushes for innovation and green technology–not the party that consistently opposes such investments.

9. You don’t want a future in which elections can be purchased by the highest bidder. Ever since the conservative Supreme Court handed down the Citizens United decision, wealthy powerful people from the U.S. and abroad have been free to pour unlimited–yes, unlimited!–amounts of money into our political campaigns. New corporations have sprung up to accept this outside money, corporations that are not required to disclose the names of their donors. While it is unclear the extent to which these new companies will influence the 2010 election, the potential for future abuse is obvious and scary. For the first time, candidates can receive an unlimited donation from someone whose identity will never be known. This is a shocking step backward that can only be reversed by new legislation. Republicans have no desire to change the status quo, so if you value transparency in government, you need to vote Democrat.

And now for the one you’ve all been waiting for…

10. YOU WANT A JOB. Let’s be honest. No politician can promise to make private companies hire again. Whenever we climb out of a recession, hiring new workers is always the last thing companies do, and we’re simply not there yet. So what can our government do in the meantime? When companies refused to hire new workers after the 1929 crash, FDR hired them himself, putting unemployed Americans to work building bridges and highways. It was a success. Between 1933 and 1940, he cut unemployment nearly in half. Today, the Democrats are the party fighting to devote more funds to repairing roads, rails, and runways, and modernizing our energy grid. Republicans complain that this will increase our debt, but that’s false in the long term. We can either deal with our infrastructure problems today or put them off until tomorrow. Doing the work today is cheaper because the recession has given us super low prices on building materials and labor, as well as record low interest rates. Plus, it puts Americans to work immediately, bringing more money into the economy. This is another no brainer. Now if you don’t happen to work in an infrastructure related field, you might be wondering how this government investment will help you get a job. To answer that, I will give you one bonus reason to vote blue, one that addresses a fundamental philosophical difference between Republicans and Democrats …

11. You believe that wealth does not trickle down from above; it flows upward. If you give a rich man $10, it will not affect his financial plans in any way. But give that same $10 to a man with a low income, and he’ll buy a sandwich. When those in the middle and those at the bottom have more money, they inject it back into the economy. This has been a core Democratic principal for years. Nowadays, when one criticizes Republicans for crafting policies that benefit the wealthy and powerful, that person is accused of playing class warfare. But let’s call a spade a spade. Republicans insist on securing tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans, but they refuse to extend unemployment benefits to help families put food on the table. How is THAT not class warfare? Today, the average CEO pays a lower marginal tax rate than the average nurse does. How is THAT not class warfare? Republicans argue that we need the rich to get richer so they can start creating jobs for the rest of us, but history has proven this trickle down strategy to be bogus. U.S. corporations are holding on to record amounts of cash right now, but they’re still not hiring. So why cut the taxes of their CEOs? Use that same money to hire a teacher or a policeman. They will spend the money they earn, and we will all benefit.

This election is too important to sit out. If you voted for Barack Obama in 2008, high on the promise of hope and change, do not stay on the sidelines now. Real change takes time, and problems of this magnitude take more than two years to fix. The Democrats have certainly made their share of mistakes these past couple years, but they are slowly getting us back on track. We can’t afford to go in reverse.

Please vote Democrat on November 2nd, and please tell your friends to do the same.

[ADDENDUM: Not every Democratic and Republican candidate fits neatly into the generalizations above, and it is important to learn about each specific candidate's platform. But you must remember that, at the end of the day, most Senators and Representatives are going to vote with their party leaders. If you decide to stay home on election day because you are not particularly excited about your specific Democratic candidate, then you are actively working against President Obama's agenda and actively empowering John Boehner, Mitch McConnell and the Republican movement. Even if you feel like you are choosing between the lesser of two evils, you need to make that choice! Apathy is not an option.]

I just heard this interview with him on Fresh Air.  It’s worth a listen.  His main point these days is about how the gap between rich and poor hasn’t been this high since before the Great Depression and that this is very very bad.  His explanation of how we got into our current financial mess (and why it will be tough to get out of) was about as spot on as I’ve heard.

This post on his blog is also pretty insightful.

The most infuriating thing about Fox News is that it claims to be fair and balanced. The most maddening thing about those who watch Fox News is that they believe it. They refuse to see what is obvious to everyone else: that Fox News shapes its reporting to fit a right wing agenda.

Every now and then, I pop on over to Fox News or their website to see how they are misreporting the news. They rarely disappoint me. Take Christine O’Donnell’s debate gaffe. Here is how it was reported on CNN:

Headline on CNN.com: Big oops moment for O’Donnell

Article Headline: O’Donnell gets Coons for Constitutional Law 101

Text: Christine O’Donnell received a lesson on the Constitution at Delaware’s Widener Law School Tuesday, but unfortunately for the Republican Senate candidate it came during a debate with Democrat Chris Coons.

On the issue of whether creationism should be taught in public schools, a highly skeptical O’Donnell questioned Coon’s assertion that the First Amendment calls for the separation of church and state.

“The First Amendment does?” O’Donnell asked during the Tuesday morning debate. “Let me just clarify: You’re telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?”

The CNN article headline was a bit sassy, but it clearly communicated the big take away from this event: a candidate who was a Constitutional Government fellow, a candidate who speaks frequently and reverently about the Constitution, messed up her basic Constitutional facts in a very public, cringe-inducing way. (Full article here)

Now let’s see how Fox News website reported it.

Headline on Fox News: O’Donnell Takes on Coons, Constitution

Article headline: O’Donnell Takes on Coons, Constitution in Courtroom Debate

If all you saw on the Fox website was “O’Donnell Takes on Coons, Constitution,” you wouldn’t know O’Donnell had made a major gaffe.  It sounds like she was, in fact, the aggressor in this story, a gutsy heroine who attacked (“took on”) her opponent and even, when it was necessary, the Constitution.  You probably wouldn’t have thought this was a very newsworthy story.  But what if you clicked over to the article?  Let’s start reading:

Text:  Trying to demonstrate her grasp of constitutional law after recently blanking on examples of Supreme Court rulings she opposes, Delaware Republican U.S. Senate nominee Christine O’Donnell on Tuesday found herself chided by a debate panelist – in front of a roomful of legal scholars – for not memorizing the U.S. Constitution.

In this first sentence, notice that the verb ascribed to O’Donnell is “trying,” a positive action, whereas the main verb of the sentence, attributed to a “debate panelist,” is “chided,” a negative action.  A simpler version of the sentence is this: While O’Donnell was trying, a panelist chided her.  Chided her for what?  For not memorizing the Constitution.  Well certainly it would be unfair to chide someone for not MEMORIZING the entire constitution.  And to chide her in a room full of legal scholars … well, that makes it sound like the panelist was just out to embarrass her.

Except, of course, that’s not what actually happened.  This panelist told her she “should know”–not the entire Constitution verbatim–but simply what the 16th amendment is.  She should know that the 16th amendment authorizes Congress to collect income taxes.  Why?  Because many of the crazies in her party are now talking about repealing it.  It is a campaign issue.  But to read the first sentence of the Fox article, one would think that O’Donnell–who was simply trying her best–got scolded unreasonably after a gotcha question.  Poor Christine!

Let’s read on to find out how she was wronged:

The nice thing about crazy people is that if you watch one for long enough, his or her true nature will be revealed. You just have to hope the crazy is revealed BEFORE it is accidentally elected to public office.

A hero takes a stand.  Please stand with him.  I wish I could fly across the country for this.  I’m asking everyone I know on the east coast to do your part and show all the crazies that moderate reasonable people can actually rule the day.  

Jon Stewart phrases it more eloquently than I can, so click here to read what this rally is all about.

And watch the video below:

Finally!  A New Euphemism!

We’ve had a lively potpourri of sex scandals recently, but none can match the transformative power of the Mark Sanford affair.  Finally, we have a new euphemism for extramarital relations and an artful one at that: “hiking the Appalachian trail.”  For those of you doubting the coolness of this new entry into the American erotic-political vernacular, I offer the following sample conversation between two political insiders.

POLITICAL INSIDER #1: “Have you heard anything from Senator Smith?”

POLITICAL INSIDER #2: “The senator? Not much. But rumor has it, he’s been hiking that old Appalachian trial lately.”

POLITICAL INSIDER #1:  “Well, I’ll be damned!”

POLITICAL INSIDER #2: (snicker)

POLITICAL INSIDER #1: (snicker)

See!  Try it for yourself, and you’ll see how much fun it is.

And then there were two.  And in one week! Who will be the next politician to get hit with ye olde sex scandal?  Personally, I’ve got my fingers crossed for Michele Bachmann (R-MN), and not just because it’d be cool to see a reverse gender scandal.  Also because she’s crazy.

Ah, schadenfreude!

By the way, if you haven’t seen Sanford’s press conference, it’s a doozy.  He actually comes across as vaguely likeable and sincere.  But then he’s a politician.  That’s what he’s supposed to do.

As Edwards, McGreevey, and Clinton go, so goes dear old John Ensign (R-NV).  The Senator who once worked himself up into a froth of self righteousness over President Clinton’s misconduct recently admitted to a 10-month-old affair with a married former campaign staffer, 46-year-old Cynthia Hampton.  Ah, irony!  As my novel (see Amazon link to the right) revolves around the (fake) extramarital affair of a prominent politician, I am all too happy to tackle this delicious topic once again.  Our question of the day: why is it always with a staffer?

Reason #1: Politicians usually don’t hire ugly people
Politicians are image conscious creatures.  So are the people who work for them.  They have to be.  And that is why they will usually hire an attractive person over an equally-qualified unattractive person if given that choice.  I have no proof to back this theory up, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

Reason #2: Geography
The first key to having sex is getting a sympathetic person in the same room as you.  For a politician, staffers fulfill this geographic qualification quite nicely — often more effectively than their spouse.

Reason #3: Mixed Signals
Remember the first time you realized that someone had a crush on you?  Your initial reaction may have been something like this: “No wonder they’ve been acting so nice to me!”  Well, guess what?  When you’re the boss, everyone acts nice to you. It’s easy to see how this “niceness” can be misinterpreted as romantic interest.  Incidentally, this can work both ways.  Put yourself inside the brain of a political staffer.  When your entire life revolves around your boss, when your boss’s happiness is your primary concern, when a phone call from your boss is the most important part of your day, more important than the call from your actual spouse, it is easy to imagine how your romantic/platonic wires might get crossed.