well-fed and comfortably employed politicians how they feel about the extension of the Bush tax cuts, why don’t you talk to the 2 million people who would have lost their unemployment benefits at the end of this month and the 2 million more that would have lost them in February. This isn’t about having enough money to buy the kids Christmas presents. This is about being able to keep the heat on and food on the table for those kids during these cold winter months.

I hate that Obama had to give in and give the Republicans what they wanted, but I honestly feel like he did not have a choice. Sure, he could have stuck out his chest and said, “I’m not giving in. If you want to be stubborn and let the benefits for the unemployed expire, go ahead.” But in the end, if those benefits had in fact expired, all fingers would have pointed to the president. Furthermore, any talks about the DREAM act or the START treaty or DADT would have been swiftly swept under the rug as the battle over tax cuts raged on.

All of these people who feel betrayed by the current administration over this issue are blaming the wrong people. Obama was placed in a no-win situation and I, frankly, think he made the right choice. It’s just unfortunate that in two years, when he will be running for a second term, this issue will once again rear its ugly head. And again, it will be a no win for him. If the economy improves and the unemployment rate dips, Republicans will claim it was due to the tax cut extensions and declare that the cuts need to be made permanent. If the unemployment rate is still in the upper stratosphere, Obama will be seen as a failure when it came to getting Americans back to work. A lose-lose situation all around.

Like Tom Hagen said in the Godfather, “Roth played this one beautifully.”

DREAM Act…
Middle-Class Tax Cuts…
Extension of Unemployment Benefits…
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal
START treaty…

thanks Mom

This picture was taken at a rally in Texas for governor Rick Perry and the former Alaska governor and current hand scribbling “leader” of the Tea Party, Sarah Palin. Seems a little weird to me that the kid is facing one way and the sign another, but…whatever. Maybe he wrote on both sides to improve the sign’s effectiveness. “Home Scholers for Perry” on one side and the old Locke quote, “Resistance to Trannies is obediance to God” on the other.

At first, I tried to convince myself that this sign should actually be read as “Home Scholars for Perry”. But Scholar is spelled with an A and not an E, so that doesn’t work in dispelling the incredible urge to call this kid’s mom a dunderhead. Sure, the kid is holding up the sign, but the lady next to him either wrote it or assured the young lad that it was spelled correctly. Either way, she should be clubbed about the face, neck and shoulders with a large ball peen hammer. You’re not helping your cause — whatever that cause may be.

Maybe the sign is supposed to be read as “Homes Cholers for Perry”. The dictionary defines choler as “an irritable petulant feeling”. Perhaps there is an inordinately large group of far right conservatives who hold an ungodly amount of animosity towards their homes. How Rick Perry got them all to gather in one location and hold up crudely written signs is beyond me.

Wait a minute. Governor Rick was pissed at the amount of power the US federal government was wielding and supported the idea of state sovereignty, right? So, in truth, he held an irritable petulant feeling towards the US — his home. By Jove…it all makes sense now! That kid’s mother isn’t an illiterate numskull after all. Turns out she’s brilliant!

Or not.

Scott Brown will have to run again in 2012 if he wants to retain his newly acquired senate seat. But will he be running for that seat or a much more influential one? Forgive me as I delve into pure speculation.

The one sliver of optimism that kept me buoyed during this first year of the Obama Administration, a year in which much has been expected and little, to this point, has been returned, was the paucity of formidable heavyweights standing on the opposite side of the ring. It was the fact that when I looked forward to the presidential election of 2012, I could not see any truly viable contenders for the Republicans. That may have changed last night.

Now, I will admit that I know very little about the new Republican senator from Massachusetts, Scott Brown. I know little about his policies or his background. But I do know the important things. And when I say ‘the important things’, I mean the various tidbits about senator Brown that would make him very attractive to the conservative and independent voters who will be yearning for a bewitching alternative to Obama come 2012.

Brown’s a good old boy who drives a pickup, but can’t be too rednecky for the independents because he lives in one of the most liberal states in the union. He spent a brief period of his life on welfare. That should prove that while Martha’s Vineyard may be a few klicks away for the new senator, he’s no stranger to poverty. He got into a few scrapes when he was a young man, but he states that the violence was due to his sticking up for his mom and sisters. He’s like friggin’ John Wayne, this guy — only without the pansy real first name. In 1982, Brown posed nude for Cosmopolitan magazine. When you consider all of the assorted (and sordid) reasons why politicians have dropped their britches recently — Spitzer, Ensign, Edwards, Craig, Sanford — and you consider the fact that Brown doesn’t exactly look like Orrin Hatch, you must concede that a 1982 photo spread of this now happily married hunk appears incredibly tame in comparison.

I’m not saying that this is the guy the Republican party has been dreaming about. I mean, I’m sure they will feel him out for about, oh, a week or so before crowning him the savior they’ve been waiting for. But look at the alternatives they have for 2012. Just the thought of most of these people would give Republican voters a violent case of the trots.

Newt Gingrich is considering a run? Not even Newt Gingrich would vote for Newt Gingrich. He thought that guy died years ago. And in a way, he did. Sarah Palin? Please. “What newspapers do you read?” “All of ‘em.” “Who’s your favorite founding father?” “All of ‘em.” “Bullcrap, who’s your favorite?” “Well, I guess I would have to say, Colonel Sanders.” Okay, I made that last part up, but you see my point. Palin will pop and fizzle by 2012. Mike Huckabee? He was my biggest fear until a few months ago when his own little Willie Horton situation reared its ugly head. Limbaugh? Come on. The bilious rhetoric works for a while. But you can only get so chummy with Satan before your voice becomes static and you are nothing more than a paper tiger.

So, we have a gray-hair, a narcissist, a Dukakis and a Darth Vader. These are our Republican choices? Blech!

So…what can Brown do for you? He’s young, handsome, Caucasian (I know. I hate to say it, but being from the south, I know it must be said), slightly experienced. Nobody knows who the hell he is or what he stands for and he has immediate mass appeal. Except for the being white part, he sounds a lot like another guy I know.

Obama and his cronies up on Capitol Hill better get their shit together but quick. The grooming for his replacement has already begun. And while Scott Brown may be guilty of showing off his package nearly 30 years ago, he may soon be described as being the “complete package” and the preeminent favorite for the White House in 2012.

I’m a huge Obama supporter. Nothing thrilled me more than to see him take the oath of office a few days ago, and I was glad to see him hit the ground running in regards to mending some of the broken fences left by the Bush administration. Of course, some of his immediate amendments and reversals have been given an askance gaze and tongue lashings from his critics while the supporters of such changes are enthralled, convinced already that change has indeed come to Washington.

The reversal of the Mexico City Policy has immediately reopened the door to the abortion debate, and it appears that the door will be blown of its hinges if Obama chooses to pass the Freedom of Choice Act. His desire to close Gitmo in the next year was met by harsh criticism by those who think Obama is already becoming weak on terrorism. Seriously though, what is the solution to Gitmo? You keep it open indefinitely and you are denying due process to both those who should be prosecuted as well as to those individuals who are innocent and watching their lives fritter away in some far off and unforgotten land. If you close it, then the threat of retribution from those who are released, whether they were innocent or not, will always loom. If you kept me in a prison for five years under suspicion of crimes I never committed then released me, I can’t say that revenge would not be close to the top of my “to do” list. So…what do we do?

I do have one major problem with President Obama. He is just a few days into his presidency and already I am beginning to hold my breath in the anticipation that business as usual may already be easing itself into the Oval Office. If you are going to make a rule that is to protect the government from the influence of lobbyists, don’t turn around and introduce an immediate exception to that rule. Not only does it call into question your integrity, but it also sets a precedent for your administration. Once you make one exception to a rule, where does it end? If you create a law and immediately demean that law by introducing exceptions, how are we (the people of the United States) and they (our enemies and allies around the world) ever supposed to believe in what you say?

Or do you live by the idea that you are the decider, and as a result, all laws are to be followed unless you decide otherwise? Cause I can tell you, if that’s your way of thinking, all I can say is, “Been there, done that.”