"...Willow Weep For Me....Candidates, On The Other Hand..."

Couple of current rages I'm not too crazy about.

Reality shows.

Talking to the top of somebody's head while they continue texting during the conversation.

Full disclosure.

That last one, admittedly, is a bit of a sticky wicket.

The notion that we should not be entitled to all the facts, all the time seems like it should be endorsed wholeheartedly without hesitation.

Actually, not so much.

Des Moines, Iowa (CNN) - Newt Gingrich teared up at a campaign stop in Iowa Friday, openly weeping while talking about his mother, who suffered from bipolar disorder and depression.

The moment was sparked by a question from GOP political consultant Frank Luntz, who was moderating a forum targeted to mothers at a local coffee shop Java Joe's in downtown Des Moines.

Luntz, noting the room had a number of moms present, asked Gingrich, "What moment do you think of when you think of your mom?"

"First of all you will get me all teary-eyed. Callista will tell you I get teary eyed every time we send Christmas cards," Gingrich said, coughing back tears.

"My mother sang in the choir and loved singing in the choir. I don't know if I should admit this but when I was very young she made me sing in the choir. I identify my mother with being happy, loving life, having a sense of joy in her friends," Gingrich continued.

Gingrich said his mother, who died in 2003, played a part in his legislative interests in long-term health care and mental disease.

"Late in her life she ended up in a long-term care facility. She had bipolar disease, depression and she gradually acquired some physical ailments and that introduced me to the issue of quality, long-term care."

Gingrich continued, stalling at times to fight back tears, "My whole emphasis on brain science comes in directly from dealing – see how I'm getting emotional – from dealing with you know the real problems of real people in my family. So it is not a theory. It is in fact my mother."

Moms Matter 2012, a group that describes its mission as "moving moms from the political sidelines to the headlines," sponsored the Gingrich event. Approximately 100 people were present, including a few mothers with young children.

Gingrich's immediate family joined him on stage for the event: wife Callista, daughters Kathy Gingrich Lubbers and Jackie Gingrich Cushman, sons-in-law, and two grandchildren, Maggie and Robert.

Inevitably, two points of view, at least, result from an episode like this.

There is the "aw, he's a good guy who loved his mom and not just another scheming politician..."

And then there's the "please, he's just another scheming politician...".

I don't know the man.

And I don't trust the commentators and/or pundits on either side of the ideological fence to make up my mind for me.

So, as to whether Newt's tears are twenty four carat or crocodile, I'll take a pass on pondering.

The thing about the thing is this.

I don't really want to know.

More to the point, I don't think it does us any good to know.

That kind of emotional expression only clouds, not clears, the water as we try to figure out which lever to pull come November.

If he's not sincere, then he's a manipulative schemer who is not to be trusted.

And if he is sincere, he's not exactly the kind of guy we want sitting across the table from those zany lads from, say, Iran or, say, North Korea.

When and if.

And for all those Hallmark Card sending, Lifetime Movie Of The Week loving folks whose favorite day during the Christmas season involves nine hearts a bleeding, let me offer you this.

Given the texture and tone of the world's politics at any given time in this day and time, we don't really need a guy living at 1600 Pennsylvania who is in touch with his feelings.

We need a boy named Sue.

And he said: "Son, this world is rough
And if a man's gonna make it, he's gotta be tough
And I knew I wouldn't be there to help ya along.
So I give ya that name and I said goodbye
I knew you'd have to get tough or die
And it's the name that helped to make you strong."

I imagine that Harry Truman probably welled up a little, somewhere along the way, as he reflected on dropping atomic bombs that would kill thousands of Japanese men, women and children.

I suspect that John F. Kennedy probably got teary, at least once, at the notion that one wrong move in Cuba could send Soviet missiles flying and kill hundreds of thousands of American men, women and children.

The list, likely, goes on.

But neither of those, or any other, Presidents let us see that side of their humanity.

And with good reason.

When we climb on board an airliner and are taken to thirty thousand feet, we all want to believe, and obviously, assume that the person at the controls is a warm, loving, caring human being.

But, we really don't want, or need, to see them walk through the cabin with tears in his or her eyes.

Standard issue for Presidents of The United States needs to be big boy/girl panties.

Not crying towels.

"...For Those Who Demand Change Now And Don't Define Now As 'Someday'.."

There's only one thing we know for sure here.

More on that in a moment.

Washington (CNN) -- Are you feeling uninspired this election season? Are you sick of all the attention being slathered on a small group of die-hard partisans in Iowa and New Hampshire? Do you think the political system's broken and your voice is ignored?

If you're looking for a change from the usual left-right, liberal-conservative, Democrat-Republican dynamic, you may get your wish. There's a new group in the 2012 election, and it's aiming to redefine presidential politics by going around the major party machines and putting an alternative choice on the ballot in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Americans Elect, which has raised $22 million so far, is harnessing the power of the Internet to conduct an unprecedented national online primary next spring. If all goes according to plan, the result will be a credible, nonpartisan ticket that pushes alternative centrist solutions to the growing problems America's current political leadership seems unwilling or unable to tackle.

The theory: If you break the stranglehold that more ideologically extreme primary voters and established interests currently have over presidential nominations, you will push Washington to seriously address tough economic and other issues. Even if the group's ticket doesn't win, its impact will force Democrats and Republicans in the nation's capital to start bridging their cavernous ideological divide.

"We're not a third party. We're a second nominating process trying to create a ticket that is solutions-based, that will force the conversation to the center rather than keeping it at the extremes of either party," says Ileana Wachtel, a spokeswoman for the group.

If you think Americans Elect is nothing more than a bunch of naïve dreamers, think again. Its leadership includes former New Jersey GOP Gov. Christine Todd Whitman; former Clinton administration strategist Doug Schoen; former National Intelligence Director Adm. Dennis Blair; former FBI and CIA Director William Webster; and former U.S. Trade Representative Carla Hills, among others.

The group's CEO is Kahlil Byrd, former communications director for Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, a Democrat. Dan Winslow, a Massachusetts Republican state representative and a former chief counsel to GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney, is also on board.

Funding for the effort was kicked off with over $5 million from investment banker Peter Ackerman. Financially, the ultimate goal is to limit each contributor's donation to no more than $10,000.

Americans Elect strategists believe they'll need around $35 million in total, half of which will likely be necessary to meet cumbersome ballot access requirements.

"The people who provided the seed money to get us started come from across the political spectrum," the group claims on its website. "Giving to Americans Elect buys you no special influence whatsoever, and all donors acknowledge that fact when they contribute."

One point of contention is that the group does not disclose the names of its donors, citing its nonprofit status and fears that contributors could find themselves losing potential business or social contacts. Critics contend the secrecy undermines the organization's claims of openness and transparency, and they argue that any group with such a clear electoral goal should not be exempt from disclosure rules governing the Democratic and Republican national committees.

Any registered voter -- Democrat, Republican, or otherwise -- can become an Americans Elect online delegate. Over 300,000 people have signed up so far. While anyone can seek the group's nomination, possible candidates will have to answer multiple online questionnaires.

Six prospective nominees will eventually be chosen by the delegates in an online winnowing process culminating in the selection of a ticket in June. According to the rules, two members of the same party will not be allowed to run together.

"When candidates pick running mates from outside their parties, it's a clear sign that they're working to build the consensus necessary to get things done," the group argues. "They'll govern without regard to the partisan interests of either major party."

Could New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg team up with former Secretary of State Colin Powell? How about Joe Lieberman and Condoleezza Rice? What about tapping a media celebrity like Tom Brokaw or a deficit hawk like former Clinton chief of staff Erskine Bowles?

The list of possibilities is virtually endless, but the list of criticisms is long. Among other things, critics question the ability to stop a fringe group from hijacking the process and using Americans Elect to advance their own narrow cause. Possible nominees will have to be cleared by an independent committee and undergo a background check, but the committee's decision can be overruled by a majority of the delegates.

Will the online voting be secure from hackers? "We take that issue very seriously," Wachtel told CNN, noting that each delegate will be able to produce a paper record of his or her vote.

Josh Levine, the former chief technology and operations of E*Trade Financial, is tasked with the website's security.

A number of political observers question whether an Americans Elect ticket could ever have a serious shot at winning. For all the talk of voter alienation and disgust with Washington, broad segments of the electorate maintain strong party loyalties, and the country's winner-take-all electoral system remains a huge hurdle for anyone trying to break the two-party stranglehold. Ross Perot won nearly 20% of the vote in 1992 and didn't have a single electoral vote to show for his efforts; 270 electoral votes are needed to win the White House.

The last non-major party candidate to make any headway in the Electoral College was George Wallace, who ran in 1968 on a specific issue -- opposition to civil rights -- and with a very clear regional base of support. At the moment, Americans Elect appears to have neither.

Having a charismatic nominee might help, but would hardly guarantee electoral viability. When one of the most beloved politicians in U.S. history -- Theodore Roosevelt -- bucked the two-party system in 1912, he only succeeded in splitting the Republican vote and ensuring a victory for Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat.

Veteran political analysts Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann have speculated that an Americans Elect ticket may end up splitting the electorate next year in such a way that an otherwise unacceptable major party nominee ends up capturing the presidency.

"The nightmare scenario for us would be angry or demoralized independents and discouraged centrist Republicans gravitating toward the third candidate, enabling a far-right Republican nominee to prevail with a narrow electoral majority or with a plurality followed by a win in a deeply divided House," they recently wrote in The Washington Post.

The U.S. Constitution requires the House of Representatives to pick the president if no candidate wins a majority of electoral votes.

Ornstein and Mann also question the ability of an independent president to govern effectively, and fear the eventual winner's legitimacy could be undermined by a severe three-way split in the popular vote.

"In this tough environment, any diminishment of legitimacy for the winner is undesirable," they said.

Asked to respond, Wachtel told CNN the need for change is paramount.

"At this point, the system's already spoiled," she said. "We need to open the process up to more competition and more choices for the American people."


The instant criticism of this concept is both predictable and inevitable.

Nothing rattles people's cages like actually changing something that we all scream we want changed.

A little something from the "be careful what you ask for" folder.

And while there are reasonable questions to be answered when it comes to the Americans Elect paradigm, there are always reasonable questions to be asked about any new way of doing things.

Any things.

That shouldn't, of course, be an automatic disqualification.

If it was, we would all be reading by firelight before going to down the creek to bathe before heading off to work on our mule.

The mule, of course, with the eight track tape player in the dashboard.

Because, God knows, there are serious concerns to be addressed about this new fangled cassette thingy.

All of this aside, there exists, at the center of the Americans Elect concept, a little pin spot of light, a spark, perhaps, of the sort that has been known to start a little smolder, then a little smoke, then a little flame and then a fire that can light our way to new horizons and accomplishments.

Clearly, from the caliber of people involved in this, it is an idea whose time may very well have come.

We can't know at the outset.

In fact, there's really only one thing we know for sure.

What will happen if we don't find a way to change that we all scream we want changed.

"...They're Lousy Dealmakers, But We Keep Dealing Them In..."

Poker.

That's what it really boils down to, you know.

More on that in a minute.

Washington (CNN) -- The congressional impasse over extending the payroll tax cut became a showdown Tuesday between President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner.

After the Republican-controlled House passed a measure calling for more negotiations, Boehner made public a letter to Obama that urged him to order the Senate back from its holiday break to take part in further talks.

Leaders in the Democratic-controlled Senate reject that idea, and Obama agreed, telling reporters in a previously unscheduled appearance that the House must approve the two-month extension passed by a strong bipartisan majority in the Senate.

"The bipartisan compromise that was reached on Saturday is the only viable way to prevent a tax hike on January 1," Obama said. "It's the only one."

The House motion, passed with no Democratic support on a 229-193 vote, expressed House disagreement with the Senate plan and called for the dispute to be immediately taken up by a House-Senate conference committee -- something already ruled out by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada.

However, Boehner and the Republican leadership prevented a direct vote on the Senate plan, signaling they may lack enough GOP support to defeat it in the face of unrelenting pressure from the White House, Democrats and some Senate Republicans.

Reading these kinds of stories day after day, I'm mindful of a couple of acronyms.

D.C.

District of Columbia.

S.S.D.D.

Same shit, different day.

But, today, while reading the latest road report from the clown car that is our Congress, another word popped to mind.

Poker.

And how that's really what all this is about.

There's an old saying amongst card players.

"When you sit down to play, look around the table and try to decide who the sucker is...if you can't figure out who it is...

...it's you."

We rail and rant and bitch and moan about the complete wastes of space these elected officials are and how they fail to serve even the slightest of our needs, instead, bickering constantly amongst themselves and serving only their own interests.

Yet, every two, four or six years, we send them back to Washington.

The classic definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result each time.

Seems like two things are clear.

We're all a little crazy.

And we suck at poker.

"...Oliver Twist, 2012...Please, Sir....May I Run For President?...."

Somewhere along the fun little road trip I've been on for awhile known as morning radio, I've learned a few things about human nature.

One of those things is that people tend to, unfailingly, like two things.

Free stuff.

And puzzles.

Regardless of what a lot of broadcast consultants want us, and try to convince themselves, to believe, chances are that your tuning into "Blather and Blah In The Morning" is less about the latest time, temp and weather forecast that you can now easily get on your smartphone and more about "Tacky Tweaky Trivia At Ten After" for the chance to win a free lunch at "Sandy's Sushi City".

Lord knows it can't possibly be to hear Katy Perry or Gaga every eleven point seven minutes.

And, of the two, free stuff and puzzles, it's actually the latter that offers the most appeal.

No matter how fresh the sushi.

There is simply something inherent in human nature that insists we find the solution to any query, question, curiosity or outright puzzle that crosses our radar.

Which brings me to the Donald.

And why anyone in their right, or right wing, mind gives a G.O.P elephant's patoot about getting his blessing to run for President of the United States.

It's a riddle, inside a mystery, wrapped in an enigma.

In other words, it's quite the puzzler, pinky.

Because he's not an office holder, past or present; he's not any official of either or any political party, major or minor; he's not a media columnist or commentator with a faithful following of millions of potential voters.

He's a real estate mogul with more money than God, let alone Albert Pujols.

But multiple zeros on a bank balance do not a political patriarch make.

Basically, the guy is a ReMax agent who can afford really nice suits.

The fact that this status theoretically endows him with the power to make, or break, the candidacies of those running for high office says volumes more about the process itself than the players in the plot.

And, again broken down to its simplest essence, gives us mere mortals serious pause as we consider that the answer to the puzzle may be no more complicated than this.

Money talks.

Only a fool or a child naively believes that money doesn't, and hasn't, played a key role in the political process since day one of campaign one.

From the days of Mark Hanna doling out family dollars to get William McKinley elected to the big business meets ballot box blitzkrieg of the Rockefeller family, the dollars and cents of American politics has been millions and millions of dollars and cents.

John F. Kennedy even publicly joked, at times, about the amount of money his father threw around in the quest to relocate Camelot to the District Of Columbia.

But Trump's purse power has a more in your face, and more insidious, way about it.

And the line of Republican candidates who have felt obliged to request an audience at Trump Tower are looking like the right wing edition of the favor seekers at the wedding of Don Corleone's daughter.

Last time I checked, though, Trump Tower was still located in downtown New York City.

Not 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Or, for that matter, Vatican Square.

"...On Behalf Of Justice Montevideo And The Other Fifty One Supreme Court Justices..."

James Carville.

Sure.

Karl Rove.

If you insist.

The brightest, savviest, most prescient political mind, in my humble o, belongs to a playwright/screenwriter.

Stay tuned for that name.

Meanwhile, Rick Perry is bob, bob, bobblin along.




Okay, in the interest of trying to be fair and balanced (Fox News, patent pending), I suppose it must be said that we all have little moments where names, dates and the other assorted minutiae of the day to day escape us.

But we all aren't running for President of The United States.

And when one of the finalists for a nomination from a major political party to do just that has to be prompted so that he can remember the correct name of one of only nine judges (and, while we're at it, that correct number of those judges), I think it not unfair or unbalanced to suggest we should all, regardless of posture, position or party stripe, agree to say "thanks for stopping by, now, who's next?"

What struck me about this latest faux perrypas', though, wasn't the, once again, obvious concern that the Governor is in over his head, even when the subject matter keeps him in the shallow end of the pool, but, instead, how remarkably visionary Aaron Sorkin is.

Sorkin being the aforementioned screenwriter/playwright.

And not a guy who shows up with any regularity on either Fox or MSNBC or CNN with the term "political analyst" underneath his name on the Kyron.

I'm thinking he should be, though.

Check it out.



Hmm.

Governor of a major southern state. Major party candidate for President. Clearly out of his element in the major league spotlight.

Ring any graham bells, Alexander?

What's remarkable about this isn't the stylish, and statistically not all that dazzling, art imitating life thing going on here.

Or even that life, these days, seems to be maintaining a fine batting average when it comes to imitating art.

What's remarkable is that Aaron Sorkin wrote this script and the episode was filmed and broadcast...

...nine years ago.

Move over, Nostradamus.

There's a new kid in town.

"...Demagogue...Rhymes with Gingrich..."

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

Apparently.

And obviously.

Maureen Dowd, in the New York Times, on the current front runner for the Republican nomination for President of the United States....

Newt Gingrich's mind is in love with itself.

It has persuaded itself that it is brilliant when it is merely promiscuous. This is not a serious mind. Gingrich is not, to put it mildly, a systematic thinker.

His mind is a jumble, an amateurish mess lacking impulse control. He plays air guitar with ideas, producing air ideas. He ejaculates concepts, notions and theories that are as inconsistent as his behavior.

He didn’t get whiplash being a serial adulterer while impeaching another serial adulterer, a lobbyist for Freddie Mac while attacking Freddie Mac, a self-professed fiscal conservative with a whopping Tiffany’s credit line, and an anti-Communist Army brat who supported the Vietnam War but dodged it.

“Part of the question I had to ask myself,” he said in a 1985 Wall Street Journal piece about war wimps, “was what difference I would have made.”

Newt swims easily in a sea of duality and byzantine ideas that don’t add up. As The Washington Post reported on Friday, an America under President Gingrich would have two Social Security systems — “one old, one new, running side by side” — two tax systems and two versions of Medicare.

Consider his confusion of views on colonialism. In the 1971 Ph.D. dissertation he wrote at Tulane University, titled “Belgian Education Policy in the Congo 1945-1960,” he is anti-anticolonialism.

“If the Congolese are to confront the future with realism they will need a solid understanding of their own past and an awareness of the good as well as the bad aspects of colonialism,” he argued. “It would be just as misleading to speak in generalities of ‘white exploitation’ as it once was to talk about ‘native backwardness.’ ”

He warned against political pressures encouraging “Black xenophobia.” What’s xenophobic about Africans wanting their oppressors to go away? It’s like saying abused wives who want their husbands to leave are anti-men.

He sees colonialism as a complicated thing with good and bad effects rather than a terrible thing with collateral benefits.

Laura Seay, an assistant professor at Morehouse College in Atlanta and an expert on Africa, blogged that Gingrich’s thesis was “kind of a glorified white man’s burden take on colonial policy that was almost certainly out of vogue in the early 1970s. Gingrich wrote this as the Black Consciousness and Black Power movements were approaching their pinnacles. It was most decidedly not the time to be arguing that white European masters did a swell job ruling black Africans through a system that ensured that most Congolese would never get a real education.”

When it comes to America’s British overlords, Gingrich is not so sympathetic. The bludgeon of American exceptionalism that he uses on President Obama was forged at Valley Forge.

In the introduction to his novel about George Washington and the Revolutionary War, “To Try Men’s Souls,” written with William R. Forstchen, Gingrich writes: “The British elites believed this was a conflict about money and about minor irritations. They simply could not believe the colonists were serious about their rights as free men and women.”

Gingrich, a radical precursor to the modern Tea Party when he staged what conservatives considered the second American Revolution in the House in the ’90s, wrote with delight of London’s shock when Samuel Adams started the original Tea Party.

But while an anticolonial disposition is good if you’re Adams, Washington and Jefferson, it’s bad if you’re Barack Obama’s Kenyan father living under British rule two centuries later.

Gingrich made one of his classic outrageous overreaches last year when he praised a Dinesh D’Souza article in Forbes, saying you could only understand how “fundamentally out of touch” and “outside our comprehension” President Obama is “if you understand Kenyan, anticolonial behavior.”

D’Souza’s absurd ad hominem theory tying Obama to his father goes like this: “This philandering, inebriated African socialist, who raged against the world for denying him the realization of his anticolonial ambitions, is now setting the nation’s agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son.”

This was a typical Newt mental six-car pileup. The man who espouses Christian values being un-Christian in visiting the alleged sins of the father upon the son; the man who reveres the anticolonialism of the founding fathers ranting against the anticolonialism of the father of America’s first African-American president. How do you rail against the Evil Empire and urge overthrowing Saddam and not celebrate liberation in Africa?

Newt is like the Great White Hunter out on campaign safari, trying to bag a Mitt, an animal with ever-changing stripes. Certainly, the 68-year-old’s haughty suggestions on child labor last week in Iowa smacked of harsh paternalism and exploitation.

He expanded on Dickensian remarks he’d made recently at Harvard, where he said “it is tragic what we do in the poorest neighborhoods, entrapping children in child laws which are truly stupid,” adding that 9-year-olds could work as school janitors.

“Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works,” he asserted in an ignorant barrage of stereotypes in Des Moines. “So they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday.”

Has he not heard of the working poor? The problem isn’t that these kids aren’t working; it’s that they don’t have time with their parents, who often toil day and night, at more than one job, and earn next to nothing.

Newt’s the kind of person whom child labor laws were created to curb. He sounds like a benign despot with a colonial subtext: Until I bring you the benefits of civilization, we will regard you as savages.

He’s Belgium. The poor are Congo.


As opined at the outset, desperate times call for desperate measures.

The foundation of Newt Gingrich's candidacy rests on two pilings.

That a majority of voting Americans, at crunch time, once the curtain on the booth has closed behind them, will see our times as sufficiently desperate to choose someone, anyone who is not Barack Obama to live at 1600 Pennsylvania.

And that same majority of Americans will see Newt Gingrich as the clear choice to be that someone, anyone.

Firing one contractor whose work is substandard and replacing him with another contractor whose resume' is clean and intentions good is one thing.

Replacing him with an angry, petty and petulant demagogue possessed of a spotty past and a portfolio full of platform planks good for any and all occasions is most certainly another.

It might take a village.

But it only takes one guy to burn one down.

And that can't possibly be the best choice for anyone.

No matter how desperate the times.

"...I Swear, If Rick Perry Enters The Next Debate And Trips Over The Ottoman, I'm Gonna Lose It..."

Spending much time watching Comedy Central?

Getting your guffaws from major network sitcoms?

You're wasting your time, bunky.

The funniest stuff to be found on the ol' flat screen is as close as your favorite cable news channel.

And lately, it's a laugh a minute.

Check it out.

Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain told supporters Saturday that he is suspending his presidential campaign, which has become hobbled in recent weeks by allegations of sexual harassment and an Atlanta woman's claim that they carried on a 13-year affair.

While he will still be able to raise and spend campaign funds because he did not officially drop out, Cain's White House bid is effectively over.

Cain said he came to the decision after assessing the impact that the allegations were having on his wife, his family and his supporters.

Cain and his wife, Gloria, held hands as they walked up to the podium where Cain made his remarks in Atlanta. The crowd chanted, "Gloria! Gloria!" before the candidate spoke.

Even as he stepped aside under the weight of the allegations that have dogged him, Cain said that he was at "peace with my God" and "peace with my wife."

He repeatedly called the allegations "false and untrue," and added that "the (media) spin hurts."

"I am not going to be silenced and I will not go away," Cain said, announcing what he called his Plan B: A website, TheCainSolutions.com, through which he will continue to advocate for his platform.

His catchy "9-9-9" economic plan is not going anywhere, he said.

"Your support has been unwavering and undying," Cain told his supporters.

He will endorse another of the Republican presidential hopefuls soon, he said.

Other candidates were quick to react.

"Herman Cain provided an important voice to this process," Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann said in a statement. "His ideas and energy generated tremendous enthusiasm for the conservative movement at a time it was so desperately needed to restore confidence in our country."

Fellow Georgian Newt Gingrich said the "9-9-9" plan "got our country talking about the critical issue of how to reform our tax code and he elevated the dialogue of the Republican presidential primary in the process."

Texas Gov. Rick Perry said he knew the Cains made a "difficult decision. He helped invigorate conservative voters and our nation with a discussion of major tax reform."

Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman said Cain brought "a unique and valuable voice to the debate over how to reform our country's uncompetitive tax code and turn around the economy. I understand his decision and wish him and his family the best."

Now, I've written a comedic line, or piece, in my time and, I gotta tell ya, I'm pretty confident that I know from funny.

And this, friends, is some funny shit.

Seriously.

Our wacky and zany hero has been waylaid by a motley crew of moralists, muckrakers, mademoiselles and media malarkey mavens, bringing to an end his quixotic quest to be the next black guy to ride up on the white horse to the front door of that white house.

Meanwhile, his crack up crew of cohorts are pratfalling all over themselves trying to be first in line on the high road of "so long, been good to know ya" while struggling satirically to keep their gleeful "good riddance" smiles as minimal as humanly possible.

And...patting him on the back, shoving him out the door and bending over to kiss his behind in hopes of being that "hopeful" to be soon endorsed.

All at the same time.

Cue laugh track, my ass.

This thing generates applause and ah-has as far as the ear can hear.

The future of the planet and the leadership the voters are trying to pluck from the muck is, rightly, serious business.

The process of choosing that leadership, in the meantime, is more chuckly and chortly than any ten episodes of Lucy and Ethel stuffing chocolates in their uniforms and light years out in front of anything Ashton Kutcher and company are offering up Monday nights, nine eastern, eight central.

And if you're having trouble finding the funny here, you're just not trying hard enough.

I mean, come on, comedy writers would sell their soul to the devil to be able to write a script that has four ostensibly major candidates for the Republican nomination for President of The United States offering obits grease painted with a transparent layer of tribute before the last note of taps has even been heard at the au revoir rally.

And how much funnier does it get than these four clowns praising a platform while delightedly seeing it dismantled?

Not your cup of tea, humor wise?

To each his or her own.

E pluribus unum.

Tell you one thing, though.

One someone is laughing louder and longer than anyone else on the aforementioned planet.

Barack Obama.

"...At The Very Least, A Victim Of Circumstance..."

Sarah Elizabeth Cupp suggests that Herman Cain is not a victim.

Which isn't to say that there isn't one.

Here's an excerpt from her article on CNN.com

Herman Cain's appeal was that he was real. He wasn't politically savvy or polished. And when a candidate, as Charles Krauthammer asserted, decides to "wing it," as he did, that means that two things will happen. One, the candidate will appear authentic, unscripted, genuine and approachable. And two, the candidate will make mistakes. Cain made a bunch.

In his announcement, Cain blamed the media for spinning his campaign. And his supporters, as well as some conservative commentators, will likely continue to blame the media, Democrats and the women who spoke out against him for his campaign's demise. They will bemoan the campaign trail as an ugly place that eats its unsuspecting victims alive. But as unprepared as Cain may have been for life in the political spotlight and the invasive cavity search that is performed on presidential hopefuls, the truth is he was far less prepared to actually be our president.

He can't blame the media for his fumbles on foreign policy, or his inability to explain his own position on abortion. Nor can he blame Democrats or his alleged victims for his failure to sell his 9-9-9 plan as the solution to all of our ills.

Herman Cain is not a victim. He's a man who decided he deserved the highest vote of confidence the country could give him. And though he may be a genuine, likable and thoughtful person with some good ideas, he did not deserve that vote.

Herman Cain knew what he didn't know. He should have realized that it was too much to be president.

Whether Cain's indiscretions are the stuff of sin or the stuff of slander only he, his accusers and his God know for sure.

And since his detractors and/or opponents had everything to gain from his political demise, it's easy to make a case that what has happened is, in fact, the flawless execution of a remarkably well planned character assassination.

If that's the case, then Cupp is, in fact, wrong.

Cain is a victim.

If not, then not.

Her contention, though, that Cain can't claim victim status and has failed in his quest because he simply didn't "deserve that vote" is flawed.

Because it wasn't his failure to connect with voters that has ended this campaign.

We will, now, never know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but as regards what, or who, Herman Cain did or didn't do.

As a result, we're going to be denied the chance to weigh in on the merits, or lack, of what he had to offer us in the way of leadership.

None of which, of course, necessarily makes Herman Cain a victim.

But there is one.

That would be us.

"...Coming This Week....Video Of Michelle Bachmann Saving Some Kids From A Burning Building..."

Politics, the classic bromide reminds us, makes strange bedfellows.

Ain't it the truth.

And no stranger a pairing have these moderately wizened eyes, with brows inevitably arched, witnessed, of late, than this one.

The writer, Dorothy Parker

My granddaughter, Ella Marie.

Edification to ensue momentarily.

But, first, an update on the latest adventures of the gang unable to shoot straight.

DES MOINES, Iowa — A gathering of religious conservatives in Iowa tonight turned into one of the most emotional moments of the 2012 primary season when two presidential candidates — Herman Cain and Rick Santorum — both fought back tears while telling personal stories about the most challenging moments in their lives.

Cain, whose wife, Gloria, was in the audience, spoke about being diagnosed with stage IV colon cancer in 2006, stopping several times during his re-telling of the story to compose himself.

“I can do this,” Cain said he told his wife moments after getting the cancer diagnosis from his doctor. “She said — ‘we.’”

Fellow candidate Rick Perry, who was seated next to Cain at the forum, which is sponsored by the Christian conservative organization The Family Leader, reached over and touched Cain on the shoulder, consoling him.

Santorum spoke about his three-year-old daughter Bella’s diagnosis with Trisomy 18, a disorder that kills roughly 90 percent of children before or during birth. He shared his struggle dealing with the illness, acknowledging that he thought if he did not love her, it wouldn’t hurt him if she died.

Bella is still alive, but Santorum spoke of a particularly trying time when he thought he was about to lose her: “I prayed that moment, please, please let her live,” Santorum said. “I’ll do everything to commit to her and not just her, but to every child like her.”

Michele Bachmann and Perry both reached out to comfort the former Pennsylvania senator.

Six candidates, including Cain, Perry, Ron Paul, Bachmann, Santorum and Newt Gingrich, used the venue to speak more expansively than ever before about their personal faith journey.

“In every person’s heart, in every person’s soul, there is a hole that can only be filled by the Lord Jesus Christ,” Perry told the audience.

Bachmann also told a touching story about her parents’ divorce, recalling her mother’s words: “It’s hard now, but, it’s going to be OK.” She spoke of her family’s financial woes after her parents’ split up, saying “my mom put all our pretty dishes” on “card tables” to sell them at a yard sale.

Gingrich also shed a tear while speaking about a disabled child he knows. The former House Speaker also opened up about a time in his life when he felt “truly hollow.”

But emotion also gave way to politics. The candidates took the opportunity to attack “Obamacare,” Washington elites, the liberal establishment and Occupy Wall Street protesters. And, all tried to fit in their own campaign talking points. Perry touted the 10th Amendment, Paul defended the importance of the Constitution and Bachmann promised to bring back $2 a gallon gasoline.

The candidates were seated around a large wooden table adorned with pumpkins at the event, billed as the Thanksgiving Family Forum. The two-hour long session, which did not include Mitt Romney who was campaigning in Iowa tonight, was moderated by Republican pollster Frank Luntz.

Before the candidates took the stage, prominent Iowa social conservative and political figure Bob Vander Plaats, who heads the Family Leader, predicted that “the next president of the United States will present to you tonight.”

The forum was held at the First Federated Church in Des Moines roughly a month and a half before Iowans will gather for the presidential caucuses on Jan. 3.

Wow.

Agape.

Defined as both a term for Christian love.

And wide eyed, mouth opened wonder.

Double word score.

Reality show producers who think they have a handle on what "the viewing public" wishes to be fed are clueless when they come up against the organizers of these dark comedies disguised as debates going on in the well lit, climate controlled, equipmentally state of the art but, unmistakably, Chautauqua tents the Republican Road Show is taking from town to town in their quest to determine what to feed "the American people".

Come ONE, come ALL!.....

To the greatest show on earth!

Something for the whole family!

Rock'em, sock'em...

Upsy, downsy...

Back and forthsy...

And now.....

Touchy, feely....

Were this, in fact, an actual stage production touring the country and were I a reviewer charged with the task of giving said production an objective and insightful review, I have to confess said review would be short, sweet and succinct.

And would read something like this.

"Are you fucking kidding me?

A group of candidates gathered together to, ostensibly, argue their positions on the critical societal issues of our time in hopes of being chosen to lead a nation through some of that nation's most challenging times and we're getting three minute long Lifetime movies about disease diagnosis, promises to terminally ill babies, having to sell "pretty dishes" at yard sales and, wait for it....

...Newt actually knows a disabled child.

Katy, bar the door.

Couple of random thoughts.

If the intention (and this is a totally futile effort on my part to, for the love of God help me, find some way to see this as a half full glass)was to humanize the people wearing the office seekers masks, then, and again, God help me here, I suppose it's fair to say mission accomplished.

But, it simultaneously cheapens and denigrates the political process that we deserve.

We'll be right back to Newt hates Herman hates Rick hates Mitt patronizes Michelle ignores Rick humors Ron, but first...

Group hug.

And now, back to the battle.

Were it simply funny, it would genuinely be funny.

But try to picture this.

1858.

Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas debate.

Mr. Lincoln, during a passionate and determined declaration of his point of view is speaking....

".... Let us discard all these things, and unite as one people throughout this land, until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal....all men...and (slight choke up)...I'm sorry, I was going to say women, as well and that brought me to mind of my sainted mother, Nancy, who passed away nigh on forty years ago...she was taken by the milk sickness that ran rampant through the Little Pigeon Creek settlement, a sickness that took not only Mama but her aunt Elizabeth and (more choked up) uncle Thomas, two sainted souls who raised my mama as if (serious choking up)...as if she were their very own...their very....(unable to continue..."

Mr. Douglas puts down his notes, removes his eyeglasses to wipe a tear from one eye and reaches over, putting a slightly trembling hand on Lincoln's shoulder.

They exchange knowing glances....as tears roll down wrinkled cheeks and the crowd, turns to each other, holding hands, reaching out, coming together in concern and compassion.

Group hug.

Somewhere, in that moment, in that crowd, is a reporter for one of Illinois' young and growing news weeklies.

And he is thinking what I am thinking now.

"Are you fucking kidding me?"

This latest episode of the "Right Wing Roadshow" offers nothing if  not overwhelming evidence that these people have decided to do their level best to be all things to all people.

The problem with that concept, as history has taught us, is that it can't be done.

To add intelligence insult to injury, we have another candidate type to add to the list.

The environment candidate.

The peace candidate.

The corporate candidate.

The working man's candidate.

The economy candidate.

And new but, certainly, not least...

The Oprah candidate.

Seriously, kids, Tina Turner may, or may not, have been right when she said "we don't need another hero", but I'd bet my Twix bar against your Twix bar that we absolutely don't need another reason to be cynical about the process of electing a president.

And turning the process into a Hallmark Channel mini series ratchets up the cynical factor by a ten fold or two.

Not to mention making strange bedfellows out of writer and granddaughter.

And two noted uses, respectively, of the English language.

Dorothy Parker..."it ran the gamut of emotions, from A...to B...".

Ella Marie..." OMG...".

Group hug.

"...Making Life Better...And Shit Up....One Word At A Time..."

Politics in this age is a lot like Cracker Jack.

Inside the box filled with the expected junk food, there is, traditionally, a surprise to be found.

Although given that we all know there is a surprise inside renders the surprise factor academic, but that's a hair split for another time.

One surprise I think we've all enjoyed in the process politic, of late, is the discovery of new vocabulary.

Sarah Palin, for one, offered us up "refudiate" a while back.

And Herman Cain has made "9-9-9" almost as iconic as "6-6-6" (and just as insidious, depending on who you ask).

Always willing to add two cents to any given pile of loose change, I'd like to pony up a new assembly of letters myself.

Contextan.

Defined as a word or phrase intended solely to make political points with and/or instill fear in the hearts, minds and voting preferences of that most cherished of target demos, "the American people", lifted from somewhere out of another word or phrase spoken at any other time, regardless of back story, background or...wait for it...context.

And the inspiration for the coining of this new word being none other than the Lone Star State's favorite linguist, Rick Perry.

Or, to pare it down for the masses, a word or phrase quoted out of context as in the style of the current Governor of Texas...

...a contextan.

The latest contextan being injected into the bloodstream and/or bile duct of the body politic..."Obama says that Americans are lazy".

Mr. Perry has been doing a whole lotta rilin' up the restless with that little nugget.

And if you stretch the point to the point of snapping, it must be admitted that, yes, Barack Obama did use those words.

More or less.

Give or take.

But, hell, why let ourselves be bothered with background, back story or...wait for it...context when we can just let ourselves enjoy the Cliff Notes in ten second sound byte format that Perry and other language lancers offer up?

Actually, the whole concept has potential as a family game night game of sorts.

And, as John Lennon once told us, it's easy if you try.

Of course, that's out of context, but isn't that point?

Here's a couple of examples of how our game is played.

Actual Rick Perry quote-Scouting ought to be about building character, not about sex. Period. Precious few parents enroll their boys in the Scouts to get a crash course in sexual orientation.

The contextan- Precious few parents enroll their boys in the Scouts.

Perry quote- The Obama administration is an affront to every freedom-loving American,and a threat to every private sector job in this country.

The contextan- Obama is a freedom loving American to every private sector in this country.

Perry quote- This administration in Washington that's in power now clearly believes that government is not only the answer to every need, but it's the most qualified to make the most central decisions for every American in every area.

The contextan- This administration is the answer to every need for every American in every area.

Perry quote- When you have a clearly open homosexual scout leader, the scouts are going to talk about it. And they're not there to learn about that. They're there to learn about what it means to be loyal and trustworthy and thrifty.

The contextan- When you have a clearly open homosexual scout leader, they're there to be loyal and trustworthy and thrifty.

See?

Come on and play. Give it a try.

Pish tosh, you suggest?

Ridiculous? Insulting? Even offensive?

Why?

Because it's, at best, inappropriate and, at worst, absolutely unfair to quote bend, flex, adapt and adjust someone's remarks and, in essence, take them...wait for it...out of context?

Agreed.

So let's knock that shit off.

All of us.

And, in a gesture of good will, remember that the stars at night are big and bright deep in the heart of Texas.

Then again, I could do some serious damage with that big and bright business.

"...Maybe Some Solar Power Would Help..."

It's the economy, stupid.

That message, and James Carville and company's ability to keep Bill Clinton on it, got him elected president in 1992.

And no one who counts themselves among the acclaimed "99%" these days will offer that the coming election isn't entirely about that same issue.

Here's a thing, though.

It really is.

And it really isn't.

Courtesy cryptology provided momentarily.

Meanwhile, here's a little overview of last night's GOP debate (or was it the night before that....or the night before that?)...

Spartanburg, South Carolina (CNN) -- The Republican candidates for president tackled national security issues on Saturday in a 90-minute debate in South Carolina. Moderators steered the eight candidates toward terrorism, Iran, China, the war in Afghanistan, the Arab Spring and foreign aid.

National security has largely taken a backseat to the economy and domestic issues.

Humor was injected into the policy-focused debate thanks to Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who joked about the embarrassing mental lapse that came to define his campaign earlier this week in a debate in Michigan.

The gaffe came up when Perry was asked about the Energy Department by CBS News moderator Scott Pelley.

"Glad you remembered it," Perry quipped about the agency he wants to eliminate, even though it had awkwardly escaped his memory in Michigan.

"I have had some time to think about it sir," Pelley replied.

"Me too," Perry said, eliciting laughter from the crowd.

Perry answered several questions with confidence. He drove the discussion on foreign aid commitments when he said he would zero out all foreign aid and start again from scratch, including close ally Israel.

GOP candidates tackle foreign policy, national security in debate

Plus, he stole the show when he made a discussion about waterboarding personal, highlighting his military service and his commitment to protecting men and women in combat.

"For us not to have the ability to try to extract information from them to save our young people's live is a travesty," Perry said. "This is war, that's what happens in war, and I am for using techniques -- not torture -- but using those techniques that we know will extract information to save young American lives."

Zero, not nine

Sorry, Herman Cain: The operative number in Saturday's debate was not 9, 9 or 9. It was zero.

Perry said that's the amount of foreign aid every country in the world would receive at the outset of his administration. Each nation would then have to explain why they deserve American funds -- even Israel. Perry later clarified that Israel, a staunch ally, would continue to receive "substantial" money from Washington.

The proposal was a warning shot to Pakistan, which continues to receive billions of dollars in aid from the United States even though its intelligence services have been linked to terrorists.

Several of the candidates seemed to agree with Perry, even former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who said aid to Pakistan should be zeroed out and re-evaluated. And so, not only did Perry escape Spartanburg without another embarrassing gaffe on his hands, he actually made news with a policy proposal.

Cain, the former pizza executive with scant foreign policy credentials, might have had the most to prove tonight in a debate about the rest of the world. Admittedly, the bar was exceedingly low.

After all, Cain has repeatedly waded into gaffe territory when asked for his foreign policy views and seems to revel in his lack of knowledge about the world. (See: "Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan").

Still, the pressure was on when he was asked the first question of the debate, one about Iran pursuing a nuclear weapon and what he would do about it.

But Cain clearly read his briefing book and hit the right points, even though he definitely appeared nervous wading into territory outside his catchy "9-9-9" comfort zone. But in the end, there were no major blunders for the man who seemed not to know a few weeks ago that China has nuclear weapons.

That's a win for Cain.

Cain has made attacking the media a central plank of his candidacy in the wake of a series of sexual harassment allegations.

Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann was handed an opportunity to take a similar path on Saturday when CBS Political Director John Dickerson accidentally copied a Bachmann aide on an email saying that the candidate was largely irrelevant and would not be asked many questions in the debate.

The Bachmann campaign called on Dickerson to be fired and accused the network of sidelining a candidate based on her diminished standing in the polls.

Bachmann's campaign manager stormed through the post-debate spin room and called Dickerson a "piece of sh-t" and a "fraud." Dickerson's response: "Bachmann is at 4% in the polls and has been for a while. Other candidates aren't. I sent an email based on that."

Bachmann wasn't the only one complaining: Jesse Benton, a senior adviser to Texas Rep. Ron Paul, called the debate a "disgrace" and said his boss was limited to just a few minutes of debate time.

Cain has impressively maintained a steady position atop of the Republican polls during his scandal, a sign that the age-old strategy of attacking the press is a great way to gain a foothold in a party that has long viewed the "mainstream media" with suspicion. Bachmann and Paul might score some points by doing the same.

Improbably, after 10 presidential debates -- or is it 11? - the putative GOP frontrunner survived unscathed once again. His rivals, particularly Perry and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, will almost certainly pick apart his answers on the foreign policy front.

But Romney has yet to suffer the kind of campaign-altering blunder that these nationally televised debates tend to produce. And this is in a presidential campaign that has been almost entirely defined by the marathon debate schedule.



Lest I be branded, by my more jerky kneed right wing friends, as coming to the holiday table with that marshmallow salad nobody wants and an agenda everybody expects, let's get one thing clear here.

I really haven't decided whether I believe Barack Obama is the best choice this coming election year.

So this piece is no token "bash the other guys no matter what" thing.

It is, though, a sincere opinion based solely on what I, and the rest of us, have seen and heard, to date, as regards the Republican's efforts to decide who is going to be the alternative to four more years.

Even many of the more stalwart GOP loyalists, pundits and armchair quarterbacks are lamenting, and not too quietly, the lack of a dynamic "front runner" amongst the declared.

From one debate to the next (and the next and the next), the pack seems to lope, as opposed to charge, along.

And the breaking news coming out of each debate seems to be less about who is sailing toward new possibilities and more about who didn't screw the pooch.

That's really sad.

And too bad.

The earliest presidential contest I recall was 1964. An obviously liberal, but undoubtedly dynamic, Lyndon Johnson in the left corner, an obviously conservative, but undoubtedly dynamic, Barry Goldwater in the right corner.

And from the first round, it was a contest of contrasts, a "thrilla", not vanilla.

Regardless of where you wanted the knockout punch to land.

This time out, not so much.

This time out, every lining up of the candidates on the debate stage du jour is reminiscent of that line of kids we were presented back in the day when it came time to choose sides for the afternoon football game.

And the obvious, but unspoken, feeling between us that the choice before us wasn't about determining the best of the best but, rather, determining the lesser of the evils.

Cause, nice kids or not, there wasn't a runner in the bunch.

Let alone a front runner.

Whether you live in a red state or a blue state, I think it not unfair to say that, so far, it's a pretty sad state.

At the very least, it's a race that hasn't really even gotten going and already we, if not they, are feeling a little tired of it.

Which brings me back to the original contention.

Money woes, job market for shit, Wall Street occupation and trying to get to a place where the month runs out before the money notwithstanding, I think it's obvious from the action to date, that, yes, it's the economy, stupid.

But, it's not just about the economy.

It's also about energy.

So far, there isn't any.

"...One Way Or Another, We Always End Up Getting The Bird..."

To everything, there is a season.

So says the Bible.

Or The Byrds.

Depending on the birth year listed on your driver's license.

Regardless of the origin of your awareness, the saying itself has an undeniable universality.

And, as the family celebration of Butterfingers and Krackles makes room for the family celebration of buttered rolls and cranberries, that thought resonates even more poignantly.

To wit...

There are times when it's time to put aside the satirical scalpel used to slice the meat heads who govern us and pick up the carving knife used to slice the white meat/dark meat of our respective holiday birds.

In that spirit, here's how Thanksgiving is looking for you this year with some timely tips on how to make your season bright (we'll get to that may all your Christmases be white thing down the road).

Can you afford to give thanks this year? The American Farm Bureau Federation is predicting the average 10 person turkey dinner will cost 13 percent more than it did last year. Expect to shell out at least $50 bucks for the average 10 person turkey dinner. That's the highest price for the holiday meal on record.

Blame the centerpiece. The price of a turkey spiked this year. The side dishes aren't helping either. Just about the only thing that hasn't gotten more expensive is relish, according to the AFBF. Before you crack out the hot dogs for the holidays, there's still something to be thankful for: the year's best deals on groceries are actually happening now. Extreme couponers will tell you pre-Thanksgiving is the prime time to stock up on food for the year. "Don't settle for anything less than half off, and expect even better," advises Teri Gault, C.E.O. of The Grocery Game, a money-saving supermarket sweep site. "Sales change every week. So by gathering over the course of weeks, you'll save more money, and you'll be ahead of the game, and have less shopping and hauling to do at the last minute."

With that in mind, before you plan your recipes for the holiday, scan major coupon websites like coupons.com and smartsource.com to print out the best clippings and plan your menu around what's cheapest. Here's a head start...

For the turkey:
Last year, a 16-pound turkey cost about $17.50. This year it's around four bucks more. To battle bird costs, turn to rebates, says coupon guru Chrystie Corns. "This year Butterball is offering a $5 rebate when you Buy 1 Butterball Frozen or Fresh Whole Turkey," she says. That means you can turn back the clock on your turkey cost.

Another trade secret? Stack the deals. Your local supermarket may be offering discounts on turkey, but so are manufacturers. First scour local supermarket clippings for "store coupons", and then check out websites for Hormel, Butterball and other major turkey brands (here's a list) to find discounts you can double up on at the register.

For the sides:
Stuffing, sweet potatoes, fresh cranberries and peas have all gotten pricier this year, according to the AFBF. So this year, let deals dictate your side-dish menu. Check for freebies at websites like Red Plum, where a list of giveaways at national chains are posted weekly. Another tech-smart trick: download the Red Laser app to your phone and use it to scan sides you really want to make. The app will pull up the price of your dish and then roll out a list of similar products by other brands that are less expensive.

Remember you've still got time before the holidays, so you don't have to buy all your groceries in one trip. "Be open to purchasing items at different stores," suggests Corns. "For example, this week Target has the best deal on Stove Top Stuffing priced at $.89 cents."

For dessert:
Since milk's gone up 42 cents this year, check out recipes that use powdered milk which can be cheaper and lasts longer. Butter and brown sugar are also heavily discounted for the holiday season, says Gault, so factor that into your dessert decisions. The AFBF says pie shells and whipped cream have added a few cents to their price point overall, but Gault says the biggest discounts for those two baking items are available now, so you may not actually feel the pinch.

If you've got the time, consider doing your baking from scratch. Making pie crusts and dinner rolls with a little flour and yeast may require extra work, but it'll knock down your grocery bill significantly. Because biscuits and pie shells freeze well, you can actually make these ahead of time so they're good to go the big day.

America is a country that prides itself on tradition.

Traditionally, in January, we read news stories about the best ways to lose weight and/or quit smoking.

Traditionally, in February, we read news stories about how to best share our romantic feelings with others.

Traditionally, in both May and August, we read news stories about how not to get dead by doing stupid things while boating and/or swimming.

Traditionally, in July, of course, we read news stories about how not to get blown apart, or even get dead, by doing stupid things with things that explode after we light their fuses.

And, traditionally, in November, we read news stories about how much more the butterball is going to set us back than it did last year, inevitably accompanied by pointers on how to pinch a penny or two while we pinch a little salt into the mashed potatoes.

I've never been convinced that the yearly re-telling of how much more Thanksgiving is going to cost constitutes news.

It really falls more into the category of "no shit, Sherlock."

Because, fact is, after six plus decades of yearly thank you, Lord and pass the gravies, I've never known a Thanksgiving that cost less than the one that came before.

And that's okay.

It's no biggie.

Because we (the much revered and sought after "American people") have never let a little thing like price increases get in the way of doing what we damn well want to do whenever we damn well want to do it.

Otherwise, those of us who remember gasoline that cost thirty cents a gallon would have traded in for good when gasoline hit, say, two bucks.

Never mind three plus.

So, damn the torpedos and bring on the bird, let the Thanksgiving banquet begin.

The thing is, actually, we don't let the price of poultry sideline our supper.

Because the thing is, actually, we deal every day with what overfed, overstuffed turkeys cost us.

It's only on Thanksgiving Day that we call them Toms.

The rest of the year we call them Congress.

Hmmm.

Turns out the carving knife didn't take the place of the scalpel, after all.

No problem.

That's why God gave us the blessings of family, friends...

...and two hands.

"...I'm Funny?...Funny, How?....Like A Clown?....I Amuse You?...How Am I Funny?...And Vote For Me, Anyway..."

Dying, Edmund Kean said on his deathbed, is easy.

Comedy is hard.

That said, whatever else Rick Perry may, or may not be, he is capable of coping when times are hard.

The "oops heard round the world" is available pretty much everywhere.

Perry's damage control included a self petard hoisting with David Letterman serving as his second.




For additional comedy offerings, be sure and bounce back and forth between MSNBC and Fox.

And enjoy the laughs that come with listening to two polar opposites in perspective regarding the single issue of Perry's debate debacle.

MSNBC has all but written off the candidacy.

Fox News has the "lighten up, everybody makes mistakes" mantra held in their teeth like a pit bull with a mouth full of mailman.

Meanwhile, back at the presidential race.

Yes, everybody makes mistakes.

But, as any football coach walking off the Super Bowl field dry and un-Gatoraded will tell you, there are certain mistakes you simply cannot make.

And certain times you simply cannot make them.

Stumbling over simple facts and trying to oops out out of it is a mistake you don't make when you are asking to be entrusted with the free world's most powerful gig.

Credit where it's due, Perry, unlike, say, Newt, seems to have the ability to laugh at himself.

And, credit where it's due, he didn't try to tough, bluff or bullshit his way out of the faux pas pile.

Points made. Points taken.

Points scored.

So, let's give Rick Perry his due.

Let's give Rick Perry a break.

Hell, let's give Rick Perry his own weekly show on Fox News.

Let's just not give him the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania.

"...Church and State....Even When The State Is Mississippi..."

Two ways you'll never get rich.

Betting on horses.

Betting on elections.

Mississippi, to the surprise/chagrin of those who thought the passage of the "Personhood" measure was a slam dunk, proved, once again, the pitfalls of betting on anything the electorate gets a whack at.

For those unfamiliar with the measure, here's a morning after perspective.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/09/what-happened-to-and-whats-next-for-failed-personhood-measure/?hpt=hp_c1

The only thing sure in cases like this is that no one can, with any empirical accuracy, be sure exactly why the measure failed.

And paring it down to a single cause is, obviously, a slippery slope.

That said, here's a single cause.

Regardless of any best intentions from anyone along either side of any ideological line, trying to legislate issues of morality and/or spirituality is an exercise in futility.

Admittedly, putting like that is simplistic.

Here's a thing about the thing, though.

Sometimes, things really are just that simple.

"...Looks Ain't Everything...Then Again...."

Technology is a wonderful thing.

We live in a time when being stranded on the road is pretty much a thing of the past, thanks to cell phones.

We live in a time when we're not chained to a radio or record player to enjoy the latest hits, thanks to the applicable app on our applicable hand held device.

And we live in a time that has seen the extinction of one of politics' most insidious vices.

The two faced politician.

In place of two faces, we are now offered a single expression.

Gone are the days when office seekers and/or those who analyze and second guess office seekers had to put on an expression for public viewing separate and apart from their everyday look.

Game face? No need.

These days, it's all about "keeping it real."

And making sure that "the American people" get "the truth".

So, we "get" the...

...."Well, maybe I really am some kind of Vulcan born wack job, but, I'm the Vice President, baby" face...

..."see...I really can lean to the right if I find it politically expedient" face...

..."now that my campaign is evaporating, I figure it's okay to show "the American people" that I'm just a little crinkly nose cutie pie at heart" face...

..."thinking about which side of the two sides I need to take today to show people I'm on all sides today" face...

..."bet your children's college fund that you'll never see a picture of me leaning to the left" face...

and...

the..."the experts thought this campaign was a joke, well, who's laughing now?" face...


Whatever your particular political predilection , you can't find fault living in a period of political history where "what you see is what you get".

With, perhaps, one exception.

The smirk.

Neither frown, nor smile, nor vacant stare, nor lean right/lean left, the smirk is one of those faces that tends to irritate people, even if they don't consciously realize that they are being irritated.

It looks something like this.

No mere satirical savager of the sincerely sincere I, let me offer that I know what this face is all about because I have worn it countless times myself.

More often when I was in the rebellious teenage years, but, pretty much, off and on, from time to time as needed, ever since then.

Usually when I was unwilling to admit that I didn't have a clue or know what to say but damned sure wasn't gonna admit it.

On a civilian, the face is, at best, well...smirky.

On an office seeker, the face is, at best, well...smirky.

As well as, perception being reality, a red flag that there may be cluelessness lurking.

And, not to get in your face or anything, but...this ain't our first rodeo with that face.

"...Inspiration Is One Thing...Imitation Is Another...."

This blog is called "The Center Line".

It was named that because when I realized I wanted to siphon the political stuff off my other assorted and sundry blog sites, I aspired to find the skill to walk the line between both/all sides of the spectrum politic and try to articulate a fundamentally "common sense" POV.

The challenge, of course, is that common sense has a peculiar habit of not being something many of us have in common.

And what makes sense to one is often senseless to another.

That confession made, I'd offer that, so far, I've come as close to the middle in my meanderings as the aforementioned challenge allows.

At the very least, these pieces are as legitimately "center line" as, say, O'Reilly's Zone is legitimately "no spin".

Admittedly faint praise.

And, speaking of O'Reilly and his assorted and sundry posses, I admit that my satirical spears tend to find their way into their carcasses more often than they harpoon the folks on the port side.

Frankly, I'm inclined to make the argument that criticizing the presentation of the Fox News nation is comparable to a wonderful moment in a long ago aired episode of "M.A.S.H" in which the much maligned Major Frank Burns, in a moment of pique, complained plaintively to Hawkeye and Trapper that he was tired of constantly, and incessantly, being the butt of their jokes.

To which Hawkeye articulately replied, "well, Frank, the truth is that you invite abuse...and it would be impolite not to ask it in...".

This also explains 99% of my observations about both Coulter and Kardashian, while we're at it.

Nevertheless, this time out, my affectionate artillery is showing a decidedly lean to the left.

And the target, for lack of a less dramatic word, is a liberal, fair haired fella.

Chris Matthews.

Chris has written a new JFK biography and, like any good/smart author, is doing a nice job of slipping in a plug for it every six to ten minutes on his nightly MSNBC show, "Hardball". (Equal time moment: O'Reilly is matching Chris plug for plug hyping his own latest tome' "Killing Lincoln"...although it's subliminally amusing that, even in terms of historic prose, these guys are loyal to their leanings, Matthews writing about a historically mythologized martyred Democrat, O'Reilly writing about a historically mythologized martyred Republican).

Haven't yet read the book. Have read some excerpts and, on surface, it looks like Chris has written a pretty honest account of an accomplished and historic, but admittedly flawed, human being.

In other words, I have no book bone to pick.

The last few evenings, though, Chris has, in his commentaries, been singing the praises of Kennedy as a president, leader and visionary and, not so subtly, offering that what Barack Obama needs to do to get the country, and his own political fortunes, back on track is to emulate that presidency, leadership and vision.

I understand Chris' romance with the mystique. I'm only a few years younger and, like him, grew up in that time of space race and Peace Corps, missile crisis and cold war, civil rights struggles and "asking not".

All these years later, though, I'm not sure rose tinted glasses don't alter the colors of Camelot just a scoche.

Kennedy's cool in October of 1962 probably prevented the first exchange of nuclear weapons fire in the history of mankind.

An exchange that, knock wood, we have continued to avoid to date.

And the modern Greek tragedy that was the Kennedy family story, complete with myriad plot twists and turns, including, but not limited to, the brutal and dramatic deaths of both John and Robert, certainly ramp up the "romance" factor when assessing the life and times.

Add to that JFK's now well documented physical, mortal and moral flaws and you have a less hyperbolic, but certainly more human, perspective on the man.

None of which has anything to do with the quality of the work Chris Matthews has done in the writing of this book.

But has, I'd offer, a lot to do with the idea of star light, star brighting a wish that another John F. would come along.

Or that a Barack O. would suddenly find his own John F. voice and start speaking with it.

From all accounts, Chris Matthews has written an outstanding work on a complex time and a complicated man.

Suggesting that a man of this time should take pages from another's history, though, seems more poetic than practical.

Especially when that other history ended so abruptly, horrifically and dramatically.

And, unarguably, unfinished.

"...There Is No Extreme Left Or Extreme Right In The Center Ring..."

There's good news and there's bad news.

First...

Washington (CNN) -- Amid accusations and denials about who leaked what, Herman Cain prepared for a radio interview that will be his first public comment Thursday on the sexual harassment allegations that have dominated his front-running campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.

Cain was scheduled as a guest on conservative broadcaster Sean Hannity's syndicated program at 4 p.m. EDT. Meanwhile, one of two women who reportedly accused Cain of sexual harassment in the late 1990s when he headed the National Restaurant Association could issue her first statement on what happened as early as Friday.

The allegations have dominated Cain's campaign this week as the former Godfathers Pizza CEO rose to the top of opinion polls in his bid to secure the GOP nomination and take on President Barack Obama in next year's presidential election.

They also set off a fierce round of claims and counter-claims regarding how the information became public in the first place. At the same time, Cain's campaign announced Thursday he has raised $1.2 million this week since the allegations first surfaced on Sunday in a big boost from supporters.,

Earlier Thursday, an adviser to Texas Gov. Rick Perry's presidential bid who formerly worked for Cain denied that he was responsible for leaking the allegations that surfaced Sunday in a report by Politico.

The comments by Curt Anderson to CNN directly contradicted a claim by Cain that he had once told Anderson of being accused of sexual harassment.

Anderson, who worked on Cain's unsuccesful 2004 U.S. Senate campaign in Georgia and now is a consultant to Perry's campaign against Cain and other Republican contenders, insisted that Cain never told him about the accusations.

"It's hard to leak something you don't know anything about," he said. Asked directly about the conversation Cain claimed they had eight years ago, Anderson said: "I don't have any knowledge of any of this and, you know, it's just not true."

Cain's chief campaign strategist, Mark Block, told Fox News later Thursday that he accepted Anderson's denial and wanted to move on from the controversy that has dogged his candidate all week.

"Until we get all the facts, I'm just going to say that we accept what Mr. Anderson has said, and we want to move on with the campaign," said Block, who had earlier called for Perry and his campaign to apologize to Cain for allegedly leaking the sexual harassment allegations to the media.

Politico's report Sunday alleged that two female employees at the National Restaurant Association accused Cain of inappropriate behavior during his tenure as head of the organization in the late 1990s. The women, according to Politico, each received separation packages in the five-figure range.

One of the packages totaled $35,000 -- equivalent to that staffer's annual salary, according to the New York Times. On Thursday, Politico reported the other package was for $45,000.

Cain has provided differing statements on the allegations this week, raising further questions about what happened and the ability of the candidate and his campaign to deal with the controversy.

A former businessman who touts himself as a political outsider, Cain has run an unorthodox campaign that made him an early choice of conservatives seeking an alternative to the more moderate Mitt Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts.

Republican strategist Ed Rollins said Thursday that Cain's campaign lacks the usual elements to deal with such controversies that inevitably arise.

"They take great pride in not being a real campaign," Rollins told CNN. "They don't have a war room. They don't have a response team."

Rollins, until recently a chief adviser to Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota -- another of Cain's rivals in the presidential nomination race -- noted that Politico first asked the Cain campaign about the sexual harassment allegations 10 days before running the story."

"Ten days is a lifetime in politics," Rollins said. "They should have been prepared for this."

In the interview, Anderson spoke highly of his former employer and suggested that the pressure of the sexual harassment story was getting to the former businessman.

"Candidates, when they get into a firestorm like this, have sometimes come unraveled," Anderson said. "It seems to me that they're kind of grasping at straws and fishing around trying to figure out what to do, how to get out of this."

Saying he was "disappointed" that Cain "tried to use me as a pawn to try to get out of this mess he's in," Anderson said he was "not going to use that to discolor everything I know about the guy."

When asked whether he may take legal action against Cain, Anderson said: "No, I don't have any interest in anything like that."

The Perry campaign also said it did not know about the allegations until Politico first published the story Sunday.

"No one at our campaign was involved in this story in any way," Perry campaign communications director Ray Sullivan said. "Any claim to the contrary is patently false."

On Wednesday, Cain's campaign called a report that a third former employee claimed he engaged in inappropriate behavior an example of "baseless allegations."

"He has never acted in the way alleged by inside-the-Beltway media, and his distinguished record over 40 years spent climbing the corporate ladder speaks for itself," said J.D. Gordon, a Cain campaign spokesman. "Since his critics have not been successful in attacking his ideas, they are resorting to bitter personal attacks. Mr. Cain deserves better."

Wes Anderson, Curt Anderson's brother, acknowledged their firm was recently hired by the Perry campaign. He, too, denied any knowledge of the allegations before the story broke in Politico about allegations against Cain.

Appearing before a consumer group in Virginia Wednesday morning, Cain accused his critics of engaging in the politics of personal destruction, and he insisted his candidacy would survive the maelstrom.

"There is a force at work here that is much greater than those that would try to destroy me and destroy this campaign," the former Godfather's Pizza CEO said. "That force is called the voice of the people. That's why we are doing as well as we are."

Cain referenced a new Quinnipiac University national poll showing him leading the GOP field with 30% support among registered Republicans, compared with 23% for Romney. The survey, however, was conducted almost entirely before news of the allegations came out.

Later, a visibly irritated Cain refused to discuss the issue with reporters, telling them "don't even bother asking ... all of these other questions that you all are curious about."

Earlier in the week, Cain's account of what happened changed from day to day.

On Monday, Cain forcefully denied all of the charges and said he was "not aware of any (legal) settlement." Later, he changed his tune, saying he did in fact know about a "separation agreement" in one of the cases.

The candidate told HLN's Robin Meade on Tuesday that the agreement provided one of his accusers "in the vicinity of three to six months' severance pay." The payment was "not outside our guidelines for what most people get ... when they leave the Restaurant Association involuntarily," he claimed.

While the Cain campaign had first been approached by Politico 10 days before the story was first published, the candidate himself said he was only remembering many details of the incident on Monday.

Cain continued to vehemently deny the allegations, telling HLN: "I have never committed sexual harassment in my entire career. Period."

Meanwhile, an attorney representing one of the alleged harassment victims send a draft statement by his client to the National Restaurant Association on Thursday to seek its approval.

"I will be asking the association to allow us to release the public statement without violating the confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions of the 1999 settlement agreement," said the attorney, Joel Bennett.

The association said it would respond to the proposed statement on Friday.

Bennett said Wednesday that his client hopes to "set the record straight as to the complaints," but would provide no interviews.

Asked why his client would not reveal her identity, Bennett said "she doesn't want to become another Anita Hill ... that's not her interest or expectation," referring to the woman who 20 years ago went public with sexual harassment allegations against then U.S. Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas and was the subject of criticism.

Bennett told CNN his client, who is now a federal government employee and who has worked at several departments, would like to put this behind her and is not a publicity seeker.

Cain has so far only released details about one of the allegations, saying it involved him gesturing to one of the women that she was the same height as his wife -- about 5 feet tall -- and came up to his chin.

Bennett did not indicate which of the alleged victims he represents, though he said his client is taller than 5 feet. He said the client is "happily married."

For his part, Cain has said he has no recollection of a second incident. According to Politico, however, one of the allegations involves an "unwanted sexual advance" at a hotel room in Chicago.

Separately, an Oklahoma Republican political consultant told CNN Wednesday he personally witnessed Cain demonstrate inappropriate conduct toward a female employee during Cain's tenure as head of the National Restaurant Association. Chris Wilson first made the charge earlier in the day in an interview with KTOK, an Oklahoma radio station.

The alleged incident "occurred at a restaurant in Crystal City (Virginia) and everybody was aware of it," said Wilson -- a consultant for the organization at the time -- in the KTOK interview.

"It was only a matter of time because so many people were aware of what took place, so many people were aware of her situation, the fact she left. Everybody knew with the campaign that this would eventually come up."

Wilson is currently doing polling for a political action committee supporting Perry's bid, but the group is independent of the campaign and by law cannot coordinate with it.

Meanwhile...

(CNN) - Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry said he was neither on drugs nor drunk during a speech in New Hampshire Friday, as some observers and critics have suggested.

An edited clip of the speech, in which an enthusiastic Perry laughs and jokes with the audience, went viral on YouTube, prompting some to suggest he was on pain medication for a past back surgery or under the influence of alcohol.

But in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle published Thursday, the longtime Texas governor said he did not take pain medication or consume any other substance before Friday's Cornerstone Action annual dinner.

"I've probably given 1,000 speeches," Perry told the newspaper Wednesday. "There are some that have been probably boring, some that have been animated, some that have been in between."

When asked about comedian Jon Stewart's suggestion that Perry drank alcohol before the event, the Texas governor said, "It wasn't that either."

"It's not that I wouldn't love to sit down with Jon and have a glass of wine," Perry said. "If he'll buy."

With talk of the speech not dying down, a group of unaligned New Hampshire Republican officials, who attended the event, will hold a press conference Thursday to defend the governor.

Thursday's speakers have not endorsed Perry, but said coverage of the remarks has become a distraction from serious issues on the trail in the first-in-the-nation primary state.




Second, I lied.

There is no good news.

What there is, actually, is, at best, a sad commentary on the state of things as applicable to those who are applying to be the head of state.

And that commentary, ironically, mandates that the job that Barack Obama has done, or not done, since he was elected is academic to the discussion.

Put less eruditely and more essentially...

If what we (that oft quoted group whose needs every politician professes to have a complete understanding of, "the American people) are being offered as an alternative to the incumbent is the very best the Republican Party has to offer...

Barack and the family can stop packing the knick knacks and cancel the U-Haul.

It will be 2004 all over again.

At that time, George W. was not the most popular guy on the block, the economy was not in good shape, his Middle East policies were a flashpoint of criticism and his re-election was anything but assured.

Then along came the Democrats and their "best and brightest" alternative.

I remember saying to someone during that campaign, "you know, it's pretty clear that a very large number of people think W. needs to go...

....trust me, though....John Kerry ain't the guy."

In hindsight, I realize that wasn't as much a consummate grasp of the political landscape as it was a clear grasp of the obvious.

Fast forward seven years.

Time, once again, for the biggest show on earth.

And, regrettably, the circus is back in town.