"...Not Exactly A Healthy Attitude, Wouldn't You Say?..."

Telling moment from last night's debate...

If you're uninsured and on the brink of death, that's apparently a laughing matter to some audience members at last night's tea party Republican presidential debate.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a doctor, was asked a hypothetical question by CNN host Wolf Blitzer about how society should respond if a healthy 30-year-old man who decided against buying health insurance suddenly goes into a coma and requires intensive care for six months. Paul--a fierce limited-government advocate-- said it shouldn't be the government's responsibility. "That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks," Paul said and was drowned out by audience applause as he added, "this whole idea that you have to prepare to take care of everybody …"

"Are you saying that society should just let him die?" Blitzer pressed Paul. And that's when the audience got involved.

Several loud cheers of "yeah!" followed by laughter could be heard in the Expo Hall at the Florida State Fairgrounds in response to Blitzer's question.

Paul disagreed with the audience on that front. "No," he responded, noting he practiced medicine before Medicaid when churches took care of medical costs--a comment that drew wide audience applause. "We never turned anybody away from the hospital."

Paul voiced support for legalizing alternative health care and argued that the reason medical costs have skyrocketed is that individuals have stopped taking personal responsibility for their health care.

Though Paul spoke to the larger issues of health care and government-backed health insurance--both pivotal in the 2012 election--the audience's reaction has overshadowed the substance of the exchange between the candidates. And the day after the event, Texas Gov. Rick Perry offered his own criticism of the audience response.

"I was a bit taken aback by that myself," Perry told NBC News and the Miami Herald of the audience reaction after appearing at a breakfast fundraiser in Tampa Tuesday morning.

"We're the party of life. We ought to be coming up with ways to save lives."

The campaigns for Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann did not immediately respond to The Ticket's request for comment.

Conservative Andrew Sullivan writing for The Daily Beast's The Dish Tuesday noted that the United States obligates society to save someone in an emergency room. "America, moreover, has a law on the books that makes it a crime not to treat and try to save a human being who walks into an emergency room. So we have already made that collective decision and if the GOP wants to revisit it, they can," Sullivan wrote.

Sullivan also decried the audience reaction, writing: "Maybe a tragedy like the death of a feckless twentysomething is inevitable if we are to restrain healthcare costs. But it is still a tragedy. It is not something a decent person cheers."

A chain of inevitability occurred here.

The inevitable result of continued failure of the political process is cynicism.

The inevitable result of continued cynicism is callous disregard.

Last night's audience reaction was the result of continued callous disregard.

Let them eat cake.

Let them die.

And the beat goes on.

"...Because PETA Only Has Time To Look Out For Old Animals...."

"America needs to keep its promise to senior citizens, I talk to them all the time. I love senior citizens, I care about them. My mom is 80 years old and my dad is 87," Bachmann said in an interview Friday on CNN's "John King, USA,"

Apparently, some of the Representative's best friends are old people.

"I Don't Care If He Takes Snooki To Vegas For The Weekend...The Damn Budget Was Balanced..."

Do not adjust your calendars.

It is, in fact, still 2011.

Any confusion is understandable, given that every breathing body that has anything to do with national politics is behaving as if it were already 2012.

The old expression "all politics is retail" is particularly appropriate when you realize that, just like retail stores, the political process has to be out in front of the consumer in order for politicians to get the most bang for your bucks.

Christmas decorations in the Wal Mart in September.

2012 Presidential debates in September 2011.

Potato, patahto.

All of that said, here's what already missing from the upcoming process of choosing the family that will get all the mail for "Occupant" at 1600 Pennsylvania.

Charisma.

Which can often begat enthusiasm.

Which can often begat a sense of purpose, even inspiration about both the political process and what it can, when its better angels are turned loose, accomplish.

All ideological postures put aside for the moment, let's do a quick search of the leading candidates for President of the United States from both the Republican, Democratic and/or Tea Parties.

Set the search on "charisma"....or "inspirational", if you prefer.

Begin scan.

Scan complete.

No results found.

Sounds about right.

Personally, I already knew the results you would find.

I've been scanning them all since all of this began and, even including the incumbent, haven't found a glimmer in the gang of em'.

I was, though, reminded of the disappointing lack of the aforementioned sparkle when I watched the dedication ceremony at Shanksville yesterday.



Charisma, like romance, is an elusive quality. It is not something that can be described, bullet pointed or check listed.

With romance, your partner either gets it or they don't.

Charisma.

You got it.

Or you ain't.

Mr. Clinton from Arkansas has got it.

Always had.

Always will.

And as the knee jerk nay saying party poopers begin sputtering in anticipation of rebutting me with stories of cigars and memories of Monica, I respectfully
suggest you take a breath...

...and then shut up.

Bill Clinton is, far and away, no role model for good behavior.

He is an obviously flawed human being.

From a long line of obviously flawed human beings.

Abraham Lincoln, manic depressive.

Ulysses S. Grant, alcoholic.

Franklin Roosevelt, incorrigible skirt chaser.

John F. Kennedy, incorrigible skirt chaser.

The reason this year's crop of candidates seems lame is because it is.

However well intended they might sincerely be, the plain truth is that they are all, without exception, doing a world class job of, essentially, trying to seduce us by reading from the manual.

We don't want to be read to.

We want to be romanced.

They don't get it.

Bill always got it.

Because Bill's got it.

"Ohhhh....Lonesome Glennnnnn....."

This just in.

Not a big Glenn Beck fan.

I know.

It comes as a shock to me, too.

(Insert smart ass grin and wink here)

As someone who really does try, success or failure notwithstanding, to walk somewhere near the center line, I find Beck's particular brand of snake oil distasteful.

If only because of a nagging, and inevitable, belief that extremism, regardless of its placement extremely right or extremely left of the aforementioned center ultimately impedes whatever progress might be made in solving the problems both sides insist they alone can solve.

But Beck's demagoguery isn't what really turns me off about him.

It's his stunning and, frankly, wearying lack of originality.

Been there, heard that.

It's a style of propagating the propaganda as old as the sands of time.

Not to mention Larry King.

Pick issues that come factory loaded with emotional hot buttons, write and perform the kind of simplistic, primal rhetoric that, without fail, never fails to flip the reactionary switch found in the medullas of God fearing, basically good but, again unfailingly, unsophisticated men, women and children, instilling in them the kind of fear that, again unfailingly, is birthed by ignorance and then serve it up with a brilliantly concocted tasty frosting of charisma.

Add to that, of course, the genius of offering up for sale, on the inevitable merchandise page of the inevitable website, personally monogrammed editions of the hand baskets in which the country is, according to the sermon, most assuredly going to hell.

Bottom, not to mention center, line...

Say what you will about Beck...and Lord knows, we do...his clarion call is, unarguably, not so much new wave as golden oldies.

And, as recently as the late 1950's, was played, purely for entertainment, not on a call to arms trumpet but on a good old fashioned gee-tar.

The 2011 version has a crew cut, coat and tie covered look about it.

But, big ass billboard notwithstanding, Glenn Beck is, ultimately, just another face in the crowd.

"Personally, I Don't Know What The Answer Is...But I Sure As Hell Don't Agree With Yours..."

Did a little sociopolitical experiment tonight.

Flipped back and forth between O'Reilly and Olbermann.

Didn't pay attention to the content as much as the presentation.

And it confirmed what I've addressed before as the problem with O'Reilly and his fellow Foxers.

They don't listen.

Olbermann asked his questions. Then he listened to the entire response. Then he either agreed or disagreed with varying degrees of passion.

O'Reilly asked his questions. Very seldom did ten words come out of the mouth of the guest answering before O'Reilly was talking over him.

Beck, Ingraham, et al.

All equally guilty.

But here's the real cheek chapper.

The rudeness is bad enough.

The content of the interruption is the key.

Always a rebuttal. Seldom an agreement.

And never, without exception, an alternative solution.

After about half an hour of bouncing back and forth, I had an epiphany.

It should become an FCC requirement that any "commentator" who profits from the airing of their program on the public airwaves must provide their own suggestions for solving whatever problem they are debating with their guests and no longer be allowed to simply dismiss, out of hand, the opinions of said guests.

Put simply...any fool can burn down a barn.

I honestly think that if O'Reilly or Beck or Coulter, et al, came back with their own specific suggestion of solution instead of simply nay-saying, even their lack of manners, in the form of constant interruption, could be forgiven.

As it stands, though, they are simply rude.

And not a part of the solution.

That's the problem.

Neither the MSNBC crowd nor the FOX News crowd have a monopoly on passionate adherence to their respective dogmas.

The thing is, though, that Fox seems to have more than its share of the aforementioned barn burners.

Old saying comes to mind.

One mouth.

Two ears.

The right...and the left.

"...Pits...and Pundits....Either Way, Some Chafing Is Inevitable..."

Pop quiz.

What do armpits and Kathy Griffin have in common?

Stand by.

The D list's favorite poster child is on a tear, of late, choosing to forego actually writing any material and simply taking advantage of the mother lode of zingers and bingers being freshened up on a minute by minute basis by the current cast of candidates for high office.

Most notably, in Chatty Kathy's case, those zany Bachmanns.

Here's the latest...

Now that making fun of Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann is so yesterday, comedienne Kathy Griffin is going after the Republican presidential hopeful’s husband of 33 years, Marcus Bachmann.

During a recent appearance on Craig Ferguson’s “Late Late Show,” the red-haired television personality took jabs at Marcus Bachmann, who runs a center that uses prayer to turn gays straight again.

“The Bravo special was supposed to be called ‘Pray the Gay Back.’ You get the Marcus Bachmann joke? Marcus Bachmann is one of my new favorite targets, he’s Michele Bachmann’s husband,” Griffin said. (RELATED: Kathy Griffin’s ‘D-List’ Bravo show to go off the air)

Griffin went on to hint that perhaps Marcus Bachmann opposes same-sex couples because he himself is attracted to men.

“Okay, he’s very anti-gay and LGBT rights, and it’s odd, because if you look at him on YouTube, it’s almost as if he himself … or, it’s as if …” Griffin said, trailing off.

Before the former “My Life on the D-List” host could finish her sentence, Ferguson advised the memoir writer to be careful. Starting over, Griffin said Bachmann seems similar to the guys who attend her stand-up acts. A known gay rights activist, Griffin has previously referred to her gay friends as “the gays.”

“I would say that Marcus Bachmann reminds me of a lot of the type of men who come see my live shows,” Griffin said. “And he wants people to pray the gay away, and so I was going to call the [my TV] special ‘Pray the Gay Back.’”

Instead, Bravo will title the special, “Kathy Griffin: Pants Off.”


The thing about humor, especially in the form of political satire, is that the only rule can be that there are no rules.

"Restrictions" on humor are like restrictions on sex.

No matter how well intended to save us from ourselves, ultimately an exercise in futility.

Because we wacky mortals will do what we do.

And who.

And while a reasonable debate is often inevitable as to the taste, or lack of, exhibited by any particular comedic point of view, the hard truth is that freedom, in order to function correctly, must be allowed to run wild and free.

So while jokes about Mitt Romney's Mormonism, Rick Perry's Elmer Gantryism, Michele and Marcus Bachmann's pray the gay away-ism, even Sarah Palin's dysfunctional/special needs family-ism might be rude, crude, tacky, even dictionary definably offensive, freedom of expression requires agreeing to allow the freedom to express.

No matter what flavor that freedom comes in, be it sweet, salty...even sour.

Little bit free. Little bit pregnant.

Six of one.

That said, here's what occurs to me every time I listen to the D list diva.

Kathy Griffin is funny.

In much the same way Ronnie Robicheaux was funny.

In the second grade.

When we were six.

And he made fart noises with his armpits.

"There's A Reason We Still Remember the Name Joe DiMaggio..."

Historically, the presidents we tend to remember and/or revere tend to be the presidents who frame their style thematically.

FDR's New Deal.

JFK's New Frontier.

LBJ's Great Society.

In recent generations, though, the art of frame naming seems to have gone the way of the iron horse and/or eight track tape player.

Pop quiz.

Anybody remember any "theme" attributed to Ronald Reagan?

Bill Clinton?

George Bush?

George Bush?

Yeah. Me neither.

Barack Obama, meanwhile, seems to have subscribed to a concept without actually giving it a catchy campaign button moniker.

Said concept might reasonably be labeled...

All things in moderation.

Noble...

Lofty...

And ultimately futile.

Because leadership, in its purest and most exquisite form, requires a willingness, and ability, to transcend moderation.

The greatest home run hitters in the history of baseball are, most often, the same players who struck out the most.

Big swing, big risk.

Moderation might get you a decent RBI average, but won't send that horsehide over the center field wall very often.

Barack Obama appears, with each new compromise and/or capitulation, to be doggedly determined to find a way to be all things to all people.

Noble...

Lofty...

And ultimately, futile.

We don't want our leaders to exercise moderation in all things.

We want our leaders to leave presidential shaped holes in the walls they run through without fear or hesitation.

Any mere mortal can pop a base hit.

It takes a risk taker to hit home runs.

And a presidency that is remembered and revered is about taking risks.

"Moderation in all things" is a quote attributed to a hundred different sources.

Barack Obama would be better served reading a little Mark Twain.

"Moderation in all things...including moderation..."

The folks in the center field seats will only wait so long before becoming a nation turning it's lonely eyes to a different hitter.