It Ain’t a River in Egypt

The people have spoken. This last Tuesday, President Obama was re-elected by over three million popular votes and, with the Florida results now in, by 126 electoral votes.

That’s the modern-day version of a landslide. Which, by the way, was what I predicted.

I’m not here to gloat. On my Facebook page the day before the election, I promised not to gloat after Obama won. All I asked for in return was for the Conservatives not to de-legitimize the results. He didn’t win due to voter fraud, Acorn, rigged Chicago polling machines. He also isn’t from Kenya. And I don’t care what his college transcripts say, Don. His intelligence is evident.

So the purpose of this post isn’t Obama and his historic win. Instead, it is some advice to the losing party, so that they don’t continue to lose elections.

Even as a Liberal, I have to admit America is a center-Right country. I wish it wasn’t, but me wishing for it won’t change that fact. America is a center-right country, with the emphasis on the word ‘center.’ Enter the party that used to reside there – the Republican Party. There was a time where they had strong convictions that reflect this center-rightness. Nowadays, they still have strong convictions, but not reflective of that reality. Which comes to my first suggestion –

Ditch the Tea Party. They are a vocal group emboldened by the results of the 2010 elections. I won’t get into my personal opinion of this group, as that would be a story unto itself, but let’s just say they are not representative of the overall electorate. For that matter, not even half of it. More like maybe ten percent of it. And that ten percent is the far right fringe. Republicans, anxious to be the party that represents them, slid to that fringe to cater to them, and they got their vote. Problem is, they lost far more votes than they won. In order to be a relevant party, Republicans must tell the Tea Party to take a hike; start your own party and see where that gets you. They then can nominate Michelle Bachmann as their candidate and the 90 percent of the rest of us can laugh at them.

Read on for some more common-sense ideas to return to relevancy.

Rich White Guys Isn’t a Base To Win Elections With. This presidential election was the first one after the Supreme Court weighed in on the Citizens United decision, which resulted in obscene amounts of money pouring in from outside, unidentified sources used to attempt to sway elections. Well, rich white guys have a lot of money, but all that money wasn’t enough to defeat Obama. For Republicans to rebuild a more winnable base, they must untie themselves from this money. I know this isn’t likely, but at the very least they should not take their marching orders from the Koch Brothers anymore. If the Koch Brothers want a party more representative of what they believe, they got enough money to start their own party. And this 'Rich White Guys Party' will garner exactly the amount of votes their demographic represents – less than one percent.

Which is a great segue to the next suggestion.

Expand Your Base. There is a very easy way to do this - Support Lilly Ledbetter & the Dream Act. These two bills, respectively, grant equal pay to women, and a roadmap to citizenship for children of illegal immigrants. Two common-sense initiatives that aren’t, as they would have you believe, fantasy stuff from the Left Fringe. They represent what women and Latinos want. Two groups, added together, are well over half of the electorate. If you don’t support those two bills, you are, essentially, kissing off any chance to win anything.

Govern. Lastly, those Republicans still in office have to understand how to govern. And the first rule of governing is compromise. Ideological rigidity may have gotten you into office, but it won’t get you any bills passed once you are in there. Realize that another party is represented there too. Work with them. Otherwise, your stay in power will be a short one, as those now-defeated winners of the 2010 election have found out. Defeating Democrats is a noble cause while you're running for office, but once you've won, you now must work with them. Understand the difference between campaigning and governing.

So there you have it, Republicans. If you want to stay relevant, it may be a good idea to listen to a bleeding heart Liberal for once.

Denial ain’t a river in Egypt.

So Who Moved?

I have been a Democrat ever since I was old enough to vote. Growing up in the strong Union town that was 1970’s Akron, Ohio, there was nothing surprising about that. Akron was a Democrat town.

But it wasn’t just geography that made me a Democrat. My political beliefs have always been aligned with that party. I believe, for example, that how we treat our poor is important, that business isn’t concerned about the public good (they’re concerned about making money), and that war should always be as a last resort. There are many other positions that, if I were to illuminate, would just make me even more Democrat. I have consistently held these beliefs even as I have moved up the economic ladder, and even as I have moved into middle age. So I have been consistent for over 30 years.

What has not been consistent is how I, and on the macro level, the Democratic Party, has been viewed through the years. In the 1970’s we were the majority. In the Reagan Revolution of the 1980s we were often the minority. In the George W. Bush years of the 2000’s we started to become marginalized, especially those of us who were against the Iraq War, as anti-American. After Barack Obama won the presidency in 2008, we were considered left-wing propagandists. When the Republicans won control of the House of Representatives through Tea Party support, we were radicals.

From the voice of the majority to, 30 years later, the far fringe. But the funny thing is, as I pointed out earlier, I didn’t move. So who did?

Kewpie Doll for you if you say the Republican Party.

Republicans have become the well-oiled weathervane of American politics, ever shifting to cater to wherever the prevailing winds are coming from. Now, I get that – to an extent. But what has happened to them is an outright hijack of their party by a true fringe movement. The Tea Party. A movement that came about under dubious pretenses – the election of a black president, fueled by dubious assertions – that said black president is going to ruin the country.

Well, four years later and we’re still standing. Quite better than in 2008 for that matter.

But that’s not the point I am trying to make here. The Tea Party is what they are, and by my count, that’s about twenty percent – at best – of the electorate. And twenty percent of vote in any election makes you, guess what – a loser. Every time.

So I don’t blame the Tea Party for what they are. They have their beliefs and they are entitled to them. Who I blame is the party that has pandered to them, and in the process has moved violently to the right. Want proof? Here you go –

There was once a president that had strong beliefs and a strong vision. He was very popular and served two full successful terms. But even he knew that, in order to get anything done in Washington, compromise had to happen. Legislation that served the interests of both Republicans and Democrats had to occur. This president raised taxes. This president raised defense spending. This president exploded the deficit.

This president was Ronald Reagan.

The same Ronald Reagan that today’s Republicans reverently refer to. The problem is, in today’s political climate, Reagan would not win a single primary, let alone nomination by his party. He would be branded as a Socialist conspirator who not only acknowledges the other side of the aisle, but actually works with them. Today’s Republicans do not take kindly to such traitorous actions. Current-day Republicans do not compromise. They do not budge. They have become the embodiment of far-right dogma. A large chunk of their supporters not only do not accept Obama as president, they believe he is a Muslim. Another large chunk do not even believe he was born in the United States. Folks, agree with me or not, but that is the definition of radical, fringe thinking. If you believe that the president is illegitimate, the radical is you.

As a result, we Democrats (remember us?) have been, in their eyes, moving father away.

But we aren’t the ones who have moved.

Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum. And in this current political climate, a vacuum has been created by the Republican’s violent move to the right. So someone has to step into and fill that vacuum. It won’t be a Republican. They’ve been hijacked and hamstrung catering to a percent of the electorate that cannot elect anything.

So I will make this prediction now, and check back in November for confirmation. Barack Obama is going to be re-elected. And it won’t be because of Acorn, voter fraud or other concocted conspiracies. He will win the same way he won in 2008. With a solid majority of sane people.

The Republicans created the vacuum, and Obama will fill it.

The Republic Party

This happens every time. Whenever I post a political story, I vow that it will be the last one, usually because I am able to vent my spleen and be done with it. And politics, like religion, are very polarizing subjects; subjects that people take hard stances on and these stances can erode friendships. And frankly, I value my friendships more than being right.

But dammit, there they go again.

The ‘they’ I am referring to is the Republican Party. And specifically, certain members of it that have ingrained such an abject rejection of anything not fitting their paradigm, that they do not even call the Democratic Party by its proper name - which is, the Democratic Party. Instead they have gone shorthand and now refer to it as the ‘Democrat Party.’

Really? This is how you have to get your point across, by purposely butchering the name of the opposing party?

His Rushness does this all the time - “The Democrat Party’ did this or that. And now there is a new offender - the Republican’s newest Flavor of the Month, Herman Cain. Saddled with accusations by four different women of sexual misconduct, Cain has, not surprisingly, rejected their accusations. Fair enough. He is trying to win a nomination, and the modus operandi in that environment is to deny deny deny. Make the accusers prove their case, innocent until proven guilty and all that. He is entitled to that. However, in the process of denying any wrongdoing, he, of course, has to throw in the following:

Cain said there was a "machine" trying to keep a businessman out of the White House, and said Sharon Bialek was a "troubled woman" put forward by "the Democrat machine."

http://news.yahoo.com/herman-cain-says-democrat-machine-him-200328060.html

The Democrat machine.

So in Cain’s reasoning, not only are the charges false, but they are part of an overall conspiracy by some concocted ‘machine’ and that further, said ‘machine’ is of the ‘Democrat’ variety. Never mind the fact that most believe the initial story was leaked from the Rick Perry camp, which can hardly be categorized as having anything to do with Democrats. But it is quite a machine if the results of his Texas gubernatorial elections are any indicator.

The point here is the total absence of professionalism replaced by opportunism - if something’s wrong with a candidate’s past, why, it’s the Democrats fault. Cain allegedly slid his hand up some woman’s dress and tried to force her head down to his junk - the Democrats did it! Please.

Want to know what the Democrats are doing while this all unfolds? They are patiently sitting back being entertained by the immolation of Republican candidates. Herman Cain is not even on the Democrat’s radar yet - he’s just the latest of a series of flawed candidates the Republicans have trotted out and tried to prop us as the Answer To Obama. In other words, there’s no need for the Democrats to fire up any kind of ‘machine’ against him - he hasn’t even made it out of the intramural scrum yet.

Write this down - Barack Obama will be re-elected. And the reason is the Republicans cannot get their collective act together. They are disenfranchised with Romney, they have been hijacked by the fringe elements of their (Tea) party, and as such they are trotting out each candidate on a circadian rhythm as the one who will take Obama down. This is just Cain’s month in the barrel. I predict next month it will be Huntsman’s turn. And these two already follow the implosion of Gingrich, Bachmann and Perry. Christie and Palin won’t run. So if the Republicans think “anyone” can beat Obama, then by God, get ‘Anyone’ out there and have at it. If they think Obama is such a disaster of a president, then why can’t they coalesce around one candidate and be done with it?

I will tell you why. Because they know they cannot defeat Obama. 2012 is a lost cause. The candidates know it, especially the smart ones like Christie who have chosen not to be part of the mosh pit. Romney has to run because it's his second and likely last attempt at it. 2012 is his last hurrah...which is exactly what it will be.

Yes, Obama is vulnerable, but his vulnerability will be pitted against disarray. And that disarray will be represented by either a candidate they really do not want (Romney), or whatever other candidate emerges from the scrum unscathed. Well, good luck with that. The Republicans have a habit of either eating their young or running candidates one election (or two) too late.

But I will tell you that there is a scintilla of truth to Cain’s claim of a ‘Democrat Machine’. There indeed is one, but it is presently on idle. It will be fired up once the Republicans finally settle on a candidate. There's no need to engage it now. But just to be clear, it is the same type of machine that Obama has been battling (birth certificate ring a bell?) since the day to took office.

And sorry, Pizza Man, but the Republican candidate ain’t going to be you. The Republicans cannot trot out an alleged sexual offender as a candidate, whether the allegations are true or not. The stink has already stuck. And further, it is hard for me to believe that four different women are out to get you. This isn’t one disgruntled former employee that may have a history of emotional problems - it is four different ones. One accuser you can discredit. Lotsa luck with four (and counting, I am sure).

Oh wait I forgot - it’s the Democrat Machine causing this, not Cain's inability to keep his Jimmy in his pants. My bad. 

But anyway. Back to why I started this rant. These people cannot even call the Democratic Party by its given name, but instead truncate it to try to make it irrelevant. It fits with their all sizzle no substance approach to campaigning…and governing. Why, the problem is not us - it’s that other party who we have decided to change the name of.

At the end of the day, I have an implicit trust of the American people to see thought this and reject the abject pandering of…

The Republic Party.

Stop Before You Kill (Yourself) Again

In conversations I have had, many due to my recent blog posts, there seems to be a good number of people that are absolutely certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that Barack Obama has zero chance of being reelected. Okay. Let’s discuss.

Not from the standpoint of what he has or has not done, as that is obviously subject to a wide range of opinions. Rather, let’s look at it from another angle. The most critical angle, if you ask me –

Who will run against him?

Now do me a favor. Don’t say, “It doesn’t matter! Obama is such a total and complete failure that they could run anyone against him!”

Well, have you looked at the Republican candidate field? It pretty much defines the word ‘anyone’ – Romney, Perry, Bachmann, Cain, Huntsman, Gingrich…and Palin waiting in the wings. And to recap, Perry was urged to join due to disenchantment with the field…which was after Bachmann was urged to join due to disenchantment with the field…which was after Gingrich was urged to join due to disenchantment with the field.

And ya know what, apparently they are still disenchanted. The flavor this month is New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Republicans claim, why, if The Big Man From The Garden State joins, look out Liberals! Next stop The White House! Just like they did when Perry threw his hat in. And Bachmann. And Gingrich. The way this thing is going, if Christie’s shine lasts more than a month it will set a longevity record for this latest round of eating of young that the Republicans are engaged it.

Here’s the problem with the Republican Party of 2011-2012. It’s been hijacked by ideological purists on the far right. And too many of the candidates are tripping over themselves to out-Tea Party each other. Well look, I’m not electorate scholar, but I know math, and if candidates are trying to appeal to an ideological fringe that represents far too small of a percentage of the populace to elect anyone on a national level, that is just not smart. It is a guaranteed-to-lose strategy. 20 percent of the vote means 80 percent did not vote for you. 80 is greater than 20.

Think I’m off base with that claim of far-right hijacking? Okay. Have you been watching the Republican debates? In one a gay soldier serving in Afghanistan asked a question…and he was booed by the audience. Doesn’t matter if he has honorably served his country – he is turned on by men so that disqualifies him from hero status in their eyes. A moderator in another debate asked a question about a 30-year old without health insurance facing a deadly disease – the audience yelled ‘Let him die!’ And in both cases, not a single candidate came to the defense of that war hero or that dying young man. Nobody chided the crowd for their response.

You stay classy, Tea Party.

The problem here isn’t the candidates. The problem is the people that have become the representation of their party. And it has become the problem of the candidates because they feed off such sentiments. Instead, the candidates, or at least one of them, need to step up and grab a hold of their party – the Party of Lincoln and Reagan.

Abe and Ronnie are rolling in their graves, gang. This party and what they stand for bear little resemblance to those giants. In fact, Reagan would be drummed out of this incarnation of Teapublicans as being too liberal – he raised taxes and compromised with Democrats for crying out loud!

To be fair, there is one Republican candidate that has tried to grab the wheel and veer this metaphorical car away from the cliff’s edge and back onto pavement. John Hunstman. Huntsman is actually trying to infuse sanity into his party’s self-immolation. So how is Huntsman and his pragmatic, center-right stance playing with the base? What do the polls say? Look down in the single digits. You’ll find him waaaay down there.

So yes. I feel extremely confident that Obama will be reelected. And it’s not because he has done such a wonderful job. I personally think he has gakked on a number of issues. The main reason that reelection is a near certainty is he has moved to the center that has been violently vacated by the Republicans, who are test-fitting their tinfoil hats for the enjoyment of their fringe supporters.

Makes for good applause sound bites in Republican strongholds but it ain’t gonna play nationwide. Barry Goldwater tried that schtick in 1964. He got the John Birch vote, the Tea Party of the day, but he got waxed by Lyndon Johnson in the general election. Just like Obama will do to whoever comes out of this ideological scrum the Republicans are presently engaged in.

So to paraphrase Mr. Goldwater, since it is a perfect fit for this political climate –

Extremism in the attempt to gain national office is no virtue.

Classless Warfare

Time to piss off my Conservative friends…

Which is sort of funny in itself, given that as soon as I refer to one of them as Conservative, they quickly correct me. ‘Oh I’m a fiscal conservative but I am Libertarian on social issues and a Vegetarian when faced with a steak from a mad cow…’

Whatever. I’m a Liberal. Bash away at such decisiveness if you must.

Anyway, my latest amusement has come from the Conservative’s latest sound bite that Obama’s proposal to raise the tax rate on the wealthy in order to help address the deficit, referring to it as “class warfare”.

Nice imagery. When I hear that phrase I picture a bunch of unwashed serfs storming a castle with pitchforks, torches and nooses screaming for the head of some gout-stricken Lord. A rise of the poor majority demanding blood from the rich minority. Hey, they’re using the word ‘warfare’, so don’t blame me if it evokes violent images. They choose their words carefully, and that is apparently the image they are trying to portray - that this is WAR.

Actually, no. It isn’t. It is an attempt at fairness. It is the president saying those that have the capability to give more should. We are not in a war, but we are, by everyone’s assessment, in a crisis. A fiscal crisis that has manifested itself in massive deficits from previous spending. Spending that included, yes, a stimulus package championed by Obama, but also two wars championed by Bush. The current situation is one of policies over the past decade. Bush started two wars and gave us (and decidedly, the rich) two tax cuts. And, that, pardon me my Conservitarianeral friends, is fiscal irresponsibilty - raising your expenditures dramatically while decreasing your income. It is a recipe for bankruptcy.

And here we are in 2011 awash in red ink.

So Obama says to raise the tax rate on the rich to be the same rate as the middle class. Sounds fair to me. But of course, I’m a Liberal, and as such I am naïve, right? I cannot possibly understand such complexities as managing budgets and fair application of fiscal policy.

Have I mentioned that I also have an MBA?

Anyway, this is not about me. It is about the rich paying their fair share. Oh but hold the presses - there aren’t any “Rich People” people in this country. The Conservatives now have a new phrase for them. They are “Job Creators.” Well okay, to an extent I imagine there is a scintilla of truth in there. Rich people do tend to have staff. Someone has to drive them around, cook their meals, clean their six mansions, nanny their kids.

And keep the serfs from storming the castle.

But they are not job-producing self-contained factories of middle-class prosperity. Why? Well, if these ‘Job Creators’ have benefitted so much from tax cuts in the past decade, why aren’t they singlehandedly pumping life into this moribund economy by employing all these people standing in lines looking for work? Their discretionary income has dramatically increased in the past decade while other income group’s has fallen. Go hire another chauffeur, for crying out loud!

Now, I can hear the blowback already - many rich people got rich by starting businesses, and many of them do employ people - the ubiquitous 'small businessman' moniker. Okay fine. I buy that. And in response I offer two things: One, Obama has cut taxes to small businesses, and two, you have to separate the income of the business from the income of the person running the business. What Obama is targeting is the personal income of people making more than $250k a year, not the income of the business itself.

So, in light of that reality, explain how a higher tax rate on Bill Gates's personal income is going to translate to more of a tax burden to Microsoft. You can't. Because it does not exist. Remember that when Conservatives bemoam taxing 'Job Creators' - their businesses are untouched by this proposal. So that covers the concerns of the true entrepreneurs out there - the Bill Gates & Warren Buffetts of the world who came from nothing and crazily prospered through hard work and innovation.

So back to the other category of rich people. Those that have perhaps inherited their wealth, maybe sports athletes who signed outlandish salaries, whatever. People that, hey, great for them, had wealth handed to them. Herein lies the fallacy of the Conservative argument. The clothes have no emperor. These rich people do not spur the economy. There is no trickle down. Money has flowed upwards, not down. So it is time to call them what they are - not the engines of the economy, but rather, selfish benefactors of recent fiscal policy. And for them to pay more in taxes is not any kind of warfare. I would, instead, use an entirely different term for the president’s request for more money from them:

Patriotism.

Country first, right? Or have Conservatives discarded that phrase since it didn’t get McCain & Palin elected in 2008? It is hard for us Liberals to keep track of what their phrase du jour is anymore.

No wonder they think we're confused.

Inconsequential Consequences

The other day I was having a chat with a coworker, who I discovered is, like me, a Democrat. During our talk, I mentioned that ‘we Liberals” think this certain way, when she interrupted me and said, “I am not a Liberal. I am a Progressive.”

That was a head-scratcher for me, as I had never really pondered what the difference is. She then explained that it mainly had to do with differing views on Democratic fiscal policy, where Liberals believe more in a safety net for individuals approach where Progressives advocate more of a safety net on a macro scale, such as regulations in the food and drug industries, for the public good.

Remember that phrase ‘public good’ – I will be coming back to that later.

I did some on-line research, based on our discussion, to delve further into the purported differences, because, quite frankly, I have only heard this label ‘Progressive’ being used in recent years. Back in the day, Democrats were Liberals and Republicans were Conservatives. Ah, but not any more – there are New Democrats, Compassionate Conservatives, Red Dog Democrats, Tea Party Conservatives and so on. So, while doing my research, I found that the real reason for the moniker ‘Progressive’ is that the word ‘Liberal’ has been demonized by the right – in other words, a different word was created meaning essentially the same thing that doesn’t have the sneer factor associated with it. Picture a 2010 Republican political ad – “Nancy Pelosi (invoke sneer here) Liberals in Congress…” It helps if you grit your teeth and snarl while you say it, for effect.

So if this is the case, that Liberal and Progressive essentially mean the same thing, then call me either. Just do so with a level of dignity, please. If you can, then read no further. If you cannot, then I implore you to read on, because that would mean you are a snarler.

I mentioned public good earlier. This phrase enrages the right, as to them it is a buzzword for Nanny State, Huge Government and the like. And the right abhors such things – recently-announced Presidential candidate Rick Perry, in his announcement speech said that, if elected, he will make “Washington as inconsequential to your life as possible.”

Well that’s uplifting. Elect him and he will embark on deconstructing. Hope your 401K rebounds before you retire, since Social Security will likely evaporate with that kind of mindset.

But that’s not the ‘public good’ I was thinking of. It is another one, and it has ties to both Perry and, more directly, Michelle Bachmann, another Republican running. It has to do with the HPV vaccine. For those that do not know, HPV is a virus that is rather prevalent in young women that could lead to cervical cancer. Well fear not, as there is a vaccine, which, administered to girls around the age of 12, can pretty much eradicate that possibility. It is a simple as getting a shot and removing the possibly heinous way of dying. Awesome.

Ah, but hold on a sec – Bachmann has inside information about this vaccine that apparently the medical world is not privy to. See, she was at a campaign stop last week when a person told her that a friend’s daughter had the vaccine and contracted mental retardation as a result. Stop the presses!

So let’s recap. We have the combined wisdom and research of the medical community versus what a Republican candidate was told by someone about someone else’s daughter. In a rational world, this is no contest. Unfortunately for them, Republicans left rational at the station when they jumped on the Tea Party Express.

So, why would anyone – even the far right – actually be against a vaccine that will save lives? Sadly, it is a simple answer, and one that should give everyone pause – to their way of thinking, giving young girls a vaccine that has to do with the cervix implies tacit approval of teen sex. And we all know that is bad. Ergo, in order to maintain their indefensible position they have to demonize the vaccine through the use of innuendo.

What does this have to do with Perry? Well, let me first state that I think if he is elected (which he won’t; our country has had our fill of Texas swagger in the White House, thank you very much) we are in serious trouble, I have to give him much credit for approving the use of the HPV vaccine for Texas schoolgirls while he was governor. Now that’s a Compassionate Conservative.

But Bachmann is not part of that cadre. Too Liberal for her tastes. And she’s twenty points down in the polls to Perry. So out trots twisted logic straight out of Ferris Bueller implying that since she heard from someone who heard from someone that was at 31 Flavors last night that the vaccine may have dire side effects we should immediately halt the administration of it. Let women die a horrible death for the purpose of political gain.

Disgraceful.

So to summarize, on one side of the political spectrum you have the belief of research and medical advances. On the other you have hearsay and innuendo that, interestingly, is anti-women. And anti-science. Well excuse me Mr. Perry, but that is hardly ‘inconsequential.’ And excuse me, Ms, Bachmann, but I don't give rat's ass what some wingnut told you in passing at a political rally. To me, that is inconsequential. And that it isn't to you, is alarming.

So remember this story. And remember public good. Based on that alone you cannot in good conscience ever vote for these people. Young women will die.

That is not inconsequential.

Automatically Wrong

So I understand that Glenn Beck & Company were discussing on Faux News the other day whether or not Osama Bin Laden should have been killed.

Read that sentence again. They were actually criticizing President Obama for authorizing the raid on the safe house in Pakistan where Bin Laden was holed up.

Now, I understand. This is how Fox rolls. Being the mouthpiece for the right means having to criticize whatever Obama does, even when it results in the extermination of the most feared and wanted terrorist on earth, responsible for 3,000 deaths on 9/11/01, and whom the previous president started two wars over.

But Obama did it. And in keeping with their script, they must therefore criticize it.

I have some faith that most people understand how the right operates. However, given Fox’s strong viewing numbers, I am not so sure. And it is because there are some people, and the results of the 2008 presidential election say they are in the minority, that eats this stuff up. They didn’t vote for Obama so it is human nature that they want to criticize him. That’s fine. But there comes a time to just say stop already. Bin Laden is dead. This is a good thing. Be proud to be an American, even if your bias precludes you from being proud of Obama.

But why is this? Why is there a certain percentage of this country that cannot even accept that Obama is an American, much less the president? And by extension, cannot accept anything he does and thus has to be stopped or at least slowed down in anything he tries to accomplish?

The Right will not tell you this, but the reason for this has to do with the way they felt George W. Bush was treated. They feel that he was unjustly criticized and are now just slapping back. Well, this is where I take my stand in the debate. In short, Bush earned his criticism. Obama just got elected.

Ever wonder why it took almost ten years to finally get Bin Laden? Ever think it might have had to do with having him surrounded in Tora Bora in late 2001 only to let him squirm away, then making a decision to needlessly start a war elsewhere? Bush couldn’t get Bin Laden, so he sold the public that the real fight should be in Iraq. Many, like myself disagreed. But understand – it wasn’t a kneejerk ‘I disagree with anything Bush does’ criticism, it was more like, ‘Uh, really? Iraq is where we need to be? Well okay but you better be right.’

He wasn’t.

Flawed intel, no WMD, 4,000 American troops killed, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. In short, Bush earned his criticism. So, years later, Obama finally gets the guy Bush had in his sights in 2001. And there is no doubt in my mind that had it been Bush that gave the order, those chuckleheads would have been exploding with plaudits.

Hey look – I understand this is how the Right and Left operate. Support their man, criticize the other side. But this has gotten plain silly. Remember right after Obama was elected and they had an elderly lady weeping, saying ‘I want my country back’...?

Sweetie, nobody took it from you. You just got out-voted. It happens.

But there’s an insidious undercurrent to all this. Never have I seen such a president receive such unwarranted heat from so many sides. Hell, never have I seen an elected president’s nationality criticized. Obama, unfortunately, has become the first president in history that had to hold a press conference to release his birth certificate. Such is the voracity from the right.

So here’s my conclusion, and you’re not going to like it. But stop by a coffee shop in Nashville or a Waffle House in Fort Worth and tee this one up and see what you get –

Some people just cannot accept a black man being president.

And before you criticize me for saying that, give me another reason why he would be ostracized by anyone for catching and killing Bin Laden. Post a comment. Enlighten me.