With Candidates Like These. . .

Right now, if I was a Republican who voted in the primary, I'd be pissed.  After all, if I wanted to vote for a candidate who would be prone to saying absolutely stupid things, I would've voted for Michelle Bachmann or Rick Santorum.  Romney was supposed to be the guy who actually knew what he was doing. . .

Or not.  At a private fundraiser, Romney opened up his big mouth and said that Obama's supporters are all on public assistance so, and so fuck those guys.  Well, he didn't say that exactly, but he did say that he doesn't have to care about those people.  Per the article:
"[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

For a guy who is already wildly unpopular, who's campaign has swung dramatically from one strategy to the next, this kind of statement is particularly problematic.  As I said before, all candidates have prove that they are more than the image the other campaign tries to paint.  Bush could prove he was no dummy by spouting off a few names of world leaders, and Obama proves he's normal by being a normal guy (brewing his own beer doesn't hurt either).  Kerry's "I voted for it before I voted against it" line confirmed the worst line of attack on Kerry, and Al Gore's sighing at the debates played into the negative image Bush had crafted of him.

Similarly, Romney has managed to prove that he is an out-of-touch elitist who thinks that 47% of the American people are total and complete fuck-ups.  By the way, the 47% figure is something of a canard  - that figure includes people who work but don't pay federal income taxes (but do pay federal payroll taxes, state sales taxes, etc.), and retirees.  And quite few of the "47%" are those tea partiers who carried signs that said "Get your government hands off my Medicare."  Of course, those people don't believe they are on government assistance, and will vote for Romney.

The real problem isn't the 47%, if you will, but the rest of us who hear Romney's comments and think - "Holy shit, what a dick!"  Add that to his comments that people making $250k are middle class, or that he doesn't care about the very poor, or one of his myriad of other tone deaf comments (including last week's smirk), and Romney becomes virtually radioactive.

Now, while it is true that I'm a Democrat, I am also a political junkie.  So while my voting behavior is determined by my own policy preferences, I can separate those preferences when looking at the politics.  So, with that said, my dear Republican friends, I feel your pain.  Believe me, after watching Dukakis, Gore, Mondale*, and Kerry all bumble their way through the Presidential campaigns, I understand what its like to have a candidate who seemingly doesn't want to be elected President.

But while I feel your pain, rememb
*Okay, I don't remember Mondale that well - I was eight years old during the race, after all.  But Mondale actually had a negative bounce out of his convention.  Meaning the more people heard about Mondale, the less they liked him.

A Fucking Smirk. . .

Just hours after my last post talking about the desperation of the Romney campaign, Romney goes ahead and tops himself.  Here's the background - an "Israeli Jew" who is apparently a California real estate developer and is 53 or 56, creates a ridiculously over the top anti-Islam video on YouTube.  People get pissed off, start protests.  Okay, that's their right.  The U.S. Embassy in Cairo releases a tweet that says, "hey, we think this guy is a jackass too," and the protests turn violent in Egypt and in Libya, and an ambassador and five other FSO's are killed.  Romney blasts the Obama Administration (who didn't release the statement) for sympathizing with terrorists while these thugs were KILLING AMERICAN CITIZENS.

Now, the latest rumor is that the violence against the U.S. Embassies was planned in advance, and used the protests against the ridiculous web video as cover.  This makes some sense because the U.S. has a 90% approval rating in Libya (we, after all, helped bring down the former government).  Also, no one has ever heard of the creator of this web video - including the Israeli government who says that it has no record of an Israeli citizen by the name of "Sam Bacile."  All of this, by the way occurs on 9 -11, and shortly after the U.S. kills a high-ranking Al Qaeda member. . .hmm. . .sounds very "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" to me.  Granted, I just finished reading The Prague Cemetery by Umberto Eco (a great read by the way), so I am a bit suspicious about these sorts of things.

But I digress.  This post isn't so much about what's happening in Libya and Egypt, but what happened in Washington, D.C.  As I said before, Romney attacked the Obama Administration for "sympathizing" with the thugs who attacked our embassies based upon a tweet that was (1) issued BEFORE there was any violence; and (2) was written by a U.S. Embassy employee, and not someone in the White House.  Did I mention that Romney unleashed this attack on September 11, and did so while Americans were being killed.

Oh, and during the whole cartoon blow-up during the Bush Administration, the White House said basically the same thing.  And the White House, along with Secretary Clinton both issued statements that said the guy was a jack-ass, but he has the right to be a jack-ass, and that violence against the U.S. will not be tolerated.  Again, perfectly reasonable.

This morning, Romney then reiterates his attack - that Obama issued a statement supporting the violence against Americans (which again, he most certainly did not).  And the son of a bitch walks off the stage after lying about the President, and politicizing the deaths of Americans SERVING THEIR COUNTRY with a fucking smirk on his face.  A. Fucking. Smirk.

In an astonishing, yet, refreshing change, the traditional media understood what Romney is up to, and they are pissed.  Heck, Ezra Klein writes that Romney's actions reek of desperation.  And he's right.  The safe play, the right play, would be to strongly condemn the attacks, stand up for the freedom of people to say fucking stupid things, and then state that the perpetrators must be brought to justice.  End of statement.  And above else DO NOT FUCKING SMIRK.

But no, Romney had the temerity to accuse the President of not just being weak, but actually sympathizing with terrorists.  Really.  In the "West Wing" - which basically was the show that helped progressives live through the Bush years - there scene where President Bartlett decided he was going to kick his opponent's ass for reelection.  I felt a similar reaction during Sarah Palin's speech at the 2008 RNC - when she decided to denigrate community organizers.  I'm starting to feel that way towards Mitt Romney now.

And I have to say that I am amazed at Obama's ability to get his opponents to do dumb shit like this.  In the past nine years, he eeks out a victory in the Illinois Senate Primary, only to have his Republican opponent blow up in spectacular fashion.  So, Obama gets to run against Alan Keyes (who he slaughters).  He then runs for President, and runs against Hillary Clinton, who's campaign fucks up her messaging, and can't keep a delegate count.  Obama has to fight long and hard, but he wins.  Then he takes on John McCain who, in a panic, picks Sarah Palin, and then tries to suspend his campaign over the Lehman Brothers disaster.  Now, Obama gets Mitt Romney, who is a walking timebomb.  At some point, you have to wonder if Romney actually wants to be elected, or if the whole thing isn't an elaborate hoax.  A fucking smirk. . .

State of the Race - Post Convention Edition

Well, its been a few months since my last post - the demands of the practice of law can be brutal, and this summer was no exception.  But to my defense, there was really nothing to blog about politics-wise once Romney wrapped up the nomination. . .oh, wait, did I blog about his pick of Paul Ryan? No? Crap.

Okay, okay, there has been a lot going on, and I haven't said enough.  But just as Bill Clinton can come back and remind us why he was one of the best stewards of the economy ever, I am can actually write a few words on the state of the race (particularly that the conventions are done and we're in the homestretch).

The Paul Ryan Pick for VP: If I had bothered to blog back when Romney made this pick, I would have said - See! See! Romney is beholden to the right-wing, he can never have a Sister Souljah moment! - and I would have been right.  Paul Ryan is an ideologue pure and simple.  And since he's never run for more than a House seat Paul Ryan can be as partisan and ideological as he wants (see Bachmann, Michelle).

With that said, Romney's selection of Ryan wasn't awful - Ryan doesn't have to have his hand held at all times (*cough*Sarah Palin*cough*), he won't say anything that will truly embarrass Romney, or try to overshadow Romney.  So, generally, this would be a good pick-up, except. . .

Bubba Killed It at the DNC: One word everyone - arithmetic.  And with that one word, Bill Clinton destroyed every single argument the GOP made during their convention.  No one, not even Obama, can match Bubba when he gets on a role when it comes to policy.  When Obama is at his oratorical best, he makes you want to follow him into the Gates of Hell, but with Clinton, you end up agreeing with every word he says.  Arithmetic.

The Conventions: Well, given that I'm talking about Bill Clinton's speech, and not Romney's, you can tell that the RNC did not go as planned (and I'm not talking about the chair).  Romney had a three-day infomercial to tell the American people what he would do as President and he blew it.  At best he got a 1% bounce.  Now, keep in mind that the very best polls have a margin of error of 3-5% - meaning that whatever bounce Romney got was statistically insignificant.  Moreover, guys like Chris Christie of New Jersey spent their time talking about themselves rather than Romney.  That's the kind of thing that happens when the speaker thinks there will be an opening for President in the next election cycle (which, if Romney wins, there won't be).

Compounding Romney's woes was Ryan's speech which, instead of being a light of truth, it was light on truth.  Three hour marathon my ass.  Little wonder Romney has started playing the "Obama is a not a real American" bullshit as soon as the RNC was done.

At the DNC, all of Romney's chickens came home to roost - Obama looked human, Clinton was electric, and Michelle Obama rocked it.  Oh, and Sasha's facial expressions once again completely humanized her father.  And ultimately, the "Obama is not a real American" thing never works because Obama, if anything, is more normal than Romney.  He grew up middle class, is a huge sports fan (he even has a fantasy football team, which I do not), and his kids try to weasel out of school when he gives big speeches.

Of course, there's more to it than just Obama is normal - Romney is not normal.  There is a difference between the very, very rich and the rest of us.  Who else buys a horse for "therapeutic" purposes that then is entered into the Olympics?  Who else has a car elevator at his 5th or 6th house? What teams does Romney root for?  I have no idea.

Worst of all, his fucking campaign staff is awful.  Telling a reporter that Romney's positions are written on an Etch-a-Sketch?  Changing what Romney said hours after he said it?  Who does this?  Well, given that Romney went overseas and immediately insulted Britain during the Olympics, Romney doesn't do so well on his own anyway.   The guy can't be trusted to campaign on his own, and his staff sucks.

So, coming out of the conventions, the only thing that can change the tone of the campaign is the debates.  With the assumptions by many Republicans that Obama is an idiot,* the onus will be on Romney to kill Obama at these debates.  But I don't think he can.  Obama may not be as capable of being the Explainer as Bill Clinton is, but he isn't the idiot the GOP makes him out to be.  Either way, the pressure will be on.

*For the life of me, I can't figure out the whole teleprompter attacks on Obama.  Yes, he reads his speeches from a teleprompter - like every other President ever.  The dude went to Harvard Law, and was President of the Harvard Law Review.  Even if he got in due to affirmative action (which there's no proof of), he drops from being super-ridiculously smart to ridiculously smart.

About Those Tax Returns. . .

First off, has it really been a month since I last posted anything? Really?  All shock aside, I've been thinking about Mitt Romney and his tax returns.  Now, normally, I could understand the reticence of a presidential candidate in showing his tax returns, but Mitt Romney is no ordinary candidate.  His father, George Romney, who ran for President in 1968, set the modern standard for releasing tax returns.  Set. The. Standard.  So, its not like Mitt didn't expect this.

But Mittens seems pretty set in his refusal to release any more tax returns.  More importantly, his wife is. So what gives?  What is in his tax returns that scares him off?  Here are my thoughts on the subject, going from the least likely to the most likely (in my humble opinion, of course).

There's something illegal in his tax returns: Um. . .no.  Mitt Romney is the wealthiest man who has ever run for President.  Ever.  He's wealthier than the last five or six Presidents combined.  A guy with that kind of money, who has a J.D., who is as financially savvy to build such a fortune, is going to hire the best and brightest tax preparers ever.  There's no way in hell he did anything illegal.  And if he did, don't you think the IRS would have come down on him by now? 

He paid too much/too little in taxes: This is closer to the mark, but is still missing something.  Make no mistake, Romney paid a lot less in taxes than you or I.  Heck, there were probably years where Romney paid nothing in taxes. And that might piss some people off.  But Romney is hurting himself more by not releasing these tax returns.  And if he was excellent at tax-avoidance, he'll be praised by the GOP rank and file.  He's not a Democrat, after all.  Republicans believe that taxes are evil.  So I don't think that's it.

So, if its not illegality, or tax avoidance, what could possibly be so compelling in his tax returns that even his WIFE doesn't want the information to be shared with the public. . .

Tithing: Given the personal reaction to releasing the tax returns, there has to be something in the tax returns that Mitt doesn't want shared. And to me, the one thing that would hamper Romney, the one thing that's so personal to him, is tithing.  As a Mormon, Romney is supposed to give 10% of his income to the Church.  But I don't think he wants to hide his tithing because in his 2010 tax return, it shows that he gave 10% to the Church of Latter Day Saints.  But what if his tax returns show that his income was A LOT higher than what he reported to the Church?  That would be the kind of thing I would hide and that my wife would want to hide.  What if Romney used the Swiss bank accounts, the Cayman bank accounts, to not avoid taxes, but to avoid tithing?  There are loopholes with Uncle Sam, but I don't think the Church has the same view.  As a high-ranking member of the Church of Latter Day Saints, proof that Romney didn't tithe would be devastating to Romney and his family on a personal level.

Anyway, that's my theory. 

So You Wanna Buy the San Diego Padres. . .

From the look of things, it appears that the San Diego Padres will finally have an owner who actually wants to own the team.  For those of you who don't follow sports, here's a quick rundown:

The Padres are currently owned by John Moores, who purchased the San Diego Padres back in 1994 from the then awful ownership of Tom Werner.  Moores loved owning the team, and the team went to the playoffs on several occasions and had their best team ever in 1998 (and would have won the World Series, IMHO, had they not run into the 1998 Yankees, who were one of the best teams ever).  Moores' efforts lead to the building of Petco Park, the current home of the Padres (which was held up by four years by litigation).  In 2008, John Moores and his wife divorced, and with the team being community property and all, Moores was hurt financially.  So he tried to sell the team to Jeff Moorad, a former player agent who made enough enemies during his tenure as an agent that Major League Baseball refused to allow him to buy the Padres.  So, Moores had to go back to the drawing board to sell the team. On the plus side, the $2 Billion Dollar Purchase of the Dodgers increased the Padres' value somewhat.

So, with the team up for sale, and the team with its expected purchase price to be upwards of $800 million ($600 million for the team, and $200 million for the team's stake in a regional sports network), I figured I'd give a few pieces of advice to the new ownership.  Mind you, I am not a baseball person, but I am something of a rare breed - a San Diego native.  If you want to gain the affection of San Diego, pay attention to what I have to say.

1) Get Fox Sports San Diego on Every TV in San Diego, Riverside, Imperial County and Mexico:  Okay, this is kind of a no-brainer.  If no one can see the Padres on a regular basis, no one will think about the Padres on a regular basis.  So, the fact that only half the City of San Diego can see Padres games is just dumb.  But more importantly, there are over 5 million people south of the border who don't get Padres games, and another 1-2 million people in Riverside, San Bernardino and Imperial Counties who don't see Padres games. That's just stupid.  Get the games on TV and compete for the parts of Southern California referred to as "Rivertucky" (*Note: DO NOT CALL THESE AREAS RIVERTUCKY).  

2) Beer, Beer, Beer: While San Diego is an ever-changing landscape and population, there are certain things that once introduced, stick permanently in the San Diego.  For instance, when I saw Nirvana back in 1994, Kurt Cobain mocked our mosh pit because instead of moshing (general violence) we were slamdancing in a circle - a relic of the early punk era.  The thing is, San Diegans never moshed, and always slamdanced.  Anyway, this is a long way of saying, that once we get into something, we San Diegans don't let it go.  Beer, especially craft beer, is a great example.  In the past 15 years San Diego has built and supported over forty breweries.  And that number will, most likely, continue to grow. 

So make sure that the beer at Petco reflects the beer outside of Petco.  Get the local breweries to produce beer for Petco.  Better yet (and I've given this advice before), get the breweries to produce a beer just for Petco - as in, the beer is only sold at Padres games.  Trust me, they'll do it and the results will be awesome.  Then, we the drinkers of local craft beer have even more reason to go to the games.  Heck, I paid $15 once to get a half-pint of Pliny the Younger (just google it), at an event this year.  If there's some rare and delicious beer that I can only get at the ballpark, I'm going to pay for the ticket.

3) Go South Young Man: As you probably are already aware, there are almost 5 million people living in Northern Baja. 5 million people who are different from other Mexicans due to their close proximity to the Border.  If you want to increase your market share, that's where you go.  Yes, right now, baseball is a minor sport in Mexico - probably about as popular as lacrosse here - but you don't have to change the minds of Mexicans everywhere, just Mexicans in Baja.  And that's totally doable because in places with large Mexican-American populations, such as LA and Chicago, there are large numbers of Mexican-American baseball fans.  Hire a guy like Enrique Morones (who used to work for the Padres and was successful in the Mexico outreach back in then 1990's).  Even if you don't get more Mexican fans into Petco, the key is the TV market.  Since you will own part of the local Fox Sports network, you can grow your audience.  This is a good thing.

4) Hire Local Talent: Right now there are 5-10 active and operating Padres blogs, run by Padres fans. In comparison, there are 2-3 Chargers blogs in San Diego.  These blog writers - and especially former blog writers like Geoff of Ducksnorts - do some very good analysis of Padres players.  Go out and hire one of these guys.  Also, get a local legend - Tony Gywnn, Randy Jones, etc. - to sell the team to the diehards.  

5) Don't Get Discouraged: Even if you reach down to Mexico, have the local breweries produce beer just for you, hire local talent, and plaster your games all over, you may not get the kind of return you hope for.  Be patient.  The thing you have to remember is that Padres fans have had a long, painful history with the team.  You will be the fifth owner of the team, and since Joan Kroc sold the team, each new ownership has come in with high expectations, and then conducted firesales.  So, we're a bit gunshy at first.  But if you keep trying, and the team wins, we'll be there for you.

Future of Proposition 8 and Same-Sex Marriage in California

So the news today is that the 9th Circuit won't rehear the Proposition 8 case en banc.  For you non-lawyers out there, here's a bit of background: there are three levels of appeals when you lose in federal court.  The first level of appeal is the mandatory appeal wherein a three judge panel has to hear what you have to say.  That's the level of the most recent Prop. 8 decision. If you don't like what the three-judge panel has to say, you can ask for an 11-judge panel to rehear the case en banc.  This tends to happen when the judges don't like how the decision was written, or the outcome of the case.  Either way, the appellate court doesn't have to rehear the case.  The last level of appeal is to the Supreme Court, which is also discretionary.  Typically, the Supreme Court takes maybe 0.1% of the cases where people ask for review.  Most people think that the question of Prop. 8 now goes to the Supreme Court.

But I do not.  Given that the decision overturning Prop. 8, and allowing same-sex marriage in California is so narrow, and so well-supported by the facts, I can well see the Supremes deciding to leave well enough alone.  And here's why - every decision by the Supreme Court affects not just its decision-making in the future, but also whether it gets inundated by other cases in the future.  In the 1950's and 1960's, Justice Potter Stewart said that he knew which pornography was obscene when he saw it.  So, the Supreme Court had to go through reams of pornography to decide what was obscene, and what was not.  By watching it.  With people they work with.  And Justice Thurgood Marshall would crack jokes (mostly mocking the conservatives for making everyone do this).

Similarly, if the Supreme Court were to overturn the 9th Circuit and Judge Walker's decision, it would invite a similar disaster because Judge Walker and the 9th Circuit were ridiculously thorough, and Judge Walker made evidentiary rulings based on live testimony, and based his decision on the lowest possible civil rights standard.  Now, the Supreme Court could rule that the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause (which is the basis of the Judge Walker's decision) is meaningless, but doing so would overturn hundreds of previously decided cases.  Or, the Court could determine that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to gay people, also overturning cases - including cases written by Justice Kennedy (the lone swing vote).  Or, the Supremes could decide that they need to hear witness testimony.  Either way, overturning the 9th Circuit would create more work for the Supremes.

Now, the Supremes actually vote on whether or not they're going to hear a case.  For the conservative Justices (Alito, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts), taking the case means that Justice Kennedy will end up writing the opinion, and he might write a more expansive opinion than the 9th Circuit.  That's bad.  If you are a moderate/liberal (Breyer, Ginsberg, Kagan, and Sotomayor), you know that Justice Kennedy might overturn the 9th Circuit, and knocking civil rights back 100 years.  So, both the conservatives and the liberals see some serious downsides in taking the case.

Plus, as I said before, the Prop. 8 ruling is incredibly narrow - limited to California, and to the circumstances of the trial.  Not taking the case means that same-sex couples get married in California but doesn't affect same-sex marriage bans anywhere else (at least until DOMA is overturned). So, my bet is that the Supremes don't touch this case.

Justification by Works Alone. . .

I write this post knowing, or believing that I've written something like this before, but I can't help but think that Martin Luther was completely and utterly wrong about his key break from the Catholic Church.  Justification (whether or not you go to heaven) does not exist by faith alone.  In fact, I have come to believe that faith means approximately dick when it comes to justification (and yes, I just used the word "dick" in the same sentence as faith and justification).  Nope, I have to agree with the old school Catholic Church on this one - the only thing that matters is what you do.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of the Catholic Church.  Transubstantiation is a dumb idea.  Its stance on contraception and homosexuality are self-defeating and mean-spirited. . .I really could go on.   But that said, we live in a time where religion, and indeed faith, is being used to justify cowardly and hateful behavior.  There have even been instances where legislators have tried to create loopholes in anti-bullying legislation for people acting out of religious desire.

Luther came to the idea of justification by faith alone by watching the Catholic Church use the "works" argument to justify all sorts of cynical behavior.  For instance, for a price, one could wipe out a multitude of sins.  Further, the Catholic Church figured out that as the key arbiter of what constituted a "good act" and a "bad act," it could justify torture, genocide and all sorts of evil.   But at the end of the day, his belief that people strong in faith don't do bad things simply doesn't cut it.  There are simply too many examples of people using faith to justify evil.

The most recent thing to stick in my craw is the latest Savage Love Letter of the Day.  An evangelical family uses God and the Bible to justify its own hatred of a daughter and a son, both of whom are disowned.  I am appalled, disgusted, and outraged.  But here we see that once again, religion is used as a crutch to allow people to do terrible things.  Little wonder so many claim to be "spiritual" rather than religious.  

No, we have to justify people based on their deeds, not on their faith.  But unlike the medieval Catholic Church, those standards of behavior need not be changed to suit our needs.  Don't harm others (on purpose, at least), don't lie, don't cheat, treat everyone as you want to be treated.  Give to charity, be respectful, don't be judgmental (that's God's job), etc.  We'll all fail to be good all the time, but at least we won't rationalize our own failings onto God.