Gay marriage remains divisive issue, but only for Republicans

By Nathan Rothwell 

It’s astounding how quickly one’s views can change when the issue hits a little closer to home.

Senator Rob Portman (R-OH), at one point considered a frontrunner for the Republican vice presidential nomination in 2012, recently penned an editorial coming out in favor of marriage equality in an Ohio newspaper.

Once an opponent of same-sex marriage rights, Portman changed his views upon learning that his son is gay. In Portman’s words, learning this “prompted him to consider the issue from another perspective: that of a dad who wants all three of his kids to lead happy, meaningful lives with the people they love, a blessing [Portman’s wife] Jane and I have shared for 26 years.”

Portman deserves to be commended for valuing his son’s wishes, as well as the wishes of others, enough to reconsider his antiquated views. However, he went on to add another passage of note:

“British Prime Minister David Cameron has said he supports allowing gay couples to marry because he is a conservative, not in spite of it. I feel the same way. We conservatives believe in personal liberty and minimal government interference in people’s lives. We also consider the family unit to be the fundamental building block of society. We should encourage people to make long-term commitments to each other and build families, so as to foster strong, stable communities and promote personal responsibility.”

I found this quote particularly interesting. One would think that the notion of marriage equality would appeal directly to American conservatives for this very reason. Champions of small government and personal liberty have a difficult time arguing that it is in fact okay for government to be large enough to tell us who we can marry, and only grant the personal liberty to do so if our chosen partners fall within the appropriate, government-sanctioned definition of “marriage.”

Nevertheless, some conservative leaders still attempt to do so, dressing their bigotry up as their own arguments for freedom.

"Just because I believe that states should have the right to define marriage in the traditional way does not make me a bigot," said Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) to the Conservative Political Action Conference last Thursday. In short, it’s not that Rubio and others want to prevent marriage equality; they’re simply opposed to the federal government telling states what to do.

At the risk of sounding hyperbolic, I'll point out that a similar argument was once made in defense of slavery. The same defense was also used decades ago to oppose desegregation and interracial marriage.  When the right of marriage becomes a right of every American, regardless of sexual orientation, Rubio’s words will seem just as silly as they did in defense of slavery and segregation.

Portman’s editorial speaks to how silly it is that social issues are part of the conservative cause in the first place.  Opposition to issues such as gay marriage and abortion are deeply rooted in religious beliefs, and Republicans have cynically made these issues part of their platform for decades in order to bring single-issue voters into their fold.  As history marches forward, and the LGBT community becomes fully welcomed into American society, Republicans are quickly finding that their opposition to gay marriage earns them fewer and fewer votes.

This reality will take center stage as the Supreme Court is set to rule later this month on whether states can impose bans on same-sex marriage. As is the reality that gay people are all around us. They are our parents, our children, our relatives, and our dear friends. When this became clear to Rob Portman, he reevaluated his views and came to the only logical conclusion. I hope that every Republican comes to know that they have a gay relative or friend, or are perhaps gay themselves, and are forced to reexamine the issue with the knowledge that they can't deny rights to people who they know and love.

Truth be told, whether they know it or not… they probably already do.

(This article has been updated to reflect that Senator Portman's first name is Rob, not Ron).

----

Historical Accidents and New Ideas: Revisiting Employer-sponsored Health Insurance

By Nathan Rothwell

As the remaining provisions of the Affordable Care Act are phased in over the next several years, the American health care system may be forced to rethink how health insurance is written and delivered in this country.

The United States is unique among industrialized Western nations in that most of its citizens obtain coverage from the private market, primarily from their employers. According to recent statistics, 58% of working Americans under the age of 65 get their health insurance through their employers. While this percentage has steadily decreased over the past several years, a majority of working-age Americans still rely on their employers for insurance, a trend that has persisted for decades.

A quick lesson in history can explain why this is the case. While health insurance policies first made their appearance in the United States during the early 20^th century, World War II saw a dramatic rise in employer-sponsored health care plans. This is because wage and price freezes were put in place to tightly regulate the American wartime economy, making it difficult for businesses to attract new workers to replace those who had gone off to war. However, fringe benefits (such as sick leave and employer-sponsored health insurance) were not subject to wage freezing, allowing employers to offer these additional benefits in lieu of additional pay.

This system allowed for 75% of Americans to have some form of health insurance by 1958. For better or worse, the trend of obtaining health insurance as an employment benefit has persisted to present day. While this system is often lauded as a motivator for Americans to find and keep employment, it does nothing to address the needs of those who are unable to work – namely, the sick and elderly. Even poor Americans who are able to work either cannot obtain insurance through an employer, or are required to contribute toward group insurance premiums (which can be quite high for those with chronic health conditions).

"Real Time" Gun Debate Goes Viral

Bill Maher's "Real Time" panel had a great, however brief, debate over gun regulation policies and America's unique gun culture. And by panel, I really mean the one-on-one that took place between author Sam Harris and Mayor Cory Booker of Newark, New Jersey. Part of the debate concerned a blog Harris wrote several weeks ago, which you can read here.

This particular clip demonstrates how complex the gun-violence issue is to address in America. Even on a very liberal panel, there are vast differences of opinion as to how to tackle the problem. Responsible gun owners clearly are not limited to members of the Republican party.

Harris's blog, "The Riddle of the Gun," has also sparked an informative and interesting debate between Richard Dawkin's RDFRS. (I'm not sure if there's some sort of prize if one side succeeds at out-reasoning the other).

According to data compiled by Slate, more than 1600 people have died in America from gun violence since the Sandy Hook school shooting in December. By any stretch of the imagination, that is a hell of a lot of people. Slate has arranged the data into an interactive map that shows the date, age, sex and state, where gun-deaths have occurred. The point is, every day gun violence occurs in both Red and Blue states and an individual's opinion about gun laws and how to prevent gun violence is not limited to where one lies on the political spectrum.

For NTQ!'s take on addressing and reducing gun violence, check out Nathan Rothwell's editorial here.

Reducing Gun Violence Means Addressing Poverty, Desperation

By Nathan Rothwell

Firearm-related homicides in U.S. cities rival those of the deadliest nations

I would like to preface this piece by acknowledging that my perspective on gun control is colored by personal circumstances. For example, I have no children – nor do I intend to. Perhaps I would feel stronger about limiting the availability of firearms if this were not the case, or perhaps not. In any case, I freely admit that this bias exists.

I have also never been a victim of gun violence, nor do I directly know anyone who has. This likely sets my opinions apart from those who tragically cannot say the same. But this is important to note, because the great gun discussion which has gripped the nation for decades includes a wide variety of perspectives, with every one of them colored by individual motives and experience. Honestly, I would not have this debate any other way.

With that said, there is only one place for this debate to begin. Special attention must be brought to the conversation’s loudest voice, belonging to none other than Wayne LaPierre and the National Rifle Association.

Over the last 15 years, the NRA has been acknowledged as one of America’s most influential lobbying groups. They have proved to be quite successful in lobbying toward a single goal: promoting gun ownership. While there is nothing inherently wrong with their objective, they seem unmoved by the resulting consequences. When LaPierre argues in favor of putting more guns near schools in the name of protecting children, is he concerned with promoting safety, or gun ownership? When the NRA releases its own video game almost immediately after blaming video games for our national violence problem, how can it be argued that they do not value promoting gun ownership above all else?

This should go without saying since it’s so painfully obvious, but it unfortunately must be repeated again, as the NRA would rather not admit to it – firearms are offensive weapons and instruments of violence. They hold the potential to end a life within the blink of an eye, and this potential is realized every day when lives end at the barrel of a gun. LaPierre and his organization seems completely unwilling to own up to these simple facts, which makes them difficult to take seriously when discussing gun control.

There is just no overlooking the fact that gun violence cannot be committed without guns. The NRA deserves to be taken to task for constantly and disingenuously skirting around this obvious truth. However, and as much as it pains me to do this, I have to agree with their staunch opposition to recent gun control legislation.

Move Over Scientology, Here Comes Beckopolis!

By Nathan Rothwell

Apparently Glenn Beck wants to start a cult town.

Now, before we get too worked up over this, odds are that this plan will never come to fruition. Beck’s schemes are usually never fully realized, due to a combination of mismanaged execution and his own hubris. Remember the “Restoring Honor” rally, where Beck had originally hoped that as many as 300,000 people would crowd the National Mall to hear his 100-year plan to save America? As it turned out, only about a third of that projection actually attended. And the great “transformation” Beck hyped for months turned out to be nothing more than a proclamation of his love for the Mormon Jeebus.

So there’s an excellent chance that Beck’s proposed city/theme park hybrid (entitled “Independence, USA”) never actually materializes. Or if it does, the amount of attendance it actually gets will make Euro Disney look like a huge success by comparison. All things being considered, outrage doesn’t seem warranted. But that doesn’t mean we can’t take a look at the pre-hype hoopla and make lots and lots of fun of it.

GETTING IN:

The front entrance “is based on Ellis Island,” Beck explains. “Everybody that would come through would come through the front gate… through Ellis Island. And the reason why we put Ellis Island there is because that’s how most of us, or our families came through.”

TRANSLATION:

“We’re pre-screening you bastards before any one of you gets into my dreamtown! And you can’t bring any stuff with you, either!” You’ve got to hand it to Beck here, with his use of descriptive language to transform the hallmarks of joining a cult (appeasing Dear Leader, giving up worldly possessions) into reliving an episode of American history.

Actually, I take that back. Many think of Emma Lazarus’ “huddled masses yearning to breathe free” when picturing Ellis Island, which conveniently omits the ugly parts. Like the part where quotas on certain ethnic groups were enforced, or the part where officials could change your last name if it was too hard to pronounce, or just sounded too foreign-y.  Nothing enhances the theme park experience like making people stand in line to make sure they share in Beck’s delusions of grandeur / aren’t Muslim!

Welcome to the United (Socialist) States of America

by Nathan Rothwell

The word “socialist” gets tossed around a lot in American political discourse.

Conservatives, in particular, chiefly assign the word as a pejorative term for liberals with which they disagree. Some (who really shouldn’t be named anymore) in particular are using it as the adjective du jour in describing an imaginary, impending dystopia  that has fallen upon us all now that President Obama has secured re-election, along with the Democratic Party retaining control of the U.S. Senate.

There are two major problems with the American Right’s leaning so heavily on terms like “socialist” and “socialism” when branding their liberal adversaries. The first is that America’s true socialist party, which has existed for over a century, directly opposes both the Republican and Democratic parties as agents of capitalism.

The second, much more glaring problem for conservatives is that the United States already tends towards socialism; and, moreover, it’s what the American people appear to want.

A sort of cynical cognitive dissonance is at play here when socialism is held up as both the cause of and solution to this country’s problems. This was well-documented this past election cycle, as Republicans would often blame entitlement culture for our country’s woes while at the same time try to scare elderly voters into believing that Obama was taking their Medicare benefits away. Essentially, they attempted to paint themselves as the true champions of popular, socialist-style government programs while at the same time decrying socialism as a whole.

Obviously this kind of rhetoric did them no favors in the electoral results – so why do they stick to it? Part of the problem lies with a worldview that hasn’t progressed much since the 1980s. Republican voters, elected officials, and talking heads alike cannot seem to distinguish socialism from the totalitarian version practiced in the Soviet Union for much of the 20^th century.  And in being unable to separate the economic tenets of socialism from the totalitarian communist regime of the Soviet Union, any step towards the former begins the path toward the latter.

Yet surely, they would not object to market socialism practiced every day in the United States. A perfect example can be found in workers who receive employee benefits in the form of stock options in the companies for which they work. Far be it for opponents of socialism to tell the so-called “job creators” of this country how to pay their workers, even though workers controlling the means of production (in this case, the company) is socialism in its exact definition.

At the risk of sounding preachy about this nation’s Founding Fathers, those modern-day Tea Partiers who enjoy putting on wigs and wearing tea bags from their ears may want to pay close attention here. There is a reason that aristocracy was not allowed to take hold in the United States as it had throughout Europe. They worried that allowing vast amounts of money and land to be concentrated in the hands of a small number of families would allow those families to gain undue influence over the country’s true governors.

Yet instead of an aristocracy based on nobility, America has seen a corporate aristocracy rise to take its place. We live in a brave new political world where money is considered free speech, corporations are considered people, and those mighty kings atop the corporate thrones make 380 times more what they pay their workers.

What can one do with that kind of lavish cash? For one, it can buy the attention of a political party, who will be all too happy to accept your money in exchange for rebranding you as “job creators.”  It can also buy the affection of millions of Americans who are too occupied with proletarian concerns to know they are being duped into voting against themselves. It can even buy airtime on national airwaves to repackage the phrase “voting with your wallet” as a diatribe against women and minority voters for “wanting free stuff” (as if many wealthy voters didn’t vote for the Romney/Ryan ticket based on the immense tax breaks they stood to gain).

And this is before we even consider how corporations can buy direct government influence in the form of corporate subsidies and massive tax breaks. That lost revenue is made up for by increased taxes on the middle class – i.e. redistribution of wealth back to the wealthy. For all the hemming and hawing about “redistribution” in this country, its biggest detractors seem to have no problem with it, as long as the wealth redistributes into the hands of the plutocracy.

This is all brought to us by the economics we know and love as American capitalism. Within it exists a system of wealth redistribution in which the workers get nearly nothing, and CEOs are credited with doing all the work. This isn’t to say we should tear off the yoke of capitalism as a true American Socialist might suggest. I simply put forth that those who use the word “socialist” as a nasty word might want to make sure that they themselves aren’t a form of socialists themselves.

Healthcare exchanges put GOP at crossroads: placate Tea Party, or abandon core principles

By Nathan Rothwell

What the new web-based health insurance exchange might look like.
Image courtesy of www.Medhealth.com

After President Obama won his re-election bid weeks ago, the future of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) became more certain. This legislation, which is widely considered to be the Obama Administration’s most significant accomplishment to date, faced possible repeal if Obama did not win a second term. Now that he has, it seems all but certain that the remaining components of the PPACA will be phased in over the next several years.

One noteworthy component is a mandate for the creation of state-wide health insurance exchanges. By January 1, 2014, all 50 states are required to establish such an exchange, which is essentially a web-based marketplace where consumers can compare and purchase private health insurance plans. Certain eligible individuals can purchase these plans with federal subsidies, or enroll in Medicaid.

Early versions of the PPACA called for health insurance exchanges to also include a public option, where consumers could purchase health care provided by the federal government. Significant Republican opposition led to the removal of the public option, but political debate over these exchanges remains. Much of this debate is over who will run them, and how they will be operated.

Each state was permitted the option of running the newly-mandated exchange on its own, with no involvement from the federal government. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently established a Dec. 14 deadline for states to inform HHS if they wanted to run their own exchanges. Thus far, only 13 states (and the District of Columbia) have indicated that they will.

A number of other states, however, have indicated that they will not set up their own exchanges. Not surprisingly, most of these states (such as Texas, Kansas, and South Carolina) went for Mitt Romney on Election Day, due in no small part to their hope that Romney would deliver on his promise to repeal the PPACA and effectively kill the health insurance exchange mandate. Even in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling on the PPACA and President Obama’s re-election, these states remain entrenched in their decision not to run their own exchanges.

There is a certain irony here that appears to be lost in these states, which are almost overwhelmingly run by Republican governors (only Missouri comes to mind as a state that has a Democratic governor and remarkable opposition to ObamaCare, although not from Gov. Nixon’s office). Many of them oppose the idea of health care exchanges solely because it violates their preference for small government; however, by not electing to run the exchange itself or at least in partnership with HHS, these “small-government warriors” are allowing the much larger federal government to move in and run everything on their own.

Election 2012 recap: Obligatory Victory Lap Post

By Nathan Rothwell

I remember like it was yesterday thirty years ago.

It was late 2011, and I was writing a political column for a small community college newspaper. The Republican presidential primaries were just on the horizon, meaning that political pundits and the blogosphere at large was about to turn its primary focus to pontification about who would challenge President Obama for his job in less than a year. And I was somewhat lamenting having to write about it.

I was not looking forward to spending months speculating who would win the presidency when I was already convinced how it would unfold. At the time, I made the following three predictions to just about anyone who would listen:

• Mitt Romney would win the Republican primary and earn the presidential nomination
• Romney would eventually select Governor Chris Christie as his running mate
• The Romney/Christie ticket would go on to lose to Obama in November 2012.

As it turns out, I just barely missed going three for three on my predictions. Paul Ryan would ultimately be selected to round out Romney’s losing ticket, but my other two predictions indeed proved true.

I’m sorry, I’ve put my horn away now – there will be no further tooting. I only bring this up to say that while I did expect Obama to defeat Romney for a good while, what I did not expect was the triumph of liberal candidates and ballot measures that would also earn clear victories last night.

Maine, Maryland, and Washington became the first three states in the union to approve same-sex marriage by popular vote, while Minnesota voters struck down a constitutional measure that would have defined marriage as only between a man and a woman. Washington also made news, along with Colorado, for ending 70 years of marijuana prohibition.

Elizabeth Warren defeated Scott Brown to become the newest Senator from Massachusetts, earning a sweet revenge over the Republicans who blocked President Obama’s attempt to name her director of the newly-created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Tammy Baldwin became America’s first openly gay Senator by defeating Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin. And Republican senatorial candidates Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, they who believed the rights of unborn cell clusters trumped those of rape victims, were soundly defeated by Claire McCaskill and Joe Donnelly, respectively.

Last night proved to be a night of clear victories for the left in America, which I hope will be remembered by the public and our media long after our post-election hangover. Jon Stewart of The Daily Show joked last night that after two years of campaigning and roughly $3 billion spent on the process, we’re right back where we started. 

To a large extent this is true; the House of Representatives remains in Republican control, while the Democratic majority in the Senate remains not enough to overcome the GOP’s blatant filibuster abuse and rampant obstructionism. So while Mitch McConnell’s dream of basing the entire Republican party platform on making Obama a one-term president has failed, there is little doubt that they will cling to these congressional numbers as an excuse to now make Obama a lame-duck president.

But for now, America appears to have made its choice. Obamacare lives. Rape apologists and “traditional marriage” proponents have been decidedly smacked down in the polls. Marijuana prohibition will soon earn its place alongside alcohol prohibition as one of the more bizarre chapters of American history. And Mitt Romney, assuming his wife’s words were true, will fade off into the political sunset forever.

Go ahead and enjoy your victory lap, Democrats. You’ve earned it. Just don’t forget that when you’ve finished, the Republicans will be waiting with an army of excuses and redoubled resolve in their obstructionism.

Binders full of women, empty of ideas

By Nathan Rothwell

Romney's gone viral (again). Just not in the way he wants.

Those in the market of turning soundbites into Internet memes were not disappointed by last night’s presidential debate.

President Obama and Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, squared off in a town-hall style debate on Tuesday where they fielded questions from the audience. Both were asked by a young woman how their respective administrations would tackle inequalities in the workplace – specifically, the fact that women on average make only 72% of what their male counterparts earn.

Both candidates gave wildly different answers. For his part, President Obama mentioned the very first bill he signed into law upon becoming President in 2009; the Lilly Ledbetter Act, which gives women full opportunity to sue their employers if they experience undue discrimination. As Obama explained, before the Act passed women who were being unfairly paid had only 180 days to discover the discrimination and file a lawsuit. Even if they had no way of discovering the discrimination until after this 180-day period, they were out of luck. The Act signed by Obama allowed for a new 180-day period to begin each time a woman received a paycheck that unfairly paid her lower wages based solely on her gender. 

While Obama directly answered the question of unequal pay by referencing the Lilly Ledbetter Act, Romney dodged it almost entirely when given a chance to respond. Instead, he revealed that he initially couldn’t find enough capable women to serve in his Cabinet upon becoming governor of Massachusetts in 2003, and in doing so coined the phrase “binders full of women”:

“…I said, ‘Well gosh, can’t we find some women that are also qualified? And so we took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet. I went to a number of women’s groups and said ‘Can you help us find folks?’ and they brought us whole binders full of women.”

As the New Yorker put it, Romney’s “binders full of women” phrase provoked instant fascination with debate-watchers nationwide. Facebook groups, Tumblrs, and Twitter accounts devoted to Romney’s inartful phrase captured the attention of thousands, and could very well spell doom for Romney in the polls. Yet as much fun as it is to poke fun at the imagery, Romney’s answer should sound alarms among voters for two important reasons.

Meet Dave Spence: Missouri's Latest Embarrassment

By Nathan Rothwell

Screenshot of Gov. Nixon's ad criticizing Spence

The “Show-Me State” is no stranger to politicians who are all but morally bankrupt. Senator Roy Blunt values the “right” of religious employers to impose their moral codes on their employees, denying them the right to health care. Todd Akin, the man vying to join Blunt this year as Missouri’s other senator, has earned national attention for his views on rape and women’s issues, which appear to stem from the Medieval Era.  

And if this weren’t bad enough, another Missouri politician joins the “How badly can we embarrass this state?” club – Dave Spence, the Republican candidate for governor against incumbent Jay Nixon.

State Democrats have been having fun at the expense of Spence’s campaign, which has at times appeared inept. For example, Spence’s campaign website touted his degree in economics from University of Missouri-Columbia; however, earlier this year it was discovered that Spence in fact did not earn a degree in economics, but rather home economics. Spence claimed it was a simple mistake, but a circulated campaign flier also boasted of Spence’s “economics” degree, also claiming that he attended Mizzou’s business school. While his website eventually corrected the error, it didn’t escape Jay Leno’s ever-watchful eye.

Did Spence and his campaign knowingly lie about his background, or was this a mere clerical error? Some of his supporters argue for the latter, but his history of lying makes that argument difficult to swallow.

The Costs of Free Speech for Pastors: How to Serve both the Almighty and the Almighty Dollar

By Nathan Rothwell

An interesting experiment is set to unfold on the morning of Sunday, October 7.

Christian advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom has been promoting that day as “Pulpit Freedom Sunday,” an event in which thousands of American religious leaders intend to spit in the face of IRS rules which limit the political activities of tax-exempt organizations. The event has been heavily promoted on Fox News via everyone’s favorite pastor-pundit Mike Huckabee, and appears to be a massive display of civil disobedience aimed at provoking a lawsuit against the IRS.

Proponents of Pulpit Freedom Sunday claim that their right to free speech was taken away from them by the so-called “Johnson Amendment.”  Weary of those who were using non-profit organizations to unduly influence elections, then-Senator and future President Lyndon Johnson helped pass an amendment to the United States Tax Code which specifically prohibits 501(c)3 organizations (such as religious institutions) from endorsing or opposing any candidate for public office, either directly or indirectly.

I will admit that a government edict which places restrictions on the right to free speech for non-profit organizations directly influences the separation of church and state, one of this country’s oldest and most firmly held ideas. According to Pastor Jim Garlow, a spokesman for the Pulpit Freedom Sunday movement, the IRS indeed has a wide brush to control or censor speech from the pulpit, or else threaten to revoke the tax-exempt status of a religious organization which defies the Johnson Amendment.

That being said, however, I and many others see an obvious solution to this problem: You want your right to free speech in full, like every other American? Then give up your tax-exempt status, which is a privilege afforded to only a chosen few. Of course this doesn’t sit well with Garlow and others, and for obvious reasons. According to former White House senior policy analyst Jeff Schweitzer, churches own an estimated $300 to $500 billion in untaxed property in the United States.  So while most pastors hold their service to the Almighty in the highest regard, they aren’t about to forget about their devotion to the almighty dollar.

The pastors who champion Pulpit Freedom Sunday seem to forget that tax-exempt status is a privilege in this country, guaranteed nowhere by the Constitution. I’m not so sure religious organizations should be afforded this privilege at all, for the following reasons:

As Election Day nears, the trolls are out in force

By Nathan Rothwell 

Several days ago I received a physical letter in the mail from a (possibly) crazy person. Perhaps my recent blog about responding to Obama Derangement Syndrome may have struck a chord with somebody?

A two page rant from an allegedly "speechless" author

A person by the name of “Darnell Wooster” (whose apparent address is nearby, but I won’t reveal publicly) sent me an unsolicited letter that appeared to be a printed copy of a chain email containing purported evidence of (then) Senator Barack Obama’s hatred for the American flag and “The Star-Spangled Banner,” in the form of quotes from an alleged appearance on “Meet the Press” in 2008.

Nothing was written by Mr. Wooster himself; rather, it was signed by someone named “Dale Lindsborg.” I have no idea who Darnell Wooster is, but a Google search for “Dale Lindsborg” quickly revealed an exact replica of the letter I’d just received. It was nice to have proof that this “transcript” of Obama’s remarks was indeed a hoax, but from the moment I opened the letter I could tell I was dealing with the work of a troll.

As you might have already gathered from the letters pictured above, a number of things stand out (formatting errors courtesy of “Dale” and/or “Darnell,” not me):

“From Sunday’s 07 Sept. 2008, 11:48:04 EST,   Televised “Meet the Press” the then Senator Obama      was asked about his stance on the American Flag. ”

You read that right: “Dale” timed Obama’s appearance on “Meet the Press” timed to the second. Which seems more likely --- a scenario in which the letter’s author performed the enormous amount of research to determine the exact second Obama was asked a question about the American flag in 2008? Or a scenario in which “Dale” simply made up that timestamp? Keep in mind, this author evidently enjoys alternating between normal text and giant, bold, improperly spaced letters for stylistic purposes.

Ann Coulter: "Civil Rights are (only) for Blacks"

By Nathan Rothwell

Conservative darling Ann Coulter, who I can’t believe is still allowed on TV, made remarks this morning that hopefully disqualify her from future public appearances.

(h/t to C&L's Videocafe for the video)

Appearing on This Week with George Stephanopoulos to promote her latest book in a 75,869-part series that blames liberalism for any and all of America’s woes, Coulter claimed that gay people, women, and immigrants have “commandeered” the “civil rights experience” in America. 

When Stephanopoulos pressed her on the matter, the following exchange actually, and almost unbelievably, took place:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Immigrant rights are not civil rights?

COULTER: Umm…  [pause] No. I think civil rights are for blacks.

Coulter’s remarks were part of a discussion of the Republican and Democratic parties’ attempts to earn the Hispanic vote. President Obama leads Republican challenger Mitt Romney 70% to only 22% according to Latino polling group Latino Decisions, while a more recent poll conducted by Fox News Latino gives Obama a 60% lead to Romney’s 30%. No matter whom you believe, Romney is still doing worse than John McCain (31%) in 2008, and George W. Bush (44%) in 2004.

While Coulter is not an elected Republican official or official Romney campaign spokesperson, comments she made several weeks ago paint the picture that she’s trying very, very hard to influence his campaign with her own ideas. So while I have a hard time believing Mitt Romney wants any part of Coulter’s “civil rights are only for blacks” comment, I’m happy to hold her to the standard of Romney spokesperson, since she seems to fancy herself one.

There are two major problems with Team Romney’s Coulter’s statement. The first, obviously, is that civil rights aren’t just for African-Americans – they’re for everyone.

A Guide to Living With (and Responding to) Obama Derangement Syndrome

By Nathan Rothwell

If this is how President Obama routinely appears to

you in your also routine nightmares, you may suffer 

from Obama Derangement Syndrome, or ODS.

If you or someone you know is suffering from ODS,

consult this article immediately.

It's way cheaper than a psychiatrist.

In 2003, Fox News stormtrooper correspondent Charles Krauthammer coined the phrase “Bush Derangement Syndrome.” When critics of the Bush Administration took it to task over its misadventures in foreign and domestic policy, Krauthammer dismissed the criticism as symptoms of a faux medical condition that causes "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of George W. Bush."

Here we are a decade later, and one can easily see how “George W. Bush” can be replaced with “Barack Obama,” and the term “Obama Derangement Syndrome” can just as easily be applied to some of the Obama Administration’s most outspoken detractors. Many an uninformed voter exists who can’t have a rational conversation about Obama without launching into a tirade of either unquantifiable or improvable belief statements (Obama HATES the troops), or attacks stemming from a realm of pure fantasy (Obama waived the work requirements for those lazy welfare freeloaders!) So while it pains me to lend Krauthammer any credit, this Obama-version of his “derangement syndrome” concoction seems to best describe some of these people.

A form of O.D.S. found its way into my inbox recently in the form of one of those “Why OBAMA Should GO!!!” emails making its rounds in the American cyberverse. It pains me greatly that chain emails comprise any sort of public discourse in this country, let alone political discourse. However, it did grant some insight into the world of those who despise President Obama, but aren't particularly artful in explaining why. Their core beliefs are backed by discredited statistics, and sometimes no facts at all.

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once famously said that “everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” In this spirit, I thought it might be fun to respond to the source of the chain email with facts that fly in the face of the “reasons” that President Obama should be voted out of office. And in the spirit of promoting informed debate during this election season, I’ve reprinted responses to some of the more common unfounded criticisms surrounding Obama. While many have made their minds up to hate him no matter what, I hope that there are some people out there who might reevaluate their convictions when presented with information stemming from outside the Fox News bubble of myopia.

Anyway, onto the fun. 

Did Election Season really just end before a single debate?

By Nathan Rothwell

Fuck it. I'm just gonna vote for Hypnotoad.

I was already planning to write a piece on how the Romney campaign had become so desperate following the big party conventions, they were literally heaving Hail Marys. Hoping to seize on the debacle at the DNC where the word "god" was removed from the party platform and then reinserted, Romney seemed to bizarrely suggest that the word might also disappear from our coins if he's not elected, saying "I will not take God out of our platform. I will not take God off our coins. And I will not take God out of my heart."

And even though Romney pledged to refrain from politics for a day to honor the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, his unofficial surrogates over at Fox & Friends kept up the motif by attacking Obama for not including the word "god" in his proclamation commemorating the solemn anniversary. To provide a little context, President Bush also did not use the word in any of his similar proclamations in 2006, 2007, or 2008. This of course was met with silence from Fox News, so it's really hard for the champions of "Fair and Balanced" to wash off the stink of selective outrage in this case.

From the moment Republicans decided to center their convention around a quote from the President that was deliberately and almost gleefully taken out of context, it had become painfully clear that the Romney/Ryan ticket was growing desperate. Their further attempts to paint Romney as a man of piety and President Obama as a godless socialist moved them into almost comical desperation. But with Romney's mindless criticism of Obama following the tragic attacks on the U.S. embassies in Libya and Egypt yesterday, the campaign may have very well driven off the proverbial cliff, and all before a single presidential debate could even take place.

Friendly Reminder: Mitt Romney Still Hasn't Released His Tax Returns

By Nathan Rothwell

Just 58 days remain until Election Day, and Mitt Romney still has not released any complete copies of his tax returns for review by the American people. He remains the only presidential nominee not to release several years' worth of tax returns since his father George Romney made the practice an unofficial requirement for running for president back in 1968. For those returns he did release (2010 and 2011), the former was incomplete; the latter only an estimate.

Many have speculated why Romney feels he is exempt from a practice his own father devised to promote transparency in politics. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid believes Romney hasn't paid taxes for a decade; others have speculated that Romney participated in a 2009 IRS tax amnesty program designed to quietly punish wealthy taxpayers who attempted to stash money overseas. Still others have guessed that Romney doesn't want fellow Mormons to know his true income, due to the fact that he failed (at least in 2010) to follow through on his commitment to tithe 10% of his income to the Mormon Church. Whatever the reason might be, we can safely assume (as George Will put it) that the political costs of releasing his tax returns must outweigh the negative press he's received from turning his returns into the figurative skeleton in his closet.

Perhaps Romney assumes the issue will go away, and voters will decide his record as an American taxpayer is no longer relevant; but with each passing day, it seems the questions over his taxes become more and more relevant.

On today's edition of This Week, George Stephanopoulos grilled Romney's running mate Paul Ryan over how Republicans would be able to reduce the deficit while establishing tax cuts even larger than the reckless cuts brought to us by the Bush Administration (which many believe is the single-biggest contributor to the federal deficit). The Romney/Ryan ticket claims the answer lies in closing tax loopholes, but Ryan dodged Stephanapoulos' repeated inquiries about which specific loopholes would be eliminated. What little Ryan offered, however, was interesting:

On Bipartanship: Two Charts that Republicans Hope You’ll Never See

By Nathan Rothwell

I hope everyone stateside enjoyed their Labor Day weekend. I know Bill Maher did.

Last week’s episode of Real Time gave Maher a chance to confront writer/filmmaker/Republican hack Dinesh D’Souza over D’Souza’s role in Maher being fired from his own ABC show for comments made following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Far more interesting, however, was the confrontation between Maher and D’Souza over D’Souza’s film cinematic hit piece entitled 2016: Obama’s America.

The film attempts to paint President Obama as an angry anti-colonialist who intends to impose his agenda on the American people at all costs, and absolutely refuses to compromise with Republican lawmakers. However, when pressed in their interview by Maher to cite examples of Obama’s single-minded rage, D’Souza cited two examples, both of which amounted to flat-out lies.

Lie #1:

“Healthcare. Obama had a plan, and Republicans had a summit with Obama and they offered a lot of ideas. Obama could have taken one or two Republican ideas and he would have had a bipartisan plan.”

D’Souza is referring to a meeting Obama had with House Republicans in 2010, which the White House posted on its YouTube channel for all to see. I guess we can assume that D’Souza is only aware of this summit but did not watch it; had he watched it, he would have found that the following components of Obamacare were all suggested by Republicans and implemented into the PPACA:

• A mandate for all citizens to purchase health insurance if they can afford it, to prevent freeloaders
• Allowing dependent children to remain on their parents’ healthcare plans until age 26.
• Allowing health insurance premiums to vary based on participation in proven employer wellness programs
•  Providing grants to states to evaluate promising medical liability reform ideas
• Allowing employers to automatically enroll employees in health insurance programs, and allowing employees to opt out if they wish
•  Strengthening standards for community mental health centers to ensure they provide appropriate care and not take advantage of Medicare patients or taxpayers.

Is that more than one or two ideas, Dinesh? No? Then I guess we’ll move on to Lie #2:

The GOP's Last Gasp: The "Independent" Voter

By Nathan Rothwell 

As the Republican National Convention convenes this week to officially nominate Mitt Romney for president, the GOP is desperate to reclaim the narrative from the potential devastation of Tropical Storm Isaac and the definite devastation of party castout Todd Akin. Governor Bob McDonnell, head of the GOP Platform Committee, spent time on This Week with George Stephanopoulos to drive home a new narrative: Mitt Romney is the new best pal of independent voters.

After attempting to lay the blame for the U.S. credit rating downgrade on President Obama, McDonnell had this to say:

“So on the things that really matter to voters, George, I think the records are stark, and I think that’s why independent voters have a ten-point margin in favor of Mitt Romney right now.”

Such a claim seems dubious. And according to Politifact, the poll McDonnell referenced comes from (surprise!) a Fox News poll. Recent CNN and Gallup polls, however, show a Romney lead among independents closer to the 3-4% range.

In my opinion, if Republicans are willing to exaggerate how well Romney is doing among independent voters, that narrative must mean something to them. Yet this seems like a fool’s errand. I would argue that these independents Romney seems so desperate to court don’t actually exist – or at least, the GOP doesn’t quite understand what an independent voter actually looks like.

Musicians to GOP: Stop using our music!

By Nathan Rothwell

A brief history of GOP musical fails.

Dee Snider joins the growing list of musicians who are not taking it.

Those of you who were around for the summer of 1984 probably remember Bruce Springsteen being a huge part of it. Seven songs from his Born in the U.S.A. album would rank on Billboard’s “Top Ten” hit singles list, a record that still stands today. None of those seven, however, were as iconic and controversial as the album’s title track. While the lyrics tell the story of a working-class American in the midst of a spiritual crisis after surviving the horrors of the Vietnam War, the song’s famous and catchy chorus caused many casual listeners to misinterpret the song as a patriotic anthem.

President Reagan’s 1984 re-election campaign was definitely guilty of making that mistake. Reagan and other conservatives praised the song for confirming the values they promoted, while of course paying little heed to lamentations of the song’s protagonist; a man deeply troubled by a government that “put a rifle in my hand, sent me off to the foreign land, to go and kill the yellow man.” The Reagan campaign would go on to seek official endorsement from Springsteen, but anyone who knows Springsteen well can tell you how that turned out.

And so, unofficially, began an era of a strange relationship between music and Republican political campaigns. While Reagan never actually used any of Springsteen’s music at any of his campaign events, other Republicans would later make such attempts with the music of other artists. There have been more than two dozen documented instances since 2008 of a Republican using a band’s song at a campaign event, only to later receive a request from that band to stop using their music. Most likely, every one of those requests read something like the one Dee Snider of Twisted Sister used when he found out VP candidate Paul Ryan was using “We’re Not Gonna Take It” at one of his events:

"I emphatically denounce Paul Ryan's use of my band Twisted Sister's song 'We're Not Gonna Take It' in any capacity," Snider said in a statement. "There is almost nothing he stands for that I agree with - except the use of P90X."

To paint a better picture of just how curious the music choices have been for the GOP, I refer you to the following list (h/t to Redditor Alyeska2112, who came up with this list and even more examples):

Akin's election hopes may be slipping "off the cuff"

By Nathan Rothwell 

Pictured: Rep (MO) Todd Akin

I've written before about my ties to Missouri, and the embarrassment I invariably feel when another local political figure attracts the wrong kind of spotlight to my home state.

We couldn't even go another six months before Todd Akin, longtime Representative of my voting district and newly anointed Republican candidate for the Senate this year, brought the spotlight back to Missouri - and just when it seemed like everyone had forgotten about Roy Blunt drafting legislation to placate religious figures who had the audacity to shrill that contraceptive services amounted to "rape of the soul."

As I'm sure you've all heard by now, Akin gave an interview on KTVI-TV in which he made the outrageous claim that female rape victims rarely become pregnant. He added further: "From what I understand from doctors... if it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

Akin has since backtracked from his not-so-artfully-worded comments in this interview, although his apology comes qualified with more attacks against pro-choice advocates and non sequitur criticism of the Democrats' handling of the economy. As my mother always told me, "If your apology contains the words 'I'm sorry, but....', it's not really an apology."

While Akin presumably hopes that his backtracking will put this issue to rest, his non-apologetic apology actually deserves more investigation. He claims he "misspoke," and his remarks were "off-the-cuff." Dictionary.com defines the term "off-the-cuff" as "with little or no preparation; extemporaneous; impromptu."