WINNERS:
Joe Biden –
Joe Biden really kicked this whole thing into high gear by weighing in, and going all in, on the issue of gay marriage and civil unions. Whether it was intentional or one of his patented gaffes, Biden set a new policy course for the Obama Administration and the entire Democratic Party. There hasn’t been a Vice-President who could set policy for his boss since … well, since Dick Cheney. But before that, it’d been a while.

Mitt Romney –
Maybe the RNC should arrange for Mitt Romney to be secreted off to a hidden cave somewhere until the election. Or at least until the convention. Romney’s best moments seem to come when he’s nowhere near the center of the action. Early polling indicates a significant shift toward Romney following the President’s all-in declaration on gay marriage. The Religious Right, which has been none too keen on Romney, suddenly has a reason to show up at the polls in November.

PUSH:
The Gay Community –
It may not happen this year. It may not happen this decade. But the fact that a sitting President firmly and unequivocally endorsed marriage as a right, regardless of gender, marks definitive progress. Then again, the fact that North Carolina voters firmly and unequivocally rejected the notion of marriage as a right, regardless of gender (or age, or existing marital status, etc.) was a significant setback. I’m calling this one a draw for now. We’ll find out in November if this was a step forward or a step back.

The Religious Right –
I’m torn on this one as well. The Religious Right just got a windfall of relevance after being shunned by the Republican Party throughout the Primary process. Just when it looked like they would be staying home in droves come election day, the Religious Right was suddenly thrust back into the discussion. But what are they doing with their sudden relevance? Mostly just giving themselves a black eye, so far.

LOSERS:
Barack Obama –
President Obama had a rough week over this issue. First, his hand was forced by his Vice President. Then, totally unrelated allegations that Bill Clinton called him an ‘amateur president’ surfaced. Finally, Obama chose a policy course that gained him exactly 0 votes but energized the Religious Right to line up against him.

But having spent the last ten years traveling extensively, the one conclusion I have drawn is that neither political party in the US is particularly family-friendly. Let’s take a look around the globe at how families are treated.

1) Maternity leave – The U.S. remains one of a very short list of western countries with no standardized maternity leave. Scandinavia leads the way with 1-1.5 years of paid parental leave for both parents. Our neighbors to the north, Canada, offer about a year of leave with some salary. What could be more family-friendly than allowing parents time to bond with a newborn? Even Fox cohort Megyn Kelly spoke out on the importance of maternity leave for mothers, and I couldn’t agree with her more. But it is also important for fathers. It is important for families.

2) Pre-natal care – With all of these cuts in funding for Planned Parenthood, one thing is guaranteed for 2012, a lot fewer women are going to have access to pre-natal care. Good pre-natal care is something that goes a long way in helping a family start off healthy and stay healthy. Having access to contraception and support after birth is also important to families’ well-being.

3) Health care guarantee for children – Having access to quality health-care, both well visits and sick visits, is important for any young family. Living in fear of high medical bills, rejection from insurance companies and high costs of insurance can be things that keep parents from taking their children to the doctor when they need to. This is not the key to a healthy start for a family, yet it is a common occurrence in the USA. It is time to make sure that every child has access to quality health care without putting their parents at risk for bankruptcy.

4) Education – Everyone seems to tout the idea that education is key to future success for everyone. But that doesn’t stop states from cutting back spending in underfunded schools, reducing teachers’ benefits, and diminishing the quality of that education they claim is so fundamental. We should be looking to invest more in our schools, our teachers and our children. Instead we are fighting to keep taxes low, and shrink government, because we need a few extra dollars in our pockets. Other countries see it as an investment in their future, an investment in families.

At the end of the day, I think it is clear that neither Republicans nor Democrats are pro-family. I think it is sad that most American’s aren’t particularly pro-family either. I understand that socialism is a dirty word, but in exchange for a functioning democracy with competent government programs, is the ability of every family to thrive and feel safe. It is the ability to enjoy both a good job and success, and know your family will be protected as well. And don’t say it cannot be done. Every year, economists praise countries like Norway, Finland and others that provide all of the services listed here. They are not struggling, like Greece and Spain. They are thriving. Their families are thriving.

WINNERS:
The Federal Government
Washington DC is intricately tied to the federal government. What happens in Vegas may stay in Vegas, but what happens in Washington transfers to the U.S. government. So the Feds get a freebie of a win this week courtesy of the Washington Redskins, who mortgaged the future of the team but came away from this weekend’s draft with a big prize – franchise QB Robert Griffin III.

Mitt Romney
The departure of Newt Gingrich from the Republican Presidential primaries isn’t really that big a deal for Mitt Romney. The nomination is Romney’s whether or not Gingrich continues to joust at windmills. But now that Gingrich has formally announced that he will formally announce the cessation of his campaign, it gives the Mitt the official clearance to turn his attentions to the real political battle that he needs to wage.

LOSERS:
The Comedian-In-Chief
Who told President Obama that it was a good idea to tell a joke about eating dog meat? The White House Correspondents’ Dinner is all about the laughs, but after a week of back and forth volleys between Obama and Romney about who loves dogs more (or who hates dogs less), Obama’s dog-eating gag was poorly chosen. In case you somehow missed it, Obama asked the gathered elite “What’s the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull?” He paused just a beat before answering his riff on Sarah Palin‘s famous line: “A pit bull is delicious.” At least he’s taking a stand against cannibalism.

Sheriff Joe
I really struggled with where Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio fits in this week’s political landscape. A rally was held in his honor this week, which is good for him. But it was held because he’s about to get sued by the Obama administration, which can’t be good. Even if he wins in the end, he’s got some tough days ahead of him as he fights a legal battle against an opponent with unlimited resources and an axe to grind.

Joseph Kony
KONY T-shirts and bumper stickers have been turning up all across the Fruited Plain lately. Rape, kidnapping, and murder may not be enough to move the U.S. Military to action, but a clever marketing campaign seems to have done the trick. Maybe that’s what it takes to get the U.S. Military on board against a brutal Central African warlord. Whatever the motivation, the US announced this week that it will lend “support” to the hunt for Joseph Kony.

John Edwards
John Edwards has a 3% favorable rating according to a recent poll. And you’ve really got to wonder how even three people out of a hundred could still think favorably of this weasel. As his trial plays out as a made-for-TV drama, that number may still continue to drop.

Interestingly enough … this actually leads in to my first point.  This week includes the first of May — “May Day,” which, for some odd reason, is  dear to the heart of communists.  So, of course, it was inevitable that various leaders of the Occupiers would want to do something special on that day.  Apparently, it’s a nationwide strike, or something.

The only problem is: the Occupiers by and large are made up of folks who aren’t working much anyway.  Otherwise, how would they’ve been able to camp out 24/7 — smoking dope, sleeping around, and #2-ing on cop cars?  So … I think their call for workers of the world to unite … it won’t gain that much traction.  Sorry, folks.

Anyway … the more and more I hear about how unhinged the Occupiers are threatening to get (so much so that the liberal media has struggled to ignore them — not glorify them, as they used to), the more I think of The Beatles, and their classic song “Revolution”.  For those of you who don’t know, John Lennon and company wrote the song after the counterculture of the ’60s asked them to really offer their support for the cause.

Except John wasn’t impressed.  Although he’d be known as the guy who wrote “Imagine” — which, when you take away the powerful melody and beautiful music, reads chillingly like a simplified Communist Manifesto — nonetheless, one thing he, and the other Beatles, would not put up with was the use of violence to bring about change.  Hence: “When you talk about destruction — don’t you know that you can count me out!”

But that wasn’t the only beef The Beatles had: “You say you got a real solution?  Well…you know — we’d all love to see the plan.”  Lo and behold … what plan do the Occupiers have?  Nothing but railing against “the 1%”.  They march, they chant, they “mike-check” to the point of parody (“I would like to thank—”  “I WOULD LIKE TO THANK—”  “All of you—”  “ALL OF YOU—”  “For coming here today!”  “FOR COMING HERE TODAY!”).

But what are their solutions?  They don’t have any.  Frankly, I don’t blame them: any solution might cause a lot of people to leave their coalition (or what passes for it).  After all … if all you’re doing is ranting against “the system”, or “the establishment”, or something similarly vague … well, sure you’re going to get a lot of people intrigued.  It’s the blank slate.  How do you think Obama got elected?

But our Fab Four didn’t stop there.  If and when you do have a solution, make sure it doesn’t look “out there”: “You want to change the Constitution?  Well … you know — we all want to change your head.  You tell me it’s the institution?  Well … you know — you’d better free your mind, instead.  But when you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao — you ain’t gonna make it with anyone, anyhow!”

Needless to say  … the counterculture shrugged off John’s advice — and the movement collapsed.  And the Occupiers?  Increasingly, when they do give specifics, they sound like Marxists.

Interesting note: John Lennon reportedly went all the way, reforming in the late ’70s to an honest-to-goodness Reaganite!  Say what you will about John — his romance with Yoko Ono probably wasn’t the most dignified time of his life (“Bed for Peace” indeed!) — but, liberal as he was for so long, he was always an honest liberal.  The Beatles railed against high taxation and government waste in “Taxman” (“Don’t ask me what I want it for … if you don’t want to pay some more.”).  And from what I’ve heard, John wasn’t one to go blindly into foreign-aid fundraisers — he would ask where the money would really go.  (George Clooney, take note!)

A lot of celebrities could learn from his example.  As could the Occupiers.

Yes, instead of focusing on the economy or the deficit or the common defense or social issues or unemployment, both the Obama and Romney campaigns spent the last week in a silly Twitter / Media war trying to argue exactly that question. *

Young Barry Obama ate dog meat while living in Kenya. As absolutely disgusting as that is to my dog-loving American sensibilities, it doesn’t engender much outrage to me because he was a small child living in a foreign land 40 years ago. Much less acceptable is that grown-up Chicago-based Obama chose a one word parenthetical to describe the experience of eating canine flesh – “tough”. Not “repulsive” or “I’m haunted by it to this day”. Just “tough”.

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, transported the family dog on the roof of his car in the early 1980’s. The poor pooch was so terrified he peed on the roof of the car. End of story.

Neither story amounts to anything. Romney’s canine transportation choices during Ronald Reagan’s first term doesn’t necessarily indicate an endemic lack of empathy. Obama’s canine cuisine during the first Richard Nixon administration doesn’t make him …  anything at all.

This whole manufactured controversy is just another example of politics run amok. There’s nothing substantive to either story.

WINNERS:
Dogs
Not the specific dogs transported by Romney or eaten by Obama, mind you. But dogs in general got a whole lot of sympathy this week. No matter which side of the political spectrum you’re on, chances are you gave Man’s Best Friend a little extra love this week.

LOSERS:
Obama’s Campaign Staff
Obama’s staffers came off like a bunch of petulant jerks who care nothing about the actual wants or needs of the American people and would say or do anything to frame his opponent in a bad light without a shred of a legitimate reason.

Romney’s Campaign Staff
Romney’s staffers came off like a bunch of petulant jerks who care nothing about the actual wants or needs of the American people and would say or do anything to frame his opponent in a bad light without a shred of a legitimate reason.

*Yes, I do see the irony in using a national column to focus on three- and four-decade-old dog stories at the expense of the economy and the deficit and the common defense and social issues and unemployment while decrying the politicians for focusing on three- and four-decade-old dog stories at the expense of the economy and the deficit and the common defense and social issues and unemployment. It’s creative license.

1) I want to live in a society that believes everyone has a value – I believe there are certain things that should be available to everyone in my society. Firefighters, police, quality schools and health care are things I would hate to see my neighbors deprived of for any reason. I don’t care if they chose to buy a flat screen television instead of paying this month’s rent. I don’t want to watch their house burn down and I don’t want them to die of a heart attack in the middle of my street. Does this make me socialist? I don’t think so. I believe in the power of the ballot and the ability of voters to make a difference. I vote for the society I want to live in, one where we try to do everything possible to make sure we and our neighbors have the basic necessities.

2) I believe in the importance of long-arm legislation – like environmental acts and species protection. Many people decry the reach of the government into matters of environmental importance. There are many decisions I do not want to risk leaving to big business. I know many people believe that big business is willing to bend to the will of the almighty customer. However, many companies also conduct certain things under the radar as much as possible, because what the customer doesn’t know doesn’t hurt him. That is why it is important to have government agencies that regularly monitor environmental policies and other important policies. And no, this would not be as effective at a state level. Imagine states trying to compete for big business by lowering their standards to allow businesses freedom to contaminate. That would not be so great for anyone in the long run.

3) Your vote has more power than your dollar – if you are middle class, like me, no doubt about it, your vote has more power than your dollar. No matter what, we will not be able to consume enough of a product to make a difference. Sure, interest groups can run loud boycotts, social media campaigns and make a pretty great effect on the situation (example: Rush Limbaugh’s advertising), but this takes a great deal of follow up. Sure we remember Company X removing their advertising from a show in protest of something. But how many actually go back and check if Company X went back to advertising three months later? A vote is a direct voice to a candidate, your local government or your congress people. It is your power. Yes, the choices aren’t that great, but they are better than no choice (CEO of any company) and if you really don’t like it you can dive in and get involved personally. Run for local office!

4) Government isn’t always about the bottom line – as most presidents have never managed to balance a budget, I think it is pretty fair to say government isn’t really about making a profit, it is about running a country. A company? They want to make money. That is it. They don’t care about you. Sure, you might think they would do anything to get your dollar. No, they will make you think they will do anything. But they might be doing anything. I’ve spent five years working in big business — working with many large global companies. I’ve seen mistakes and stupid spending that would make your head spin. Just like in the government. The difference? Their books are closed to the public eye (and to be honest, I’m pretty sure most of them aren’t really clear on where a lot of the money is going either). I will take the guys who have to answer to me every four years, over the guys who have to answer to a bunch of shareholders based on the amount they pay them off every year.

Big government wins my vote over big business.

Mitt Romney – Winner
Mitt Romney had been under siege for his “War on Women”, as President Obama put it. Rosen’s comments short-circuited the carefully crafted strategy of the very guy she was trying to help. It was already a good week for Romney with the departure of Rick Santorum, but this controversy has been a real gift for his campaign as it transitions from primary to general.

Ann Romney – Winner
Ann Romney is getting talked about a lot this week, and with the obvious exception of Ms. Rosen, almost all of it is good. She’s been referred to as Mitt’s secret weapon, the member of the Romney family with all the charm. She’s got more or less a free pass to wade into the campaign without backlash – for a limited time.

Michelle Obama – Winner
Michelle Obama comes out well in this deal because her husband stood firm on his “families are off limits” stance, even though it wasn’t in his favor this time around. In the long run, that will provide some much-needed cover for the First Lady during the campaign.

Barack Obama – Push
President Obama did the right thing by distancing himself as fast and far as possible from Rosen. That earns him some points in the credibility department. However, Rosen cut the legs off his “War on Women” rhetoric, so he comes out neutral on this whole deal.

Hillary Rosen – Loser
You could argue, I guess, that any publicity is good publicity and that Rosen was a nobody before she blew up this controversy. But really, she’s a Loser this week. First, she said something ugly. Second, her own party has (correctly) abandoned her. Third, she’s issued a series of semi-apologies (“I’m sorry, BUT… she’s no expert on working moms”, “I’m sorry IF… you were offended.”) which were just as insulting as the initial comment.

Hillary Clinton- Winner
Every time someone starts to say “Hilary Rosen”, I hear “Hillary Rodham”. The other Hillary is getting her name into the collective consciousness without doing anything and without any negative implications.

Women Voters – Winners
Rosen has brought to the forefront the fact that both parties desperately want the female vote. It’s pretty much been a foregone conclusion that women were voting overwhelmingly for Obama, but now their vote is in play, at least in theory. That means a whole lot of extra love for the ladies from both parties, at least until the next poll.

Sarah Palin – Winner
Sarah Palin had been solidly in the Newt Gingrich camp from day 1. Now that Romney is the man, she needed a face-saving way to switch horses in mid-stream. Rosen provided her exactly what she needed. Now that “Momma Grizzly” has been aroused, she has no choice but to rush to the aid of poor, defenseless Ann Romney.

The Right-Wing Talking Heads – Winners
Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al. suddenly look acceptable to the Soccer Moms who were offended by Rosen. The Right-Wing Talking Heads were handed a gift of a new demographic that had previously been closed to them. What they do with this opportunity is up to them.

NASCAR Dads – Losers
All this extra emphasis on women in general and moms in particular means that there is that much less attention available for the candidates to pay to the already-neglected NASCAR Dads. Sorry, guys, there’s only so much love to go around, and the ladies are the political hot ticket of the week.

President Obama

The Buffett rule is one of the tax increases that he is trying to garner support for. There are a few millionaires in favor of this tax. Now, their support is a little puzzling on this issue. Either this is blind support for President Obama or they can see that this particular bill is doomed for failure anyway. Whatever the reason, it is clearly so that they can enjoy some good publicity which increases their profits.

The good news is that bill will probably never see the light of day. Not only is it doomed by the actual amount it collects (less than five days of running the government), but it actually has very little support. There is actually more support among both Congress and the American people for the millionaires just to write checks directly to the IRS to cover some of the National debt.

By the way, the IRS is still waiting for Warren Buffet’s check that matches Virginia’s Representative Scott Rigel’s contributions to paying down the debt.

Of course, the Buffett rule isn’t the only tax increase on the table. The next one is actually sitting before the Supreme Court. Yes, I am talking about Obamacare. Regardless of your political position regarding the mandate clause, the fact remains that people are going to have pay for health care regardless of if they want it or not. The collection stage of the fine falls directly on the shoulders of the IRS who get to evaluate if you are paying what you should be paying for health care. Even if they don’t exactly call it a tax, it is still more money out of your pocket at the end of the day.

The problem here is that Obamacare does nothing to control the actual costs. As has already been seen, the price tag on health care just keeps shooting up. Unlike other countries that do have standardized health care, the President has no actual power to set the prices of procedures or the prices doctors can charge for a visit. Instead, Congressional authority exists only to the extent of how much they reimburse services in the public plans of Medicare and Medicaid. Thus, they have very little influence on keeping costs down. Doctors are still free to choose to treat whoever they want and accept whatever insurance company they want to bargain with. So what is really happening is that doctors are moving away from the public plans because they simply aren’t covering their costs.

Even if you add in the fact that more people are going to be paying into the system, you still run into the same basic problems regarding price. There is the potential for more demand on health care services which drives up costs by the simple economic principle of supply and demand. The other basic problem is the possibility of shortages which also has a substantial effect on price.

The last important potential tax increase is the expiration of the Bush tax cuts in 2013. Now there has been a lot of debate surrounding their necessity. But regardless of whether you see this as a good or bad thing for the government, the bottom line is still the same, more taxes.

President Obama may come up with some catchy slogans or some kind of political rallying cry. But his political platform is clear. He is campaigning on the promise to raise taxes in his next four years. Which is something that no other President in American history has ever done.

(White House photo)

WINNERS:

Mitt Romney

It isn’t officially official, but it’s getting pretty close.  Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee in the fall.  Now, if someone would just get the memo to Rick Santorum we could close the book on an especially ugly primary and move on to the main event.

Pope Benedict XVI 

Easter Sunday provides a nice window of relevance for the Pope each year.  Pope Benedict XVI took full advantage of the attention by making some very clear and forceful declarations.  Sunday’s message capped a good week of public appearances for the Pope.

LOSERS:

Keith Olbermann

Keith Olbermann lost his job last week.  This week, he lost any remaining dignity when he sued Current TV for breach of contract.  Apparently Olbermann thought that his contract entitled him to reap massive amounts of money while refusing to comply with the even the most basic principles of the employer-employee relationship, like showing up for work.  Olbermann insists he was fired for no good reason.  Current TV, on the other hand, says it was because of “serial, material breaches of his contract, including the failure to show up at work, sabotaging the network and attacking Current and its executives.”  Now Olbermann and his legal team are setting up a very public battle between Olbermann, a one-percenter if there ever was one, and his  even-richer-than-he-is former bosses.

 The People of Sanford, FL

One person shot one other person.  It’s tragic, but it happens every day.  Depending on whom you believe, either Trayvon Martin was a punk who attacked an innocent George Zimmerman who acted in self defense or Martin was an innocent kid who was mercilessly murdered by a vigilante.  I have my opinion, you have yours.  But we weren’t there and we don’t know exactly what happened.  No matter what the details, a young boy is dead and a man’s life is ruined.  There’s no good outcome of the situation.  One thing that is for sure — angry mobs, vigilante patrols, and an out-of-control media frenzy aren’t helping the citizens of Sanford to move past this sad situation.

Hugo Chavez

Dictator and all-around bad guy Hugo Chavez wept and called upon Jesus to spare his life on Easter Sunday.  If prayer is truly the last refuge of a scoundrel, then Chavez must already have burned up every other option available to him.  Looks like, barring a miraculous intervention, time is getting short for Chavez.

 NBC News

Yeah, we believe that the selective editing of the George Zimmerman 911 call was just an accident.  Completely innocent and coincidental that it wound up generating an exclusive bombshell for the network.  Why are we pretending that this was anything other than a ratings grab?  Shame on NBC.  Another black eye for Big Media.

Health care reform matters — because I cannot think of anyone in my circle of friends who doesn’t have a close family member or friend who has been bankrupted or denied health care service despite having paid into health insurance for years. My best friend’s mother has survived five battles with breast cancer. She is now praying she doesn’t get a new case for the next two years. She has reached her financial cap and has two years before medicare kicks in and she is covered again. Despite working hard all of her life and paying for health care insurance for all of those years, if she falls ill this year, she will have to pay her cancer bills out of pocket, and it will bankrupt her, right before retirement. Free market for the win!

Or what about my cousin, a responsible young man, right out of college, got a new job and wanted to get his own place. The problem? His insurance didn’t kick in for another 6 months and he has diabetes. To pay for private insurance cost him 700 dollars per month. If he didn’t stay insured for these 6 months his diabetes would become a pre-existing condition and his new insurance would not cover all of those related costs. Due to the cost of insurance, my cousin was forced to live at home and rely on his parents for 6 months in order to make ends meet. Lucky for him the job was within commuting distance from his parents’ home and he had parents who could put him up. Because the alternative meant he would not be covered for his diabetes for the rest of his life.

Both of the issues my friends and family have faced would be resolved with the new Health Care Reform Act. While I am saddened there is no public option, the truth is that health care reform saves lives and helps families make ends meet.

In the last ten years I have lived in three different countries with national health care programs. The care I have received there has always been exceptional. The people that I met, while they had gripes about service and waiting times, had no examples of anyone going bankrupt or suffering life-changing consequences due to poor access to health care in a very wealthy environment.

Even if the Health Care Reform act isn’t perfect, we need health care reform in the U.S.  The fact that so much of the health care profit is not going to doctors, researchers or hospitals, but is instead going into the pockets of insurance companies is something every American should be outraged about.

Health insurance is not a free market. We are dependent upon our employers’ choices most of the time, and then our health care decisions are ultimately between our doctors and our insurance companies. I know this first hand. After a pre-approval of a cancer treatment by my father’s insurance company, he was denied. After paying into the same insurance company for 30 years, and never having made a claim, they denied his treatment.

Is our choice really to be denied by private enterprise or be denied by a government run health center? Am I the only one who feels that at least I get an equal vote with the government, with private enterprise I don’t have enough money to make my voice heard over the masses?

I am nervous to hear what the Supreme Court decides, but I hope they leave enough of the law intact so that it can start taking effect and people can begin to see why we need health care reform.