One of the things about this debate that was unique was their near-universal agreement with each other, on issues from the economy, to foreign wars, to the Federal Reserve. Roseanne, especially, applauded many of the speaking points made by Dr. Stein (pictured), and the feeling was reciprocated, though in a cooler fashion, by the Massachusetts-born physician. Like many of these sorts of events, the evening included a question and answer session for the candidates. One question posed was whether the two women disagreed on anything. Roseanne answered first, expressing her respect and admiration for Stein. Neither candidate was able to find any point on which they radically disagreed.

Dr. Jill Stein appears to be cruising toward an easy victory in her race against Barr for the Green Party nomination for president. During the final weekend of April, Stein cruised to easy victories in the Connecticut and South Carolina conventions. Dr. Stein picked up 15 additional delegates, to raise her total to 77, compared to 12 for Roseanne, according to figures available on the Green Party website.

Stein previously ran for governor of Massachusetts in 2002 and 2010, and graduated from Harvard Medical school.

Roseanne Barr, best known for her role as the “Domestic Goddess” Roseanne, announced her intention to run on the Jay Leno Show last August 5th. Less than a week later, on the 11th of that month, she announced that she was working on a new show called Downwardly Mobile, a show set in a mobile home park. Two months after that, NBC picked up the series. The television series Roseanne was on the air from 1988 to 1997.

Dr. Stein appeared to be more collected and articulate during her opening remarks and the Q&A period than the 59-year-old comedienne. This seemed unnatural, considering how much time Barr has spent in front of television cameras and performing for live audiences. Near the end of the debate, Barr took back remarks she made last Fall calling for the beheading by guillotine of “guilty Wall Street bankers” who won’t submit to forced re-education camps. She cited the Green Party’s opposition to capital punishment as the reason for her change of heart.

Kent Mesplay, another Green party candidate for president, was also invited to the debate but did not participate. He was represented throughout the debate by an empty chair. Rose Aguilar of KALW-FM moderated the forum. The debate is archived for public viewing on the Green Party’s LiveStream channel here.

The Green Party convention, where the delegates nationwide will make their selection for the person to head their ticket will be held from July 12th to the 15th in Baltimore, Maryland.

(Photo: jillstein.org)

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 the truth is that it really changes very little and has the potential to backfire. It is still a State issue so his announcement really affects only campaign funds. There is no legislation on the books by either the House or the Senate to challenge the definition of marriage. Obama also isn’t due to appoint another Supreme Court judge unless he gets reelected. By then his position could change, as it has done several times on this particular issue, because it no longer politically matters.

In truth, it doesn’t put an extra dollar in people’s pockets. It doesn’t give anyone a job. It doesn’t make the job market any easier. It isn’t stopping businesses from going bankrupt. It doesn’t fix the banks. It doesn’t fix the deficit. It doesn’t wipe out the debt. It is really just more hot air and empty promises from a President whose accomplishment list consists of exactly one item.

The real question is what is the next item of distraction on the list? I can guarantee that it won’t be the economy.

But if there is one thing that the President is good at, it is the art of distraction. Well, that and telling people exactly what they want to hear. That’s always been a mark of his Presidency. Unfortunately, there is so little follow up on his promises that 99% of them turn out to be completely false.

Oh and there are plenty of excuses, most coming down to “the Republicans aren’t working with him”. Please. He is being to sound like a whiny child who is full of excuses on why they didn’t do their chores. One of his job requirements is to get both sides to work together.

You can’t do that if you keep blaming one side for all of your problems –  even though you had the majority for the first two years in office and all you managed to get done was a 200- page bill on health care that very well could get struck down by the Supreme Court. Because someone (again not his fault) forgot to read the U.S. Constitution before writing it. For a supposed Constitutional lawyer, the knowledge he is showing about the Constitution would get him an F in any class. Personal responsibility clearly isn’t one of his messages.

Speaking of which, the health care law promises to be a big distraction in June when the Supreme Court issues its decision on the matter. As important as this decision is, the President will likely milk it as long as he can if he gets a favorable outcome. If it doesn’t, he will once again come up with a myriad of excuses on why it failed. Either way, it is likely to dominate  the conversation for at least a month.

This next few months, the President will be campaigning on distraction. That is his forte. He will avoid talking about the economy at all costs because it really isn’t improving at all. The way for Republicans to win in November is to keep from getting sucked into whatever the news item of the week is and to continue focusing on President Obama’s major weakness, the economy.

(White  House photo)

You know, I get such a kick out of all the pundits — and fellow college students! — who swear with a straight face that Joe Biden is actually “very smart.”  See … unlike Sarah Palin and George W. Bush, his embarrassing flub-ups are not due to some alleged “mental problem” — no … it’s due to arrogance!  Yeah … sure ….

Anyway, Biden blabs out that the Obama Administration is really in favor of gay marriage — all the president’s talk about marriage being between a man and a woman isn’t true anymore.  The president himself follows it up by declaring that, well … Joe’s right.  It’s then revealed that he was planning to reveal his “evolution” at the national convention.

Typical Leftist doublespeak:  When Mitt Romney changes his stance on abortion, it’s called “flip-flopping”.  When Obama changes his stance on gay marriage, it’s “evolving”.  Never mind that we now know that our dear evolver-in-chief has previously changed his mind on this very issue — he was pro-gay marriage back in the ’90s, he changed for the 2000s … and now, he’s back.  Back and forth — and Mitt Romney, who’s only changed his position on abortion once … is supposed to be the flip-flopper.  Amazing.

But wait — wait!  Now, the Washington Post comes out with a piece claiming that, back in high school, he was involved in a hazing incident in which a bunch of guys grabbed an effeminate-looking guy and shaved his head.  Stop the presses!  Stop the presses!  Mitt Romney was an anti-gay bully!

Okay.  Remember the big Politico hit piece that trashed Herman Cain — claiming he sexually harassed some female workers — the piece that failed to name any of the alleged sources?  Remember how the planned TV get-together of all the women fell flat — as they all turned up missing?  Me too … which is why I smell a similar rat now.  Once again, the media has failed to name the classmates whose guilty consciences have allegedly come back to haunt them.  Meanwhile, the family of the alleged victim has come out and said they don’t remember his mentioning anything like this.

For what it’s worth, Mitt Romney doesn’t seem to remember the incident, either.  I got such a kick out of Bob Beckel and all the other libs smugly saying, “Isn’t it disturbing how he doesn’t remember the incident?”  Ah … not if it didn’t happen!

Of course, Romney’s campaign is not one to take without giving.  So … we get a passage from Obama’s very own autobiography, Dreams From My Father.  Looks like Obama shoved around a girl to prove to surrounding boys that she wasn’t his girlfriend.  Oh … and the same book has Obama describing how in his high-school years, he was a habitual no-show for class … a heavy drinker … a pothead … and let’s not forget the “blow” (cocaine).

You’ve got to give Romney’s boys credit.  “Oh, really, Mr. President?  You’re really gonna go there?  Okay…let’s see you take a dose of your own medicine!”  At long last, we see our guy being willing to get down and dirty, and take on the Left where it counts.  Like it or not, folks, politics is trench warfare.  Just ask John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.  You give as good as you get — and if you feel guilty, toss a c-note to your favorite charity.

Not that you lie — that’s self-defeating.  Tell the truth — and do it with zeal and gusto.  Mitt Romney seems to get this … thank heaven we don’t have any John McCain “nice, civil campaign” nonsense.  Obama didn’t extend to him that kind of courtesy — it’s foolish to think he’d do it, now.  This time, his job’s at stake — and he’ll be darned if he tries to run on his record.

You want to know who the real bullies are?  They’re the ones who hide behind the strength of numbers — who use clichés and emotional tirades to smear and harass — who distort with implications, half-truths and bald-faced lies.  They’re the armies of political correctness.

Romney should be applauded for standing up to them.  The real bullies are going down.

Gary Johnson,

The two-term governor, who made a name for himself during his second term by leading the successful charge for marijuana decriminalization in his state, will be running with Judge Jim Gray, a former drug prosecutor who has also spent the last several years campaigning for an end to cannabis prohibition. Gray won 59% of the vote in his selection as Johnson’s running mate.

With many polls finding a slim majority of voters now in favor of cannabis law reform, this may be a major focus of the campaign in the 2012 general election. In addition, Johnson has focused his rhetoric so far on ending the war in Afghanistan, and reducing the federal budget by 43%. How much of his platform he can get through Congress would remain to be seen in any potential Johnson administration. Having vetoed over 750 bills during his eight years in office earned him the nickname of “Governor Veto” and a similar response on a Federal level could lead to gridlock.
The former governor originally ran in the Republican primary, but was unable to garner any real traction in terms of poll support or significant financial donations. He was invited to only two of the primary debates, but saw a brief splash of notoriety with his remark about his neighbors’ dogs having “created more shovel-ready jobs” than President Obama’s stimulus program.

The third party also named software architect Geoff Neale to the position of chairman, and recently deposed Johnson challenger Lee Wrights as vice-chair of the party. The two other challengers to Neale in the race for chairman came in third and fourth, behind both the winner and “none of the above.”

The Libertarian Party has only once received more than 1% in a presidential race, in 1980 with Ed Clark at the head of the ticket. Clark’s running mate that year was David Koch (of Koch Industries), who self-financed a small amount of national TV advertising.

The Johnson/Gray ticket is expected to be on the ballot in all fifty states, according to the campaign, and they are likely to qualify soon for federal matching funds. If the candidate receives 5% of the vote in the general election, the Libertarian Party would then be eligible to receive up to $90 million  in federal funding for the 2016 campaign.

(Photo: garyjohnson2012.com)

President Obama

WINNERS:
Francois Hollande
It’s kind of obvious, but a review of the Winners wouldn’t be complete without mentioning newly- elected French President Francois Hollande. I mean, he WON the election. Enough said.

Socialism
We don’t usually give out awards to ‘isms, but Socialism certainly deserves a shoutout now that France is officially in the control of a Socialist. Not that it is anything all that new or shocking for the French. It’s been less than 20 years since the last Socialist rule. Still, a big win for the S-word.

TOO EARLY TO TELL:
President Obama
The election of a Socialist in France could help or hurt President Obama‘s re-election campaign. If things go bad, and fast, in France, it will provide a huge barrel of ammunition for Mitt Romney‘s campaign to link “Socialist” Obama with Socialist Hollande.
If things go well for France in the next few months — or even if things just don’t fall apart in a matter of months – it will hurt Romney’s ability to use the “Socialist” label as an attack on Obama. Smart money says things go south for France, but not fast enough to be a significant boon for the Romney campaign. But only time will tell.

LOSERS:
Nicolas Sarkozy -
Nicolas Sarkozy just didn’t see it coming. “It” being his surprising defeat at the hands of Hollande. Don’t think for a moment that we’ve seen the last of good old Nikkie, though. Former presidents in Europe don’t just fade away the way they do here in the US.

America -
Sarkozy was a good ally for America. Hollande will be, well, nobody really knows for sure. But he isn’t big on Capitalism, which is kind of our thing.  Or it least it used to be.

Greece -
It’s tough being the poorest kid in the club. It gets worse when the new leader isn’t too keen on austerity measures or handouts  –  the two things that are keeping Greece afloat.

The French -
The voters always get the government they deserve.  The short-memoried populace of France is about to learn a hard lesson in economics.

In case you were wondering, “Gagnants et Perdants” is French for “Winners and Losers”. Unless Google Translator is lying to me again.

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.

Plot Turn #1:

One of the things you can always expect from the Left is an attempt to control the language of the discussion.  Gay marriage?  “Oh, it’s not a matter of behavior — it’s a matter of RIGHTS!”  Abortion?  “Oh, it’s not a matter of life — it’s a matter of women’s health!”   Taxes?  “Oh, it’s not about hurting or not hurting economic growth — it’s a matter of fairness!”  Spending?  “Oh, it’s not about the government wasting money doing things it’s not good at doing — it’s about helping people!”

You control the language, you control the discussion.  That’s what political correctness is all about.  It’s a form of cowardice, really — saying certain arguments are “offensive”.  “Islamophobic” — “homophobic” — a lot of new “phobias” are thrown around by people who have no real qualifications.

That’s why it’s always rewarding whenever someone new — with some credibility — comes along to call them out on their nonsense.  His Awesomeness, Chris Christie, is a golden example — as is the great Allen West, who is  enduring smears from both the Left and, curiously enough, the Ron Paul crowd: “He’s a NEOCON!!!”  (Another nonsense word thrown out pretty liberally — no pun intended …. )

Here’s the latest example of someone standing up without apology: Jose Rodriguez.  Back in the day, he was one of the CIA’s big boys —  Director of the National Clandestine Service, in charge of overseeing the interrogation of terrorists —  sorry, suspects — at Guantanamo Bay.  He’s out with a new book that challenges all the sentimental emotionalism the Left spews out about “torture!”— all the nonsense that it doesn’t work, that it’s unconstitutional, that it goes against “American values”, and so on.

So, he’s on 60 Minutes, describing the tactics his boys used — and the interviewer, Leslie Stahl, is shocked — shocked — that they fed the detainees with … brace yourselves, folks … Ensure!  Dietary manipulation — and sleep deprivation with it!  Leslie whines, “This is Orwellian stuff!  The United States doesn’t do that!”  Jose just shrugs, and replies, “Well, we do!”

My hero.  Mitt Romney should seriously consider bringing this guy back on — we could use more guys unafraid of media flack, who call things as they sees them.

Plot Turn #2:

This is actually two turns in one—and they both concern CNN.  See, the Boss, Ted Turner (who’s long made Gordon Gekko’s line about a great deal being “better than sex” his personal signature line) went on Piers Morgan’s show last Thursday — and said Mitt Romney wouldn’t be too bad as a president.  This is fascinating stuff — considering how Ted’s the husband of none other than Jane Fonda.

Anyway, amid this is the big plot turn — CNN posted an article on Friday, entitled: “Why Obama can’t match the Reagan recovery.”

Here’s why it’s significant: how many times have we heard from the Left how “false” the Reagan recovery was?  “The rich got richer and the poor got poorer!”  And yet … here we have CNN — run, again, by by-and-large liberal Ted Turner — admitting that there was an honest-to-goodness Reagan recovery, and whining about how Obama won’t be able to match it in time for the election.  Predictably, the article gives every excuse in the book — inflation was different, the debt load was a lot less, etc.  I could pick apart those arguments one by one — especially considering how Obama didn’t do what Reagan did: cut taxes, de-regulate, and so on.  The massive debt is due to extreme government spending — and the high inflation which really is happening (check your supermarket receipts, lately?) is being covered up by the Federal Reserve keeping interest rates at an arbitrary low.

But my point is — in order to defend Obama, the Left unintentionally exposed one of their big “refutations” of conservatism as the hollow ringer that it is.  The Reagan recovery was for real — trickle-down economics was (and still is) for real.  You cut taxes and regulation, you free up businesses — big and small — to invest in themselves, expand, and thereby create jobs for the populace.  It’s called free-market capitalism — and it works, regardless of how the media tries to spin it.

By the way … I’m not getting my hopes up about Ted going Romney.  Still, considering that he’s even suggesting it … gives me a great deal of hope for November.  If he’s got second thoughts … who else does?

That might be it, actually.

Let’s call a spade a spade. Politics in the United States is a joke. Here we have a wholly ineffective two-party system that leaves no real room for progress as the two sides work tirelessly to ensure that the other side simply doesn’t get into office, all while simultaneously screwing the average American out of his or her hard-earned money and standard of living because the politicians would rather tank the dollar by allowing the Federal Reserve to print money like it’s going out of style, and take kickbacks from their corporate sponsors, all the while passing laws that erode our Constitutional rights and leave the middle class propping up this abortion of an economy.

Excuse me if I sound pissed, but I’m sick of these guys making six- and seven-digit incomes simply because they raised enough money to put signs on the side of the road. What happened to intellectual discourse in this country? When did that become a naughty term? You want to debate things like gay rights and religion in school? Well how about things that actually matter, like where my food’s going to come from when the dollar loses all value and becomes a napkin for fecal matter? How about what’s going to happen when the Internet is locked down and the Government has access to everyone’s personal data without a warrant? You won’t be able to fart and cough without Uncle Sam knowing what you had for breakfast. What about when the United States starts assassinating its own citizens using drone technology which they said they wouldn’t use on American soil, but then turned around and said psyche.

I don’t mean to sound like an alarmist, but anyone who thinks that the United States Government has their best interest in mind clearly has not been paying attention during the past decade. I suppose if things got really bad, however, I could always send my kids off to some factory to build toys for the countries with good economies. At least we’d have spare money, and the only thing I’d have to worry about at that point would be the little guys committing suicide in protest of poor working conditions. Well doesn’t that just sound lovely?

We are so intellectually screwed in this country that we actually look at a college degree with disdain. This is coming from someone, by the way, who never stepped foot on a college campus for any reason other than to meet women or get drunk. Yes, you can indeed turn out well and be successful without a college degree, but the odds are not in your favor. And I’m not talking some useless major like philosophy, either. I’m talking real-world-applicable stuff, and yet somehow a higher education is elitist.

The nerve of some people – actually learning! Why I never!

Have we lost our friggin’ minds in this country? Do you realize that major retailers usually give the customer what they want, not because the customer is correct, or because the store is being nice, but because the customer has a complete lack of capacity for critical thought and doesn’t understand the concept of personal responsibility?

Your stupid discount that you worked so hard for is a pacifier because you’d rather stand in a store, arguing over the warranty of a phone that you dropped in the toilet – a phone, mind you, that you don’t even make full use of, and all the while you’re complaining that your kid is hungry. Well excuse me if your stupid status symbol is more important than your kid’s health.

For the next month, I’m going to be living in a country where people need to fill their toilets with water from a well before use. This place gets electricity for about half the day – on a good day.

Are we all going to need to be that uncomfortable before we get our act together?

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.