Using Our Brains When Voting

A couple of days ago, the Obama 2012 Campaign posted a plucky piece on Tumblr urging its youthful users to vote with their “Lady Parts."

After this unorthodox "Lady Parts" appeal for support drew outraged criticism, the post was quickly withdrawn and the campaign maintained that it was not properly vetted. But considering the emphasis that the DNC convention put on protecting “Women’s Health Services” (read abortion on demand), even so far as to give Georgetown Law School graduate Sandra Fluke a prime time speaking spot to tout free contraception in Obamacare.

 This was not an unexpected bundle of joy. The Lady Parts campaign was trying to be hip and capitalize on a wedge issue on social media site. When it became inconvenient, it was aborted. Sound familiar?

 While the Obama “Lady Parts” campaign is gone, it is not forgotten. Social media sharing sites also posted this retort:

 Maybe after Obama’s disastrous debate performance in Denver, it is reasonable to expect the endangered incumbent to come out swinging and try to rally the base by trumpeting these comfortable liberal social policy memes which worked so well in the past.

 But now that Romney and Obama share a stage which gives them equal stature, it is not as easy to demonize an opponent who can not make a timely response. Now that people are paying attention to the Presidential race in earnest, I expect that voters will use their brains when exercising their franchise.

Preparing for the First Presidential Debate in Denver

Tonight is the first of the three scheduled head-to-head debates between incumbent Democrat President Barack Obama and Republican Presidential nominee Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA).  These debates are the only times that voters are able to see both candidates on the same stage.  So it is not just the candidate’s articulation of the issues, but also how they comport themselves.


Depending upon the debate rules, these encounters can sometimes seem more like side-by-side press conferences.  This is less likely when there are only two candidates on stage.  Moderator Jim Lehrer who formerly anchored PBS’s NewsHour before retiring  have promised that the first three segments will touch on the economy, with the remaining questions to center on health care, governance and the role of government. 

Both candidates have been engaged in several days of intense debate preparation and have tried to lower expectations.  Governor Romney engaged in twenty debates among Republican Presidential nominee challengers during the primaries, whereas President Obama has not needed to verbally spar since October 2008.  Still the public believes that Mr. Obama’s oratory abilities will outshine the GOP challenger.  

Both White House and Obama 2012 campaign spokesmen have strived to lower expectations for incumbent candidate Obama.  Aside from being rusty in the practice of debating, the Obama camp has also floated the idea that the President is too busy handling pressing situations in the Middle East to concentrate on debate preparation. Maybe Obama PR flack Jen Psaki meant the Maghreb, where an Ambassador and three special operations soldiers were assassinated in Benghazi, Libya on 9/11/2012.  Well, Mr. Obama has been spending several days at the Westin Lake Las Vegas resort, which has both a Mid East theme AND a golf course–perfect!  

Alas, Mr. Obama revealed that he found debate preparation to be a drag.   Barack Obama’s debate preparations has been aided by former White House Communications Director Anita Dunn, who as also aided with First Lady Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” Campaign.  So perhaps if the President goes off script, Mr. Obama may refer to Ms. Dunn’s favorite political philosopher–Mao Tse Tung. 

People often do not remember many policy points from debates, but impressions drawn from debates influence their outlooks.  The Lamestream Media has spent the better part of September trumpeting perceived flaws by candidate Romney, including the old footage of the 47% and parroting Obama talking points that Romney shoots first and aims later on the violence in Egypt and Libya.  Even though all of the Presidential debates are chocked full of liberal questioners, history has shown that Mr. Romney’s appearance on the same stage as the President will elevate his stature among the electorate. 

[L] John Kennedy  [R] Richard Nixon during 1960 debate

Appearance can definitely matter.  Although those who listened to the 1960 Presidential debates on the radio thought that then Vice President Richard Nixon bested then Senator John Kennedy (D-MA).  But Nixon’s pasty pallor (he had been hospitalized) along with his five-o’clock shadow and grey suit did not look good on black-and-white television.  Hence TV viewers thought that Kennedy won.  

[L] George HW Bush, [C] Ross Perot [R] Bill Clinton in '92 debate 

During the 1992 Richmond Virginia Townhall Presidential Debate, viewers took note of President George Herbert Walker Bush looking down at his watch during the debate.  This gesture was intended to remind the moderator that then Governor Bill Clinton (D-AK) had exceeded his allotted time.  But the public interpreted this as detachment and reflected poorly upon the incumbent’s re-election candidacy.  






And who can forget Vice President Al Gore’s bizarre  behavior during debates, crowding his opponent then Governor George W. Bush (R-TX) during town hall forums exchanges and giving audible sighs during his opponents answers.  Viewers did not put their disdain in a “lock box”.  In fact, it was so laughable that Saturday Night Live mocked it.

SNL Parody of 2000 Debate [L] fake Al Gore [R] Fake George W. Bush 

There is a theory which postulates that likability is a key factor for people on choosing Presidents.  After all, once elected, the President of the United States is in our homes every day through television appearances.  Thus  low-information voters want someone who will not be too irritating to see every day. 

1976 Debate [L] Jimmy Carter [R] Gerald Ford

Another thing that people take away from debates are flubs.  During the 1976 Presidential Debates, incumbent President Gerald R. Ford claimed that “Poland was free”.  What he meant to say is that the Polish peoples’ spirit of freedom could never be taken away.  But that bad quote was out there and did not help Ford win.  

1988 Debate [L] George H.W. Bush [R] Michael Dukakis

Then there are gaffes which may contain the right answer but are instances that the candidate does not successfully sell himself.  In 1988, Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis gave a straight but dispassionate answer on the Death Penalty when he was asked how he would feel if his wife was raped. Later, Dukakis gave a legalese reply to a question about a proposed Flag Burning Amendment which some pundits claimed won the hearts and minds of fourteen lawyers while losing three million votes.  

Viewers tend to remember zingers in debates, which often are prescripted but a candidate needs to be able to sell it.  In 1984, the 73 year old incumbent President Ronald Reagan had a shaky appearance in the first Presidential debate, which raised concerns among the media that the old man may not have been up to continue the job.  So as the second debate began, Mr. Reagan famously promised not to exploit former Vice President Walter Mondale’s youthfulness and inexperience in the campaign.

1984 Presidential Debate  [L] Ronald Reagan jokes with [R] Walter Mondale

That bon mot caused even Mr Mondale to crack up, which allayed any concerns and sealed the deal with the electorate. 

For those of you who consider politics to be just infotainment, you might consider the drinking game for the Presidential debates


As fun as that sounds, that won't be the way that I watch the Denver Debate.  I will be covering the debate by live blogging it under the  CalamityDC alias on Twitter using the #DenverDebate hashtag.  

I encourage people interested in public affairs to join in the live comments.  It used to be that political junkies would wait to watch the spin-rooms after the main event to listen to pundits tell you what to think.  Now with the advent of social media, parroting the pontification of pundits is unnecessary and your real time opinions can be shared.

Are You Ready to Rhetorically Rumble?

[L] Ex-Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D-NY) and [R] Glenn Beck at "The War of the Words"

                  In the left corner, with blue colors
                  is the ex Empire State Attorney General who went after Wall Street,
                 the one time Champion of the New York Gubernatorial Mansion
                 After personal expenditures to the Empire Club were exposed,
                 he left public service to host a prime time show on CNN and now Al Gore's Current TV.
                 Let's hear it for Client Number 9-- ELIOT SPITZER!

In the right corner, with the red colors is a self-described rodeo clown,
who's life spiraled downwards until he became a Latter Day Saint.
He went from doing a light-hearted morning zoo radio show
into what some have likened to Network's Howard Beale.
He abruptly left a successful cable news show
to establish his own internet television, radio and publishing empire.
Let's hear it for "The Blaze"-- GLENN BECK! 

LET’S GET READY TO  RUMBLE!

With less than a month before the Presidential Election, this is the equivalence of the drive to the World Series for political junkies.  While I look forward to the main event in the Presidential and Vice Presidential debates this month, there are two warm ups that should appeal to the general public.

Tonight at 10 PM EDT, Dish Network (and on Dish's Facebook page) is going to broadcast “The War of the Words” between former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer (D-NY) and Glenn Beck.



On October 6th, Comedy Central’s Daily Show faux news host Jon Stewart will take on Fox News Channel’s Grand Poobah Bill O’Reilly at George Washington University in what is ironically billed as  the  “Rumble in the Air Conditioned Auditorium.”.  That 90 minute clash before a sold out Lisner Auditorium will be broadcast pay-per-view to be streamed live online.



Half of the profits from the event will be donated by Stewart and O’Reilly to a number of charitable causes.

Anecdotal evidence points to enthusiasm from low information voters for these infotainment debates. With the nation being at the cusp of another recession, America's foreign policy collapsing in a tinder box world, it seems sad that news commentators, either comedic or serious, attract more attention than the official Presidential Debates.

But maybe these events might break through the sunny side focus of the elite liberal media and reach new audiences.  After all, it is remarkable that Univision's hard hitting debate questions to President Obama  on broken immigration promises as well as their investigation on 'Rápido y Furioso' not only made headlines but exposed Hispanic viewers to how many Mexicans were killed by Attorney General Eric Holder's flawed "Fast and Furious" operation.

For those who deride Beck as being a boob for not having gone to college, this will be a chance to see if he can think on his feet and can cite facts.  Many Daily Show viewers hold Jon Stewart and his writing team in high esteem for his comedic commentary on the news.  The rumble with O'Reilly will demonstrate how  Stewart does debating on his own for more than one segment.

Personally, I was dubious about the Stewart/O'Reilly match up as it paired up two partisan poppinjays.  But it might be worthwhile after all as the event will be anchored by E.D. Hill of (CNN and formerly of Fox News Channel) who developed a hard hitting but humorous reputation for covering news.

Sometimes the clashes of ideological titans can be less of a bang and more of a whimper.  Sean Hannity loves to book friends who are on the far left but for me it sounds more like schmoozing than substance.  O'Reilly thinks highly of himself and his No Spin interviews, but his tete-a-tetes with President Obama have seemed more like political softball than bean-ball.

Here is hoping that low information voters get exposed to some election issues rather than ad hominem attacks and that they stay engaged to make informed opinions as they exercise their franchise which so many American servicemen have died to protect.

Celebrating the Red Mass

[L] Washington Archbishop Donald Wuerl and [R] Chief Justice John Roberts at 2012 Red Mass

On the day before the start of new Supreme Court term, six justices attended the Red Mass at St. Matthews Cathedral in Washington, DC. The Red Mass harkens on a Roman Catholic tradition which began in the High Middle Ages, where the Church asks for guidance by the Holy Spirit to come upon all who seek justice. The Red Mass derives its name from the red vestments worn by the clergy during the liturgy, which recalls the Holy Spirit’s tongues of fire which came upon the Apostles at Pentecost.

 The Archdiocese of Washington and the John Carroll Society have sponsored a Red Mass in Washington since 1953. This year Chief Justice John Roberts along with Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan attended. It should be noted that Justices Breyer and Kagan are Jewish but they clearly attended to respect the concept and supporting religious plurality in America.

Archbishop Timothy Broglio at St. Peters Tomb

The Mass was celebrated by Washington Archbishop Donald Cardinal Wuerl. However the homily was given by Archdiocese for the Military Archbishop Timothy Broglio, the prelate charged with shepherding the spiritual welfare for the 1.5 million Americans serving overseas in the military or government service.

 Archbishop Broglio’s homily included some scriptural exegesis to the readings at Mass and delved into some Catholic culture as he recognized Saints’ Day. But Broglio embraced the mantle of the New Evangelization and dared to echo themes from the Fortnight for Freedom of religious liberties, the latter may touch upon issues that the High Court will soon tackle.


 Here is the written text of Archbishop Broglio’s Red Mass homily:

The author A.J. Cronin told the story of a district nurse he knew during the time he practiced medicine.  She covered a ten-mile district by herself, was extremely capable and generous with her time.  She was patient and cheerful.  Her salary was insignificant and late one night after a particularly strenuous day, Dr. Cronin suggested that she demand a higher salary.  “God knows you are worth it”, he added.  Her reply was classic, “if God knows I’m worth it, that is all that matters to me”.

Indeed if we live and work with the confidence that we are inserted into the Lord’s plan, then that is all that matters.  Is that not what the word of God tells us this morning at the 60th annual Red Mass as the readings invite us to be open to the Spirit of God, beg His blessing on a new judicial year, and strive to be instruments of a new evangelization.

The passage from the Book of Numbers is fascinating.  The Lord has guided the Chosen People out of Egypt and through the desert, but there is a structure and a system to govern them.  Seventy elders are chosen to help Moses with the task of judging, but Eldad and Medad miss the installation.  Still they receive the gift and the mission.

To Joshua’s concern about a possible challenge to Moses’ leadership, he explains that the divine gift is not limited by place, but attached to the person, wherever he or she might be found. The sovereign liberty of God determines how He will act and that obliges the believer of all times to question the temptation to close God within the narrow spaces of a justice which assigns itself the task of protecting the presumed rights of God while trampling upon those of his or her brothers and sisters.

Of course, you and I live in a world of forms, ID’s, procedures, and verification.  One commentator on this passage suggested that in the near future in order to die you will have to fill out the appropriate form, and perhaps a diligent clerk will tell you to save the receipt to present to St. Peter at the Gates of Paradise. Moses’ wish is the better course: “Would that all the people of the Lord were prophets!” 

His invitation is to look for the evidence of the good, of truth, and of the beautiful in another.  There is not a monopoly of the Spirit, but rather an abundance of gifts to be used to build up the Body of Christ.  

How appropriate it is to speak about that abundance on September 30th when we would normally celebrate St. Jerome, a learned doctor of the Church who was first charged to translate the Bible from its original languages to the vernacular Latin.  His talents were used to make the Word of God accessible to the ordinary folk. We remember him and remain inspired by his quest for learning as we gather as a community of faith to beg an abundance of blessings upon the women and men of our judiciary and the legal profession.  

 It is a moment to pause and pray for those who serve our Country and foster justice for all.  We know that a believing community engages in prayer for the needs of all, but especially for those who face arduous tasks. Indeed “Justice is radically intolerant of injustice; justice seeks out injustice to destroy it.  To emphasize security at the expense of eradicating injustice creates a fool’s paradise.”

 
The Romans put it more succinctly: “Justitia non novit patrem nec matrem; solum veritatem spectat justitia.” Justice knows neither father nor mother; justice looks to the truth alone. For that reason we are here primarily to pray with you and for you as you execute the daunting task assigned to you at various levels.  

We beg a blessing for all of you and for all of those who assist you in this important ministry.  We invoke the only Just One so that He might inspire all that you do.  We recognize “that those who involve themselves with human law are doing God’s work.  You are called to be involved with the same matters with which the Lord God is involved in relationship with His creation.”

We have heard the question posed by the Apostles just before the Lord Jesus ascended into heaven.  Their vision was of a political reality alone: the end of Roman rule and the independence of the Chosen People.  It was a vision firmly anchored in this world alone.  They would need the gift of the Holy Spirit so as to purify their goals, understand their mission correctly and be able to accomplish it.

So we pray for all of those gathered here that they might welcome the strength of the Holy Spirit and the interior dynamism with which He fills our hearts. We do so just before the beginning of the Year of Faith given to us by the Holy Father, because there is a “need to rediscover the journey of faith so as to shed ever clearer light on the joy and renewed enthusiasm of the encounter with Christ.”

The mission is always audacious, but it is possible with the gifts of the Holy Spirit. We are instruments in the hands of the Lord and so we pray to be ever open to His presence. The message is filled with hope: not only for eternal life, but also for the graces necessary so that our lives are truly noble, worthy of God, and of the vocation He has given us.

We speak so often of the new evangelization, because we recognize that we must be its instruments in all that we do. The faith we hold in our hearts must motivate the decisions, the words, and the commitment of our everyday existence.  That existence is extraordinary, because it is infused with divine grace.  

St. Thomas More said that he died the good servant of the King, but the faithful servant of God first.  We, too, are faithful citizens only when we embrace the fullness of the principles of our faith and allow them to enliven and fortify our contributions to the life of the Nation. Or to draw on the eloquence of the Archbishop of Baltimore in a paraphrase: we must be loyal Americans by being a bold and courageous men and women of faith and conviction regarding the ethical norms that guide society and its choices.

There is so much that we bring to the discourse of our society.  Our faith expresses itself in worship, but also in witness.  From the beginning the Church has been active in society to make a contribution, especially to the care of the poor, but also to education.  The first universities grew out of the monasteries.  We cannot separate who we are from how we live.  To quote Father Alfred Delp, a Jesuit condemned to death by the Nazis, “Futility or ineffectiveness do not dispense one from speaking the truth, declaring what is right and just…Woe if the prophets are mute out of fear that their word might not be heeded.”

I am reminded of my first year as a seminarian in Rome.  An important 19th Century Justice Department building was closed because it was unsafe.  It seemed to be sinking into the ground.  Yet the Colosseum, Pantheon, and the ruins of the Roman Forum were all still standing and could be visited.  It was a good reminder that not everything contemporary is good and that stable foundations are essential.  Our society must also rest on stable, clear foundations.  Otherwise, we run the risk of sinking into the mire of one popular sound byte after another!

Last January the Holy Father recalled for the Bishops of this region that consensus about the nature of reality and the moral good and the conditions for human flourishing are at the heart of every culture.  “In America, that consensus, as enshrined in your nation’s founding documents, was grounded in a worldview shaped not only by faith but a commitment to certain ethical principles deriving from nature and nature’s God.”

Cronin’s nurse knew that, as well.  She recognized that the ultimate value was the eternal judgment rendered by Almighty God.  “Whoever loves me will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our dwelling with him.”

h/t: Whispers In the Loggia

Vile Viral Video Urges Electing Obama Again

[L] Samuel L. Jackson, actor and Obama activist

Samuel L. Jackson, the narrator for the video version of the ironic bed time book “Go the F–k to Sleep” is the star of a new internet spot on the election. The Jewish Council for Research and Education, a pro-Obama liberal Super PAC run by George Soros’ 25-year old scion Alexander, engaged the 63-year old actor to reprise his role as a angry man reading a Dr. Seuss like story "Wake the F--k Up".



 A sample of the "high" art contained in this YouTube gem includes:

             Sorry my friend, but there’s no time to snore,
            the out-of-touch millionaires just declared war;
             on schools, the environment, unions, fair pay...

            We’re all on our own if Romney has his way.
            He’s against safety nets.
            If you fall, tough luck.
            So I strongly suggest you
            WAKE THE F--K UP!

 Getting Samuel L. Jackson to do a follow up to “Go the F–k To Sleep” was a coup which drew attention to this puerile political stunt. But to what end? This may get many shares among collegians, but will it drive unmotivated youths to go to the polls? Obama will win the demographic niche of those in college but they probably will not come out in droves as they did in the 2008 cycle. But to borrow an image from GOP V.P. nominee Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI 1st) acceptance speech, will this hip, hyped hoopla get an unemployed college graduate staring at posters in his boyhood bedroom to “Wake the F–k Up” and affirmative vote for four more years of this is dubious.

This campaign is trying to leverage the power of social media to acquire what is known in political circles as earned media. But this viral video may backfire The “Wake the F–K Up” campaign is too clever by half. It’s profanity laced political message can not be widely circulated through the media except via censored snippets that highlight the vehicle more than the message. The vile viral video will offend seniors are motivated to exercise their franchise and represent their political interests rather than youthful civic slackers who need to be reminded to “Wake the F–K Up” to vote. This in your face rhetoric might sell on the coasts, which are already solidly blue, but the tone might not be as readily accepted in purple much less red states. 

Thinking back to the last Presidential election, Obama Girl was able to generate outside energy for her man (at the time) for "I've Got a Crush on Obama" as well as conveying a hip image. The material alluded to risque themes but never succumbed to the temptation.






Viral campaigns need to be catchy, quickly communicate its message and reflect an unspoken impression in the electorate. This was one of the reasons that Clint Eastwood’s empty chair dialogue went viral so quickly after the Republican National Convention. People understood the empty chair dialogue as being a metaphor for an empty suit leader who continues for vote “Present” or lead from behind even as President. One of the more popular images took the iconic red/blue Hope and Change poster motif and depicted an empty chair. That empty chair meme dominated to political conversation for four days. In fact, it lead to a "happening" on Labor Day where people across the country put out empty chairs on their front yards.  And it did not require any Soros Super PAC money.  My visceral instinct is that "Wake the F--k Up"  campaign  will circulate in emails among the college crowd with an "LOL" and end there.


Mik Moore speaking for the JCRE promises more satirical stuff as the election approaches, including print ads in swing states and social media mini-memes. Supposedly, the JCRE will vaunt Obama’s record on Israel. Based on the content of “Wake the F–K Up”, that will be an interesting use of “independent” political resources. Maybe next time, the JCRE can spice things up and obtain some "Snakes on the Plane" for animus and inspiration.

Obama’s UN Unorthodox Equivocation on Intolerance

During President Barack Obama’s annual speech before the United Nations General Assembly gave a perplexing perspective on religious liberty.




Mr. Obama famously noted that “The future does not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam”.  Clearly, that line is in response to the violent demonstrations at American embassies on 9/11/12 which killed Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other American diplomats.  President Obama has persiverated on blaming this violence from the Arab Street stemmed from the existence of a snippet of an internet video “The Innocence of Muslims”, despite clear evidence that the attack was pre-planned (rarely do spontaneous rioters carry rocket propelled grenades) as well as acknowledgment by the Libyan government.

The second curiosity is that President Obama could not bring himself to say “Muhammad”.  Sunni Muslims prohibit any depictions of the prophet Mumhammad, but judging from his particular phrasing, the P.C. police may prohibit even uttering his name.  This does not jibe with Western sensibilities, as was parodied by Monty Python in the Life of Brian (1979).




Although President Obama went on to equivocate tolerance to include condemning Holocaust deniers or those who torch churches.  This even-handedness is admirable in the abstract but is mind numbingly naive in the real world.  It is unlikely that the Arab Street will hear any more of Obama’s oration other than the first clause about not slandering the prophet of Islam.  It is worth noting that slander under Shariah does not just mean saying derogatory things, but can mean any opposing, including proselyting or doing Christian missionary work.

The Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is angling to rally its 57 nation state members to speak forcefully with one voice to shepherd international regulations “against attacks on what people deem sacred.”  This would account for Mr. Obama’s equivocation in citing anti-islamic, anti-semitic and Christophobic behavior while tacitly supporting the IOC inspired UN resolution 1618.

While the President later acknowledged that the American Constitution allows for freedom of speech, this God-Given First Amendment right was not honored in the instance of “The Innocence of Muslims” video.  After the violence erupted in the Middle East and the Maghreb, this film-maker was taken into questioning by the Los Angeles police, supposedly for coincidental  parole violations. How constitutionally convenient! Moreover, General Martin Dempsey  contacted video promoter Pastor Terry Jones to voice his concerns about the film.  So much for respecting the First Amendment on either free speech or the free exercise of religion.

There are concerns in conservative circles about the Obama Administration’s support for United Nations Resolution 1618 as it is seen as an international blasphemy code which would trump American constitutional free speech rights.

Most people think that the Presidential Election this cycle is a referendum on President Obama’s performance on the economy.  But thoughtful voters should look forward and appreciate the consequences of four more years of Obama’s influence in world affairs.

State Department Surliness Over Bungled Benghazi Blame

[L] P.R. spokesman Philippe Reines and [R] Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Buzzfeed correspondent Michael Hastings contacted Philippe Reines to follow up on the over-the-top attack on that he made at CNN regarding the release of details of assassinated U.S. Ambassador Libya Chris Stevens. Reines, the Press Secretary (and long time personal aide) to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, repeated his outrage against CNN's reportage, claiming that they have responsibilities to act as human beings and respect the grieving Ambassador's family.

 Hastings had the temerity in e-mail exchanges to challenge the Foggy Bottom filibuster about good journalistic practices and chided the State Department and the Obama Administration for being complicit in misinfomation about the bungled Benghazi mission, namely steadfastly claiming that the incident was spontaneously sparked by Islamists offended by an internet movie about the prophet Muhammad.

 State Department employee Reines deflected critical questions by declaring that reporter Hastings had already made up his mind. Hastings protested that Reines was just giving "B.S." answers. The tone of civility declined from there. Philippe Reines then declared:

I now understand why the official investigation by the Department of the Defense as reported by The Army Times The Washington Post concluded beyond a doubt that you're an unmitigated asshole. 

 Reines, the ever officious civil servant closed with "And by good day, I mean Fuck Off." Reines could not handle being challenged or responding in kind, so further inquiries from reporter Hastings were tagged for junk mail.

While it is kind of fun to read a real time pissing match between government officials and the fourth estate (which you can read in it's entirety here), this contentious exchange highlights a few key facts.

 Firstly, Philippe Reines has been called Hillary Clinton's "Michael Clayton-esque image man and fixer" by Vogue Magazine. Really, is this the way to conduct yourself and represent your boss, the State Department and the American people?

 Secondly, it shows the vacuity in most the elite liberal national media (a.k.a. the Lamestream Media) in doing what used to be considering their jobs in journalism. The Lamestream Media mostly has minimized the Benghazi Blunder on 9/11/2012. But when CNN dared to expose the Libya lies and Foggy Bottom trashes the reporting for stepping out of line.

 A new media reporter had the audacity to hope that this transparent Obama Administration might answer some uncomfortable questions. When the B.S. isn't bought, the civil servant becomes uncivil and shuts the journalist out. And Buzzfeed should not be dismissed as right wing noise, as it was co-founded by Jonah Peretti (who also co-founded the Huffington Post) and is edited by former Politico editor Ben Smith.

Thirdly, there is the question about transparency in governance.  Obama Administration won an award for transparency award from the Open Government Community, but it chose to accept the award behind closed doors. Does this auger well for the future in a prospective second Obama Administration? The Obama Administration will trash dissenting Lamestream Media, dismisses citizen journalist while deflecting hard questions from Univision.

Lastly, it brings to the forefront a question which will be decided at the ballot box--does the American people want a Commander-in-Chief who can deal with crisis or a Celebrity-in-Chief who will sit down with "The View", and the Pimp with a Limp but feigns to know nothing when he chats with David Letterman.

Students of history should remember that the forty years ago Watergate scandal may have been precipitated by an ill-conceived opposition research campaign stunt and a botched burglary. But the situation was exacerbated by surliness to the press and stonewalling by the Nixon Administration officials to cover up for their chief. It is the cover-up that can be worse than the crime.

Frank Zappa on Beer

Obama's New Political Plank

September 19th was International Talk Like a Pirate Day, a fanciful faux holiday where people are encouraged to blurt out buccaneer phrases in casual conversation.  To wit, President Barack Obama tweeted this picture.

While it is kind of cute for Mr. Obama to participate in this visual joke.  But it took time and planning for the Celebrity in Chief to set up for this Pirate picture.  This same week, President Obama made time to appear on Late Night with David Letterman to face tough questions from the host such as "Have you seen me naked?"

Later, Obama went to a fund-raiser with Beyonce and Jay-Z which included a $280,000 tower of champagne.

 At the same time, the world is on fire.  American embassies are being attacked throughout the world, four American diplomats were brutally murdered in Benghazi, Libya in an Al Qaeda organized attack by an ex-Gitmo detainee on the anniversary of September 11th.   Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, a loyal American ally, can not get a face-to-face meeting with the supposed leader of the free world when they are both in New York. 

In case any of the pirate argot stuck with POTUS, let me put this in pirate speak  "Shiver me timbers,  belay flying the Jolly Rogers and batten down the hatches lest ye scuttle the ship of state.  Savvy?"

Post Scriptus- It seems that the Pirate Photo was stock from 2009 and not this week.  However, that does not change the rest of President Obama's star studded schedule nor does it indicate that the Commander in Chief is not acting more like the Celebrity in Chief.