Election Day: 2014 - You can't vote for me; I'm not on the ballot.

Well, today's the day. Although there aren't really any competitive races in South Carolina, it will be interesting to see what happens around the country. I'll certainly be interested to see how the dynamics of our national politics changes if the entire Congress becomes controlled by the GOP.

I guess the last time we had the Congress controlled by one party and the White House controlled by another was during George W. Bush's presidency. Man, doesn't that seem like a long time ago?

Voting was easy this morning. No delays, no broken machines. I had actually looked at a sample ballot last night, so I knew what to expect. (Yeah, that's kind of a dork move, isn't it?) And once again, I was the youngest person in my polling place again. I'm sure that will change eventually.

Also, there were lots of people running unopposed. What's up with that?

In any event, go vote if you are moderately informed about current events and the news.

SC GOP Primary Is Boring AND ERIC CANTOR LOSES??

Eric Cantor, please call your office.

It looks like Lindsey Graham will remain our Senator. There were some good challengers, and there were some not so good challengers. Hopefully, we can send Senator Graham back to Washington with a sense of renewed purpose.

In other news, Eric Cantor (the House Majority Leader) just lost his primary to a Tea Party challenger from his right, over what appears to be the illegal immigration issue.

This is a pretty big deal, y'all. I think this probably means that any big legislation on immigration is dead. I don't see any politicians sticking their head in the noose after they just saw what happened to Cantor tonight.

How does the saying go, some times you have to hang a few generals so that something something?

Colorado to Require Education Classes Prior to Marriage?

Per the Denver Post, I don't even know where to start with this.

Lumped onto the hours spent debating centerpieces, picking a photographer, finding the perfect dress and corralling future in-laws, the proposed Colorado Marriage Education Act calls for 10 hours of pre-wedding marriage education.

Yes, that's right, campers. State sponsored marriage school. There are people out there who think the State of Colorado should be involved in counseling you on your impending marriage. The mind boggles.

First (and let's get this straight right from the start) the government has absolutely no business trying to prescriptively tell people what does and does not constitute good marriage advice. Second, assuming they do this, what are they going to teach people?

I've been married for nine years, have a good matrimonial litigation practice, and I still don't consider myself qualified to give other people marital advice.

Here's the thing, though. The people pushing for this program are doing it with good intentions. Their stated goal is to: "better prepare individuals going into marriage to fulfill their new roles as spouse and potentially as parent, to furthermore protect children given that marriage is the foundation of a family unit."

That's an admirable goal. Who could be against protecting children, right? Is there anyone out there against protecting children? This group of people is probably a really "family values" group that has a foundation in historical Christian values, and they probably truly want to see children protected and marriages succeed. They're probably Republicans. Those are certainly admirable goals.

However, the manner in which they are going about achieving these goals is the problem -- they're using the legal force of the law and the arm of government to require people to sit through their education classes.

This strain of Republican really bothers me. Like their Democratic counterparts, they think they know better than the rest of us, and if only we would let them be in charge everything would be better. Democrats tend to think they can do this in almost every aspect of our lives, so they're usually in favor of using the government to force people to do things that they might not voluntarily do.

Can't people be just left alone to marry anymore without some scolds or nags telling us everything that we need to do? I mean, isn't that going to happen anyway once we get married?

Just kidding, ladies.

In all seriousness though, there's nothing wrong with attending classes prior to getting married. Heck, I did that through my church about nine years ago. But that was a voluntary choice. A voluntary choice is the polar opposite of the government requiring you to do something as a precondition.


C. S. Lewis had a quote about this: 

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

Indeed.

Why I'm Fine to Let Chris Christie Drown

Not literally drown. I mean politically.

Prior to the lane-closings on the GW Bridge turning into an abuse of power scandal for Governor Christie, he was viewed as one of the primary front-runners for the GOP Presidential nomination in 2016. He has been described as a practical governor who was willing to work across party lines to advance his state's interest, and that he was a "moderate".

That is certainly true. However, I would like to recap a little recent history for everyone:

2008: McCain gets the GOP nomination for President because he was a pragmatic moderate who had worked across the aisle to get things done. He lost.

2012: Romney gets the GOP nomination for President because he was a moderate who had worked across the aisle in his home state of Massachusetts to pass a health insurance regulatory scheme that was the forerunner of Obamacare. He lost.

So, does the GOP really want to nominate another moderate republican candidate who has worked across the aisle for the 2016 Presidential race? What's the definition of insanity, again?

There are two basic reasons I don’t want to see Christie be the GOP nominee besides historical precedent. He supports immigration amnesty and he accepted ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion in his state. If he had only done one of these, there would only be a red flag. Both of these are a disqualification to me.

Here's the thing. No matter what anyone says, one of the major points of the 2016 debate will be Obamacare. It will likely be a flaming train-wreck of a program. The GOP cannot have a nominee that is tainted by the program.

Remember back in 1940 when Winston Churchill won the Prime Minister job? He won because he wasn't tainted by the Munich Accord. He was always against appeasement of Hitler, and the men who had either tried to do so or had accepted the trying were not able to convince enough of the electorate that they were the men for the job.

Christie won't be able to convince enough of the electorate that he's the man for the job because he's tainted by his going along with Obamacare's medicaid expansion. It's Romney all over again.

Get someone who isn't tainted. 

John Boehner and Lane Kiffin

This whole debacle over the government shutdown and the debt ceiling has been an unmitigated disaster for Republicans. They started out with the primary objective of repealing the Affordable Care Act. When that didn't happen, they moved to defunding it. When that didn't happen, they moved to trying to delay it. When that didn't happen, they tried to go with the strategy of getting rid of Congressional staffer subsidies. Guess what. That didn't work either.

In short, nothing was achieved. The Republicans lost every single time on every single issue, and it was fairly predictable. Nothing was accomplished. So what's the way forward for the Republicans? I don't know. But I do know this:

Southern California fired their coach this year because they went 7-6 last year and were 3-2 this year. When football teams have a really bad few seasons, they fire the coach. That's not to say it's totally the coach's fault that the team is doing badly. It wasn't Lane Kiffin who threw three interceptions, but you can't fire the whole team when they're playing poorly. Accordingly, you make a change of leadership and start fresh with someone else running the team. That's all you can do. That's what Southern Cal did. And although they'll continue to struggle this season, they're taking steps to address the problems they have.

The former coach of Southern California's football team.

That's what needs to happen with the Republicans in the United States House of Representatives. It isn't necessarily John Boehner's fault that this strategy didn't work, but you can't get rid of the entire GOP House. They're going to be there. However, the Speaker is like the coach. He needs to be fired or resign. I don't have any idea who should lead the GOP in the House (and I don't really care) but I know that the current leadership isn't getting the job done on any level. The players don't trust the coach.

I would like to see Boehner, Cantor, and the rest of the House leadership simply resign their posts.

The current GOP leadership that needs to be fired.

Going forward may be tough, but a different strategy and different leadership needs to be put in place. Maybe the House GOP is too conservative for Boehner, but maybe that's the problem. When you have players on a team who aren't "buying in" to what the Coach is trying to do, you're not going to have a good team, and you're not going to win games. Right now, a large part of the team isn't buying in to the leadership. And the problem is, you can't fire the team. You have to change leadership.

This is one of those good for the party, good for the country type deals. Getting rid of the current House GOP leadership will also have the benefit of clearing the board of all the old animus that has built up between Boehner and all the Democratic leadership.

California Liberals Get Hit With a Clue Bat

This has to be my favorite story so far about the ACA rollout. It's priceless. If you don't want to go read the whole thing, I'll give you the highlights. However, you should go read the whole thing.

Cindy Vinson and Tom Waschura are big believers in the Affordable Care Act. They vote independent and are proud to say they helped elect and re-elect President Barack Obama.

They're just two Californians living the liberal dream. They're really excited about Obamacare being active, because they buy their health insurance on the private market. Accordingly, they were interested to see how that might affect their existing policies. It's all sunshine and puppy dogs, right?

Vinson, of San Jose, will pay $1,800 more a year for an individual policy, while Waschura, of Portola Valley, will cough up almost $10,000 more for insurance for his family of four.

Whoa! I'm pretty sure that Vinson and Waschura thought that someone else would be paying for all this great coverage. You know, the rich!

"I was laughing at Boehner -- until the mail came today," Waschura said, referring to House Speaker John Boehner, who is leading the Republican charge to defund Obamacare. "I really don't like the Republican tactics, but at least now I can understand why they are so pissed about this. When you take $10,000 out of my family's pocket each year, that's otherwise disposable income or retirement savings that will not be going into our local economy."

Hey, now! Look who's starting to talk like a Republican, talking about his family's money and the local economy. That's just crazy, winger-talk. To quote John McClane: Welcome to the party, pal.

Now, as good as that quote is, here's the best one. Seriously, hold on to your butt. Ready? Ok. Here's where he gets hit with the Clue Bat:

"Of course, I want people to have health care," Vinson said. "I just didn't realize I would be the one who was going to pay for it personally."

I love it. Love it. He wants people to have free stuff. He just doesn't want to be the one who pays for it. This probably sums up every liberal program ever thought up. I love the thought of this liberal Californian finally having the reality of math hit him in the head. When you give free stuff to one person, you don't just magic it up out of thin air - someone has to pay for it.

You can almost use this quote like a template and put anything in. "Of course, I want people to have _________," Vinson said. "I just didn't realize I would be the one who was going to pay for it personally." See? Works for whatever you want.

Welcome to the real word, y'all. I wonder if they can relate to some folks who think they are Taxed Enough Already. Maybe? It always cracks me up that liberals like these folks think that they are the smartest people ever, but can't figure out that 2 + 2 = 4. I would like to conclude this post with a direct letter to these two Californian liberals.

Dear Waschura and Vinson: 

Remember how funny it was when Pelosi said they had to pass the bill (in the middle of the night on Christmas eve with only Democrat Votes and parliamentary tricks and payoffs) so you could find out what was in it? Remember how you screamed that anyone opposed was a racist teabagger? Remember how you giggled every time you said teabagger? Remember how happy you were when it was signed by the President? Remember how many times you've said "It's the law!" Remember all that? 

I do. 

Not so funny now, is it?

Sincerely,
Permanent Press

Mark Sanford: Straight From the Bottle

Mark Sanford has won the election for the South Carolina's First Congressional district, and is heading to the United States House of Representatives. I can sum up my thoughts with both a .gif and with words. First, my reaction to Mark Sanford being elected last night can best be summed up by Julia Ormond:

Yeah, straight from the bottle. No need to waste any taxpayer money on a glass, baby. Just open 'er up, and take a swig. The fact that the Charleston area sent Mark Sanford to the United States House of Representatives illustrates several things.

As an initial matter, Sanford should not have been the candidate. He won by a comfortable margin, but in the last few days before the election this race was starting to look like the GOP's failure to make an easy layup. This district is Red, Red, Red. The GOP could have run a Labrador Puppy, and as long as it had an "R" by it's name, the puppy would have been the favorite.

Second, and as a corollary, it shows that the people of this district would rather send and admitted adulterer to Congress than a Democrat. Think about that for a second. The people of South Carolina, who are always portrayed as socially conservative and "puritanical" basically took a look at a deeply flawed man who went AWOL on the job to have an affair...and they decided to go with him rather than with a Democratic candidate. Basically, Ms. Colbert-Busch's political views were more distasteful than Sanford's personal flaws.

In winning you learn no lessons. In losing, you learn. The GOP won, so they think everything is fine. But what conclusions should the Democratic party draw from this election?

There's an old rule that William F. Buckley put forward back in the day: Support the most conservative candidate who is electable. The Democrats would do well to heed this rule. Not every state is the same. Not every district in a single state is the same. If the Democrats really wanted to win this seat, they should have found the most liberal candidate who was electable. As the results show, Ms. Colbert-Busch was not electable. Her accepting large donations from labor unions was a self-inflicted wound that cost her lots of votes in a district that just obtained a new Boeing plant despite the efforts of unions.

She tried to put a conservative spin on every liberal position. She said she was proud to live in a right-to-work state, but she took money from labor unions, while Boeing donated to Sanford. You can talk all you want, but the money talks. At the end of the day, people knew that Colbert-Busch was hiding her true liberal views, and Sanford was just being himself. The voters chose to go with the unfaithful, lying guy who was honest about his political views, rather than go with someone who they distrusted on the issues.

Overall, the race doesn't have broad implications. South Carolina is a deeply conservative state. Yeah, we already knew that, thanks. Folks from SC have a history of sending flawed people to Congress.

I personally think that Sanford is too flaky for the job. Going AWOL while Governor is unacceptable and (in my opinion) unforgivable. The only silver lining is that he isn't seeking executive office. He won't be "in charge" of anything. I wouldn't put him in charge of organizing a bake sale.

People will certainly make fun of South Carolina being a "punchline" for sending such a scandal-ridden person back to public office. But don't think for a second that South Carolina is different that other places. Illinois sent Jesse Jackson, Jr. to Congress while he was being treated for bi-polar disorder and plagued with scandals. New York sent Charles Rangel back to Congress even after he was basically exposed as a long-time tax cheat and formally censured. Heck, Massachusetts kept sending Ted Kennedy back to the Senate, and he killed a girl. To date, I am not aware of anyone that Sanford has killed.

So before all y'all in other parts of the country get on your high horse to judge South Carolina, look in the mirror. He won't be the most scandalous guy to make it to Congress. (I know, that isn't exactly a ringing endorsement.)

How Republicans Can Be Cool

Is this possible? The drinking age is an interesting idea. I think that returning drug policy to the state level would be a better idea.

Debt Ceiling Being Raised - GOP Surrender

Sorry I haven't had a post in awhile. I was busy lawyerin'.

Hey! Remember when the GOP was going to fight Obama on the debt ceiling and try to get cuts equivalent to any raise in the borrowing level? Good times.

Looks like the GOP has decided to waive the white flag and raise the debt ceiling in exchange for nothing. The second part of the bill (withholding pay for Congress if no budget is passed) is just a gimmick.

Does anyone really think Congress is going to withhold their own pay? Yeah, me either.

Surrender. Get used to it, GOP.

Your Taxes Are Going Up in 2013

The GOP controlled House didn't have enough votes to put through the Plan B, that would keep the current tax rates in place for everyone up to $1M in annual income. Accordingly, the vote has been cancelled.

The GOP is definitely the party of dumb. I know enough to know that having the tax rates go up those who earn $1M and more is a better deal than having them go up on everyone. Apparently, the TRUE conservatives just decided that principle is more important. They're wrong. You retreat and take what you can get when you don't have the strength to win a battle. Failing to recognize this is what led to Pickett's Charge. Enjoy your "principle" now boys, you're about to get slaughtered.

If the House had passed "Plan B", the onus would have been on the Senate and Executive to fall into line. However, having DONE NOTHING, the Republicans play right into Obama's hands here. 

Merry Christmas you "True Conservatives". Thanks for being the party of stupid, once again. So, bottom line: Everyone's taxes are going up in 2013. Happy New Year.

Fiscal Cliff Negotiations

Ok, fine. I'm giving up on the the "no politics" rule. President Obama finally came out with his offer to solve the fiscal cliff "problem" that Congress created. It's not really a problem, because that's what everyone agreed would happen. Both houses of Congress and the president all agreed on this horrible event. Let's not forget that. In any event, here's Obama's opening bid:

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner presented the House speaker, John A. Boehner, a detailed proposal on Thursday to avert the year-end fiscal crisis with $1.6 trillion in tax increases over 10 years, $50 billion in immediate stimulus spending, home mortgage refinancing and a permanent end to Congressional control over statutory borrowing limits.

Ok. Taxes go up, we spend more, and Congress can't control how much we borrow anymore. Wait, what? I get that Obama wants to start with taxes, but he wants to now have more stimulus spending, and Congress won't be allowed to control the debt ceiling anymore. Is this plan supposed to reduce the deficit? I don't really get this at all, except that I'm pretty sure the Republicans are going to cave on this eventually. Here is what I expect to happen:

We'll have moderately long negotiations, lots of bluster, and right before the cliff hits, the Republicans agree to tax increases on high earners, more spending, and some theoretical cuts to be named later...maybe. The GOP will say "This was the best deal we could get". The economy will continue to suck, and the GOP will get blamed for not having even higher tax cuts and more stimulus spending.

Here is what I would do if I were in charge of the Republicans. I like to call it the "Joshua" strategy. (You'll see why a the end.) I know the economy is going to suck as long as we keep spending and taxing. I know the media and the Democrats (but I repeat myself) are going to blame me for it. Either way, if I agree to a deal or not, the economy is going to stay in this horrible shape or get worse. The only question is how do I not be held responsible for the cratering value of the dollar, the higher taxes, inflation, and high unemployment.

Let it Burn.

I tell Obama in a public press conference that I am against raising taxes on anyone, and I am against spending more Federal spending. However, I tell him that I am going to give him everything he wants without asking anything in return. He wants taxes? However much he wants on whatever income levels...fine. He wants more Federal spending? Sure. Spend as much as you like. Heck, even have a budget. Or not. Either way, he can simply write down what he wants to do, I'm going to say "Sure, pal. You can do whatever you want, but I'm telling you now that it's not going to work. Don't come crying to me later."

All the GOP members vote "Present", and the bill can pass through the house and senate with universal Democrat support. Obama signs it and everything will be peachy. Or it will burn, and then we get back to basics.

Watch the video below. If you don't know this movie, stop reading my blog, go watch the movie and come back. I'll wait.

Strange game, this "politics". The only winning move is not to play.

Last Debate Before the Iowa Caucuses (Analysis)

So, the millionth GOP debate was last night. I haven't been watching them, but I decided to watch this one. My thoughts:

1. Huntsman pledged not to sign any pledges. Think about that for a second...Also he seemed kind of snarky/arrogant all night long. He also kept saying that he wouldn't "pander" either.
2. Ron Paul laid out his position that we shouldn't be concerned about Iran and nuclear weapons. You know the movies where aliens land and one guy goes out to "reason" with them and gets promptly blasted with an alien ray-gun? Yeah, that's Ron Paul.
3. Bachmann wears too much makeup (poorly) for me to take her seriously. She also has zero accomplishments.
4. Santourm Every time he talks, I fall asleep. Oh, and the last time he ran for anything, he lost his home state of PA by double-digits. Doesn't sound too "electable" to me...
5. Perry. He lost me when he said he wanted to be the "Tim Tebow" of this campaign. He just never really seems serious, and his idea that Congress should work less is silly.
6. Gingrich talked about Jackson abolishing some Federal Courts in 1802 and said that's what he wants to do to the 9th Federal Circuit. Interesting history lesson, bro...The Courts may have some decisions that you disagree with at times, but they're really the least of our problems at this point.
7. Romney. There's a saying in law school: For certain multiple choice questions, all of the answers seem kind of right and kind of wrong so you "Try to pick the answer that sucks the least". That's what Romney is for me. He's the guy that sucks the least so far.

Donald Trump Says the GOP is folding their hand.

Rounders.



Listen, here's the thing. If you can't spot the sucker in the first half hour at the table, then you ARE the sucker.