The Parties of No, Don’t Know, and Do Nothing

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., July 26, 2011– As we’re about to bump our heads on the debt ceiling, it’s important to understand why this phenomenon is occurring.  It has nothing to do with finance or the economy.  It’s actually driven by marketing … political style!

The debt ceiling debate has forced a third party to emerge in American politics.  We have the “The Party of No” (a.k.a. the Republicans), “The Party of Don’t Know” (a.k.a. the Democrats), and “The Party of Do Nothing” (a.k.a. the Executive Branch of our government).  At the moment, The Party of Do Nothing is leading the pack and providing life-support for The Party of Don’t Know.

We no longer have effective leadership in Washington, D.C.  That lost art has given way to image consultants, speech writers, public opinion polls and political strategists.

In that world, The Party of No is lagging far behind.  Its marketing prowess is relatively archaic.  In my book, The Right is Wrong, I repeatedly reference examples of the Republican Party’s political ineptitude in its own National Platform.  This is yet one more illustration of the problem.

The Republican Party is ruled by fear.  In the case of the debt ceiling debate, the Party is being held hostage by the echo of “No new taxes.”  You’d think that they would have learned their lesson, but apparently the Party’s leadership is slow.

In the past, the Republican Party has supported raising the debt ceiling on many an occasion.   However, its fear of a TEA Party reprisal has paralyzed its ability to think.  Thus, it has chosen to defend its reputation as The Party of No.

Of course, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D – TX) thinks there may be another reason.  She wasted time on the floor of the House the other day with a not-so-veiled query as to why the evil Republicans might be resistant to raising the debt ceiling at this time.  This is why she’s the epitome of The Party of Don’t Know; she doesn’t seem to have a clue as to why the Republicans are resistant.  She just chooses to continue her tiresome reprise of Haley Joel Osment’s role in The Sixth Sense.  To wit:  “I see racists.”

The Party of Don’t Know has been living a charmed life.  It’s every bit as truculent as The Party of No, but it has always escaped the blame.  That’s because, rather than be ruled by fear, the Democratic Party has learned to rule by fear.

As I said in my book, The Left isn’t Right, orchestrating group-directed fear is central to the “oppressed minority” strategy that the Democratic Party deploys in its National Platform.  To the sick, they say, “Republicans want to kill you.”  To the elderly, “Republicans want you die.”  To the poor, “Republicans want to drive you deeper into debt so their rich friends can fly around in private jets.”  This is fear-mongering at its finest!

Unfortunately, The Party of Don’t Know never has a solution.  It knows that Medicare/Medicaid is going bankrupt; it knows that Social Security is going bankrupt; it knows that the country is going bankrupt; but it never has a plan to remedy these situations beyond the Pollyannish retort of “tax the rich … they don’t pay their fair share!”

Then, there’s the perpetual drone of Minority Leader Pelosi starting her weekly press conference with the phrase “XXX days since the Republicans have taken over control of the House of Representatives … and still no jobs bill.”  Just add 365+ days to that total and you have the number of days since the Democrats have submitted a budget that could have addressed the debt ceiling issue.

Of course, Senate Majority Leader Reid is on record as saying, “There’s no need to have a Democratic budget, in my opinion.”  Perhaps it’s because The Party of Don’t Know doesn’t know how to create a feasible one.  Could that have contributed in some small way to our current debt crisis?

Correspondingly, many Democrats (including their leadership) have been as resolute in opposing any consideration of modifying entitlement programs as the Republicans have been in opposing any new taxes.  Yet, they have avoided the stigma of being considered as unreasonably obstinate.  That’s because they’ve received great ground cover from the President.

President Obama has been exceptional at providing sound bites that obscure the real issues and shift the blame away from his Party.  Does he know that Medicare/Medicaid is going bankrupt; that Social Security is going bankrupt; and that the country is going bankrupt as well?  Sure!  Has he known these things for a long time?  Absolutely!  Has he done anything about them in a timely manner since taking office?  Yes!  He’s blamed President Bush.

Aside from that, The Party of Do Nothing has … well … done nothing.  At some point, the President needs to take responsibility for what is accomplished during his term.  Can you imagine an America in which we demanded that the torch be passed on the first day in office?

Does it really matter who created the problem?  Perhaps if this Administration spent as much time fixing the problems as it does fixing the blame, we wouldn’t always be managing a “crisis” (read “Fix the Problem … Not the Blame” in The National Platform of Common Sense).  Besides, if one actually pays attention to Articles I and II of the Constitution, most of the credit and blame should be directed at Congress.  It’s just more difficult to point a finger at a group than it is to point it at an individual … particularly when you may have been a member of the group and your Party may have been in control of the group in the years leading up to your election.

However, the President is beginning to move away from singularly blaming President Bush and tackling the challenge of pinning the blame on Republicans in general.  He tries to appear to be “above the fray” by briefly stating that members of his Party are resistant to considering any modification of entitlements, but then he brings the hammer down long and hard on the Republicans for their stubborn resistance to taxing “millionaires and billionaires” to reduce the debt.

Of course, a little math tells us that if we applied a 100 percent tax to the incomes of the upper one percent of American tax payers and confiscated all of their assets, we’d essentially only buy a year’s worth of relief.  That’s barely enough time for the President to get re-elected!

The reality is that we have been aware of the impending breach of the debt ceiling for quite some time.  Was it addressed in the President’s State of the Union Address?  No.  Was it effectively addressed in the budget he submitted to Congress?  No.

As a brief aside, the President’s budget was able to deliver on his campaign promise of working hard to establish bipartisan accord.  It was defeated by a vote of 97 – 0 in the Senate.  Finally, something upon which everyone agreed!  But then, I digress.

Deftly applying the core strategy of The Party of Do Nothing, the President chose not to join the debate until the eleventh hour.  As former Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel once said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”  As a corollary, it’s apparently even better if you can help foster the crisis.

By executing the strategy of The Party of Do Nothing, the President has been able to position himself as “the adult in the room.”  He’s the only one who is willing to make concessions to save the day for the American people.

This approach accomplishes several things.  First, it makes the President look presidential … as if he’s really leading.  Second, it allows him to manifest a condescending attitude toward The Party of No.  Third, it allows him to posture himself as the mature individual who will gently scold his own incalcitrant Party and teach them to “know better.”  Fourth, since he’s offered no definitive solution of his own, it allows him to claim victory no matter what agreement is reached.  Basically, he gets to assert that whatever deal gets brokered was his idea … unless it ultimately goes south.  Then, it will be someone else’s mistake.

The President is right about one thing.  The deal will get done by August 2^nd.  We will avert an economic disaster.  Oh, not the one you’re thinking about.  I’m talking about a real economic disaster!

President Obama is celebrating his 50^th birthday on August 4^th.  There’s still time to get him a present!  In the alternative, you could just attend one of the two birthday events that are being held in his honor in Chicago.

On August 3^rd, the President will board Air Force One, which costs about $181 thousand an hour to operate, to fly to Chicago to celebrate his birthday.  Now, you might ask, “Why not save some money and “go Green” by staying in Washington, D.C. to celebrate it with his family?”  It’s because there are two major fund-raising events being held in Chicago in honor of the President.

The first event is a dinner with the President.  If middle-class Americans can scrape together a few dollars, they can attend.  The price range is between $10,000 and $38,500 per ticket.  Management has asked that you please park your private jets in the back of the building.

If the price is still a bit steep for the bourgeois, it’s your lucky day!  The second event that evening is a concert.  Ticket prices top out at only $10,000 to make it affordable to all Americans.

I don’t know about you, but I’m going to have to drill a few more oil wells to rub elbows with the common man who will be attending those events.

The good news is that the debt ceiling crisis needs to be resolve no later than August 2^nd. 

So, there you have it.  It’s not about the economy, creating jobs or protecting the middle-class.  It’s about real money; the type of money that’s used to buy power. So, they can all hold their press conferences to blame the other side for the debacle of debt, but we know what’s really in play because we have common sense.

*****

T.J. O’Hara is a political satirist, media personality and author of three best selling books:  The Left isn’t Right, The Right is Wrong, and The National Platform of Common Sense.  To Order Books, go to: http://tinyurl.com/2a9rztg

T.J. will be the Guest Host of The Rick Amato Show on Thursday, July 26th and 27th on 1170 AM, , San Diego, from 7:00-8:00 PM (PDT).  Listen live via the Internet at www.KCBQ.com and watch at http://AmatoTalk.com.

Website:                      www.TheCommonSenseCzar.net

Facebook Fan Page:  http://tinyurl.com/2dlwum7

Tweet the Czar:          @TCSCzar

Read more of T.J.’s work at The Common Sense Czar in The Communities at The Washington Times.

***** 

Copyright © 2011 T.J. O’Hara. To support viral distribution, this article may be copied, reprinted, forwarded, linked, or published in any form as long as proper attribution is given to the author and no changes are made.

Debt Ceiling Talks: Truth or Dare - or Liar’s Poker?

SAN DIEGO, Ca., July 14, 2011 – Hey!  We’re only talking about $14.5 trillion.  Let’s make a game of it.  Should we play Truth or Dare or Liar’s Poker?  That seems to be the attitude of our Nation’s political leadership.

Who's willing to bet the entire U.S. economy that they have the best hand?  Unfortunately for us, it seems like the answer is:  all of them!  The game goes like this.

The Republicans open by betting that people will understand that Congress is spending more money than it receives, so it must reduce its spending.  That seems to be a simple enough concept.

Then, the Democrats “see” that bet by claiming that Congress just needs to receive more money (i.e., euphemistically, generate more revenue; non-euphemistically, raise taxes).  That seems simple enough as well.  It’s like having someone cover your losses.

The Republicans “see” that bet by claiming that the influx of money would just serve to enable the bad behavior (a little like asking your Sponsor to buy you a drink after an AA meeting).

Then, they “raise” the bet by demanding cuts to sacred entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare.

The Democrats “see” that bet by claiming that the proposed Republican cuts will hurt the poor, the sick, and the elderly.  In horse racing, that would be referred to as a trifecta!

Then, the Democrats “raise” the bet by claiming that the Republicans are only opposed to considering revenue opportunities (i.e., raising taxes) because they have an affinity for private jets and rich oil companies.

Who doesn’t hate the people in those categories?

And with that, the Democrats go “all in;” a strategy bolstered by a recent Congressional seat win in New York in which the same argument carried the day.

Much to the shock of some onlookers, the Republicans “call” that bet.  It seems that they are relying on the fact that they control the House at this point (that’s House of Representatives rather than “the house” in Las Vegas terms).

Now, it’s really getting interesting!

Meanwhile, President Obama has been playing by himself.  Somehow, he managed to “pass” while the early bets were being placed.  No one really understands how he consistently has avoided the rules by which everyone else has to play, but he’s been getting away with this for some time now.

Basically, he’s been “seeing” every bet but not meaningfully influencing the game with a “raise” of his own.  If this were a game of pool, he’d be playing a “safety” … just trying to leave his opponents without a shot in hope that they scratch.

The President has tried to publicly position himself as a centrist (much as President Clinton did to survive a disastrous mid-term election and to secure his own re-election).  Of course, behind closed doors, the wolf may be doffing his sheep’s clothing.  We probably will never know.

What we do know is that the President didn’t venture into the game until the very last moment.  Perhaps he believes there is merit in waiting until the storm clouds have gathered; the presidential equivalent of making sure that no one can see his shadow when he comes out … lest we be cast into another six weeks of an economic mire.

When President Obama did choose to engage, he provided “Change We Can Believe In” … or at least, the change to which we have become accustomed.

In his most recent Press Conference, the President stated, “The good news is that all the leaders continue to believe, rightly, that it is not acceptable for us not to raise the debt ceiling and to allow the U.S. government to default.  We cannot threaten the United States’ full faith and credit for the first time in our history.” 

Don’t bother trying to reconcile that with his statement as a Senator in March of 2006 when he said, “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.  It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills.  It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.  Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally.  Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’  Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren.  America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”  Some things are better left alone.  Besides, he had to be right one of the times!

In his Press Conference, President Obama went on to say, “I’ve been hearing from my Republican friends for quite some time that it is a moral imperative for us to tackle our debt and our deficits in a serious way.  I’ve been hearing from them that this is one of the things that’s creating uncertainty and holding back investment on the part of the business community.  And so what I’ve said to them is, let’s go.”

This sounds good.  However, you just have to ask:  why has it taken “quite some time” to say “let’s go?”

Of course, the President has taken a risk in suggesting that cutting spending may be the answer.  It’s not a position that his base wants to support.  So, it has been politically critical for him to slip some “revenue” increases into the mix to shore up any vulnerability he has within his party.

He did a nice job of accomplishing this in a nebulous manner by saying, “… it is possible for us to construct a package that would be balanced, would share sacrifice, would involve both parties taking on their sacred cows, would involved some meaningful changes to Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid that would preserve the integrity of the programs and keep our sacred trust with our seniors, but make sure those programs were there for not just this generation but for the next generation; that it is possible for us to bring in revenues in a way that does not impede our current recovery, but is fair and balanced.”

The problem is that both Parties were already “all in” at this point.

House Minority Leader Pelosi had already conducted her own Press Conference in which she stated, “… we do not support cuts in benefits to Social Security or Medicare.” 

Speaker Boehner subsequently said, “… my message to the White House over the last several months has been real simple:  the spending cuts have to be larger than the increase in the debt limit.”

Senate Minority Leader threw fuel on the fire by saying that, “After years of discussions and months of negotiations, I have little question that as long as this President is in the Oval Office, a real solution is probably unattainable.”

Only Senate Majority Leader Reid has been reasonably quiet on this matter.  Considering that he barely won re-election against a relatively unqualified opponent, looking for cover might be his best tactic at this point.

Since then, Speaker Boehner has suggested a less-aggressive, interim solution to protect against a default.  Let’s be honest; he also suggested it to maneuver his party away from the corner into which the President was trying to paint them.

However, President Obama proclaimed, “I will not sign a 30-day or a 60-day or a 90-day extension.  That is just not an acceptable approach.”

He later reiterated his position saying, “This the United States of America and, you know, we don't manage our affairs in three-month increments. You know, we don't risk U.S. default on our obligations because we can't put politics aside."

Yet, Secretary Geithner has told us that, “… default is not an option, failure is not an option.”  So, how can the President rule out an interim solution that would buy more time?

The answer seems to lie with this particular presidential comment:  “And if we think it’s going to be hard — if we think it’s hard now, imagine how these guys are going to be thinking six months from now in the middle of election season where they’re all up.  It’s not going to get easier.  It’s going to get harder.”  It’s apparently all about politics. 

Luckily, the President has provided some clear leadership.  “So we might as well do it now — pull off the Band-Aid; eat our peas.”  Are you laughing yet?  It’s almost as funny as, “Shovel-ready was not as … uh … shovel-ready as we expected.”

You know that the stakes are high when the President begins to resort to threats.  “I cannot guarantee that those (Social Security) checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it … this is not just a matter of Social Security checks. These are veterans’ checks, these are folks on disability and their checks. There are about 70 million checks that go out." At least, that’s what the President said in an interview with CBS Evening News.

So, what’s the truth?

By definition, a default would mean that the United States would not be able to pay the principal or interest on its debt obligations.  Our country receives about $200 billion in funding each month.  The interest its debt is roughly $20 billion.  Do the math.

We could also meet our current obligations with respect to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and veterans and active military as well.

What would collapse?  Other government spending!

They’d have to “tough it out.”  No more Congressional picnics on the White House lawn (June 15th).   Congress and the White House might have to cut their staffs (just like Cisco Systems has announced it will do).  They might even have to eliminate some useless programs, consolidate agencies, and liquidated government-owned buildings … just like the President said he was going to do in his State of the Union Address and speech to the United States Chamber of Commerce at the beginning of this year.

If you need some additional perspective, during the Q&A session of the President’s Press Conference, Chip Reid (CBS News) noted, “The latest CBS News poll showed that only 24 percent of Americans said you should raise the debt limit to avoid an economic catastrophe.  There are still 69 percent who oppose raising the debt limit.  So isn’t the problem that you and others have failed to convince the American people that we have a crisis here, and how are you going to change that?”

To which the President responded:  “Well, let me distinguish between professional politicians and the public at large.  The public is not paying close attention to the ins and outs of how a Treasury option goes.  They shouldn’t.  They’re worrying about their family; they’re worrying about their jobs; they’re worrying about their neighborhood.  They’ve got a lot of other things on their plate.  We’re paid to worry about it … the professional politicians know better.” 

Do you feel better now … knowing that “professional politicians” are in charge?  It’s amazing that you can pay your mortgage, feed and clothe your family, and balance a check book without their help.

Thankfully, the President indirectly suggested one more way to solve the problem.  He said, “… if you don’t do the revenues, then to get the same amount of savings you’ve got to have more cuts, which means that it’s seniors, or it’s poor kids, or it’s medical researchers, or it’s our infrastructure that suffers.  And I do not want, and I will not accept, a deal in which I am asked to do nothing, in fact, I’m able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don’t need, while a parent out there who is struggling to figure out how to send their kid to college suddenly finds that they’ve got a couple thousand dollars less in grants or student loans.”

It seems we have a lot of “professional politicians” who fly around in private jets, drink expensive bottles of wine, and “keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income (they) don’t need.”

Perfect!  To all of you “professional politicians” out there, I say:  redistribute your wealth.  Give your excess money to the government to pay down the national debt.  Give it to charity to help the poor.  Donate it to medical research to reduce the cost of health care.  Invest in start-up businesses to create jobs.  I could go on, but you must have more ideas than me.  After all, you’re “professional politicians” … and I just have common sense.

What is wrong with this picture?  It’s not like we didn’t know that our debt was approaching its legal limit.  Yet, our “professional politicians” have waited until the proverbial eleventh hour to address the issue.  Tempers are running high … and we’re running out of time.

If there’s a silver lining in this dark cloud, it could be that this is the type of insolent behavior we might need to take November 6, 2012 more seriously than we normally do.  Perhaps this time around, people will spend more time considering for whom they cast their votes rather than randomly choosing candidates because of a “D” or an “R” after their names.  Personally, I think The Left isn’t Right and The Right is Wrong should be required reading between now and then.

*****

T.J. O’Hara is a political satirist, media personality and author of three best selling books:  The Left isn’t Right, The Right is Wrong, and The National Platform of Common Sense.  To Order Books, go to: http://tinyurl.com/2a9rztg

T.J. will be the Guest Host of The Rick Amato Show on Friday, July 22nd on 1170 AM, KCBQ, San Diego, from 7:00-8:00 PM (PDT) and KTIE 590 AM 8:00-9:00 PM (PDT).  Listen and watch live via the Internet at http://AmatoTalk.com.

Website:                   www.TheCommonSenseCzar.net

Facebook Fan Page:  http://tinyurl.com/2dlwum7

Tweet the Czar:         @TCSCzar

Read more of T.J.’s work at The Common Sense Czar in the Communities at the Washington Times.

*****

Copyright © 2011 T.J. O’Hara. To support viral distribution, this article may be copied, reprinted, forwarded, linked, or published in any form as long as proper attribution is given to the author and no changes are made.

Opening Soon: The Casey Anthony Child Care Center

SAN DIEGO, Ca., July 11, 2011 – America has been getting a full dose of its obsession:  courtroom drama.  This is criminal justice voyeurism at its finest!

First, it was the Casey Anthony murder trial.  Then, the Roger Clemens perjury trial threw out its first pitch.  At the same time, we’re told that the Dominique Strauss-Kahn (a.k.a. “DSK”) trial may never even happen because there are apparently times when a rape is not a rape. 

We seem preoccupied with high-profile trials while our Nation is spiraling towards bankruptcy.  Perhaps it’s the allure of distraction that commands our attention.  Then again, it may just be the sensationalism that surrounds the alleged horrific crimes of average people, inconsequential crimes of celebrities, and salacious crimes of the powerful.

The media is quick to capitalize upon these opportunities.  After all, scandalous storylines command attention, which in turn drives advertising dollars.

“Experts” are brought in to tell us what’s going to happen and why.  Then, when their speculation fails to match the reality of the courtroom, they return to reshape their original theories to conform to the results.

Do juries always “get it right?”  No.  Does it matter?  No.  Why?  Because there is a presumption of innocence that mandates that it is better to allow a guilty party to go free than to wrongfully imprison an innocent person.  That is the premise upon which our criminal justice system is predicated.

Let’s look at the Casey Anthony trial as an example.  We have a dead child … thrown into a swamp … in a garbage bag.  Due to an investigative error, the body isn’t recovered in time to provide sufficient forensic evidence to establish a clear cause of death.  Apparently, the jury reached the conclusion that this, coupled with the lack of DNA or other direct evidence connecting Casey Anthony to the purported crime, created reasonable doubt as to her guilt.

The circumstantial evidence in the case is quite interesting.  Caylee Anthony goes missing and her mother parties for 31 days, gets a tattoo, and repeatedly lies to family members and law enforcement officers about her daughter’s whereabouts, which further impedes the ability to successfully investigate Caylee’s disappearance.  DNA evidence linked to Caylee (the single decomposing hair) is found in her mother’s abandoned car.  The disposal of the body appears to parallel a family ritual for burying pets.  An unusual type of duct tape that the Anthony family is known to possess mysteriously seems to have been used to cover the mouth and nose area of Caylee’s decomposed body.  Then, there are the Internet searches for neck-breaking techniques and how to make chloroform.

Of course, Casey’s mother readily explained the “how to make chloroform” search stating that she had made it while looking up chlorophyll … even though she seems to have been at work at the time.  Thank goodness she didn’t research “nuclear family.”  Who knows what weapon of mass destruction might have arisen as a result.

While circumstantial evidence used to be sufficient to lead to a conviction, in this case the jury apparently believed that Casey’s death could have been “an accident that snowballed out of control.”  The Defense proffered that Caylee accidentally drowned in her grandparent’s pool and that a decision was made by one or more family members to dispose of her body in an Orlando swamp.  We were somehow spared an alien abduction scenario or a theory that Caylee committed suicide, but it didn’t matter; the jury found there to be reasonable doubt that Caylee was murdered.

“Reasonable doubt” is an interesting phrase.  It is not the equivalent of “absolutely no possible doubt.”  It is meant to allow common sense to enter into the equation.

However, in today’s word of CSI Name-the-City-of-Your-Choice, perhaps we have become jaded.  It is possible that we now subliminally need to be absolutely sure.  How many times have we seen an innocent person released from prison after serving a long-term because exculpatory evidence has recently become available through DNA, etc.?

As lead Defense counsel Jose Baez stated after the case, “We need to stop killing our own people.”  Maybe that is the issue that the jury in the Casey Anthony murder trial was really adjudicating.

Of course, this ignores the fact that lesser charges associated with Caylee Anthony’s death were also available for consideration and summarily dismissed by the jury.  Instead, Casey Anthony was only found guilty of four counts of lying to law enforcement officers.

Interestingly enough, no one in the general media seems to have challenged the logic of that conclusion.  Specifically:  if Casey Anthony was lying to law enforcement officials about Caylee’s disappearance for months, why was she doing it?  If the death was accidental, why wait to disclose it?  Why make up stories, invent non-existent people, or blame family members; all with far less circumstantial evidence to support her claims.

Luckily, the Defense doesn’t have a burden of proof in our criminal justice system.  What we did observe is a dramatic application of the Fifth Amendment.

No one shall be “compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”  Casey Anthony wasn’t.

No one shall be “subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”  Casey Anthony won’t be.

No one shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”  Again, Casey Anthony wasn’t.  It’s just unfortunate that Caylee didn’t enjoy the benefit of this same protection.

In any event, the jury has spoken and Casey Anthony shall forever remain “not guilty.”  Of course, this is not to suggest that life will be easy for her.  Dating could become problematic and finding a job might be difficult.  Still, bottom-feeders are almost sure to surface with book deals and movie offers.

In the Casey Anthony case, the only issue that remained was whether Judge Belvin Perry would sentence her to additional prison time that would exceed the six days he gave to waiter from Friday’s who made an inappropriate hand gesture in court.  Judge Perry did impose a greater sentence upon Ms. Anthony, but time off for “good behavior” almost netted her the same amount of jail time.

Defense co-counsel, Cheney Mason, made the legal profession proud by demonstrating his propensity for communicating with reporters in a non-verbal display similar to the waiter’s.  To date, counsel has avoided a reprimand, but Friday’s is on record of having said it won’t hire him.

At least temporarily, Casey Anthony’s 15 minutes of fame will pass, and society will move on the next big case.

Will it be Roger Clemens’ perjury charge?  After all, it doesn’t get much more serious that lying about using steroids in baseball!

Or perhaps it will be DSK’s brush with the law.  That one has it all:  money, power and sex!

The only thing lacking in any of these cases is a Defendant with common sense.  Don’t hold your breadth waiting for that to happen.  In the interim, Casey Anthony will soon be  available for baby-sitting if you think the jury got it right.

*****

T.J. O’Hara is a political satirist, media personality and author of three best selling books:  The Left isn’t Right, The Right is Wrong, and The National Platform of Common Sense.  To Order Books, go to: http://tinyurl.com/2a9rztg

T.J. will be the Guest Host of The Rick Amato Show on Thursday, July 22nd on 1170 AM, KCBQ, San Diego, from 7:00-8:00 PM (PDT) and KTIE 590 AM 8:00-9:00 PM (PDT).  Listen and watch live via the Internet at http://AmatoTalk.com.

Website:                      www.TheCommonSenseCzar.net

Facebook Fan Page:  http://tinyurl.com/2dlwum7

Tweet the Czar:          @TCSCzar

Read more of T.J.’s work at The Common Sense Czar in the Communities at the Washington Times.

*****

Copyright © 2011 T.J. O’Hara. To support viral distribution, this article may be copied, reprinted, forwarded, linked, or published in any form as long as proper attribution is given to the author and no changes are made.

The Presidential Raffle

RANCHO SANTA FE, CA., June 29, 2011 –  Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse, our political leadership has found a way to lower the standards.  Do you remember when the Presidency used to be revered?  Think back … take your time … I’ll wait!  Okay, so it’s been awhile, but as the saying goes:  “you ain’t seen nothin’ yet!” 

Who wants to have dinner with the President of the United States?  That dream can be yours!  Have you received your personal invitation from the President yet?

I received mine via e-mail on June 15th.   Vice President Biden followed up with a message of his own on June 21st.  Then, the President’s campaign manager, Jim Messina, felt the need to send a subsequent e-mail … just in case I hadn’t read the other two.

The Vice President’s e-mail mentioned that the President and he have a routine.  They get together “almost every Friday,” but as Vice President Biden said, “… all I get is lunch.”

President Obama must have “gotten wind” of the Vice President’s comment because the President released a video that said, “We’re setting another place at the table for Joe Biden, who wants to join us.”  It’s gratifying that the President found a way to make the Vice President almost appear to be relevant!

Of course, the President went on to say, “… and to use one of his (Vice President Biden’s) favorite expressions, ‘That’s a big deal!’”  It’s an even bigger deal that the President had the good sense not to quote the Vice President directly.

During President Obama’s 2008 campaign, we were often reminded about how our Nation had been embarrassed on the world stage by the behavior of outgoing-President George W. Bush.  We were promised “Change.”  Who would have thought that the slogan applied to the cost of a chance to dine with the President?  And we’re talking “chump change” at that.

“Watch the President’s video, and then donate $5 or more to be automatically entered for the chance to have dinner with him.”  That’s what the general release said.  I feel particularly honored because the President, in his “personal” e-mail to me, offered me the same deal in return for a $3 donation.  I’ve always suspected that he might be fond of me.  There can no longer be any doubt!

Just in case you didn’t receive your invitation yet, here’s the text from the one that I received … plus, a “common sense” interpretation of what the President was really thinking.

“I've set aside time for four supporters like you to join me for dinner.”

TRANSLATION:  One of my campaign strategists told me we could raise hundreds of millions of dollars if I’d lower myself to this ploy.

“Most campaigns fill their dinner guest lists primarily with Washington lobbyists and special interests.”

TRANSLATION:  I already met with the “high rollers” at the White House before I even filed to run for a second term, and I will continue to do so on a regular basis until November 6, 2012.

“We didn't get here doing that, and we're not going to start now.  We're running a different kind of campaign.  We don't take money from Washington lobbyists or special-interest PACs -- we never have, and we never will.

TRANSLATION:  I got over 66 million votes in the last election.  Multiply that by $5 and you’ve got $330 million in cash.  That’s as much as Senator McCain had to spend in his entire campaign in 2008.  Keep in mind:  that doesn’t count all the rich celebrities, business leaders and union leaders who will be kicking in big money as well.  Now you know why we think we can easily raise $1 billion for my campaign!

“We rely on everyday Americans giving whatever they can afford -- and I want to spend time with a few of you.”

TRANSLATION:  We think we can raise a ton of cash on the backs of the middle-class!

“So if you make a donation today, you'll be automatically entered for a chance to be one of the four supporters to sit down with me for dinner.  Please donate $3 or more today: (link omitted)”

TRANSLATION:  I really wanted to say, “But wait, there’s more!” … but a few members of my team thought that might be too “over-the-top.”

“We'll pay for your flight and the dinner -- all you need to bring is your story and your ideas about how we can continue to make this a better country for all Americans.”

TRANSLATION:  We thought about having you pay your own way … and even charging you for dinner.  After all, it’s a privilege to have dinner with me.  Just ask Joe!

“This won't be a formal affair.  It's the kind of casual meal among friends that I don't get to have as often as I'd like anymore, so I hope you'll consider joining me.”

TRANSLATION:  This is a low budget deal.  You’ll be flying Economy class, and we’ll probably just be grilling burgers and hotdogs.  Think:  “Beer Summit.”  The less money we spend on you … the more money we can spend on my re-election campaign!

“But I'm not asking you to donate today just so you'll be entered for a chance to meet me.  I'm asking you to say you believe in the kind of politics that gives people like you a seat at the table -- whether it's the dinner table with me or the table where decisions are made about what kind of country we want to be.

TRANSLATION:  Who am I kidding?  Of course, I’m asking you to donate.  Do you seriously think that I would be doing this if there wasn’t a significant amount of money involved?  I just pray that the Republicans and Tea Baggers don’t “break the code” and register to win without donating any money.  That could really mess up the deal. 

“It starts with a gift of whatever you can afford.”

TRANSLATION: … As long as it’s at least $3 … or $5 dollars if I’m not particularly fond of you.

“Please make a donation of $3 or more today, and we'll throw your name in the hat for the upcoming dinner: (link omitted)”

TRANSLATION:   I’m actually going to have Joe throw little folded pieces of paper into a hat.  It’ll make him feel like he’s part of the event, and it’s hilarious to watch him do stuff like that!

I've said before that I want people like you to shape this campaign from the very beginning -- and this is a chance for four people to share their ideas directly with me.

TRANSLATION:  I didn’t mean it before … and I don’t mean it now.  It’s just campaign rhetoric … like closing Gitmo, being transparent, caring about bipartisan accord, lowering the debt, creating jobs, and so forth.  You’d have to be totally clueless not to realize that?

“Hope to see you soon,

“Barack”

Of course, this was followed by the normal fine print:

No purchase, payment, or contribution necessary to enter or win. Contributing will not improve chances of winning. Void where prohibited. Entries must be received by 11:59 p.m. on 6/30/11.  You may enter by contributing to Sponsor through (link omitted). Alternatively, visit (link omitted) to enter without contributing.  Four winners will each receive the following prize package: one round-trip ticket within the continental U.S. to a destination to be determined by the Sponsor in its sole discretion; hotel accommodations for one; and dinner with President Obama on a date to be determined by the Sponsor in its sole discretion (approximate combined retail value of all prizes $1,075).  Odds of winning depend on number of eligible entries received.  Promotion open only to U.S. citizens, or lawful permanent U.S. residents who are legal residents of 50 United States and District of Columbia and 18 or older (or of majority under applicable law).  Promotion subject to Official Rules and additional restrictions on eligibility.  Visit (link omitted) for full details, restrictions, and Official Rules. Sponsor: Obama for America, 130 E. Randolph St., Chicago, IL 60601.

Does the term “crass” come to mind?  Have we become so resigned to “politics as usual” that we’ll just accept this type of insult to our intelligence?  What ever happened to the “Change” we were promised?

Of course, President Obama isn’t the first President to lower himself for money.   President Bush castigated President Clinton for “renting” the Lincoln Bedroom, which President Clinton didn’t really do.  He merely made it available to a large number of major donors during the 1995-1996 campaign years, and they just happened to donate more than $5.4 million to his re-election campaign.

In one of those ironic twists that we have come to expect of politicians, the finger-pointer, President Bush, then used the White House as a backdrop for a few of his fundraising activities.

Theirs is one small problem with soliciting funds from the White House (or any government building):  it’s illegal under 18 U.S.C. 607(1)(a) unless you comply with an exception under 18 U.S.C. 607(1)(b).  President Obama’s video clearly was made within the White House.  However, the DNC argued that it was within the exception (a point with which I concur).

Interestingly enough, the DNC further argued that other President’s had done similar things.  That essentially suggests that we can just ignore the law because, as we all know, “two wrongs make a right.”  While this probably wasn’t the most compelling argument the DNC could have made, it looked “stellar” as compared to its remaining argument.

A spokesperson for the DNC stated that the initiative is not a fundraising solicitation. "This is not a fundraising solicitation in any way shape or form … (it’s just) a raffle.”  Well, that explains everything!

Since there must not be any pressing issues upon which the President needs to remain focused, he apparently can afford to set aside some time to shoot a videotaped message for “Dinner with Barack.”   It’s a good way to connect with the little people.

Speaking of which, the official site states the following:

“Contributions or gifts to Obama for America are not tax deductible.

“Obama for America can accept contributions from an individual of up to $2,500 per federal election (the primary and general are separate elections). By submitting your contribution, you agree that the first $2,500 of a contribution will be designated for the 2012 primary election, and any additional amount, up to $2,500 will be designated for the 2012 general election.”

TRANSLATION:   Here’s a workaround for those of you who have a spare $5,000 to kick into the pot because the “recovery” is working so well for you (wink, wink).  Now, please don’t enter 1,000 times at $5 a piece.  Let one of the little guys win.  Besides, if you put up $5,000, my staff will definitely tell me who you are and you can have dinner with me any time you want.

If we weren’t an international embarrassment before, we probably are now.  Then again, what if other world leaders begin to leverage the idea?  Muammar Qaddafi is supposedly running out of money while battling NATO bombings that the White House says don’t qualify as “hostilities.”  Perhaps he’ll just hold a raffle:  “Dinner with Maummar.”  We may never be able to get him to step down!

In the interim, I think I’ll take a chance and buy a $3 raffle ticket (my price) and give the other $2 to the first homeless person I see.  Can you imagine how delighted the President will be if I win?

Then, I’ll tell him my idea for reducing the National Debt:  raffle off dinners with each of the 435 Representatives and 100 Senators!  Let’s see:  there are about 250 million citizens who are old enough to vote.  So, 250 million people … times 535 Members of Congress … times $5 … is almost $670 billion.  Clearly, America needs The Common Sense Czar!

Seriously though, if you don’t see a problem with raffling off dinner with the President … by all means, take a $5 chance.  The “carney” barker you hear in the background might actually be the Press Secretary.  “Step right up, ladies and gentlemen.  See the three-headed snake and the half-man, half-bull minotaur!”  Then again, that last one might just be a politician.

*****

T.J. O’Hara is a political satirist, media personality and author of three best selling books:  The Left isn’t Right, The Right is Wrong, and The National Platform of Common Sense.  To Order Books, go to: http://tinyurl.com/2a9rztg

Website:                      www.TheCommonSenseCzar.net

Facebook Fan Page:  http://tinyurl.com/2dlwum7

Tweet the Czar:          @TCSCzar

Read more of T.J.’s work at The Common Sense Czar in The Communities of The Washington Times.

*****

Copyright © 2011 T.J. O’Hara. To support viral distribution, this article may be copied, reprinted, forwarded, linked, or published in any form as long as proper attribution is given to the author and no changes are made.