Daydreams of a Less Consequential Washington

Back in late summer of 2011, when Rick Perry was running for president, the (then) Texas governor’s message to voters was somewhat of a unique one:

“I’ll work every day to try to make Washington, DC as inconsequential in your life as I can.”

Small-government conservatives understood and shared his sentiment. The notion of centralized power being peeled away from the top-heavy federal government (an entity that most Americans don’t trust), and dropped down to local governments (and in some cases, the private sector), was an appealing one. The belief, of course, is that with fewer hurdles and restrictions standing in the way of individual freedom, the pursuits of happiness and the American Dream can be more easily achieved.

Liberals didn’t get it. Some believed Perry was vowing to abdicate presidential leadership, and undermine the responsibilities of elected representatives on Capitol Hill. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews even framed Perry’s words as a call for anarchy.

Writing for The Politico, Jeff Greenfield put forth the argument that Americans have never embraced the idea that the government should be inconsequential in their lives. He described how U.S. citizens have historically wanted and/or needed federal intervention, whether it be in regard to education, voting rights, the welfare state, etc.

Of course, Perry’s statement wasn’t that the federal government had no role to play in Americans’ lives. He just wanted to reduce that role, pushing the power closer to the people.  Greenfield was right in that much of the country expects government benefits and aid, and these people have only grown in numbers over the years. Perhaps the most glaring evidence we’ve seen of this was the 2016 election, where both of major-party presidential nominees campaigned against entitlement-reform, and for government-heavy healthcare.

Still, it would have been interesting to see how Perry’s theme would have played with the general electorate, had a series of gaffes and political misfires not sunken his primary hopes. He used the slogan again when he ran for president the second time, but with Candidate Trump soaking up all of the media’s attention (from a ridiculously bloated GOP field), and uncharitable memories from four years earlier, his candidacy didn’t get very far.

Perry likely won’t ever run again, but our current political climate is further illustrating the wisdom of his doctrine with each passing day.

Take the issue of healthcare, for example. We learned early in the Obama presidency that a political party with enough power in DC can go against the will of a strong majority of voters, and — in one fell swoop — completely screw up a significant portion of the U.S. economy.

Prior to the passage of Obamacare, national polls showed that roughly 20% of Americans were unhappy with their healthcare situations. Rather than focusing on the concerns of this relatively small percentage of individuals, the Democrats turned the nation’s entire insurance system on its head, selling (and signing into law) fatally-flawed legislation on a plethora of false premises and promises. The Affordable Care Act has left us with skyrocketing premiums and deductibles, fewer healthcare choices, and another insolvent entitlement.

The looming catastrophe, and promises of “repeal and replace,” led to Republicans picking up significant seats in DC. And now that the GOP finally holds the presidency, one would think that the party would be in a great position to start righting the healthcare ship.

Only, that’s not what’s happening.

Republican lawmakers, despite repeated efforts, can’t reach enough of an internal consensus to move forward on any kind of reform bill. And with a deeply distrusted (and increasingly unpopular) Republican president sitting in the Oval Office, anything with his name attached to it has become politically poisonous. In fact, President Trump’s election-win managed to do the unthinkable by pulling Obamacare’s approval rating above water (for the first time in its existence).

Additionally, the political demagoguery from the Democratic party has again reached levels of pure insanity, with U.S. senators (most notably Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders) publicly claiming that even modest changes to the current system will result in mass deaths. The rhetoric may be reckless and utterly dishonest, but it has also been effective.

I live in Colorado, where the effects of Obamacare have hit us particularly hard. The individual health-insurance market has been devastated. Major exchanges have collapsed. My family lost our affordable plan early on, and soon after, I lost my doctor. I have friends who are paying more for their monthly health insurance premiums than they are for their home mortgages. And I assure you, none of us are amused by the perpetual clown-show in Washington that creates and maintains these obstacles.

It all begs a few simple questions: Why do a handful of elected leaders, who don’t even represent our state, get to make such consequential healthcare decisions on our behalf? Why should a U.S. president’s popularity or unpopularity matter at all, when it comes to the healthcare coverage of a private citizen? Why on earth is Washington DC this consequential in our lives?

To find the answers, we unfortunately have to look at ourselves. We keep electing populist personalities who promise us the world, rather than individualist leaders who are humble enough to believe that communities should have a significant say in what’s best for them. The more problems we entrust high-ranking political salespeople to deal with, the less likely they are to be solved. And because too few of us understand that, we’ve put ourselves in a position where we have to endure the endless posturing and drama that plays out every day in DC, while hoping something constructive will eventually come from it.

Unfortunately, that’s rarely the case. But we’ll keep getting behind such leaders, and we’ll continue to be let down, because we’ve made Washington far too consequential in our lives. Sadly, at this point in our history, the alternative feels like little more than a daydream.




To Shill for Trump Is to Lose His Respect

newtBack in 2012, shortly after President Obama secured a second term in the White House, I wrote a column in which I posed the below question to Americans:

If our president can do so many things wrong in his first term, fail miserably to achieve every predicted outcome he put forth at the beginning of his presidency, show no interest in addressing the biggest threats to our nation, and still be rewarded with re-election, how can he possibly respect us?

It was a not-so-veiled reference to a famous quote often attributed to legendary comedian Groucho Marx: “I wouldn’t want to belong to any club that would have me as a member.”

The point, of course, is that if a group can bring itself to hold such a grossly unworthy individual in high regard, that group is not worthy of the individual’s respect. I suspected (and still believe) that President Obama felt this way about the country after he won re-election, and I think that both of the major parties’ 2016 presidential candidates probably feel the same way about their devout supporters.

For example, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have established themselves as perhaps the two most unmistakably dishonest presidential candidates ever to win their parties’ nominations. Yet, each has a band of loyal followers that are always ready and willing to excoriate the other side’s candidate for — you guessed it — lying.

How anyone with any sense of shame can participate in such a glaringly hypocritical effort is beyond me, but there is no shortage of such people. And while each of the candidates undoubtedly appreciates the benefits of those willing to disgrace themselves in the name of their campaign, neither could possibly find a way to respect them.

The only real difference I see between the presumptive nominees, in this sense, is that Trump routinely goes out of his way to publicly express that disrespect.

I’m not only talking about what little regard he has for his common faithful, who he claims (probably accurately) would vote for him even if he shot someone in the middle of a street. I’m also referring to the public figures out there who’ve spent an enormous amount of their political and professional capital to substantiate Trump as a serious, credible candidate.

One of those people is former Texas Governor, Rick Perry. As many will remember, Perry was the first GOP presidential candidate to leave the primary race last year. Not long before his exit, he delivered to his party a dire warning of the dangers of a Trump nomination. He called Trump a “barking carnival act” and a “cancer on conservatism.” In his departure speech, Perry said that “the conservative movement has always been about principles, not personalities,” and that the Republican nominee “should embody those principles” and “must make the case for the cause of conservatism more than the cause of their own celebrity.”

Those words were why so many conservatives were shocked eight months later, when Perry declared his enthusiastic support for Trump, and even began floating his own name as a possible VP pick. Perry then even went as far as to knock the #NeverTrump crowd, telling a cable news host, “Can you believe those renegades who refuse to support Trump?”

Perry had to know that his principled stance against Trump helped inspire many of the conservatives who later vowed not to support Trump in the primary and in the general election. So for him to hop aboard the Trump Train was a big political gain for Trump.

How did Trump reward Perry for his unlikely support? By publicly mocking him.

“This politics is a dirty business,” Trump told campaign rally attendees, after reminding them of the negative things Perry had said about him months earlier. “I have to tell you, I have never seen people able to pivot like politicians.”

Plainly put, to shill for Trump is to lose his respect.

One of the most incredible stories of the 2016 election cycle (which I’ve written about in several columns) has been rise of the “Alternative Right” (more commonly known as the “alt right”) in the conservative media. A number of right-wing commentators on cable news, talk radio, and Internet blogs, who had long demanded ideological purity within the Republican Party, suddenly decided in the summer of 2015 to shelve their exhaustively preached beliefs. Rather than backing the type of primary candidate they had been insisting upon for years, in order to save the party and the country, they decided instead to throw their support behind a fiscally liberal, pro-entitlement, socially and constitutionally disinterested candidate named Donald Trump.

In some cases, their motivation was increased ratings and other forms of revenue-related exposure; Trump, after all, has always been a big-ticket item. In other cases, cronyism was the culprit; the New York billionaire has a number of longtime friends and even business partners in the media.

The result was an exodus of ideology from a number of influential conservative-media mainstays. They willingly lent conservative credentials to Trump, when the candidate hadn’t earned them. They downplayed his abhorrent conduct (everything from the mocking of American POWs and disabled people to the advancing conspiracy theories on the Iraq War and the JFK assassination). They even served as attack dogs against Trump’s primary opponents, on occasion, and were among the first to call for the rest of the field to actually leave the race. Most notably, they sidelined (but only for Trump) their conservative principles — their professional and supposedly ideological lifeblood.

These people did Trump an enormous favor in his successful primary campaign. Needless to say, he owes them — big time.

That’s why I wasn’t particularly surprised when a Fox News host from the “alt right” — one who is arguably Trump’s most enthusiastic cheerleader in the conservative media — recently announced that Trump had written a blurb for the back of his new book.

Putting aside for a moment that there’s an obvious conflict of interest in a politician endorsing the product of a news-media figure who is actively covering his campaign, the move made sense. After all, when someone scraps their dignity to routinely shill for your presidential run, the least you can do is write a short blurb for their book, right?

Of comical note, however, was the blurb itself: the first sentence simply calling the book “huge” and the second (and last) saying it will help “Make America Great Again.”

As an author myself (one admittedly far less successful than those who benefit from regular national-television exposure), I would be grossly disappointed if someone I admired used the back of my book for a phoned-in advertisement for them self. I would have enough self-respect to not even let such a thing go to print.

As any author can tell you, it isn’t easy to write a book. It is a lengthy, often grueling process to pour your heart and soul into tens of thousands of words, and it’s one heck of an achievement for any writer to get their work published. If someone agrees to provide a blurb for the finished product, the very least you would expect of them is to leave the impression that they cared enough to have actually read some of what you’ve written. It’s just common respect.

Then again, to shill for Trump is to lose his respect.

Last week, when news reports began to surface announcing that Trump had narrowed his running-mate picks down to Chris Christie, Newt Gingrich and Mike Pence, I knew who he’d end up choosing.

I knew it wouldn’t be the governor from New Jersey who used the last, dying breath of his own presidential campaign to cut Marco Rubio off at the knees (at a time when Rubio was emerging as a potential threat to a Trump primary victory). I knew it wouldn’t be that man who later stood on stage behind Trump, allowing himself to be used as an expressionless wall-trophy for an individual who had, just weeks earlier, accused him of lying under oath about Bridgegate.

I also knew Trump wouldn’t choose the former Speaker of the House, who had spent months actively campaigning for the position by performing verbal acrobatics on national television to normalize Trump, and label the candidate’s principled opposition as “elites” and “establishment types.” I knew it wouldn’t be that guy who tossed out the panicked, last-minute idea of testing Muslims on their sharia law thoughts, in hopes of winning over Trump’s affection.

I knew that none of the politicians who’ve been buttering up Trump would get the nod, because to shill for Trump is to lose his respect. And respect is required in the pick of a Vice Presidential candidate.

No, Trump’s choice ended up being who I figured it would be — the guy who had yet to diminish himself for the presumptive nominee: Mike Pence.

Prior to being picked, Pence hadn’t really gone to bat much for Trump. He actually opposed Trump on a number of issues, and even endorsed Ted Cruz in the Indiana primary. In other words, Pence wasn’t a pro-Trump shill. The Indiana governor has largely preserved his dignity throughout this election cycle,

Get your signed, personalized copy of John Daly's thriller BLOOD TRADE

Get your signed, personalized copy of John Daly’s thriller BLOOD TRADE

I believe that, despite Trump’s well-established distaste for those who disagree with him, he has a hidden respect for such people (and those who stand on their principles). Being that he’s been surrounded for much of his life by suck-ups and schmoozers, this probably shouldn’t be all that much of a surprise. In fact, I would venture to guess that those Trump has specifically said he doesn’t respect, are among those he actually respects the most.

After watching Sunday’s cringe-worthy 60 Minutes interview with Trump and Pence (that reminded me of the awkward dynamic between Gob and Michael Bluth on Arrested Development), however, maybe Trump would have been better off choosing someone he truly doesn’t respect.

Fortunately for Trump, the position Pence has put himself in by agreeing to be the VP nominee is likely to soon change him into the very type of person Trump is used to dealing with…and also disrespecting.




Two Successful Governors Gone; Take That, GOP Congress!

governorsMonday afternoon, in a move that surprised many, Republican presidential candidate Scott Walker ended his bid for the White House. He now joins Rick Perry as the second GOP leader to have to bow out of the race, due to a lack of support. Both have been very successful governors, and were once considered two of the most qualified candidates vying for the Oval Office.

Few people would have predicted this turn of events just a few months ago. Walker was an early favorite, having earned strong popularity among conservatives and moderate Republicans alike for his principled leadership as the governor of Wisconsin. There, he successfully took on public unions (something most Republican politicians only talk about), dealt effectively with state budgetary problems, and demonstrated an ability to win multiple elections in what has traditionally been a blue state.

Much the way Rick Perry entered his first presidential race in 2011, Walker struck the right tone with the Republican base, and managed to stand out among the crowd as an “outsider” with solid messaging and strong conservative achievements.

What neither candidate could have predicted, however, was the anti-establishment earthquake of 2015. This political conundrum, triggered by voter frustration with the Washington DC establishment, has somehow extended far beyond Washington, and is now beginning to hammer nails into the coffins of any candidacy tethered to a public record.

We seem to be at a point in time when government experience (even if it’s rich with achievements) is strangely seen as a detriment to one’s candidacy. In a metaphor that Rick Perry might use, we’re shooting at John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, and hitting the kinds of leaders we’ve been saying for years that we need in the White House.

I can’t help but find this troubling…very troubling.

I get that Walker and Perry weren’t the most polished of candidates, and some of the problem is certainly attributable to the size of the Republican field. A number of these candidates, after all, are running purely for the notoriety, which is far from helpful. Walker and Perry weren’t two of them, however. They were serious contenders who became early victims of a vendetta they were never even a part of.

The anti-establishment sentiment in this election-cycle has been off the charts. A good portion of the Republican electorate is so eager for a political novice that they can’t even bring themselves to evaluate such people as actual candidates. They overlook their obvious weaknesses, and refuse to hold them to the high level of scrutiny they impose on the rest.

For example, many people point to Donald Trump’s stance on a border-wall as the reason his candidacy caught fire. There’s probably some truth to that, but the reality is that Rick Perry was a strong, effective advocate for border security long before Trump ever opened his mouth on the topic. Perry, in fact, earned a great deal of national publicity for his outspoken rhetoric against President Obama’s inaction on the border, an even took some gutsy border-security measures himself.

Yet, because Perry is a politician, he will forever be identified as the guy who suffered through a painful moment of absent-mindedness during the 2012 campaign, and thus shouldn’t be seriously considered for the Oval Office.

When you’re a total outsider with no public record, however, it’s a different story. You can pretty much say anything at all right now, and not pay any kind of political price for it. You can mock American POWs for being captured, make up stories about Mexican rapists, say that “prison sex” makes people gay, talk about journalists’ menstrual cycles, etc. None of it matters. In fact, the rhetoric will likely help you, because in these anti-establishment times, being politically-incorrect equates to authenticity, even if it’s factually inaccurate.

Heck, you really don’t even have to demonstrate any knowledge of serious global issues when you don’t have a public record. You just have to display some personality, promise you’ll study up on the policy stuff later, and then switch the topic over to something you’re more comfortable talking about.

That doesn’t work with experienced politicians — not right now, anyway. If it did, Chris Christie and Marco Rubio would be sitting at the top of the polls, based on their charisma alone.

You know, I feel a little strange writing this column, because I’m not someone who believes that an individual necessarily has to have a distinguished public record in order to be an effective president. I think a few people can pull it off. I do believe, however, that there is no substitution for relevant experience, and it seems ridiculous for voters to discard candidates for having the gall to practice governance before running for the presidency. Yet, that’s exactly what we’re doing, and we’re doing it because we’re dissatisfied with people who aren’t even running for the office.

Breaking: Presidential candidate Donald Trump endorses John A. Daly's new novel.

Breaking: Presidential candidate Donald Trump endorses John A. Daly’s new novel.

The result has been the loss of two effective leaders, more than a year out from an incredibly important election. Are we better off because of it?

I don’t know… Maybe I’m a pro-establishment guy for thinking it’s important to have a strong bench of candidates to choose from. Maybe I’m a RINO for expecting those candidates to be vetted using a single standard. Maybe I’m a “cuckservative” (or whatever the latest traitor Republican catchphrase is) for wanting someone who’s well-read, informed, and passionate about policy.

All I know is that any message we’re trying to send to congress by adapting to this new methodology for selecting presidential candidates is totally incoherent. If anyone can explain it to me, please do so.




Ted Nugent and His Conservative Media Enablers

NugentTed Nugent, the gun-toting rocker with a big mouth, has done it again.   His latest rant, not surprisingly, is about his favorite target, Barack Obama.  This is what he recently told guns.com:

Barack Obama is a “Chicago communist-raised, communist-educated, communist-nurtured subhuman mongrel” and a “gangster.”

Even if you ignore the communist and gangster rhetoric, Nugent called the president of this country a “subhuman mongrel” – the same language, by the way, that Hitler used on the Jews and that slaveholders used to describe their slaves.

So it’s no surprise that liberals in the media jumped on the remark, noting that Nugent has been out campaigning for likely Republican nominee for governor of Texas, state Attorney General Greg Abbott.

On CNN, Wolf Blitzer said, “Nugent’s presence hit a sour note with a lot of people. They say Texans deserve better than a candidate who would align himself with someone like Nugent who offered a hate-filled assessment of the president. Shockingly, Abbott’s campaign brushed aside the criticism, saying they value Nugent’s commitment to the Second Amendment.”

This prompted Newt Gingrich, who’s also on CNN, to complain about the media double standard.  “I always love selective media outrage. As the party of Hollywood, the Democrats have lots of donors and supporters who say truly stupid things. Truly outrageous things.”

Newt is right.  There is a double standard.  But he left out the most important part:  Conservatives in the media are just as guilty.

Here’s how it works:  If a conservative like Sarah Palin, is slimed by a liberal like Bill Maher conservatives are outraged and liberals couldn’t care less.  But when a liberal, like Barack Obama is slimed as a “subhuman mongrel,” liberals are outraged and conservatives in the media pretty much ignore the story.  Rule #1:  Don’t hold a member of your team accountable – it might give ammo to the enemy.

So when it comes to moral outrage, forgive me, neither liberals nor conservatives in the media have even an ounce of credibility.

As for Nugent, his latest comments are hardly his first.  He once went on stage, decked out in his trademark camouflage, toting two machine guns, and told the crowd:  “Obama, he’s a piece of shit.  I told him to suck on my machine gun.”  And then this, about another Nugent enemy:  “Hey Hillary, you might want to ride one of these [machine guns] into the sunset, you worthless bitch.”

So how did family values media conservatives respond – those conservatives who tell us they care deeply about civility and decency in our culture?  Here’s how:  They continued to have him on as their guest.  They continued treating him as a good guy.  And why not? He’s their pal.  He’s a real conservative.  And he loves guns, too.  What a guy!

And while I’m no fan of Ted Nugent, these media hacks really turn my stomach.

To their credit a few prominent Republicans said Nugent was way off base.  Texas Governor Rick Perry said,  “I got a problem calling the president a mongrel. I do have a problem with that.”

And Rand Paul, who has presidential aspirations, went further, tweeting, “Ted Nugent’s derogatory description of President Obama is offensive and has no place in politics.  He should apologize.”

After that, Nugent did apologize, sort of.   “I do apologize–not necessarily to the President–but on behalf of much better men than myself.”  He calls the President of the United States a “subhuman mongrel” and apologizes “not necessarily to the president.”

If Ted Nugent is sorry about anything, it’s only that he put Greg Abbott, the conservative Republican who wants to be governor of Texas, in a bad spot.  After one of his rallies, Abbot told reporters, “I don’t know what he [Nugent] may have said or done in his background.  What I do know is Ted Nugent stands for the Constitution.  He stands against the federal government overreaching and doing what they are doing to harm Texas.”

But when he couldn’t put out the fire his pal Ted Nugent started, Abbott changed his tune.  “This is not the kind of language I would use or endorse in any way,” he said before adding:  “It’s time to move beyond this.”

Greg Abbott may be able to move beyond this and win the election, but no one will confuse him with a profile in courage.  And the same goes for Nugent’s pathetic enablers in the conservative media.

******

Please let me know what you think by leaving a comment.  Memo to Ted Nugent fans:  Please, think before you write.  And to all, tell your friends to sign up for free updates.  Thanks.  Bernie Goldberg




With Conservatives Like These…

Santorum, Gingrich and Perry, all condemned Mitt Romney’s Bain Financial for putting people out of work. If anyone should be sidelined, it’s Santorum, Gingrich and Perry.

For one thing, as every conservative who isn’t running behind in the primaries knows, venture capitalists put their money where their mouths are. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, as the old adage goes. When it comes to picking winners, Bain has a far better record than the Obama administration. After all, Bain was gambling on turning around the fortunes of companies that were close to death or assisting in the birth of companies that would otherwise have been aborted. Obama, on the other hand, handed out billions of our tax dollars for no other reason than that company owners had contributed heavily to his presidential campaigns.

Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney

As Romney has admitted, there were times when Bain had no choice but to shut down companies and let the employees go, but in every case those employees kept drawing salaries for a far longer time than they would have done without Bain’s infusion of cash. Clearly, those factory workers confused themselves with public sector union members. Those are the folks, let us never forget, who keep getting hired and having their salaries and pensions increased in spite of a failing economy. That’s the difference between Washington, D.C. and the real world.

Another irony of the campaigns that Santorum, Perry and Gingrich, are running is that each of them promises to shut down entire departments of the federal government if they’re elected president. Just how will they manage to keep that promise without handing out thousands of pink slips? While it’s true that the intended victims are nothing more than Washington bureaucrats, they are still more or less human beings with children to feed and mortgages to pay.

Some people defend Gingrich’s attacks on Romney, insisting that Romney has it coming because of the ads that Romney’s supporters ran in Iowa attacking Mr. Gingrich. The obvious difference is that while Romney’s attacks could certainly be described as vicious, they also happened to be true. In fact, they could easily have been even more hurtful.

Newt Gingrich

Newt Gingrich

For instance, Gingrich was a serial adulterer. And while he has insisted he is a changed man and that he regrets his sins, the same holds true for every other rascal who has ever been found out. On one occasion, he even explained his adultery by stating “Partially, I was driven by how passionate I felt about this country that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate.” It’s not every day, thank God, that America is basically cast as The Other Woman. Even Bill Clinton, who couldn’t quite define sex, but certainly knew it when he saw it, didn’t rationalize his boorish behavior as excessive patriotism.

Not only did Gingrich dump his first wife and their two kids, but, adding injury to insult, he refused to pay alimony or child support, thus forcing the local Baptist church to pass the hat. He eventually repaid the debt in full, though, by converting to Catholicism.

It’s true that Gingrich was the first Speaker who was ever censured and fined by his congressional colleagues. And although it was for financial shenanigans, it did not, for some reason, involve the multi-million dollar book deal he had cut with Rupert Murdoch. The deal, it so happens, had far less to do with Gingrich’s writing ability than with the fact that mogul giant Murdoch had a vested interest in befriending, otherwise known as bribing, the Speaker, who at the time chaired the committee that oversaw the granting of radio and TV licenses.

Lest we ever forget, Gingrich volunteered to sit on that dumb couch with Nancy Pelosi, and help her perpetuate Al Gore’s hoax of global warming. He has since said that agreeing to make that TV spot was the single dumbest thing he ever did. But I think he was just being modest.

Gingrich pocketed $1.6 million of our tax dollars, thanks to the generosity of Freddie Mac, for allegedly giving them advice he claims they ignored for five years. I wonder if that gig is still available. It’s a job I was born to have. After all, I’m constantly giving people advice they ignore.

Gingrich derided Paul Ryan’s fiscal plan as “right-wing social engineering” and then, for good measure, insisted that when Romney said he would enjoy firing his health insurance provider if they failed to satisfy his needs, he really meant that he took pleasure in firing people who worked for him.

Now, in desperation, after finishing near the bottom in Iowa and New Hampshire, Gingrich attacks Romney for profiting from being a free market capitalist.

The good news for Newt is that once he finally drops out of the GOP race, he can sign on with David Axelrod and start getting paid to help re-elect Barack Obama.

In conclusion, a free piece of advice for Callista: Be on the alert if Newt claims he’s working late at the office. By now, I think we all know — and you, better than most — how patriotic this guy can get.


©2012 Burt Prelutsky.Comments? Write BurtPrelutsky@aol.com!

Get your personally autographed copy of Liberals: America’s Termites or Portraits of Success for just $19.95, postpaid.
Get both for just $39.90.
Liberals: America’s Termites Profiles of Success (60 candid conversations with 60 Over-Achievers)