Franken Sense

I'll be trading some politics trash talk on MSNBC Sunday afternoon at 4:30 Eastern.
Think there's anything to discuss?

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, MAY 10, 2013
IT CAN’T BE
BY BOB FRANKEN
Sometimes the reporter -- who, after all, is supposed to be skeptical -- runs across a story that seems simply too bizarre to be true. The arrest of Lt. Col. Jeffery Krusinski is certainly one of those. Lt. Col. Krusinski is charged with grabbing a woman in a parking lot outside the Pentagon by her breasts and buttocks and is now accused of sexual battery. By now, we probably all know that Krusinski is the man in charge of the Air Force Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program. Or he was. He’s been removed from the job. Probably a smart move. That still won’t stop higher-ups from having to explain how he got the position in the first place.
What makes this even more galling is its timing. The alleged groping occurred just as the Pentagon released a report that shows sexual assaults in the military have increased by 35 percent in the past two years. It shouldn’t be startling, given all the news of misconduct by boot-camp trainers with their trainees, and celebrated cases where commanding generals have unilaterally overturned sex-related convictions against subordinate officers.
The commander in chief has weighed in, demanding reform: “If we find out somebody’s engaging in this stuff, they’ve got to be held accountable, prosecuted, stripped of their positions, court-martialed, fired, dishonorably discharged -- period.” But he might want to focus on his top generals. He can start with Air Force Chief of Staff Mark Welsh, who told a Senate hearing that much of the blame rests with the “hookup” culture of the young generation. Whatever one thinks of the choice of some kids to get it on without emotional attachment, Gen. Welsh still seems to miss the point that this hooking up is consensual, while forcible assault obviously is not. “Obviously,” sputtered New York Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, “there’s a failing in training and understanding of what sexual assault is and how corrosive it is.” Ya think?

A 5:15 AM Eastern Thursday start on MSNBC. I'll be trying to make sense of the chaotic politics. Actually I'll just be trying to make sense.

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, MAY 7, 2013
IS OBAMA INEFFECTIVE?
BY BOB FRANKEN
What an interesting debate. It’s about which of our leaders is to blame for the failure of our political system. Sadly, that failure is considered a given by a huge majority of our citizens. And for good reason: gridlock. It’s a paralysis caused either by petty and dangerously stupid obstructionists controlling the opposition or by a president who’s too ineffective to overcome them.
The latter narrative is slowly gaining circulation. A growing number of columnists who are often considered Barack Obama’s progressive soul mates are teeing off on his inability to strong-arm Congress. Maureen Dowd, of The New York Times, has gotten a lot of attention with her conclusion that the president “still has not learned how to govern.” That’s because “he chooses not to get down in the weeds.”
Make no mistake about it: Politics is all weeds. It is an unruly turf where a con game is played by people whose overriding motivation is ambition. At its best, it is the dark side of democracy. What we’re stuck with these days could hardly be described as being at its best.
We are witnessing a circus where the extremist clowns who control the Republican agenda are able to thwart even the most obvious fixes to our problems. Some new requirements for gun purchasers, for instance, which were already watered down, were defeated in the Senate, even though, in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre, 90 percent of Americans supported the restrictions. Even worse, the crazies seem to delight in making things worse. The sequester is a case in point, only one of too many to list.
More galling of all is how the most heat is generated by some of the dimmest light bulbs. The GOP’s Louie Gohmert and Michele Bachmann in the House and TedCruz in the Senate are among those whose appeal to their voters is based on the maxim “Ignorance is bliss.”
Having said that, here’s another: “It is what it is.” And that’s what his critics believe Obama fails to grasp. By now, his promise to change the way Washington works seems hopelessly naive. And his disdain for those who manipulate the process, which is to say nearly everyone in D.C., has left him so far above it all that results are out of reach.
Plainly and simply, he needs to climb down from his high horse and wallow in the mud with everyone else. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews calls it “Hardball,” but what it’s really like is rugby. We don’t want to know all the dirty stuff that happens in the scrums, but that’s where the matches are won. Actually, the saying about rugby is that you don’t win; the best you can hope for is surviving. The president’s agenda almost never survives the brutal collision with the gang on the other side that is singularly dedicated to his losing —nothing else.
At his recent news conference, he ridiculed those who think “my job is to somehow get them to behave,”meaning the Republicans in Congress. Actually, that is the job of the chief executive. “Woe is me” just doesn’t cut it. If you get into the slime, then you must play dirty like everyone else in there. The White House has all kinds of nastiness at its disposal that can make the lives of its enemies a living hell. They seem to be impervious to shame, but everyone has buttons to push. The secret is using that power without crossing the legal line, like Richard Nixon did. But that leaves plenty of room to switch from defense to offense, really offensive offense, if necessary.
Mr. Obama was not selected to be Mr. Congeniality. He was elected president of the United States. The cliché is that it’s the most powerful position in the world. These days, it just doesn’t look like it.

As you're recovering from your hyper weekend, transition back to reality with me on MSNBC at 4:30, Eastern Sunday afternoon

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, MAY 3, 2013
GAY REBOUND
BY BOB FRANKEN
Question: What do you call a man who is 7 feet tall and weighs more than 250 pounds? Answer: Whatever he wants. Yes, that’s an old joke, but here’s a new version: What do you call him when he announces “I’m a 34-year-old NBA center. I’m black. And I’m gay”? Same answer.
What he’s usually called is Jason Collins, and unless you’re in solitary, you’re aware that he’s the first active male professional athlete in the U.S. to declare his homosexual preference. Happily, the first question most people asked was, “So what?” The second one probably was, “Now that he’s out of the closet, what happens when he steps into the locker room?”
Based on most of the public responses from his fellow pro basketball players, very little will change. “I’m happy for him,” said Boston Celtics superstar Kevin Garnett. “We here support everything he’s doing, and I’m happy for him.” Even Kobe Bryant, who was once fined $100,000 for shouting an anti-gay slur at a referee, used Twitter to show his support and tell Collins he shouldn’t “suffocate who u r because of the ignorance of others.”
There are some skeptics who say that many of those who really disapprove are not saying anything for fear of being ostracized. There’s some truth to that, particularly in the super-duper macho world of sports. But the fact that they’re keeping their homophobia to themselves is itself positive. In an amazingly short time, social attitudes about gays and others who make alternative choices have turned around in a remarkable way.

Can I be perky at 5:15 in the morning, Eastern time, on an MSNBC Thursday? Don't bet on it, but take a look.

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, APRIL 30, 2013
FLIGHTY POLITICIANS
BY BOB FRANKEN
Now that Congress has passed legislation that finesses the sequestration cutbacks on controllers, flights will be on time again, and air travel will once more be an effortless joy. Oh, wait. That’s delusional.
At least we’ve seen how rapidly our politicians react, inspired solely by a desire to make life better for all Americans in a responsible, bipartisan way. Ridiculous, you say?
Well then, let’s find a different explanation for the fact that Democrats and Republicans in the Senate and House joined the White House in providing a quick fix at the first complaints over fight delays caused by air-traffic-
controller furloughs brought on by that idiotic sequester. Of course there is one.
It starts with the aforementioned idiotic sequester, which forced indiscriminate budget cuts throughout the federal government. It was considered such a ridiculous idea that any rational group of policysetters would do whatever it took to come up with a way to avoid something so destructive and, let’s call it what it is, stupid.
But there’s the rub. We’re not dealing with rational people here. Instead, we have crazed partisans ruling our roost, and they were unwilling to be even minimally reasonable. Because of their spite, we are stuck with the sequester, which means that various federal programs have to be trimmed with little regard for their relative merit or desperate need.

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, APRIL 26, 2013
TERRORISM CHEAP SHOTS
BY BOB FRANKEN
Let’s assume Peter King wasn’t just trying to politically exploit the Boston Marathon attacks when he called on law enforcement to focus on “the Muslim community and increase surveillance there.” King, a Republican from New York, is chair of the House Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence. “We can’t be bound by political correctness,” he went on. “I think we need more police and more surveillance in the communities where the threat is coming from, whether it’s the Irish community with the Westies, or the Italian community with the Mafia or the Islamic community with the Islamic terrorists.”
Would someone remind him that while many of us will never be accused of political correctness, maybe we all should be held back by the idea that the U.S. is not an authoritarian state, that we should all be able to count on some privacy without Big Brother monitoring our every move and utterance. Already that’s a shaky premise, but singling out certain ethnic groups for more invasive intrusion runs counter to the whole "Yearning to be Free" concept of this nation. What he’s advocating could mean that because of the Mafia, there should spying on all Italian-Americans. For that matter, since some members of Congress have engaged in criminal activity, perhaps we should bug the homes, offices and cars of all members. Would a next step be to follow the World War II model of Japanese-American internment?

The eternal question: at 5:15 AM on Thursday, is it better to curse the darkness, or watch me on MSNBC? And have more reason to curse.

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 2013
ANTI-MUSLIM BIGOTRY
BY BOB FRANKEN
It was a common thought among people of good will: Please, please don’t let those responsible for the Boston Marathon bombings be Muslims. Unfortunately, it seems that those who carried out the savage attacks were Muslims, giving the people of ill will a chance to renew the intolerant attacks of their own.
Allen West, that purveyor of malignant demagoguery who was mercifully turned out of Congress by the voters, is trying to revive his career on a platform of extremism. Boston gave him another opportunity: “Let me be very clear,” he wrote on Facebook. “The terrorist attack in Boston and evolving events indicate we have a domestic radical Islamic terror problem in America.”
Erik Rush, another hatemonger, claimed he was joking when he tweeted: “Yes, they’re evil. Let’s kill them all.”
Before we dismiss these rants as voices from the fringe, let’s examine the mainstream views of our nation at large. A Gallup Poll taken in 2010 showed that 43 percent of the respondents acknowledged they felt some prejudice against Muslims. And that result includes only those who were willing to acknowledge their feelings. Of course it doesn’t help when media report false information about Saudi suspects or people who are “brown-skinned.”
It doesn’t matter whether this Boston attack was motivated by Islamic jihadism. Fanaticism exists in just about every movement in our country, religious and otherwise, but we wouldn’t think of holding such sweeping bias against all those who passionately oppose abortion or favor gun rights, would we? As for Muslims, estimates range from 2 million to 7 million, almost all proud Americans in spite of the reality that they are viewed with suspicion by so many.
The fact that the brothers allegedly responsible for the Boston abomination might have had a twisted religious motivation has Islamic leaders worried about a backlash, and rightfully so. Already we’re getting reports of people accosting anyone who might look the part and verbally abusing them as they demand to know “Are you Arab?” Never mind that the two brothers linked to the horror in Boston were ethnic Chechens, not Arabs at all, but that doesn’t stop the stupid bigot from acting like a dangerous idiot. Nobody should have to suffer that treatment, Arab or not.

On Sunday afternoon , once the weekend WH Correspondents festivities have wound down I'll be part of a panel on MSNBC. 4:30 Eastern. Much less formal.

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, APRIL 19, 2013
THE BEST AND THE WORST OF US
BY BOB FRANKEN
The unspeakable terrorism in Boston has caused us to reflect on the stark contradictions of humanity. Many are able to soar beyond magnificence even as some sink beneath contempt. So it was in Boston, and so it was in Washington.
After the bombs went off, we immediately witnessed on-site courage, compassion and super competence from those who displayed the loftiest ideals of their training and callings: medical providers, first responders, as well as ordinary citizens who instinctively showed us the best that we can offer.
A host of Boston’s citizens generously offered food and their homes to the marathon’s runners and fans who suddenly were left without shelter because their hotels in the immediate area were shut down, denying them access to their clothes and other basics, as well as credit cards and ID. Days later, they cooperated with the region-wide lockdown, motivated by civic pride.
In Washington though, the word we heard was “shame,” appropriate scorn for the members of the United States Senate who couldn’t ratchet up the scrap of courage it would take to vote for minimal gun control.
They cowered under the heavy-handed pressure of the National Rifle Association and others who do the dirty work of the deadly weapons industry. Forty-five of them were brow-beaten into ignoring the still-raw memory of the January mass shootings at Newtown, Conn.’s Sandy Hook Elementary. “Shame on you,” came the shouts from the Senate gallery. “A pretty shameful day for Washington” said a visibly angry President Barack Obama afterward. Shooting victim Gabrielle Giffords chimed in with a New York Times op-ed heaping scorn on “the cowardice these senators demonstrated.” She and the devastated families of the murdered innocents who worked up the energy to lobby were no match for those mercenaries thrive by manipulating the perverse love affair so many Americans have with their guns.

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2013
CHARLIE BROWN AND BARACK OBAMA
BY BOB FRANKEN
You know the Peanuts comic strip; it’s appeared in some form for more than 60 years: Lucy puts down the football and promises that this time she’ll actually let Charlie Brown kick it. Each time, as he races to boot it, she pulls it away at the last second, and he crashes to the turf. Once again, the trusting soul is done in. Poor Charlie Brown.
Poor Barack Obama. Once again, he’s come out with a compromise budget proposal in the belief that the Republicans also are willing to compromise. And once again, they have pulled the political football away. In his opening proffer, the president already gives in deeply on entitlement cuts in the naive expectation that the other side will respond in kind and show flexibility allowing tax increases for wealthy individuals and powerful corporations. Instead, Republicans responded by digging in their heels.
After all, they made some piddly tax concessions earlier this year, so now Speaker John Boehner is saying “no way” because: “The president got his tax hikes in January. We don’t need to be raising taxes on the American people.” What he means is rich people, and what he's saying is that this time around he and his GOP buddies are digging in their heels. Actually, given how their single strategy from the get-go has been to block almost anything that Obama suggests, his continuing attempts at being reasonable means he is their willing sucker.
While compromise is a wonderful concept, in Washington it has been turned into CONpromise. Give-and-take demands are deceptions from those who are really saying “You give, we’ll take.” Even the highly publicized Senate deal on gun control, where those who favor broad restrictions surrendered a lot to those who are against them, ended up playing into the hands of the opponents. Despite heart-rending appeals from the families of the Newtown, Conn., school massacre, all they could come up with was a bargain that provided for watered-down background checks. The polls show nine out of 10 Americans favor expanding them, But so what, the NRA is against. They’d already pretty much doomed prohibitions on assault weapons and defanged other items that lacked teeth. Giving all that up only attracted enough votes to get past an initial filibuster. Now the Senate will deal with amendments some of them odious , which almost certainly will turn what’s left into mush or even worse than where they began. Even if it does pass, it must go through the House of Representatives shredder. What’s left of new gun control will be nothing of the sort. The same thing is going on with immigration, where a so-called Dream Act will end up largely fulfilling the dreams of the moneyed interests.

Due to ever shifting news, my first MSNBC hit this Saturday afternoon is now slated for 3:30 Eastern instead of 4:30. Same thoughts, different slots.

I'm on MSNBC tomorrow afternoon at 4:30 participating in the ongoing Boston terror coverage

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, APRIL 12, 2013
NEWS BULLETIN BORED
BY BOB FRANKEN
I recently was asked to join a discussion with news executives who were seeking alternatives to the weary old “Breaking News” alarm that TV news operations set off. You know the one. It has been used to hype developing stories of everything from wars to neighborhood block parties. One idea was to accompany the screen graphic with the sound of dishes shattering. But we finally reached a consensus: “Breaking News” would be replaced with “OMG-WTF!,” which means “OH MY GOODNESS-WHAT’S THIS FOOLISHNESS!” But you already knew that.
Just imagine: A tape is leaked to reporter David Corn at Mother Jones magazine, revealing Sen. Mitch McConnell and his campaign peeps planning a heavy-handed negative campaign against movie star and Democratic candidate wannabe Ashley Judd. This is surprising stuff. Who knew that politicians employed oppo research to find bombs to drop on the other side? It may not have been as startling as Corn’s campaign exclusive when he made public the video and audio of Mitt Romney’s “47 Percent” remarks, which arguably cost Romney the election, but this definitely is big stuff. Judd called the meeting “yet another example of the politics of personal destruction that embody Mitch McConnell and are pervasive in Washington,” never mind that she dropped out of the race before she got in. This is clearly OMG-WTF! material.
Actually, this might be a two-clanger. Sen. McConnell, who plays the victim as well as anyone in the game, told reporters, “They were bugging our headquarters -- quite a Nixonian move,” an attack from the “political left.” He requested an FBI investigation. So let’s see: Secret recordings made in today’s age of the smartphone? No question about it: OMG-WTF!
Of course, McConnell’s re-election chances are in greater jeopardy because of challenges from the right. An awful lot of Kentucky extremists (pardon the redundancy) are upset with him for having the effrontery to sometimes work deals with the Democrats. So he’s suddenly attaching himself to the hip of any hardliner he can find. He originally opposed Rand Paul in their state’s GOP primary. Now Mitch has expediently made Rand his BFF. His indignation over the “political left” is pure contrivance. So let’s scratch OMG-WTF! and replace it with SO-SO, as in “SAME OLD-SAME OLD.”

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 2013
THE SEXIST PRESIDENT
BY BOB FRANKEN
Let’s be honest: For someone whose rhetoric can reach such heights, sometimes, when Barack Obama opens his mouth, he can really step in it. No, I’m not going to specify what “it” is, but he certainly will want to pull his foot out of his mouth real fast.
In case you missed it, POTUS was in a San Francisco suburb at a fundraising event when it came time to acknowledge California Attorney General Kamala Harris. “You have to be careful to, first of all, say she is brilliant and she is dedicated and she is tough,” he began, but then Mr. President suddenly slipped into street-corner construction worker mode: “She also happens to be, by far, the best-looking attorney general in the country.” What possessed him to say that? Was he the victim of another “Jedi mind meld,” this time with his vice president, the gaffe-a-minute Joe Biden?
Yes, he called to apologize and trotted out press secretary Jay Carney to say that “he fully recognizes the challenge women continue to face in the workplace and that they should not be judged on appearance.” Wowee zowee, what amazing insight! Harris’ looks, of course, have nothing to do whatsoever with her performance. Nothing. This is not prudishness or political correctness gone wild. The sad truth is that appearance is given inordinate importance. Far too many glide into prominence or prosperity simply because they’re physically attractive. They end up way over their heads and cause real problems for everyone. Conversely, those who are attractive and accomplished often see their capabilities dismissed.
Even worse, way too many qualified people are held back because they don’t meet the narrow standard of sexiness that prevails at any particular point in time. They are deprived of a fair opportunity; we are deprived of their talents. So the president’s description of Attorney General Harris as “best looking” is irrelevant, demeaning and harmful. It was a dumb thing to say.
It’s even dumber than his announcement that he’ll forgo 5 percent of his salary “to share in the sacrifice being made by public servants.” It’s supposed to be a show of support for the federal workers who stand to lose 20 percent of their pay when they’re furloughed because of the sequester. He’s not the only one, of course: Cabinet secretaries and other Washington pooh-bahs are tripping over each other to voluntarily forfeit a bit of their salaries to show solidarity. Never mind that most of them are so independently wealthy they probably weren’t even aware they were compensated for their government work. In addition, their lofty positions come with so many perks that they will live high on the hog anyway. They won’t be struggling to make ends meet or have to take a second job.

I'll be on MSNBC tomorrow afternoon (Saturday) at 2-ish Eastern. Funny, I don't look 2-ish

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, APRIL 5, 2013
MADAME PRESIDENT?
BY BOB FRANKEN
It may seem a bit ludicrous that members of Congress will be the ones to decide whether to fund President Barack Obama’s new initiative to map the brain. These, after all, are the people whose thought process is so often severely limited. Think gun control or immigration as examples of issues that are critically important but completely entrapped in a single-minded focus on politics. The primal survival instinct in the 2014 election preoccupies everyone’s synapses, but 2014 is just the preliminary event. The next presidential race is well underway. And it’s high time we state the obvious: We should declare 2016 the Year of the Woman. Talk about a no-brainier.
It’s as apparent as can be. Hillary Clinton is already out there teasing us with her noncandidacy. Her speech before an event honoring female leaders around the world was breathlessly reported. So was her Web statement in which she supported same-sex marriage. She has a transition office — transition to what is a fair question. A Ready for Hillary super PAC already has been formed.
She is the most prominent figure in the latest “first ever” competition, as in the first-ever woman to become U.S. president. But she is definitely not the only one. While she is far and away the leading Democrat, there are other intriguing possibilities in the party and some that are probably not possibilities. There are those of us who think that Michelle Obama is eminently qualified, although who ever heard of someone who had been first lady running for President? Jill Biden is no slouch either, and wouldn’t it be fun if she ran in the primaries against her husband, what’s-his-name?
The Republicans have a binderful, too. Kelly Ayotte from New Hampshire is a freshman senator (freshwoman? freshperson?), but already a leading light. Condoleezza Rice gets quite a bit of mention, and appropriately so. Among governors, Nikki Haley of South Carolina comes to mind. She’s controversial and far to the right, but she is unquestionably smart. For those who don’t consider intellect a prerequisite, there are Michele Bachmann and, yes, Sarah Palin, who has her own PAC up and running. Think of Palin as one of those Shmoo figures. You know the ones; they get knocked down, and they pop right back. That’s Sarah Palin.

If you're up at 5:15 AM, Eastern, first of all I'm sorry. But join me as I try to be coherent on MSNBC

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, APRIL 2, 2013
THE RIGHT FIELDERS STRIKE OUT
BY BOB FRANKEN
I think it was a dream: There I was at the Nationals’ Opening Day as they started the season that naturally will end in a World Series victory. As we all know, that isn’t a dream. In the fantasy, though, since it was a home game, which of course means it was in Washington, the normal preliminary lineup and ground rules meeting at home plate had ended in gridlock. The problem was that one of the managers was Republican, and didn’t want to allow any Latinos to play.
Obviously, that will never happen because far too many of the best players in baseball are Hispanic, but it’s not hard to explain having a nightmare like that. Blame the GOP. No matter how hard the party tries to work on its anti-immigrant image, we constantly are reminded that its team is riddled with haters.
Veteran Don Young was just the latest in foul territory when he used the term “wetbacks” in an interview. The man has been in the big leagues, part of the GOP congressional team, since 1973. He should know better. The managers, who are working so hard to convince the voters that they’re really warm, fuzzy and broad-minded were horrified. House Speaker John Boehner called the remarks “beneath the dignity of the office he holds.” The question is, What dignity? Nevertheless, it wasn’t long before Young was groveling and releasing the pro forma hollow apology for his “poor choice of words.”

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, MARCH 29, 2013
GAY WEDDING DANCE
BY BOB FRANKEN
The Supremes have a variety of options when it comes to marriage law. They can take seriously that “Equal Justice Under Law” greeting chiseled into the entrance of their magnificent building. In other words, they can declare any impediment to same-sex matrimony unconstitutional. Or a majority can decide that the law of the land tolerates intolerance. The other possibility is that they can wimp out and hide behind a procedural finding.
Speaking of wimping out, this is where I less-than-boldly point out that discerning the final outcome of a case or even what the justices are really thinking is pure speculation. But let’s speculate.
In both days of arguments, they seemed to be looking for a way out of making a sweeping decision either declaring laws against gay marriage constitutionally impermissible discrimination, a la the landmark civil-rights rulings, or somehow coming up with an unconscionable rationale that they are acceptable. The preference for a timid solution was evident time after time. Even the liberals were skittish. Sonia Sotomayor suggested “letting society have more time to figure out its direction.” It begs the question she and the others didn’t ask, which is why allowing one more day of bigotry could be legitimate public policy. Maybe they’ll have exactly that kind of discussion in closed conferences before they take their votes and unveil their handiwork, probably in June.
There is, however, a third approach that is not being considered. What about achieving equality by doing away with government-sanctioned marriage for everyone? That way, there is no discrimination. People can have nuptials if they want, but all of the benefits, legal and otherwise, that accrue to spouses would be eliminated. That’s fairer to single people anyway. In federal law, there are more than 1,100. The arguments for strictly heterosexual wedlock are obviously weak. Procreation? We certainly don’t need it for that. Stability for the kids? Antonin Scalia, who was relatively subdued during these hearings, spoke of the “considerable disagreement among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a same-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not.” Actually, an answer came from a fellow justice, Anthony Kennedy, Justice Swing Vote himself: “They want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don’t you think?”
No less prestigious an organization than the American Academy of Pediatrics thinks so. It came out with a position statement that gay marriage, like the traditional coupling, will “promote optimal health and well-being of all children.” Besides, we have a divorce rate over 40 percent, and that doesn’t account for the abusive families that stay together. They certainly would qualify as “harmful.”.

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, MARCH 26, 2013
NUKEING IT OUT
BY BOB FRANKEN
It is time to exercise the “nuclear option” in the United States Senate. The term is classic Washington hyperbole. The bomb-blast bombast is used to portray a threat to do away with most filibusters, the ones that have bogged down almost every piece of consequential legislation by requiring 60 votes instead of just 51 out of 100. As it happens, there is a procedure in place where a mere majority can do away with this stalling. The Democrats have 55 seats, and it’s high time they nuke the filibuster.
There are some arguments for maintaining the various parliamentary tricks used to slow things down in what members pompously call “The World’s Greatest Deliberative Body.” The problem is that Republicans are deliberately sabotaging the entire Obama agenda by blatantly abusing these traditional rules of debate.
The latest case in point concerns Caitlin Halligan, the president’s nominee to the bench of the very powerful Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Because of the nationally significant cases these judges decide, they are considered to be second in legal influence only to the Supremes. Actually, she no longer is the nominee. The White House pulled her name in the face of an unyielding procedural blockade by GOP senators. They were able to make it impossible for her to get the simple majority she needed for concurrence by a Senate exercising its constitutional advice and consent power.
In spite of the strong endorsements she got from her professional peers, conservatives decided Halligan had committed an unpardonable sin: She had crossed the all-powerful National Rifle Association. As New York state solicitor general, she had advocated a law that would hold arms manufacturers responsible for crimes committed with guns they produced. No way, said the NRA, and that was that.

Once again tomorrow afternoon, I'll be on with other members of the Saturday brainiac panel on MSNBC at 4:30, Eastern. Let the trash talking begin!

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, MARCH 22, 2013
FIGHT ON THE RIGHT
BY BOB FRANKEN
It’s being asked a lot today, and it’s jarring: Has the GOP become entirely unmanageable, ripping itself apart as its various factions march to their different drummers? What makes the question so weird is that until recently, the Republicans’ big advantage was the party’s ability to move in lock step. It was the Democrats who were compared to a herd of cats, a screeching collection of centrists and unyielding lefties.
It’s not that the Dems have gotten any better at that; just ask President Barack Obama. At the same time, you can now ask GOP leaders like Speaker John Boehner about cat herding. When he’s trying to negotiate anything, the White House is the least of his problems. It’s when he gets back to the Capitol that he runs into a buzz saw as he faces the tea partiers and other zealots.
The D’s are used to this, but the R’s are not. These days, the establishment moderates and the upstart moderates are clawing at each other. We witnessed a display of the bruising intramural collision at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference. Right afterward, the hard feelings really raised their ugly heads even more when that specially commissioned Republican panel came up with its recommendations for rescuing the party from political oblivion. After all, it did blow the presidential election, and a big reason Republicans lost is because blacks, Hispanics, women and gays voted against them and their harsh policies.
Out of the handwringing that followed came the obvious judgment that the party was increasingly obsolete in changing times, antagonistic to the very groups that were growing in size, influence and public support. So the leaders starting talking about a need to rebrand. Of course, there’s one teensy-weensy problem: The harsh perception is reality. As party chairman Reince Priebus put it, “We weren’t inclusive.” It’s painfully apparent, though, that the hardliners have absolutely no desire to be inclusive nor to soften when it comes to immigration, gay rights or any of the other stances no matter how they alienate powerful constituencies. Jenny Beth Martin, who heads the Tea Party Patriots, insisted that the real mistake was that the party “failed to promote our principles and lost because of it"

Still another Thursday morning on MSNBC. I'll be on at the ungodly hour of 5:15, Eastern and maybe even coherent

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 2013
CPAC AND GAYS
BY BOB FRANKEN
Ah, CPAC: So little space, so much nastiness to write about after the Conservative Political Action Conference annual gathering near Washington. Let’s focus on Marco Rubio, who is one of the hard right’s flavors of the month.
In his speech, he tried to justify gay-bashing. “Just because,” he said, “I believe that states should have the right to define marriage in a traditional way does not make me a bigot.” First of all, hiding behind states’ rights was the same subterfuge segregationists used to justify their bigotry, which the dictionary defines as “stubborn and complete intolerance.” One could say that denying a group of Americans the same legal rights as others fits the intolerance bill. That would include gays, Sen. Rubio.
This is such a personal matter. Just ask another GOP senator, Ohio’s Rob Portman, who has just announced he’s abandoned his opposition after his son told him he was gay. That didn’t sway his fellow Ohioan, House Speaker John Boehner, at all. Boehner told ABC that even if one of his children came out, he wouldn’t change his mind: “It’s what I believe; it’s what my church teaches me.”
Remember the Loving ruling? What more appropriate name could there be for a Supreme Court decision about the matrimonial rights of a mixed-race couple? It was actually Loving V. Virginia, Richard and Mildred Loving’s challenge against state prohibitions. In 1967, in a landmark case, the Supremes unanimously ruled, “Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.” Substitute “same sex,” and that’s all that should be needed. Did I mention it was unanimous?
The justices rejected the assertions that allowing blacks and whites to wed would undermine family tradition and violate religious doctrine. That last one is the exact same rationale we get today from Speaker Boehner.
Forty-six years after Loving, as the high court gets ready to hear arguments in two same-sex-marriage cases, the discussion is, in fact, eerily similar, with the added point that only male-female couples can procreate. I don’t know how to break this to you, folks, but you don’t need marriage for that. Besides, one would hope our thinking would have risen above such primal considerations, that we were beyond the amoeba stage. Apparently not.

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, MARCH 15, 2013
SWEET TALK, SOUR RESULT
BY BOB FRANKEN
Some routines get a laugh no matter how old they are. For me, that includes the social occasion that turns into an unmitigated disaster of angry arguments and hard feelings. Standing in the debris, one of the organizers says to the other, “Well, that went well.” So it is with President Barack Obama’s outreach to the Republicans.
“Outreach” is Washington’s term du jour. So there was Obama, getting together -- behind closed doors, of course -- with his House Republican antagonists. He had an intimate dinner with some GOP senators and then lunch with House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan. After that, an appearance before the entire House Republican gang.
Apparently, there was no flying food, but the next day, Speaker John Boehner fired off a Washington Post op-ed saying that the president has failed to move “beyond the same proposals and Democratic dogma.” Of course, it probably didn’t help that beforehand on ABC, Mr. Obama admitted that, when it comes to a real deal, “the differences are just too wide.”
Meanwhile Ryan responded by releasing a new plan that is nothing but a poke in POTUS’ eye. It would do away with Obamacare, for starters. Actually, that qualifies as a nonstarter. It also says about all that needs to be said about the president’s stab at private charm.
As we all know, the guy treasures secrecy. One gets the impression he envies the cardinals in Rome, who were able to clear the conclave room with one “extra omnes,” which in Latin means “everybody out!” Thus far, Washington’s quest to come up with a deficit reduction has produced nothing but blown smoke. While the cardinals could announce “Habemus Papa” in Vatican City, it is strictly “Non Habemus Budgetum” in the District of Columbia. Or in Pig Latin “Ixnay Udgetbay.”

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 2013
OF THE HOUSE AND HOME
BY BOB FRANKEN
Have you been following the uproar over the new Yahoo CEO’s policy on telecommuting? To put it in its simplest terms, Marissa Mayer is banning it in most cases. As the immortal Bart Simpson would say, a lot of people are having a cow.
It’s easy to understand why, since working from home is such a help in balancing the overwhelming demands of professional and personal lives. Ms. Mayer’s theory is that the advantage of everyone going to the office is the productive face-to-face contact. Of course, the big disadvantage of everyone going to the office is the time-wasting face-to-face contact.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the members of Congress simply stayed at home and spent little time in the Capitol? Oh wait, that’s what they do now. They pop in for a couple of days a week to name a few post office buildings. The Republicans also will contrive a vote against anything President Barack Obama wants before they head out. Paradoxically, about the only time they show up is during their many extended holiday breaks. That’s so they can take taxpayer-funded trips to the world’s exotic destinations. They prefer to call their days off “District Work Periods,” but that’s only accurate if their district is in Paris or on some beautiful beach in Thailand.
Washington is a big telecommuting town. When you think about it, the president mostly works from home. Right now, he’s making a big push to stifle the impression that the budget sequestration is not that big a deal. If this were the old Johnny Carson show, we’d have his straight man asking “How bad is it?” Each day, some cabinet member pops up with an answer.

It's an MSNBC Saturday for me, on a new 4:30 PM Eastern time segment called "The Biggest Brain". Others will appear with me. Obviously

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, MARCH 8, 2013
DRONING ON ABOUT DRONES
BY BOB FRANKEN
Thanks a lot, Rand Paul. Now that your filibuster went from frivolous publicity stunt to raising the serious question about deadly use of drones against Americans in America, it wouldn’t be at all surprising to find out the National Rifle Association will get one of its toady congressmen to sponsor legislation that would allow all of us to carry Stinger missiles. Instead of just packing heat, we could be packing heat seekers.
Think of this as your “50 Monkeys at a Typewriter” moment, Senator. Suddenly, a lot of people who usually consider your politics to be at home on derange are congratulating you for sounding the alarm about lethal attacks on the homeland when national-security officials gone wild decide someone needs to be taken out. And it wasn’t even Dick Cheney who forced the issue.
Instead, it was that relatively mild-mannered Attorney General Eric Holder. By hemming and hawing about whether a president theoretically could order such an attack under extreme conditions, he gave Sen. Paul the chance to do his Mr. Smith imitation, which, of course, we in media covered like a blanket. The guy probably would still be talking had he not had to go potty (sorry if the rough language offends anyone). Apparently, he’s never heard of Depends.

Assuming I'm not blown away by Pope coverage I'll be doing my regular early Thursday bit at about 5:15 AM Eastern

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 2013
COURTING AN AUDIENCE
BY BOB FRANKEN
Allow me to paraphrase an old joke: A prominent psychiatrist suddenly dies at a young age. When he arrives at the Pearly Gates, he is outraged, sputtering to St. Peter: “Why, why, why did you take me before my time!?”
“We’ve been having this problem with God,” St. Peter explains. “He thinks he’s a Supreme Court justice.”
Sad to say, from what glimmers we get of the Supremes, that doesn’t seem far-fetched. They spend a lot of time convincing each other that they are above accountability. How else to explain the way they dig in against televising their proceedings. It boils down to this: Americans simply are not qualified to watch them doing their public business.
Think that’s exaggerated? Then let’s ponder the words of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who recently told Charlie Rose she has gone from supporting video coverage to opposing it because the people don’t “understand what the process is.” Justice Elena Kagan is similarly discovering the joys of insularity. At her confirmation hearing in 2010, she was all for letting it hang out in TV land, declaring that “would be a great thing for the institution, and more important, I think it would be a great thing for the American people.” Two years later at a University of Michigan appearance, she was backpedaling with “I have a few worries, including that people might play to the camera. Sometimes you see that when you watch congressional hearings.”
Apparently, her Senate confirmation hearing left a profound impression. Either that or she has come under the influence of the high court’s great backward thinker, Antonin Scalia. He has an amazing sway over his colleagues. Where President Barack Obama misspoke about a “Jedi mind meld” with Congress, Scalia sometimes seems to capture his fellow justices with his Luddite mind meld.

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, MARCH 1, 2013
THE FESTERING SEQUESTERING
BY BOB FRANKEN
It really happened. This time, the D.C. drama kings and queens couldn’t or wouldn’t come up with a reprieve. With all the hype over the indiscriminate budget cuts, I had been imagining a giant wave of disgust, with March 1 headlines from around the world screaming “Sequestration Happens! Pope Quits!”
Like everyone else, I’ve been wondering what the real story is about Benedict XVI’s resignation. After all, the Vatican has even more backstabbing intrigue than Washington. Here, we’re dealing with relatively mundane across-the-board cuts in the federal government, split evenly between defense and domestic programs. Actually, they’re only sort of across-the-board, because entire expenditures were left untouched, like troop support and Social Security. There’s a whole raft of exceptions that are considered by someone to be too vital.
Still, this is a sledgehammer approach. To avert a previous fiscal crisis, back in June 2011, the White House suggested and congressional Republicans quickly approved this little face-saving gem. It was supposed to be so drastic and foolish that the partisan combatants would have no choice but to come to their senses by the deadline and seriously address the nation’s spiraling debt. But that placed far too much confidence in the fundamental sanity of the zealots who feel they have a mandate to blast the government to smithereens. It was inevitable, and this time, the bounce from one temporary fix to another slammed into reality, even as everyone prepares for another fight to the death. Their next confrontation in a few weeks could shut down most of the bureaucracy. Call it the Roseanne Roseannadanna Effect.
Those of us past puberty remember Roseanne Roseannadanna. She was the ditzy news analyst on “Saturday Night Live’s” “Weekend Update,” brilliantly played by the late Gilda Radner, who would wrap up her commentary with, “It’s always something.” It was parody. Sad to say, these days the clumsy parody is what we’re witnessing in the nation’s capital.

It's Thursday on MSNBC so we all can get up as I go on at 5:15 AM, Eastern. We'll all be there. Right?

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, FEB. 26, 2013
WASHINGTON ‘R’ WORD REVISITED
BY BOB FRANKEN
There are two reasons I am writing once again about the hateful name of the Washington NFL team. First of all, I am sick and tired of sequestration. There is nothing left except to regurgitate more horror stories about exactly how it’s going to gut our government and take the rest of us down. Besides, if we don’t know by now what Bozos our political leaders are, we never will.
So it’s back to the clowns in football and Washington R-words. There, too, I thought all that could be said had been said, but that reckoned without the team’s general manager, Bruce Allen. He managed to bring the rationalizations to new depths when he was asked to react to calls to come up with a replacement, something not so deeply offensive to Native Americans. His response can be charitably described as dismissive, or less charitably as stupid: “It’s ludicrous to think that in any way we’re trying to upset anybody.”
What’s “ludicrous” is how that comment is so similar to the language of bigots who would cavalierly use the “N-word,” but insisted they weren’t trying to offend or harbored any prejudice, as in “Why, some of my best friends are n----.”

Since I've gotten no threats from the White House, real or imagined, I will just go ahead with an MSNBC appearance about 4:30 Eastern Sunday afternoon

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, FEB. 22, 2013
SUBPAR MEDIA RELATIONS
BY BOB FRANKEN
It’s a story that may seem to be a concern only to those who are inside the inside of the Beltway: White House press corps members gripe that they were kept way far away and given no chance for any shots or video of President Barack Obama playing golf with Tiger Woods during his Florida weekend. Nothing whatsoever, no photo op, nada. The main public reaction is “Who cares?”
Actually, there’s reason to care. It’s easy to understand why Mr. President wouldn’t want to be seen chumming around with a man who has such a sordid past. So, while he was all too glad to let us record him with House Speaker John Boehner on the links, Woods might complicate the image control.
And “control” is the operative word. In a fine piece in Politico, my friends Jim Vandehei and Mike Allen write, “President Barack Obama is a master at limiting, shaping and manipulating media coverage of himself and his White House.”
The tactics include keeping the knowledgeable beat reporters at bay and instead granting interviews with more pliant ones -- local TV anchors, for instance, who are more likely to ask puffball questions. That is accompanied by intimidation of the regulars and their management if they have the audacity to do a report that displeases the administration. The browbeating can take many forms, such as freezing out those who don’t play ball.
Frankly, it’s too bad that it’s taken this long for the correspondents to be so up in arms. There are many more-consequential issues where the Obama White House simply slams the door on information. And it’s not only journalists who are shut out. Look at the struggle Congress has had getting details on drone warfare and the legal rationale of targeting American citizens. Look at how litigation has been thwarted when national-security officials hide questionable actions in “State Secrets” bunkers. It’s a long list, and it leaves an impression that this chief executive sometimes sees himself as above accountability.

You're wondering what do do tomorrow (Thursday) morning at 5:15. Wonder no more. You can watch me on MSNBC.

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, FEB. 19, 2013
CRUZ ON THE POTOMAC
BY BOB FRANKEN
How sad can one political party be? Things have gotten so bad for the Republicans that Karl Rove is presenting himself as a protector of reason. His latest creation is an organization that is supposed to weed out the looney-tunes candidates who can’t control the utterly ridiculous things they say. The Democrats, who would otherwise be doomed, survive the race because their opponents are such wild-eyed fanatics.
The rationale is that these extremists can’t get elected; but the real problem is that they can and do. Then they come to Washington and live up to their batty promises -- actually, down is probably more accurate. Meanwhile, those of us in media, always desperate for a new flavor of the month, pay far more attention to their careless ranting than we should.
That would pretty much describe what’s happened with Ted Cruz, the newly elected senator from the great state of Texas (although, as we know, there is widespread sentiment deep in the heart of Texas to secede and NOT be a state anymore). Cruz is a Nation’s Capitol newbie, but he has lit up the D.C. sky like that Russian meteorite, making lots of noise and causing an awful lot of damage. If the GOP leaders are really serious about shedding the party’s hateful image, they need to need to rein in those like him who speak for the haters.
He is just one of the hard-liners who carelessly run roughshod over fairness. Granted that polite Washington, after decades of mannerly deal-brokering, has managed to drag the country into a huge mess, it certainly can’t be undone by ugly politics.
Cruz makes a big deal about his Princeton and Harvard education. Certainly, one of his Ivy League professors taught him about McCarthyism. Sen. Joe McCarthy, as even us dullards know, blazed into national renown with his red-baiting. He quickly flamed out, but not before he had ruined many lives and reputations with his smears and innuendos.

Once again I am part of an MSNBC "Brain Trust" panel, scheduled about 4:30, Eastern Sunday afternoon. Think of it as pre-red carpet (Who will I be wearing?)

(This is a week old, as usual, delayed to keep the syndicator and paying client newspapers happy)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, FEB. 15, 2013
THE ‘SMARTER GOVERNMENT’ NO-BRAINER
BY BOB FRANKEN
If there was ever proof that what President Barack Obama said was self-evident, all one had to do is look around the House floor during his State of the Union address when he declared that we need a “smarter government.” The speech came just a couple of weeks before we face a huge hit to our economy, a self-inflicted one. Everybody agrees that the sequester must be avoided; nobody has much hope of that happening before the March 1 deadline.
Instead of working away at avoiding that demolition, the different sides are sticking it to each other. On SOU day and the chief executive’s annual assurance that the “State of the Union is strong” (which is less and less true), his leading adversary, which is what John Boehner seems to be, derided Obama in starkly personal terms, telling reporters: “I don’t think he has the guts to do it. He doesn’t have the courage to take on the liberal side of his own party — never has.” That is hardly grown-up language and certainly striking considering that the same speaker who was growling insults spends so much of his time groveling before the extremists in his caucus.
The GOP is so fractured that it requires two members to respond to the president. First Florida Sen. Marco Rubio assured us that he and the Republicans don’t “want to protect the rich.” He was visibly nervous and needed a swig of water. Was he worried we’d have trouble swallowing that?
His tea-party counterpart, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, attacked the president for offering “free stuff,” perhaps channeling Mitt Romney. Paul is one of the zealots who mostly want to dismantle the government. He argues that what we have now is unconstitutional. He might want to read the words of one of the Constitution’s authors, James Madison, who wrote, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” The other part of his equation was: "If angels were to govern man, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”
There is a real shortage of angels right now, so we need to police the worst instincts of the greedy. On the other hand, the federal agencies all too often make a real mess out of nearly everything; ineffective mortgage-relief programs, for example, or the contemptible paralysis in the process of veterans and their families getting their rightful benefits.

It's Thursday again. Tomorrow morning at 5:15 AM Eastern on MSNBC, I'll be trying to be coherent. You'll be up to watch of course.

(As usual, let's note this column is a week old, delayed per the syndication deal to allow the paying newspaper clients to get first crack at it.)
FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, FEB. 12, 2013
THE R-WORD
BY BOB FRANKEN
How can it be that among those of good will who normally avoid racial and ethnic slurs, there is such strong opposition to the NFL Washington Redskins changing their name? This would be people who wouldn’t even consider using the poisonous epithet for blacks, preferring instead to say “N-word” if the subject comes up at all. And yet so many of them, the avid football fans, resist any thought of getting rid of the R-word.
It’s plainly and simply an expression of bigotry, rooted in America’s sorry history of oppressing our original inhabitants. And yet it persists, a divisive term attached to one of the few entities that unites D.C. as crazed fans of all colors and political persuasions go bonkers for the home team.
That probably would not include the Native Americans here whose pleas for a change are drowned out. The only reason the subject came up again is that the Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian held a symposium on this festering issue. There also is legal action to force a name change that has been rattling around in various courts for nearly two decades.
By the way, no one from the team showed up for the event, which is hardly a surprise since the owner, like all the NFL chiefs (yes that was intentional), is too consumed with making money to reconsider a trademark that is so lucrative, no matter how offensive. Besides they’re too busy now that they have suddenly discovered that the highly marketable violence of their game is so dangerous that they face expensive legal jeopardy.
While they aren’t acting on the controversy over the odious name, other sports entities are. In 2005, the NCAA, which oversees the business of college athletics, banned the use of most Indian imagery and nicknames in the postseason.
Even at the secondary level there has been some sensitivity. The latest example comes from Cooperstown, N.Y., where the local high school has ditched the R-word and is considering “Deerslayers” or other names that would honor James Fenimore Cooper, who was from Cooperstown. Considering that the town is also home to another sport’s Hall of Fame, maybe the football team could call itself the “Baseballs.” It might be a tad confusing, but at least it wouldn’t be racist.

(The usual drivel which points out this column is a week late here at the behest of the syndicators who want to give client (paying) newspapers the first crack at it)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, FEB. 8, 2013
THE PREHISTORIC BOY SCOUTS
BY BOB FRANKEN
Without a doubt, we are all avid readers of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences magazine. So we’re all abuzz, I’m sure, about the newly published study that claims Neanderthals died off earlier than previously thought, which could mean they never shared our planet with full-fledged humans. Bet that knocked your socks off.
The only problem is that it’s wrong: Neanderthals are still among us. How else can we describe the two Ricks, Santorum and Perry. Once again, they’re speaking out for those whose brains are still evolving from antediluvian stage. This time, they’ve left the primordial ooze to weigh in on the Boy Scouts of America.

Tomorrow's Thursday people. And what does that mean? That I'll be on MSNBC at about 5:15 AM, Eastern. So rise and shine everyone! Yeah right...

(This column is delayed here because the syndication deal requires a week's wait after its newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, FEB. 5, 2013
THE BOWL GAMES
BY BOB FRANKEN
Now that we’ve gotten past the Super Bowl in New Orleans’ Superdome, it’s time to turn our attention to those in Washington playing under the Capitol Dome in the Stupid Bowl.
What else should we call the game-playing that’s going on as the partisan gladiators hurtle from one crisis to another? Next up, as we know, is the sequester, which goes into full, destructive effect in less than a month. To sidestep it, somebody will need to fake us out and come up with A way to avoid still another big loss — not just for the economy, but for the credibility of our government.
This crisis is particularly disgusting because it was self-inflicted by our elected leaders. In August 2011, to avoid a United States default, they concocted legislation that would impose nearly across-the-board cuts so appalling to both sides that Republicans and Democrats would be forced to set aside their partisan vitriol and cobble together a budget deal that would avoid this sledgehammer fiasco. They imposed a Jan. 1 deadline this year, thinking it would be plenty of time.
It’s hard to believe we could underestimate these guys, but we did. Jan. 1 came and went, and all the anxious-to-leave members of the outgoing Congress could do is pass a short extension, making midnight February 28 the new zero hour.
That’s less than a month from now, and we still have no agreement, other than people on both sides concurring that a sequestration would be a disaster. Sad to say, they also are ruefully acknowledging that it’s probably going to happen.
If they’re right, then on March 1 the Pentagon and most domestic agencies will begin to gut vital programs, crippling not just federal endeavors that are a integral part of our lives, but also doing very real damage as we struggle to avoid a return to recession. The fiscal situation is very fragile right now.

(Per normal, this column is delayed here a week because the syndicator requires that client newspapers get first crack at it)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, FEB. 1, 2013
WARMHEARTED VS MEAN-SPIRITED
BY BOB FRANKEN
If there is any issue that puts on display the best and worst of our country, it is immigration. After all, a glory of the United States of America is our “Give me your tired, your poor” tradition. Unfortunately these days, too many of us add “as long as they are whites from Europe.” Much of the debate over who gets in legally or sneaks in is colored (and I use the word on purpose) by the kinds of stereotypes that are clearly racist.
Let us not get carried away about those Republicans who are now latching on to a less-malicious approach, an arduous path to citizenship for responsible undocumenteds who have built families and a hidden life in the U.S. Still, it’s a departure for a party whose candidates in the 2012 election competed to be the most hateful.
They got clobbered, and a big reason was that Hispanics turned out in droves to vote against them. So now the image-makers suddenly are trying to engineer a more inclusive facade.
In fairness, Sen. John McCain is something of an exception. He is a longtime voice for finding a sensible remedy and unshackling us from the intolerance that has so bogged down the search for a solution. Now he and other GOP senators have joined Democratic counterparts in proposing an outline that ultimately would give some of the estimated 11 million illegals and their loved ones living here a chance to come out of the shadows. McCain was blunt about the motivation: “The Republican party is losing support of our Hispanic citizens.”

I begin a weekly Thursday morning gig on MSNBC's "First Look" with Mara Schiavocompo tomorrow during the 5:00 AM, Eastern hour. You'll be up to watch of course.

(As always, this column appears here a week after its newspaper release to keep the syndicator happy)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, JAN. 29, 2013
THE WARM AND FUZZY BARACK AND HILLARY INTERVIEW
BY BOB FRANKEN
Will somebody please tell me what that Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama joint interview -- no, make that love-fest -- on “60 Minutes” was about? The two of them were almost giggling as they talked about their relationship with a somewhat-incredulous Steve Kroft. The best he could get for an explanation was Obama’s “I just wanted to publicly have a chance to say thank you.” If you believe that was all this was about, I would like to sell you a night in the Lincoln Bedroom.
That, of course, is in the White House, which, according to widespread speculation, is where Hillary would like to take up residence in four years, this time as chief executive, as opposed to “wife of.”
Speaking of Bill Clinton, one couldn’t help but remember that Hillary has done a joint “60 Minutes” interview with Kroft before. It was back in 1992, when she was sitting by her man Bill as he campaigned for the presidency and we were getting our first insights into his carnal exploits. He ultimately became POTUS for eight years, and she was FLOTUS for that wild ride.
We’ve come a long way, and so has she. Now she’s leaving her gig as Obama’s first secretary of state, and Mr. Obama has said he wanted this interview as a wet kiss for the same woman with whom he brawled during the 2008 primaries, each slugging it out for the nomination he finally won.
Maybe they truly did want to show off what soon-to-be-former Secretary Clinton called a display of how, in the United States, political rivals, even intense ones, can move on and work together, “because we both love our country.”

A reminder I'll be on MSNBC this Sunday afternoon at 4:30 Eastern taking a break from all the Super Bowl festivities in the Superdome to discuss what's going on under the Capitol dome in the Stupid Bowl.

I'll be on MSNBC Sunday at 4:30 PM, Eastern, again a part of the "Brain Trust" panel. Or did they say "Brain CRUST"?

(The usual stuff: This column appears here a week after its newspaper release to keep the syndicator happy)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, JAN. 25, 2013
CRISIS MISMANAGEMENT
BY BOB FRANKEN
Washington seems to be on a path to staving off a United States of America financial default until May 18, now that the GOP semicontrolled House has passed, and the White House has signed off on, legislation that doesn’t really increase the debt ceiling but delays enforcement of it till that date.
Don’t ask. All that’s important is that this crisis is now on the back burner for almost four months, which in politician years is, uh, almost four months. Paraphrasing Vice President Joe Biden, “This is a small blankin’ deal.” But hey, it’s a deal, which is a big departure in the nation’s capital these days.
To quote Laotzu (how’s that for classy?), “A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step,” and that sixth-century Taoist wasn’t just lip-synching Dixie. Even little tippy-toes forward in D.C. represent progress. Of course, the problem is that there are plenty of opportunities for these squabblers to fall flat on their whatever, and bring us all down with them.
This short extension really means the Republicans are buying some time so they can better position themselves for the budget fights ahead. They were getting hammered in the public-perception arena for appearing to dig in on their demands for huge cutbacks. Had they not backed off, they could have forced the nation into disgrace, a brutally embarrassing inability to pay her bills. Now they have cooled their jets, they can more comfortably try to impose their government-busting will in negotiations over averting a partial federal shutdown, which could happen March 27. Even before that, on the 1st, the delayed “sequestration,” the indiscriminate across-the-board butchering of both domestic and defense programs, is supposed to kick in. So the slashers have plenty of leverage in their demands to gut programs that help the old and needy. Otherwise, all agencies get clobbered, threatening not just the military, but essential civilian functions from air-traffic control to federal law enforcement and medical research.
Apparently, defaulting on obligations to bondholders is perceived as worse than defaulting on obligations to everyone else, so while it would appear that this was a retreat by Speaker John Boehner, it actually was pretty clever. He was able to hold at bay his tea party wild bunch and even got to weakly flex his party’s muscles a little bit with that ridiculous requirement in the legislation that the Senate pass a real budget for the first time since 2009 or the members won’t get paid. How hard-hitting was that?
The Democrats went along, muttering, “Yeah, sure, whatever,” particularly since they don’t call the U.S. Senate the “millionaires club” for nothing. Even those in the club who are not wealthy don’t have to sweat it. With all the special interests slithering around, no one in Congress has to worry about starving. That kind of concern is for constituents.
The reason they haven’t produced a budget, by the way, is because doing so would mean hard choices that could cause some of their lobbyist buddies to go berserk if they cut the fat. That’s what these times of austerity require, that plus raising taxes on someone. The best way they found to avoid offending anyone has been to just sidestep their responsibility. Now the Democrats have said they’ll actually hammer out something. Don’t hold your breath on that.

(The usual disclaimer: this appears here a week after it was released to client newspapers because that's my deal with the the syndicator)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, JAN. 22, 2013
BACK TO REALITY
BY BOB FRANKEN
“My fellow Americans, we are made for this moment, and we will seize it -- so long as we seize it together.” Barack Obama used his inaugural address as a rallying cry. The problem is, we certainly are not together as he begins his second term.
So much has changed since the nation celebrated its first black president. What a difference four years of malevolence has made. We have deteriorated from an “Audacity of Hope” to a paucity. Our country has been worn down by nasty opportunists who have turned Mr. Obama’s unique story into a “not one of us” divisiveness.
Their impressionable followers have been manipulated to the point that many of them go to absurd lengths to question the validity of his presidency. For instance, a new Fairleigh Dickinson University PublicMind poll shows 36 percent of the respondents still question whether he is “hiding information about his background and personal life,” 64 percent of the Republicans. It doesn’t matter how many times the “birthers” are repudiated, die-hard nonbelievers cling to their nonbelief that Mr. Obama is a natural-born American, even eligible to be chief executive.
That doesn’t even count those who apparently no longer want to be Americans. They are so infuriated that this interloper got re-elected, they want to secede from the United States. They fantasize about some nirvana where they can keep their arsenals and be free from responsibility for those in need. It doesn’t matter that they too benefit from the social programs they want to eliminate, their new country wouldn’t tax their minds with such trivia; in fact, it wouldn’t tax anything.
It’s a little wacky out there in the U.S. of A. circa 2013. Actually, it’s loony in here, by which I mean Washington, where extreme is mainstream. Consider Sen. Rand Paul characterizing the Obama executive orders addressing guns as a power grab. “I’m against having a king” he told the Christian Broadcasting Network News, “I think having a monarch is what we fought the American Revolution over, and someone who wants to bypass the Constitution, bypass Congress, that’s someone who wants to act like a king or a monarch.”
That might be considered a little loopy were it not for the fact that such incendiary misrepresentation of government is commonplace in these toxic times. The various calls for impeachment over the executive orders don’t even get much notice, except maybe back in the districts of the various representatives who casually throw around the idea. After all, they were sent to Washington by voters who are scared to death that Barack Hussein Obama wants to replace the Constitution with Shariah law or is conjuring some other sinister plot. That really wouldn’t bother them, if only they could secede. Absent that, they will simply have to wallow in their fearsome fantasies.

I'm on MSNBC tomorrow afternoon (Saturday), part of the "Brain Trust" (don't ask me what I'm doing there). 4:30-ish,. Eastern.

(This, as usual, is a week old to accommodate the newspaper syndicator)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, JAN. 18, 2013
BULLETPROOF GUNS
BY BOB FRANKEN
Reality is really hard to swallow. We are conditioned to demand and expect fixes to any given problem. The harsh truth is that, oftentimes, there aren’t any. Gun violence in this country is just the latest example of an issue that is literally life and death and doesn’t really have an effective fix -- not a doable one, in any case.
The only truly sufficient remedy -- getting rid of all the civilian weapons in the United States -- of course is not going to happen in a nation that has 270 million of them.
There is plenty of talk these days about the effect movie and video-game violence has, particularly from organizations like the National Rifle Association and other groups that represent the interest of the corporate armament profiteers. There is conflicting research about the impact of that vicarious mayhem, but the problem is more ingrained. For generations, cowboy movies have been a part of our culture. Hollywood has made the deadly shootout routine with zero attention paid to the consequences. No wonder we so embrace our pistols and rifles; we are all trying to be the Lone Ranger. That isn’t going to change, and few politicians have the courage to take on such primal feelings.
An assault-weapons curtailment, as the president proposes? Won’t happen. Never mind that they serve no purpose except for lethal slaughter, they provide a pathetic feeling of power to those who own them.
Some of the toughest actions have difficulties of their own. The New York state legislation that calls for mental-health professionals to aggressively report to the authorities clients who are expressing dangerous thoughts is one of them. Obviously, it is desirable to keep guns out of the hands of a psychopath, but what about the person who is going through a rough patch and harboring dark feelings while he or she struggles through it? What does his or her therapist do if this person vents about these fleeting violent fantasies? Should the professional turn him or her in? What does that do to the premise of confidentiality, which establishes trust and allows troubled one to work through these issues?

(Obviously this is a week old because of the deal with the newspaper syndicate. It's dated, but still a reminder not to get too carried away with today's festivities)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, JAN. 15, 2013
MEATING OF THE ALLEGED MINDS
BY BOB FRANKEN
We all know the cliché comparing lawmaking and sausage-making. It has become a hackneyed way to rationalize the messy process of politics. Sad to say, it falls far short of describing the rancid waste we get from the Washington grinder these days. For that, we can thank all those who cook up one unnecessary crisis after another, leaving nothing but foul choices. Simply put, they either don’t know what they’re doing or don’t care how poisonous their conduct is.
Case in point: We are looking over another abyss while our lawmakers do everything to jump off and take us with them. Once again, the imperative to increase the nation’s borrowing authority has slammed into demands for massive budget cutbacks. Both sides make arguments that would seem to be no-brainers: President Barack Obama makes the obvious point that the United States of America cannot be allowed to go into financial default, nor be held hostage by GOP hardliners. “They will not,” he insists, “collect a ransom in exchange for not crashing the economy.”
But what about Republicans and their argument that federal overspending must be reversed? That certainly is not without merit.
Surely there is a recipe for compromise. Somehow, our leaders can figure out an agreement that avoids the national embarrassment of default while finally forcing the government to stop spending like a drunken sailor. Why does this always have to be a battle over whether to shred the social safety net? Why not take a hard look at the redundancies in our bureaucracy or whether we need all those agencies. Why not truly restructure our ridiculous tax system with all its loopholes?
What we get instead is a bitter menu of confrontation. Actually, there are two of them. The GOP offers only red meat, gutted social programs and ultimatums. That’s no worse than what some of the president’s allies are cooking up: They are proposing, in effect, nothing. Instead of taking on determined opponents, they operate on a pretense that he and they don’t have to deal with the other side. That great statesman Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, recommends the president act “without Congressional approval, if necessary.”
How cute. He and his buds are obviously trying to masquerade as hardball negotiators, so they speak of one-sided action by the chief executive. They cite the 14th Amendment’s stipulation that “The validity of the public debt of the United States ... shall not be questioned.” Of course, they ignore Article 1 of that very same Constitution, which endows Congress with the power “to borrow money on the credit of the United States.” The president can attempt a veto, but a unilateral move by the White House would, at the very least, cause such a legal and political tangle that the nation would immediately explode into a crisis of embarrassment. So of course he’ll bargain, somehow.

Before we get to football, I'll be kicking things around as part of another "Genius Panel" (I'll pause for jokes here) on MSNBC about 4:30, Eastern, Sunday afternoon.

(As always this column appears here a week after its newspaper release per my deal with the syndicator)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, JAN. 11, 2013
THE PAYBACK PLAYBOOK
BY BOB FRANKEN
Mind reading is impossible, but you can bet we are not getting the complete story in the public part of the controversy over the nomination of Chuck Hagel to be defense secretary. A look beneath the surface leaves strong evidence of some private agendas, the distinct impression there might be payback involved.
That never comes up, of course, as the White House and critics argue over Hagel’s views on Israel and Iran, but let’s add to the mix any hard feelings that might exist over the role Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu played in the recent election. He all but endorsed Mitt Romney and took a lot of shots at Barack Obama. Now President Obama has nominated a man who is causing an uproar, particularly among Bibi’s most ardent American champions. After all, Sen. Chuck Hagel got into several tiffs with leaders of what he disparagingly called the “Jewish lobby,” particularly with his scornful comment, “I am not an Israeli senator; I’m a United States senator.”
Hagel also managed to antagonize his fellow Republicans when he served with them in the Senate. Although he did vote to authorize George W. Bush’s Iraq War, he became an outspoken critic of how it was run. Perhaps some of them may be indulging in a little payback of their own with their harsh reactions to his nomination. He would send “the worst possible signal,” huffed Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, which is typical of the GOP reaction. So we can expect a knock-down, drag-out brawl during the confirmation process.
It’s not hard to conclude that the president seems to be looking for ways to pick a fight. Making it clear he favored U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to replace Hillary Clinton at the State department was sure to push the buttons of those with oversized egos who had borne the brunt of her undiplomatic put-downs through the years. He backed down in her case, but he seems to be going out of his way to rattle some cages.
It is true that he was vilified by some supporters for being a meek patsy during his first term, allowing the hard-right fanatics to control the agenda, this time around, he is pushing the limit in his effort to show he won’t be bullied.

(First the usual drivel: This column appears here a week after its newspaper release so we can accommodate the paying customers )

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, JAN. 8, 2013
SEN. BARNEY FRANK?
BY BOB FRANKEN
Consider this a fervent personal plea to Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick from those of us who pay attention to Congress: If we can’t afford the therapy or meds to correct such self-destructive behavior, then you, governor, are our only hope to make this condition tolerable. Please, please, please appoint Barney Frank as the United States senator from Massachusetts.
To bring everyone up to speed: Now that John Kerry has been nominated for Secretary of State and confirmation will likely be greased by his fellow senators, Gov. Patrick must appoint someone to fill his seat for a couple of months until the state can hold a special election.
Enter Barney Frank, who just retired from the House of Representatives after 32 years. He has suddenly declared that he is interested in that temporary spot, telling MSNBC, “I’ve told the governor that I would now like to do that.”
Patrick, who is considering some others who have let it be known that they’re available, carefully responded with, “I have a lot of factors I’m considering, and he’s definitely on the list.” Frank’s take-no-prisoners style certainly would qualify as a “factor,” but it’s why this is too good to pass up.
Anyone who has watched Senate proceedings and managed to stay awake is well-aware that it is run -- or more accurately, crawled -- under strict Rules of Decorum, one of which states that members must not “impute to another Senator any conduct or motive unworthy by any Senator form of words, directly or indirectly or unbecoming a Senator.”
Barney Frank has spent a lifetime imputing. It would be uproarious to watch him operate in the “world’s greatest deliberative body,” which is how this bunch refers to itself. The members laboriously and insincerely refer to each other as “my distinguished friend.” Frank probably has never ever used those words in his life. This is the guy, after all, who took to the House floor to ridicule anti-abortionists who “believe that life begins at conception and ends at birth,” who called Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia a “homophobe.” We need him in the Senate.
We should squeeze at least a couple more months out of someone who could go to a town-hall meeting and tell an angry constituent, “Trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining-room table.”

Tomorrow, which is Saturday the 12th, I will be on MSNBC about 4:30 PM Eastern,or shortly thereafter on a segment called "The Brain Trust". Go figure.

(The usual disclaimer: This column appears here a week after its newspaper release to keep the syndicator happy)

. FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, JAN. 4, 2013
STOP THE STOPWATCH
BY BOB FRANKEN
You know those dopey, backtiming clocks the news channels put in the corner of the screen each time the nation is facing another contrived crisis? We just watched them again, ominously ticking away the hours, minutes and seconds as our politicians lurched toward the fiscal cliff on New Year’s Day. Of course, just past the nick of time, our fearful leaders managed to avert immediate disaster by agreeing to shove disagreement aside for a couple of months, when they see to it that the country’s well-being will once again be endangered.
Maybe we should just keep the clocks going down there with all the other distracting graphic garbage racing past the anchorperson. After all, there are only about 1,400 hours, X minutes and X seconds before we face a financial default, or those debilitating cuts. So we need to know how far away our next national embarrassment is. Some might argue that our elected officials themselves are a national embarrassment, but unfortunately they have the power to cause some real damage. And while we’re at it, perhaps we should add even more to the clutter on the screen with a second clock, one that would count the time remaining till the budget deal that funds all of the U.S. agencies runs out. That’s right, we face another threat of a government shutdown at the end of March, 744 hours from debt ceiling zero hour. We need to know exactly how long we have between calamities. Surely there are some experts on Mayan chronology looking for work, since they blew it so badly on Doomsday.
Actually, with the start of a new Congress, the time has come for time-outs. A system must be established to discipline lawmakers who are behaving badly. When a senator or representative says something that is destructively hostile or otherwise acts out, he or she must spend some Quiet Time. Speaking privileges will be taken away until he or she promises to play nice. The problem is that at any given time, just about all of these delinquents would be stuck in Quiet Time Detention Hall, so all we’d hear on C-Span would be silence. Come to think of it, maybe that isn’t a problem.

(As always, this column appears here a week after its newspaper release to accommodate the syndicator)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, JAN. 1, 2013
SAME OLD CONGRESS — SAME NEW CONGRESS?
BY BOB FRANKEN
There is some good news that will come out of the “fiscal cliff” debacle: The 112th Congress will be history. Forget the 80th one, the infamous “Do Nothing” gang from 1947 and ’48. The crew from 2011 and ’12 will probably be remembered as the “Do Nothing Right” Congress. Instead of solving the nation’s problems, this madcap bunch made things worse, simply unable to comprehend the difference between campaigning and governing.
The fiscal-cliff crisis is just the latest way their simple-minded intransigence has embarrassed the United States. They were actually trying to dig out of the slop hole they created in 2011, when they passed legislation with draconian budget cuts to avert a U.S. default. Not only did they “kick the can down the road,” to use the cliché, but they did it clumsily. Add to the toxic mix the blind unwillingness by the anti-government fanatics to undo the fiscally disastrous Bush tax cuts with a small hike for their wealthy patrons. In total, we were left with a mess and still another disgusting spectacle.

I will be on MSNBC this afternoon (Sunday) at 4:20 Eastern. The time was moved up, so we can all catch the beginning of the Washington-Washington game.

I am on MSNBC Sunday at 4:30 PM Eastern. So now you have to choose whether to DVR me or the Redskins. Tough choice.

(This column appears here a week after its newspaper release as required by my syndicator)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, DEC. 25, 2012
THE POLITICAL GUNBATTLE BEGINS
BY BOB FRANKEN
Maybe there is hope. Maybe something effective can be done to interrupt the cycle of gun violence in this country. But we’re sure not going to find it from the National Rifle Association. After hiding out in the aftermath of the massacre in Newtown, Conn., and then promising a “constructive contribution,” the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre had a destructive idea instead. He would place “armed police officers in every school in this nation.” “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun,” he went on, “is a good guy with a gun.” Yup. Nothing like a shootout to protect our children.
LaPierre and his accomplices know full well that furor over even such unspeakable slaughter doesn’t match the fury of the millions of Americans over any efforts to take away their precious pistols and assault rifles. All they have to do is wait out the politicians. Expedience and campaign contributions usually catch up with “enough is enough.” Memories fade. “Meaningful action,” as President Barack Obama demands, is elusive, and the gun lobby knows that. Already, Republicans are indicating they will resist any new legislation. If the president is successful in getting an assault-weapons ban through Congress, it could be riddled with loopholes, like the law that went into effect in 1994. Even that was allowed to expire 10 years later.
There is, however, one tool that can be used to bludgeon the lethal interests into submission: money. Choke off financing to the merchants of death, and maybe they will shrivel away. Look what happened when the California State Teachers’ Retirement System threatened to pull the $750 million it had invested in the private-equity firm Cerberus. Among its holdings, Cerberus owns Freedom Group. Freedom Group’s various companies manufacture guns, one of them the Bushmaster assault rifle Adam Lanza used to mow down his mother and the innocents at Sandy Hook Elementary.
All it took was one phone call from CalSTRS, one suggestion that it might pull its chunk of assets, and Cerberus suddenly announced it would be selling Freedom Group. Other public pension funds are examining the placement of their millions. Meanwhile, shares of the arms makers are dropping like a stone. So, of all things, the path to a moral result might run through the decidedly immoral world of high finance.

I will be scorning our political leaders at Fiscal Cliffside during the 5PM Eastern hour on MSNBC this Sunday.

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, DEC. 21, 2012
YULETIDE FOR BETTER OR VERSE
BY BOB FRANKEN

’Tis the time around Christmas, the liberals ecstatic
The White House next year will stay Democratic.

The victory this year must have seemed heaven sent
Once Mitt blurted out “47 percent.”

You’d think we’d have ended the political tiff,
But we’ve lurched right away to that gross fiscal cliff.

Believe it or not, it’s gotten insaner,
No agreement so far from Obama and Boehner.

They continue to fight over cutbacks and taxing
Makes it hard for us all to enjoy Yuletide relaxing.

No holiday cheer because of such sloppiness
We reporters must work and so must the lobbyists.

All over the country there arises a clatter
Of citizens screaming “Just what is the matter?”

“We told you we’d gotten awfully tired of this stuff,
So please cut it out, enough is enough.”

On, Obama! On, Boehner! On, Pelosi! On, Cantor!
On, the tea-party caucus, with all of its ranters.

Just settle this thing, put an end to your brawl
Then dash away! Dash away! Dash away all!

(As always, this column appears here a week after its newspaper release per my deal with the syndicator)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, DEC. 18, 2012
MURDEROUS POLITICAL COLLABORATORS
BY BOB FRANKEN
Let’s be direct: Those well-financed gun lobbyists who have so intimidated our craven politicians are complicit in the slaughter of the children in Newtown, Conn. That’s an opinion about the immorality of their bullying. The possession of weapons of mass destruction they promote is not a crime because our lawmakers have cowered and refused to make laws that would help end these increasingly common slaughters. The legislators also are complicit because of their dereliction of duty.
We need to abruptly change direction. The nation needs to be disarmed. Nothing less than that. The reality that there are pistols and rifles in nearly half of America’s homes, all capable of ending a precious life at the twitch of a finger, is insane. The fact that states are expanding the right to carry concealed weapons is a disgrace. Michigan is the latest to consider such action. Connecticut, where those innocent youngsters were massacred by a deranged young man who had easy access to a family arsenal, has stricter requirements, but obviously not strict enough.
President Barack Obama’s emotional response was shared by the entire country. But will his call for “meaningful action” be more than empty words? We have mourned the carnage so many times, and yet our leaders are afraid to eliminate the instruments that make such bloodshed so easy.
How many times must we go through this? How is it that after Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora and Gabby Giffords, we have new bursts of horror that we mourn and then consign to apathy? While such atrocities sometimes do occur elsewhere — Norway comes to mind — it also is true that in countries where there is stringent control, gun deaths are vastly reduced. Here, it is not only the shock of the heinous incidents, but the evil of the routine. In the United States last year, there were more than 11,000 firearm homicides. Add to that those who were accidentally mowed down.

I'll be doing MSNBC this Christmas Eve Eve Sunday, during the 3:00 PM Eastern hour. Think of it as the halftime show.

(The usual disclaimer: This column appears here a week after its newspaper release to keep the syndicator happy)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, DEC. 14, 2012

THE MYTH OF THE TEAM

BY BOB FRANKEN

Here's a tip for the independent thinker who is ostracized for not being a “team player.” Simply ask, “What's the team doing for me?” True, it is subversive, but it is often a really good question. How sad.

This is a cliché that dates at least as far back as Aesop: “United we stand, divided we fall.” Unfortunately, the concept of the United States as a united country is becoming a fable. The reality is that we have evolved into an adversarial society, increasingly separated by bitter distrust and hostility. It's red vs. blue, producers vs. consumers, the legal system vs. justice, banks vs. the world, rich vs. everyone else, you name the institution. And, yes, that would include those of us in media, where itthe bottom line over journalism.

This absence of teamwork certainly defines the workplace, where all too often the lust for profits unleashes the worst in predatory bosses who take every opportunity to gut the wages, benefits, security and dignity of their employees. They have been enabled by the demise of organized labor. That's why they have spent so much time and effort destroying the unions, helped at every turn by their Republican Party handmaidens.

Once again, their unholy alliance has achieved a huge victory for greed by sabotaging unions. Michigan's Legislature and GOP Gov. Rick Snyder have teamed up to, with little warning, jam an odious bill through the Republican-controlled legislature that suddenly creates another right-to-work state, one of 24. All of them sap the financial strength of the labor movement by no longer requiring nonmembers to pay dues in organized shops even when they benefit from the contracts that the local negotiated with management.

What is remarkable in this case is that Michigan is where the movement got traction. The United Auto Workers fought for and won agreements that helped create a middle class and allowed it to flourish. Now, as the unions disintegrate in the U.S., so does the middle class. We see the results in so many ways, not the least of which is the disgraceful financial inequality that is such a national blight.

(As always, this column is a week late appearing here because the syndicator requires that client newspapers get first crack at it)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, DEC. 11, 2012
SAPPY NEW YEAR
BY BOB FRANKEN
We’re running out of time to arrange our New Year’s parties. But how can we, with all the uncertainty about the “fiscal cliff? Obviously, that’s the preoccupation of each and every one of us, right? So should we plan a joyous celebration to welcome 2013, or will we be moping because our politicians once again really blew it?
If we pay attention to much of the posturing, it sometimes can seem like a deal is out of reach. Everyone is taking shots. Words like “stalemate” fill the airwaves and cable waves. President Barack Obama, who has been stung before by complaints that he’s squishy, is playing Mr. Hardnose now that he won the election. Wherever he can, he’s trying to stick it to the Republicans. At every opportunity, he is informing the world that this time, he will insist on higher tax rates for the wealthy. That, of course, is utter sacrilege for the GOP, which depends on handouts from the rich for its very existence.
House Speaker John Boehner and company are so flummoxed, they are putting forward proposals that at least pretend to include so-called revenue raisers. Granted, they are based on undefined reforms in deductions, but at least they are changing their tune by even talking about adding money to the budget.
The president doesn’t seem to be budging. Why would he? The polls are on his side. So all us pundits have now turned to discussing what just might happen when we hurtle off the cliff Jan. 1. Will anyone feel immediate pain? Certainly not. Except maybe investors, for a day or so. Will everyone be embarrassed by those we elected? Absolutely. They will have yet again demeaned the United States of America. That’s the noise in our echo chamber.
There’s one good thing about being a commentator: No one remembers what we say. Not only is it job security, it means we don’t have to be very brave to swim against the flow. That’s what I will be doing here, timidly going where few have gone before.
I believe you can make those party plans. Assume that the political parties will come up with a deal. It may be nothing more than a sham agreement, but they will be able to announce some sort of “hard-fought compromise after intense bargaining.” It probably won’t happen until moments before the deadline on the 31st, because of their addiction to 11th-hour melodrama. It might even come after midnight, if they use that old stop-the-clock routine, and we won’t officially know whether to sing “Auld Lang Syne” or Auld Lang Whine, but 2013 will begin with a deal.

(Usual preface: This is a week old column, delayed after its newspaper release because the syndicator says so)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, DEC. 7, 2012
ARMED AND DANGEROUS
BY BOB FRANKEN
Those of you who believe you should be able to “pack heat” or whatever expression people use to describe carrying a deadly weapon are about to get really heated up by what comes next: Bravo Bob Costas. Congratulations for using your forum on NBC’s Sunday night “Football in America” broadcast and having the courage to be direct about the nation’s “gun culture” when commenting on the tragic murder-suicide of Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher and his girlfriend, Kasandra Perkins.
For the record, all that Bob stated was the obvious, that “If he didn’t possess/own a gun, he and Kasandra would be alive today.” But that was enough to cause apoplexy among those who believe in a somehow-sacred right to possess their instruments of death.
The right wing has gone ballistic. On Fox News, host Brian Kilmeade angrily wondered whether it was “appropriate for Costas to make his remarks,” or whether he abused his position by taking advantage of a TV platform that amplifies his individual opinion to the point that it reached 20 million people. In other words, he should keep his points of view about everything but football to himself.
Actually, it’s a valid argument. Why should we care what a celebrity thinks other than being surprised that he or she really thinks? Why should those who are nonbelievers be forced to watch Tim Tebow and so many other athletes demonstrate their religious fervor each and every time they score a touchdown or hit a home run? Why should we really care which stars supported Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, or which ones come to Washington to testify before Congress about their favorite cause?
But we do care about what they have to say, and if that’s the case, Costas was entirely appropriate when he took a stand. How pathetic it is that our political leaders, among them President Obama, are so timid in the face of the gun lobby, kowtowing to those who have made America’s love affair with guns a murderous obsession.
How insane it is when mass murders in schools and colleges, movie theaters, houses of worship, you name it, are regular occurrences. How can we justify the ease with which a mentally ill person can get weapons and ammunition to gun down a congresswoman and those who came to meet with her? How could the question of whether disturbed veterans should be monitored for what’s in their arsenal even be worthy of debate, as it is right now in Washington? How can we accept the fatalities that come when someone who is panicking ends the life of an unarmed teenager because craven or opportunistic legislators passed a “Stand Your Ground” law? And how can we accept as routine the thousands of accidental gun deaths which bring a domestic dispute to an unspeakably tragic end,like the Belcher case, minus the publicity?
And yet Obama and others who might stand for common sense wither under the heat of such an incendiary issue and the NRA, lest they lose some votes. It is amoral expedience, plain and simple.

(As always, the syndication deal requires that this appears here a week after its newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, DEC. 4, 2012
POLITICS -- NO JOKE
BY BOB FRANKEN
Some of us who are past puberty will remember a routine by the late comedian George Carlin, in which he plays Al Sleet, the “Hippy Dippy Weatherman” doing the TV weather forecast. “The radar is picking up a line of thundershowers,” mumbles the stoned meteorologist. “The radar is also picking up a squadron of Russian ICBMs, so I wouldn’t sweat the thundershowers.”
In that spirit, let’s note the Mayan calendar and the belief of some who warn it’s predicting doomsday on Dec. 21. So, maybe we don’t need to sweat the fiscal cliff.
But what if the world doesn’t end? The default prophecy is that unless the White House and congressional Republicans negotiate some way out of their stalemate, economic disaster strikes at the first of the year. That will be when the federal government tumbles over that budget “cliff” and lands in a cesspool. Almost everyone agrees it should be avoided. But this is Washington.
Right now, the political game players are taunting each other. President Barack Obama sent his Treasury secretary to Capitol Hill to stick it to the Republicans with a proposal that was long on tax hikes for the wealthy and short on specific cutbacks. House Speaker John Boehner predictably took umbrage, calling the current state of play a “stalemate.”
That was designed to upset anybody who was watching all these games. But by now, almost everyone is used to the posturing that goes on in the name of leadership. The truth is that at the same time the two sides are trash talking, they’re also phone talking, working on ideas that can prevent embarrassment to their country and, more importantly, looking for a face-saving way to avoid embarrassment to themselves.
It’s just one of the old rituals that is being observed in your nation’s capital. There is another classic being performed, a variation on an old melodrama with different actors and actresses. The leading lady is Susan Rice.

(Given today's Obama-Romney meeting at the White House, this column is somewhat dated thanks to the deal with syndicators requiring that my columns appear here a week after newspaper release. The current one appears in your paper. If it doesn't, feel free to cajole the editors. Or harass them.)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, NOV. 23, 2012
THE REPUBLICAN MAKEOVER
BY BOB FRANKEN
What a Thanksgiving Republican leaders had this year. Instead of the usual turkey, they were carving up Mitt Romney. Actually, come to think of it, they’ve made it clear that they consider him a bit of a turkey for losing the election to Barack Obama.
It’s hard to see why they’re such angry birds, since during the interminable campaign, Mitt tried to please each and every one of them. For right-wing audiences, he was the “severe conservative.” For the fat cats, who have no particular principles, he was the symbol of economic inequality. What more could the GOP want?
Apparently, the party wants to win. So the latest gambit is a stated effort to improve its image with the various demographic groups it antagonized during a hateful campaign: blacks, browns, gays, women, just about everybody but old, angry white guys. The last person they need is Malaprop Mitt.
He has quickly become “Mitt Who,” as everybody else in the party jockeys for favor. Marco Rubio, that non-Castro refugee, already is planning his Iowa trips. Bobby Jindal is making a lot of noise. Of course, there’s another Bush, Jeb, among those floating his own trial balloons.
Inevitably, we see Newt Gingrich and some of the others who messed themselves during the primary season popping back up in the “I told you so” frenzy.

As always, this column is delayed a week after newspaper release to keep the syndicator happy. The newest one appears in your paper.)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, NOV. 20, 2012
AMERICA’S MITTFIT
BY BOB FRANKEN
One has to wonder why President Barack Obama would even bother to meet with Mitt Romney. Yes, he promised to, and yes, it is the polite thing to do in the name of soliciting his ideas, but Romney’s ideas are so repulsive that he needs to be removed from the conversation.
He demonstrated it again in his post-election conference call with donors, in which he contended that he lost because, “The president’s campaign, if you will, focused on giving targeted groups a big gift.” Will somebody please remind Mitt, if you will, that Obama won more than 47 percent of the vote? That’s relevant, of course, because Mitt inadvertently revealed himself with his original spewing of contempt for the “47 percent,” those he dismissed as “dependent on government, who believe they are victims,” meaning those who have the audacity to seek government services for health and protection. What nerve!
Actually, Romney speaks for too many of his fellow 1 percenters. He and the others of their ilk have concluded that since they hoard 35 percent of the nation’s wealth (according to the Economic Policy Institute), they are part of a ruling class. They consider themselves above the normal responsibilities of citizenship. That, of course, would include paying their fair share of taxes, which they decidedly do not.
Their GOP handmaidens continue to bow and scrape to the selfish richlings with their obstinate rejection of increased taxation on the wealthy, even as part of a deal to stop the U.S. from hurtling over the “cliff” to recession. House Speaker John Boehner remains adamant that higher rates cannot be part of any bargain, still clinging to the discredited argument that they stifle job creation. Shame on him.

(This is a week old because of the syndication deal that requires the delay from its newspaper release. Feel free to bug the editors if the current one isn't in your paper. As for that other medium, I am appearing on MSNBC ON THIS Friday afternoon during the 2:00 Eastern hour)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE DAY, NOV. 16, 2012
GO ALONG, GOT GONE
BY BOB FRANKEN
At least all this lunacy over the David Petraeus affair does serve one purpose: It reminds us once again about the foolishness of idealizing our national leaders. They are merely fallible human beings. They take their pants off just like the rest of us.
Petraeus and his biographer/paramour Paula Broadwell are just the latest whose high-level hanky-panky has caused a frenzy by media fixated on titillation. And inevitably, like others in their elite game, whether players or groupies, they’re being shredded in the news grinder.
David and Paula (I assume they call each other by their first names in private) have lots in common. They are great networkers. Brilliant or not, Petraeus excelled at self-promotion and the schmoozing arts, and she has been no slouch. Whatever their other talents, they built their careers on connections (let’s dispense with the jokes, they’re too easy).
Petraeus, after all, married the West Point superintendent’s daughter. He was not only someone who had mentors who were “like a father” to him, he had a father-in-law. As for Broadwell, she had a general, David Petraeus. She adored him, and he adored being adored. Both of them relied on one of humankind’s most potent weapons, and that is flattery. It is particularly effective at the top echelons of our society, because so many of those who occupy their lofty perches wonder in their heart of hearts if they are really qualified to be there. Washington is crawling with them.

I'll be part of the MSNBC Thanksgiving break coverage. Turkey Day about 10:30 AM,, Eastern and then Friday afternoon during the 2:00 hour.

(The usual razz-a-ma-tazz: This column appears here a week after its newspaper release because the syndicator says so. The current one is in your paper. If not, the editors might need to be informed about the error of their ways. Feel free.)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, NOV. 13, 2012
REPUBLICAN SOUL-SEARCHING
BY BOB FRANKEN
So the Republicans want to broaden their appeal beyond angry white guys and entitled fat cats? In the ashes of defeat, it has occurred to their leaders that the hatefulness and greed they’ve represented for decades has meant modern life and demographics are passing them by. Now they want to put lipstick on the elephant.
Realizing that the times, they are a’ changin’ (I made that up) and that the politics of exclusion aren’t selling anymore, they’ve decided to try to improve their image with the immigrants, minorities and women they have alienated.
They’re sweating marginalization even though their deception and intolerant messages still attracted the votes of almost half the country. Obviously, though, trends are going in the other direction. That’s why they’re talking about initiatives that would broaden the party’s appeal to those they have abused with spitefulness and selfishness. Apparently, they’re counting on mass amnesia.

(This is delayed a week after newspaper release as called for in the syndication deal. The current piece appears in your paper but if it doesn't, noodge the editors.)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, NOV. 9, 2012
GOING TO POT
BY BOB FRANKEN
Listen. What do you hear? It’s the sound of real life. The commercials on TV are once again selling the pharmaceutical companies’ poisons, not the toxic waste that penetrated our brains during the campaign season. The election is over; it’s time to move on.
Except, we didn’t really move at all. We have the same president, the same Congress and the same hostile, rigid ideologies that seized our leaders before November. We will continue to careen from crisis to crisis. The upcoming one, as we all have heard, is the financial “cliff.” Unless Democrats and Republicans, the White House and Congress -- particularly the House, which is festering with extremist conservatives -- can agree, a malignant combination of tax increases and massive budget cuts likely will dump the economy back into recession.
Already the White House is saying that the president will veto any bill without a tax increase on the rich. And already, House Speaker John Boehner is insisting that there is “no way” Congress will pass one. He has to answer to his hard-right caucus, where the thought of any hike whatsoever is heresy. So disregard any statements from either side promising cooperation. They continue to be fiction, and will be remain so unless someone finds a creative way to make them reality.
You have come to the right place. Where else would you be reminded that the answer may lie in the election? Not the national one, but in the states like Colorado and Washington, that voted to legalize marijuana for recreational use. You might know where I am going with this. The solution to the D.C. gridlock is obvious: Move the bargaining to Colorado, Washington or one of the 17 states that allows marijuana’s use for medical purposes. We are, after all, talking about curing a national illness.
You provide a supply of the negotiators’ favorite weed and a lot of munchies, then let the two newly mellow negotiators go at it. It would give the term “tea party” an entirely new meaning. The whole thing shouldn’t take long. The signal of success would be a puff of white smoke; although, since there would be puffs of smoke throughout, we’d probably have to work on that. Whatever it was, everyone would come out to announce an agreement. Of course, they’d be giggling, but that’s a small price to pay.

(Obviously this is the post election column from last week, a delay from newspaper release necessitated by the syndication deal. The most current one appears in your paper or it can if you bug the editors)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE WEDNESDAY, NOV. 7, 2012
NOW WHAT?
BY BOB FRANKEN
Look, it was a boffo victory speech. President Barack Obama pushed all the right buttons after winning this foul fight. “While each of us will pursue our own individual dreams, we are an American family, and we rise or fall together as one nation and as one people.” Wonderful stuff -- except, we are a shattered family.
It’s great to aspire, as we do in the Pledge of Allegiance, to be “One nation ... indivisible.” Sadly, this election has made that notion really suspect. We are very divisible, and after a relentlessly hateful campaign, we are one nation divided into two separate camps.
More than $6 billion was spent, and we are left just where we started. House Speaker John Boehner, probably fearing for his job, went to Twitter to uh, tweet defiantly, “With this vote, the American people also have made it clear there is no mandate for raising taxes.” Of course, without some sort of deal on taxes, the country will continue to hurtle toward financial disaster and right off the “fiscal cliff.”
Boehner’s House extremists care less about that than persisting in their guerrilla war against government. Meanwhile, Senate Democrats, who did pretty well thanks to the outlandish candidates the GOP put forward, will still continue to dither and get rolled by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and his enablers. McConnell may have fallen short of his brazenly stated priority of making Obama “a one-term president,” but perhaps he will now promise to do everything in his power to make Obama a two-term president, making sure the second term is a living hell.
It’s great that Obama and Mitt Romney made their feel-good declarations of conciliation, but we need to take stock of what almost happened: The nation barely avoided a nonmilitary super-PAC coup by a small army of mega-wealthy who tried to use used money as a weapon to complete their corporate takeover of the country. The fact that this election was so close shows how easily manipulated millions upon millions of people can be.

(Obviously, since it's Election Day, this column is dated, delayed a week from its newspaper release by the syndication deal. A post election piece will be offered to newspapers tomorrow.)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, OCT. 30, 2012
LOOSE CHANGE
BY BOB FRANKEN
You have to admit that Mitt Romney and his enablers have a lot of nerve. And a total lack of shame. How else to explain their gall in promoting him as the candidate of “change”? That’s what Romney’s doing in this final death throe of the campaign, telling an Iowa audience, for instance, that selecting him is “choosing real change, change that offers promise that the future will be better than the past.” He even said it with a straight face.
Let’s not mince any words: Romney represents change, all right -- for the worse, a return to the “social policies of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s,” as President Barack Obama put it. Obviously, Romney is being sarcastic about the stirring Obama “hope and change” mantra, or Sarah Palin’s “hopie changee thing,” if you prefer. It’s really been small change. Washington is still gripped by a special-interest pay-to-play stranglehold, but Romney pledges to double down on our financial inequities. If he follows through on his platform, the country would continue its deterioration into a nation divided between the super-rich and everybody else.
Socially, he and his party have so pandered to the hard-right extremists that he would be forced to reverse the progress that women, minorities and other oppressed citizens have fought so hard to gain. He has carefully cultivated a base that is caught up in an intolerant frenzy of birthism, jingoism and, yes, racism.
On the latter, The Associated Press conducted a very carefully crafted poll that determined “a slight majority” harbors explicit and/or implicit prejudice against blacks. The negative views were held by 51 percent of the respondents. What is particularly sad is that the number is up from 48 percent in 2008, the year we celebrated electing Obama president.

(Once again the disclaimer that this column is delayed a week after newspaper release due to the syndication deal. The current one appears in your paper unless it doesn't)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, OCT. 26, 2012
THE GREAT DIVIDE AND CONQUER
BY BOB FRANKEN
Finally the debates are over -- all the preprogrammed jousting is history. Actually, for the first encounter, President Barack Obama’s handlers left him in “sleep” mode, but in all the others, the contrived sound bites from both sides were filling the air.
Finally, when Obama got snitty with Mitt Romney, Romney recited, “Attacking me is not an agenda.” As Joe Biden would say, “malarkey.” In this campaign, attacking one another is the entire agenda.
Think about how much time Republicans have spent portraying Obama as different, and ponder how many in their base consider him a hated Muslim, socialist or not even eligible to hold the office because he wasn’t born in the United States. They vehemently deny racism, but you decide.
But it’s the Democrats who have coopted the “Not one of us” label and are pinning it on Romney in a new ad savaging him as a privileged, out-of-touch Etch A Sketch of a man who is willing to say anything, become anyone his audience at the moment requires. They constantly question his integrity, in effect deriding him as a Richie Richard Nixon. So, of course, attacking is the agenda. In fact, it is fair to say that as a result, there a just a few who will cast their ballots for one side or the other. Most of us will be voting against the candidate we hate, thanks to the incessant demonization.
Actually, what was so interesting about the third debate -- which was sort of about foreign policy -- was that when the contenders actually talked about international security and military matters, Romney usually ended up offering such complete support for policies of the Obama administration that I fully expected the president to reply, “I’m Barack Obama, and I approved his message.”
Mr. Obama came armed with a few killer put-downs. Telling Romney, “You seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s” was like a hit to the solar plexus. Or somewhere. That was just one of the Obama shots. No wonder Romney was sweating before the night was over. About the best line Mitt could muster was his repeated assertion that Iran is “four years closer to a nuclear war.”
Even moderator Bob Schieffer got into the act. When Romney kept telling us how much he “loves teachers,” Schieffer dismissed him with, “We all love teachers.” Frankly, even that is debatable, given how many have lost their jobs in budget cuts. Remember, it was Romney who dismissed the importance of class size.

(This is delayed a week, as usual, because of the syndication deal which requires the column appears first in the client newspapers. If that doesn't included your paper, nag their editors)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, OCT. 23, 2012
SEND OUT THE CLOWNS
BY BOB FRANKEN
Let’s face it, this entire campaign has been one big pratfall, so it’s terrific that the comedians have been adding more stand-up to their slapstick in the past few days. What great yucks the Obama-Romney vaudeville team got when they played the Al Smith Dinner at the Waldorf Astoria. From the Romney binder of gags: “As President Obama surveys the Waldorf banquet room with everyone in white-tie finery, you have to wonder what he’s thinking: ‘So little time, so much to redistribute.’” And Obama: “Early today I went shopping at some stores in midtown. I understand Gov. Romney went shopping for some stores in midtown.”
That joint appearance in New York, with all the wisecracks, has become an election tradition. Headliners immediately took their pie-in-the-face shtick back on the road.
By the very next day, the Obama writers were in high gear, churning out new material for their leader to trash Mitt Romney and his celebrated tendency to reinvent himself: “I mean, he’s changing up so much -- backtracking and sidestepping. We’ve got to name this condition that he’s going through ... I think it’s called Romnesia.”
Let me tell you, the Obama entourage needs a drummer to do rim shots. As for the Romney-Paul Ryan crew, it already had one, playing behind country singer John Rich of the country group Big and Rich.
That has to be a joke, right? Obviously, Mitt was making sly fun of his big and rich self. He doesn’t really have to do that; there are plenty of people on the other side ready to provide the ridicule.

(As usual, this column is delayed here a week after its newspaper release. The syndication deal requires it so it doesn't upstage the newspaper appearance of the newest one. If your paper isn't carrying it, noodge the editors)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, OCT. 19, 2012
EXPLOITING AMERICA’S HUNGRY
BY BOB FRANKEN
Maybe you saw the picture. Paul Ryan and his wife, Janna, are shown washing a few pots and pans in a photo-op drop-by at a soup kitchen. It was appropriate in a perverse sort of way, given how the harsh policies championed by the GOP vice-presidential candidate and his new adoptive parent, Mitt Romney, would necessitate far more of these last resorts for the hungry and desperate.
But this event was insidious in so many ways. Such news contrivances inherently diminish human suffering to a cynical campaign ploy. This one was hastily set up as Ryan was traipsing around Ohio trying to win over the state that has become ground zero in this election. He had just finished an appearance in Youngstown when somebody in the entourage suddenly decided it would be cool to be shot at the St. Vincent de Paul dining room on his way to the airport.
Never mind that he didn’t have the proper authorization, and never mind that there was no one there to be humiliated when he showed up. He and his group, including the all-important camera person, swooped in, got the money shot and swooped out.
Exploitative? You bet. It is also part of a continuing deception by the Republicans, who try to justify their enrich-the-rich policies with the fiction that they are really designed to uplift the non-rich. It is amazing to watch Mitt at the debates continuously claim: “I care about 100 percent of the American people. I want 100 percent of the American people to have a bright and prosperous future.” That’s what he repeats each time someone brings up those taped remarks where he was recorded at a fat-cat fundraiser dismissing 47 percent of the population as “dependent on government,” “victims”who he might just as well ignore.
Ever since that discourse was found out, he has been in full damage-control mode. When the button is pressed, as President Barack Obama finally did in their second debate, he recites his “care about 100 percent” mantra, hoping that if he says it enough times, people will believe it.

(As always, this appears here a week after its newspaper release, per the syndication deal. Tge latest one is in the paper, or if it's not, feel free to bug the editors to start carrying it)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, OCT. 16, 2012
THE PROPS PROPOPOSITIONS
BY BOB FRANKEN
The political pros call them real people -- a contrast, probably, to the phony people: the candidates, officeholders and their handlers who use human beings to fill their stage and their camera shots and reduce humans to mere props.
You’ve seen them before, standing behind the star of a particular news conference or photo op. Maybe you’ve even been one. Your assignment is simply to stand there and appear (concerned) (sad) (pathetic) while said star waxes eloquent about your plight.
Usually, they/you are displayed as victims, and one or two of you may even get speaking roles, telling your tale of woe to help the luminary further his or her ambitions.
It can get mighty cynical or at least contrived, particularly when you/they are there in the service of someone who otherwise would have nothing in common with you.
Imagine if he or she was being candid. What if the “real people” were real rich people, friends of the candidate or more likely contributors? They would be there to plead for help, supporting something to reduce their suffering.
Can you see it now? The plutocrats would shuffle on the rostrum as their bought-and-paid-for champion made a pitch for further reducing their taxes. How touching it would be if one by one they came forward to talk about the wrenching difficulty they had paying the help or how it would be so tough choosing between that sixth vacation home or country-club membership without a new lower effective rate.
Our eyes would well up as they talked about the difficulties of boarding the private jet for trips to the Caymans or Switzerland. There also would be the staff of domestics so necessary for such visits to the hoards of money they have hidden away so they are walled off from the Internal Revenue Service. And their special advantages don’t just happen without a huge amount of effort spreading payments around to the politicians. Without such favored treatment, they would have to pay their fair share to the government, just like the riffraff do. Oh, the horror of it all.

I'm doing MSNBC with Richard Lui this afternoon (Sunday) during the 3:00 PM, Eastern, hour. But the biggest kick is that the other guest will be AP's Beth Fouhy, who is a long time dear friend of mine from our CNN days.

(As you can see, this has been overtaken by events. The deal with the syndicators requires that this appears here a week after its newspaper release. The current one is available in your paper. And if it's not, bug the editors)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, OCT. 12, 2012
FIELD OF VEEPS
BY BOB FRANKEN
TV Twinkie that I am, I must begin by lauding Martha Raddatz, who did such a good, professional job of handling the vice-presidential debate. She was in control from the start, and was so fair with her persistence that only those who favor unfairness complained about her. Sean Hannity, of Fox, called her the “worst moderator ever,” which she should wear as a badge of honor. Her professionalism, knowledge and particularly control of the event were a sharp contrast to the preside-from-the-crypt performance by stodgy Jim Lehrer. This is inside baseball, I know, but humor me.
Speaking of which, thank heaven for DVRs. We didn’t have to choose between playoffs in baseball and debateball. The latter was so exciting, because the Democrat didn’t forfeit this time. Joe Biden, with his disdainful smiles and frequent interruptions, sometimes threw Paul Ryan off his game. At one point when Ryan was trying to justify his budget plans by using President John F. Kennedy as an example, Biden jumped in with “Oh, now you’re Jack Kennedy.”
That, of course, was a blatant reminder of the legendary line from the 1988 VP encounter when Democrat Lloyd Bentsen quipped to Dan Quayle, “You’re no Jack Kennedy.”
It is fair to say, however, that Ryan showed he was no Dan Quayle. He was in command of his arguments even when they were misleading. No “deer in the headlights” look here, except perhaps when he gave his closing statement, which he delivered with the sincere look of a local TV anchorman.
What is so amazing is how important this vice-presidential debate was, considering how the office, for so long, was thought to be so removed from the action, occupied by someone whose only role was to be a “heartbeat away.” That’s not the case anymore, but the post is still defined by John Nance Garner, who was FDR’s No. 2 from 1933 to 1941 and famously said his duties were “not worth a bucket of warm spit.” Actually, that’s not exactly how he put it

(As usual, this appears here, thnks to the syndication deal, a week after newspaper release. The current one appears in the paper that carries it and might appear in others if you let the editors know they should run it)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, OCT. 9, 2012
THE UNEMPLOYMENT CONSPIRACY
BY BOB FRANKEN
For those who love a good conspiracy theory -- and admit it, you do -- welcome to the Area 51 of politics. This presidential campaign is festering with them from the nut-go.
The “birthers” are still out there, encouraged by Republicans to hold fast to their delusion of a foreign-born Barack Obama, unswayed by documented proof, particularly since they insist the president is really a “Muslim masquerading as a Christian.”
But now they have a new departure from reality. Who would have thought those bland people at the Bureau of Labor Statistics could be part of a sinister cabal that suddenly is cooking the unemployment numbers?
It has to do with their latest monthly jobs report, which shows an unemployment number that finally has dipped below 8 percent, providing a smidgen of good news to President Obama when he really needs it after such a wimpy debate performance.
It apparently wasn’t enough for the Republicans to have their presidential candidate dismiss the news as too little, too late. They also needed to make sure they held on tightly to that all-important part of their base, the wackos.
Hence, the newest conspiracy theory: Obviously the bureaucrats and the White House are in cahoots, and never mind the impeccable reputation for nonpartisanship at BLS. This is clearly a sinister plot to cook the books.
Don’t just rely on Fox News for this one. Even Jack Welch, the legendary ex-head of GE, thinks so. He set the Twitterverse on fire with his suggestion that the latest report was concocted to rescue the president. “Can’t debate, so change numbers,” he tweeted. More on the debate in a moment. Actually, much more. First, though it’s easy to understand why Welch and his fellow Romney supporters would like to discredit the evidence of slightly eased hard times.

I will be on MSNBC tomorrow afternoon (Saturday) at 4:30 PM, Eastern. The program is called "The Brain Trust". Go figure.

(This is obviously a week old. My deal with syndicators requires that delay after The newspaper release. The current one appears in your newspaper or if it doesn't the editors might respond to reader pressure and see the error of their ways)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, OCT. 5, 2012
ROMNEY 1, OBAMA 0
BY BOB FRANKEN
President Romney. Think about it Democrats. For those of you who have been lulled into a “no way” view of Mitt’s chances, the first presidential debate was a badly needed rude awakening. From your point of view, it had better be, because Romney walked all over President Barack Obama.
Actually, it was more a case of the president volunteering to be a floor mat, with his tentative — no, make that timid — approach to the challenger’s comparatively aggressive presentation. Time and again, Mr. Obama let Mr. Romney get away with explanations, justification and rationales for his campaign positions that were simply preposterous. When he did respond, the normally eloquent leader of the free world seemed to get lost in his old college-professor mindset, nearly mumbling his comments.
At times, he seemed almost as inept as the moderator, Jim Lehrer, who made one wonder if we could have been better off without him taking part. Obama appeared as if he didn’t want to be there either.
In the process, he managed to bring his momentum in this election to a crashing halt. While the impact of these debates is, uh, debatable, the fact is that the president could have used this first one to force Romney onto the ropes; instead, he let him not only slip away, but land a flurry of punches.
Much will be made about the fact-checking that has now become a part of the journalistic routine at events like this. An honorable pursuit, without a doubt, but it has limited impact, if any. First of all, both these guys played fast and loose with the truth. Their assertions about their policies and their opponent’s often were incomplete, lacked context or were outright dishonest.
Beyond that, the sad reality is that voters don’t want to deal with complexity. We are lazy, preferring not to have to tax our brains about taxes or make the effort to exercise judgment over health-care reform. Mitt Romney and his handlers understand that, so he can routinely misrepresent his positions and get away with it. President Obama, to the extent that he did participate in the conversation, was taken over by his Professor Obama persona and the compulsion to bore. Either that, or as David Gergen, on CNN, observed: “I don’t think anybody’s ever spoken to him like that over the last four years. I think he found that not only surprising but offensive in some ways.” Certainly, President Obama was not on the offensive this time. What’s interesting about Gergen’s reaction is that he has worked for a slew of presidents, both Republican and Democrat. So David knows a thing or two about keeping one’s opinions to himself in the Oval Office.

(Obviously this is dated, delayed a week after its newspaper release because of the syndication deal. For the current piece, see your paper, and it doesn't run there, bug the editors)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, OCT. 2, 2012
THE HARVEST GAMES
BY BOB FRANKEN
Sometimes it’s easy to see why Mitt Romney has such trouble connecting to ordinary people. Evidence continues to surface that he doesn’t really consider them to be full-fledged human beings, and hasn’t for a long time. Once again, Mother Jones magazine has uncovered very telling video, this one from 1985, in which Mitt describes his company, Bain Capital, as an investment partnership that takes over corporations until it can “harvest them at a significant profit.” How coldblooded is that? It certainly can add to the perception that Romney and those like him regard the jobs of workers as nothing but disposable fertilizer for a harvest that puts millions of dollars in his pockets.
Mother Jones has become the scourge of the Romney campaign -- the same left-leaning publication that released a damning, secretly captured recording of an unchanged Mitt this May, in which he dismissed 47 percent of Americans as non-tax-paying “victims” relying on federal handouts. He was speaking to a gathering of those who paid $50,000 a head at a Florida fundraiser. So he was talking to his soul mates (or is that soul-less?).
He is not unique. Look no further than the National Football League. Even though the NFL is a stupendously profitable enterprise, the owners were hellbent on jamming it to officials. And when the referees wouldn’t, uh, play ball, they were locked out and replacements were brought in (the word used to be “scabs”). Never mind their protests about “the integrity of the game,” the “product” needs to make even more money. “Product” is one of those management-consultant words that turns so many living, breathing operations to lifeless ledger entries.
Their actions were standard labor-busting tactics, and they almost always succeed. Workers be damned, quality be damned, it’s all secondary to more money. The super-rich corporate types are used to getting their way and are ruthless about it, but this time, as we know, their hubris and greed blew up in their faces. The replacement refs they plugged in were so inept, so unqualified compared with the striped shirts who were locked out, that the anger of the fans (the forgotten customers) exploded. The Sept. 24 Monday-night game was the final straw after a weeks-long comedy of errors that threatened to be a tragedy of errors.

(While you know this is delayed a week after newspaper release at the behest of the syndicator, you can read the current version in your paper. If they don't carry it, feel free to pester them to do so.)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, SEPT. 28, 2012
SAME RING, DIFFERENT CORNERS
BY BOB FRANKEN
Sure is a lot of attempted messenger killing going on these days. There’s Ann Romney, the candidate’s wife, bristling in a radio interview at frustrated Republicans complaining over how her hubby might be frittering away his chance to beat Michelle Obama’s spouse. “Stop it,” she scolded them, “You want to try it? Get in the ring.”
For starters, the mister spends an inordinate amount of time in the ring pummeling himself with one verbal sucker punch after another. But she might have swung and missed. One could argue that her reasoning would render all of Mitt Romney’s criticism of President Barack Obama invalid, because Mitt’s not “in the ring,” or in this case, the Oval Office.
It’s easy to understand her petulance. The polls are showing the Obama side gaining a little traction while Romney is spinning his wheels. Besides pinning their hopes on a boffo debate performance, Mitt’s puppeteers are hoping against hope that some controversy erupts, an issue that the president’s people mess up badly enough to hand the momentum back to their guy.
In fact, at the State Department they seem determined to do just that. Spokesman Philippe Reines went bonkers after CNN reported on the contents of a journal kept by the U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens. It was found by a CNN reporter at the consulate in Benghazi where Stevens and three other Americans died Sept. 11 in what the administration acknowledges may have been a planned terrorist assault.
In the journal, Stevens had voiced concerns about lax security. CNN reported the story in a somewhat-confusing way, citing “a source familiar with Ambassador Stevens’ thinking.” But that’s beside the point. Obviously, in an election year, the notion that sloppy security contributed to the deaths could be a campaign embarrassment for the Obama side.
So State apparently has decided that instead of focusing on that issue, there would be a smokescreen. CNN would be demonized for breaking a promise to the bereaved family not to report the diary’s contents, which explained the strange sourcing. “Disgusting” and “indefensible” were words he used in a tirade. Does anybody here not believe that Reines was channeling the secretary herself?

(The usual disclaimer: The deal with the syndicator means this column is delayed here for a week after newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, SEPT. 25, 2012
MORE DUMPING ON THE CAMPAIGN
BY BOB FRANKEN
It is as certain as anything gets in politics: The Friday Evening Dump means the dumper is trying to hide odorous garbage, when all the dumpees’ attention is focused on weekend pursuits. True to form, Mitt Romney and his obfuscating team rolled out Romney2011 tax returns late in the day Friday. The idea, as usual, was to make it really hard for us to thoroughly report in time for the evening newscasts on whatever lurks in the piles of documents. By the time reporters and professionals have combed through the material, it’s an old story.
Then, Mitt and the gang can claim to the few who are interested that he was forthcoming about his finances, even though he has not been. Expert after expert can point out that the two years of returns Mitt and Ann have grudgingly disclosed reveal very little about how they took advantage of tax tricks available only to the superwealthy -- legal subterfuges that allow them to pay a much smaller share than ordinary people.
This is the latest attempt to deflect controversy over their refusal to follow normal candidate protocol and let the world see 10 or 12 years’ worth of tax records. Are there embarrassments buried in them that would reinforce the image of the Romneys as among those sheltered by their privilege from the normal obligations of us riffraff?
Apparently, Mitt Romney worries about that, telling “60 Minutes” that furnishing all the information would merely hand opportunities to the Democrats’ oppo-research people. It begs the question, of course: What’s he hiding?
Even the 2011 tidbit offers tantalizing clues within its 800 pages. For instance, there was the item that listed $3.5 million in income “from sources outside the United States.” Those “sources” would reside in countries like Switzerland, Ireland, Germany and the Cayman Islands, tax havens not available to less-prosperous simple folk.

(As always, note that the deal with the syndicator requires that this column appears here a week after it has been distributed to the newspapers)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, SEPT. 21, 2012
MITT’S MISADVENTURES
BY BOB FRANKEN
It wouldn’t be much of a surprise to see a TV ad like this: a shot of the president and his voice-over, “I am Barack Obama, and I approve this message.”
It would then show nothing more than Mitt Romney, speaking in May before a Florida meeting of fat-cat donors, saying: “There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president ... who are dependent on government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them ... these are people who pay no income tax. ... My job is not to worry about those people.”
At the end, we’d see Mr. Obama again, answering, “Wow. I sure don’t approve of THAT message!”
The Democrats don’t seem to need a winning strategy, since Mitt manages to nudge them down the path to victory every time he opens his mouth. Fresh off his clumsy and desperate efforts to exploit an incendiary situation in the Mideast, he is next caught on a hidden camera displaying his silver-spoon contempt for all those he considers unworthy.
That little hidden camera gem came to us courtesy of Mother Jones magazine just a day after Romney wise man Ed Gillespie told reporters that the campaign would be retooling. Little did he know that the tool would be a verbal hammer that Mitt would use to pound himself on the head.
Once again, the makeover had been run over. How can an effort to overcome the candidate’s image as an inarticulate, out-of-touch, super-rich guy possibly succeed when he repeatedly is caught making comments that demonstrate he is an inarticulate, out-of-touch, super-rich guy? Even his running mate, Paul Ryan, used the word “inarticulate.”
Mitt and his troops were ready to show they are no slouches when it comes to class warfare, firing right back at Barack Obama for using the R-word, as in “Redistribution.” Of course, their opposition-research people had to go back to 1998, to video of then Illinois state Sen. Obama at a Loyola University event stating, “I actually believe in redistribution.” Take that, Democrats!
Setting aside that the remark was made 14 years ago and grossly taken out of context, let’s talk about redistribution. What about all that movement of wealth to Mitt and his super-rich buddies? Their manipulations have taken the hard-earned savings of the middle class and redistributed them to their smaller and smaller group of Hood Robins.

(The usual blah blah which is that the deal with the syndicator requires this column appears here a week after its newspaper release.)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, SEPT. 18, 2012
THE DREADED MEGO
BY BOB FRANKEN
Ever wonder how politicians get away with their impossible promises? Wonder no more; there is a one-word answer: MEGO. It means “My Eyes Glaze Over,” as in “so boring that the audience of news consumers tunes out” or worse -- tunes elsewhere. So, to most of us little symbiotic media fishes swimming around the political sharks nibbling at scum, it is poison. We avoid all those tedious bites of complexity. And the sharks know full well that we do.
That’s why Mitt Romney will brazenly claim that he can cut taxes and the debt at the same time, with little fear of the experts. Or why his hucksters persist with their lying ads about Barack Obama killing the welfare work requirements. Detailed truth analysis brings about certain MEGO. Count on the normal person having the attention span of a gnat.
Only rarely does a candidate clumsily step into doo-doo so foul that even us lazy reporters must point out that something smells. When that happens, the aforementioned hucksters go into their reflexive media bash, blaming the liberal journalist fact checkers for misrepresenting their client and piling on.
We just witnessed one of those embarrassments when Mitt shot off his mouth about the Obama administration’s “apology” after the first Egyptian embassy attacks. He obviously had so little grasp of the facts and no knowledge of the deaths in Libya of U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans that his foolishness was impossible to gloss over. True to form, his spinners and apologists came roaring out of the bunkers, firing away at anyone who had the audacity to question Romney’s timing or motives.
From early on, his grifters have tried to portray Barack Obama as a weak president who is constantly apologizing for America. It is a con -- they are trying to leave an impression about Obama that has nothing to do with reality. They know that laboriously setting the record straight guarantees a MEGO reaction. That’s why they were so quick to condemn the administration in the case of the embassy violence. But this time they were slick but not smart; they got caught for a change. They’re not as clever as they thought.

(Usual disclaimer: The syndication deal requires this appears here a week after its newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, SEPT. 14, 2012
MITT AND BIBI’S COSTLY CHEAP SHOTS
BY BOB FRANKEN
Forget Paul Ryan. Mitt Romney’s real running mate is Benjamin Netanyahu. True, he’s prime minister of Israel, but he obviously decided to add a spot on the Romney ticket to his portfolio.
That is the only possible explanation for his blatant meddling in the U.S. (a separate country, remember?) presidential campaign. In his temper tantrum, he used incendiary language, insisting this administration had forfeited the “moral right” to influence Israeli decisions on attacking Iran.
Netanyahu’s outburst followed comments by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the United States (a separate country, remember?) is “not setting deadlines” for Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program. “Those in the international community,” he argued, “who refuse to put red lines before Iran don’t have a moral right to place a red light before Israel.”
Let’s talk about “red lines.” There should be one between a foreign leader, an ally, interfering with an American election. It is unacceptable bullying. And to complain afterward that the president, the one Netanyahu clearly is trying to depose, had decided not to meet with him later this month added to the impression it was nothing more than a heavy-handed attempt to coerce the Obama administration to submit.
And still on the subject of “red lines”: There should a bright one between a dangerous international situation and a candidate so desperate to score points against his incumbent opponent that he blurts comments with no regard to how he may sabotage his country.
Romney is getting creamed big-time for his seeming recklessness after racing to condemn the Obama administration before he even knew that U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other Americans had been killed during separate attacks by extremists in Benghazi, Libya. Romney is accused of spouting off without getting his facts straight. He’s getting it from all sides for thoughtlessly stumbling through a dangerous minefield.

(As usual, the syndication deal means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

       FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
       CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, SEPT. 11, 2012
       SPINNING OUR WHEELS IN THE MUD
       BY BOB FRANKEN
       Let’s face it, the U.S. financial system is on hold, at least until November and maybe till next year. The unemployment numbers aren’t going to improve. American businesspeople -- the ones who could be hiring now, but are not -- have hit the pause button. What’s frustrating is that many of them are sitting on tons of cash, but they’ve made the strategic decision not to spend it. So those who are desperately looking for work aren’t finding it.
       Mitt Romney and Barack Obama will continue to blame each other and offer daily sound bites about their polar-opposite approaches, but their facile certainties have created toxic uncertainty. It’s no secret why executives are sitting tight and putting up a “Help Unwanted” sign. They have no earthly idea what the terrain will be after the election, and they’re afraid to commit until they have a better sense of the potholes they’ll encounter in the months ahead.
       Even after they know whether they’re dealing with a second Obama administration or having their way with a new Romney White House, they probably still will be hesitant. They still will have to deal with the inmates of the Capitol Hill asylum.
       If you think it’s been maddening to watch the members of Congress thrash around, wait until we see how the new brood can make things even worse and do its best to push us over the edge.
       You’ve heard the expression: The country is hurtling toward a “cliff.” That’s the precipice that our nation will fall from if the Bush tax cuts expire at the same time massive new budget rollbacks are imposed. Let us not forget that the slashing is mandatory. It’s called “sequestration,” automatic chunks totaling $1.2 trillion through 2021 unless Democrats and Republicans reach a new armistice. Otherwise, next year alone, crippling decreases of $55 billion for defense and $55 billion for domestic programs will be automatic. The idea is that this would be such an unmitigated disaster that the warring parties will be forced to negotiate some sort of tax-and-spending treaty.
       Riiggghhhtt. Let us also not forget that this is the desperation ploy from last year to barely avoid the debacle of a national default.
       As it is, our precious gold-standard credit rating was tarnished when Standard & Poor’s lowered it, but our politicians seem to have no shame. Their heels are dug in just as deep, even though the lethal combination of higher taxes and brutally lower spending almost surely will drag the United States back into recession, with unemployment heading up to more than 9 percent again, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

(This is obviously a week old, which reflects the deal with the newspaper syndicate. It was released before Mitt had really stepped in it again)

       FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
       CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, SEPT. 7, 2012
       STAGGERING TO THE ELECTION
       BY BOB FRANKEN
       Forget the speeches. What saved Barack Obama is where he did not deliver his: Bank of America Stadium would have been a terrible venue, named for one of the behemoth financial institutions whose egregious conduct symbolizes the shadiness of the nation’s financial debacle. What a lousy optic that would have been.
       Chalk up one blunder avoided, albeit inadvertently, but the clumsy last-minute pandering over adding God and Jerusalem to the party platform was a self-administered bruise that looked awful. The Democrats sure didn’t need that. They have enough problems.
       Foremost, of course, is unemployment. The brutal reminder came the morning after their big show, as they were striking the set to take their act on the road to the election less than two months away. Let’s face it. The new 8.1 percent number is not the kind of rallying cry they would want. Ninety-six thousand jobs added. Whoopee.

  
(As alway, this column appears here a week after its newspaper release thanks to the syndication
deal)

     FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
       CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, SEPT. 4, 2012
       PLEBIFRIGHT 2012
       BY BOB FRANKEN
       Now that Labor Day has passed -- or, as Mitt prefers to call it, Outsource Day -- we move into the final throes of the election season, the autumn of our discontent. Instead of Shakespeare’s glorious language, this play will feature a bomb blast of bombast. We will be assaulted by rhetoric and ads that pound us with ugly distortions that are blatant attempts to confuse. They are the handiwork of people who are shameless about lying.
       Anybody who tries to set the record straight will be immediately demonized as a partisan. That is standard operating procedure. In the midst of a Republican deception blizzard, Romney pollster Neil Newhouse blithely declared, “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers.” Note the term “dictated.” It’s a focus-group-tested buzzword, in this case, designed to inflame the fears of some sort of journalistic despotism. It’s a variation of that time-dishonored demagogue cliché, “If you don’t like the reflection, break the mirror.”
       So welcome, my fellow Americans, to Plebifright 2012. We can look forward to a scary, “pick your poison” choice that has left so many simply nauseated. It’s not that there aren’t clear-cut differences. The two sides present widely different roads for this country to travel. If you scrape away all the platitudes, you have Barack Obama advocating more government involvement in economic matters and less in social choices. Mitt Romney has been captured by the hard-liners in his party who demand just the opposite: a market system virtually free of regulation and an enforcement of stern moral values.

(As you can see, this is a week old. That's my deal with the newspaper syndicator)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019 
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, AUG. 31, 2012
DARK AND STORMY NIGHTS
BY BOB FRANKEN
Wasn’t it entertainjng watching the networks switch between the tempest and the crackpots? Back and forth we went, from the insanity of the GOP convention to the inanity of the TV reporters in their high-tech gear barely able to stand up as they screamed over Hurricane Isaac. It was a hoot . It could have been better only if the political correspondents in Tampa, Fla., did their work in similar attire, hunkering down while the heavy gusts whipped inside.
We were all just blown away. What memories the party faithful will have as they move to the stormy campaign. Who will ever forget that two-thirds Clint Eastwood performance: Bad and Ugly. At any moment we were expecting him to stop, look at the camera and shout “LIVE FROM TAMPA, IT’S THURSDAY NIGHT LIVE!”
As compelling as that was, the night was not about empty chairs, but presenting Mitt Romney as more than an emotional empty suit. One after another old friend painted a warm, caring portrait of a man widely considered to be calculating and out of touch. Skeptics might consider it a coordinated effort to put lipstick on a prig.

(As you can see this column appears here a week after its newspaper release. That's because of the syndication deal)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, AUG. 28, 2012
PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE POLITICS
BY BOB FRANKEN
There is no attack more malignant than the passive-aggressive one. In fact, “passive-abusive” probably is preferable, since the intent is to do harm in the most cowardly way, disguised, for instance, as a joke. When the victim is hurt, the abuser can hide behind some line like, “Don’t be so sensitive,” or “I was just kidding, for heaven’s sake” or “We’ve got to have a little humor in a campaign.”
That last one was the disingenuous response of Mitt Romney when challenged in a CBS News interview for the gratuitous shot he took at an event in Michigan, where he and his wife had grown up: “Ann was born in Henry Ford Hospital. I was born in Harper Hospital. No one’s ever asked to see my birth certificate.”
Was that little joke an attempt to kiss up to the “birther” extremists, who are still a significant force in the GOP? Never mind that their contention that Barack Obama is disqualified from being president because they fantasize he was born outside the United States should have been discredited once and for all when Mr. Obama released his long form Hawaii birth certificate. And never mind that Mitt his very own self once again told CBS “I’ve said throughout the campaign and before, there’s no question about where he was born. He was born in the U.S.”
Well, then, what could that line have been but a cheap-shot wink at the loonies, despite his insistence it was “No, no, not a swipe.” Outraged? Don’t be. Instead, let’s unleash all the passive abuse in politics. Forget the outright lies and direct assaults that make the campaign look like a daily series of muggings. It’s time for the more subtle approach.
Mr. Obama can blurt that “No one’s ever suggested that I haven’t paid any taxes or hide money in offshore accounts.” Or how about, “When we traveled with our dog INSIDE the car ...”
C’mon, Republicans: Lighten up. “We’ve got to have a little humor in a campaign.” By the way, the president should make sure to attribute that last quote to Mitt Romney or he’ll set off TV ads screaming about Obama plagiarism.

I'm on Melissa Harris-Perry's show on MSNBC tomorrow (Saturday) at 10 AM Eastern. You should be up to watch by then. Right?

(Usual yada yada yada: This column is delayed here a week after its newspaper release, because the syndicators say so)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, AUG. 24, 2012

TRUTH AND CONSEQUENCES
BY BOB FRANKEN
Instead of vilifying Todd Akin, we should be honoring him for speaking the truth. Granted, what he said in a TV interview about “legitimate rape” and pregnancy is loony falsehood, but it is paradoxically the absolute truth about the rabid and misogynistic views of the extremist “base” that now controls and defines the Republicans.
More power to him as party leaders, including presumptive nominees Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, call for him to drop out of the Missouri Senate race. It's certainly easy to see why Ryan wants to get rid of him, since the two have marched in lock step on this.
So, when Akin has pushed back, insisting on staying in as the Missouri GOP nominee, he was not only right, but a true symbol of his far-right party Now leaders are sweating bullets, worried that his public Neanderthal views might rescue Democratic incumbent Claire McCaskill from a near-death experience. But actually, he is in tune with his hardscrabble conservative state, as well as with social militants that define his party nationally.
At the same time Akin was defying the elders and money people who were threatening to choke off his campaign lifeblood money, platform drafters in Tampa, Fla., were quietly approving a section that calls for a constitutional amendment forbidding abortion. Period. No exceptions for rape or incest. Is Akin so far out? Hardly. He seems to be pretty mainstream with this bunch.
They also were advocating a prohibition of gay marriage, proselytizing for their own theologies and prejudices, demanding they be imposed on all Americans. Now, thanks to Akin, their Dark Age views are out of the dark, thrust into the harsh light where they can be seen by rational voters.

The usual disclaimer: The syndication deal requires this column to appear here a week after its newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019 
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, AUG. 21, 2012
13 PERCENT OF WHAT?
BY BOB FRANKEN
Surely Mitt Romney didn’t believe that his new claim he "never paid less than 13 percent to the IRS” would be enough to dampen fiery demands from Democrats that he release his tax returns going back a decade or so. They’re having too much fun watching him squirm. 
Ignore his pretend petulance at a reporter asking such a “small-minded” question, Romney obviously had decided he needed to try to quell controversy over his refusal to release the returns. But he didn’t quell well.
The more he digs in his heels, the more he gives Democrats an opportunity to knock him over with their relentless portrayal of him as an out-of-touch super-rich guy who takes unfair advantage of a system stacked in favor of the wealthy hoarding their often ill-gotten gains. 
So when Mitt does his “trust me” act, the opposition responds with its “prove it” routine. Those were the exact words, for instance, of Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt on a conference call. Several of his other partisan soul mates pounced with variations of “What is he hiding?” 
One has to wonder about that, particularly when the candidate’s wife, Ann Romney, went on NBC’s “Rock Center” to once again contend that full disclosure would only give the opposition “ammunition.” That raises the Inevitable question: What kind of “ammunition”?
Would it blow up in their faces? Let’s just suspend disbelief and take Mitt at his word that he paid the percentage he claimed. Would the tax returns reveal whether he was basing that on income or the entirety of his annual haul mainly from investments? Would they show even more money sheltered in the offshore havens also used by some of the world’s most unsavory characters? In other words, would this “13 percent” reflect the frequent game-playing of the 1 percenters? 

(In case it wasn't obvious let me mention that this column appears here a week after its newspaper release. That's because of the syndication deal)

       FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
       CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, AUG. 17, 2012
       THE “CHAIN” SCRUTINY
       BY BOB FRANKEN
       This is really important stuff, people. Mitt Romney and his crew, otherwise known as the “Romneyhood” merry band are seriously bent over the latest “Obamaloney.”
       Those zippy terms are among the latest products of the highly paid staffs on both sides. By the standards of this campaign, they are soaring eloquence. Almost everything else is deceitful bluster.
       The latest tempest in a teapot is once again a creation of the always-smooth-talking Vice President Joe Biden. There he was in Virginia, trashing Romney for wanting to “unchain Wall Street.” So far so good, but then he got worked up and added “They’re going to put y’all back in chains.”
       Notwithstanding the fact that Delaware Joe’s “y’all” before a Southern audience was flat-out phony, his choosing the word “chains” probably was not the best example of verbal finesse. And we all know how Biden always epitomizes finesse.
       Republicans saw a small opening, and they jumped right in. Mitt himself, who knows a thing or two about rhetorical embarrassment, nevertheless couldn’t wait to smite the enemy with his outrage, real or contrived. “This is what an angry, desperate presidency looks like,” he quickly inserted into his next speech.
       Actually, it was the vice presidency, but let’s not quibble. Some felt that Mr. Biden has crossed the line with “chains,” leaving the impression that he believes the Republicans are promoting slavery. Even in this era of poisonous rhetoric, slavery is a no-no. It’s bad form, sort of like comparing your opponents with Nazis. I hate this expression, but don’t go there.
       It would have been so much better if Biden would have avoided the C-word, and just stuck to the S-word, “shackles.” That tiny bit of fine-tuning would have precisely described a fundamental difference between the governing philosophies of the two sides.

       (The usual drivel: Thanks to the syndication deal, this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, AUG. 14, 2012
       POSITIVELY NEGATIVE
       BY BOB FRANKEN
       Let’s get over it. All the hand-wringing in the world is not going to put a stop to negative campaigning. Why? Because it works.
       Two polls, conducted within days of each other in July, tell the story: One, by Knights of Columbus-Marist, tallied a full 78 percent who agreed that they were “mostly frustrated by the tone of political discourse.” One can only guess that the remaining 22 percent is comprised of the consultants and TV stations that find big bucks in the muck. They can justify their dark craft with the second poll, an NBC News-Wall Street Journal survey that reveals a jump in the numbers of those who have adopted extremely unfavorable opinions of both candidates. So we are attracted to tactics we consider noxious. Go figure.
       This is true even as the ads and charges are going increasingly over the top, or more appropriately, under the bottom. Let’s face it, Democrats: The commercial that ties Mitt Romney’s ventures to a woman’s cancer death is mighty low, to say nothing of grossly misleading. A Chicago Tribune editorial calls it a “vicious, shameful ad.” It doesn’t matter that it’s the work of Priorities USA Action, one of those super-PACs that can’t coordinate with a campaign it supports -- in this case, Barack Obama’s.
       Romney’s campaign doesn’t even make that pretense with its now-infamous Obama is “gutting welfare reform” tirade, which is a serious deception playing on TV screens everywhere. Dirty dealing? You bet, but guaranteed to tarnish the other guy.

(As always the column here is dated by the fact that the syndication deal requires a wait of one week after its newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, AUG. 10, 2012
LIARS BY ANY OTHER NAME
BY BOB FRANKEN
What is a lie? That should be an easy one. Dictionaries define the word as “an intentional untruth.” So here is the question: Why do politicians so often shy away from the word?
For instance, in response to Mitt Romney’s new charge that Barack Obama is getting rid of the “work” requirement in “welfare to work” because the administration is granting waivers to states that want to cut back on all the federal bureaucracy paperwork, Mitt Romney and his enablers are telling intentional untruths.
Romney knows that the dispensations require an increase in employment placements by 20 percent, and that in 2005, Massachusetts Gov. Romney was one of 28 state chief executives who requested them. So his new campaign, complete with TV ads screaming “Obama guts welfare reform,” are out-and-out lies.
But the Democratic push-back didn’t use the L-word. All Obama Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter could muster was “false and hypocritical.” Why not just call it a lie, and Mitt Romney a liar for saying it?
Maybe it’s because we’ve gotten so benumbed to such outright falsehoods. Many of us aren’t even sure the candidates use their real names. In fairness, it is probable that no one would make up “Willard Mitt Romney” or “Barack Hussein Obama,” but how about the Senate majority leader? Is “Harry Reid” a pseudonym?
After all, this is the man who is almost certainly making up the “Bain investor” he claims told him that Romney had not paid taxes for 10 years. Props to Republican National Chairman Reince Priebus for calling “aka Reid” a “dirty liar.” (Just guessing that Priebus is also not an alias.) Give him credit for being honest about the falsehood from what’s-his-face. Reid’s fellow Democratic biggies are simply ignoring the dishonesty. Priebus’ counterpart, Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, cites the fact that Romney refuses to release years of tax records. “Mitt Romney could clear this up in 10 seconds,” she argued. By the way, if a child of Wasserman Schultz’s married another with a double last name, would they, for instance, be Mr. and Ms. Wasserman Schultz Smith Jones? That is a toughie, which we simply cannot leave for future generations.

(Much has happened but this column is a week old. The deal with the newspaper syndicator requires it)

  FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
       CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, AUG. 7, 2012
       SLIMEBALL POLITICS
       BY BOB FRANKEN
       With a presidential candidate who constantly puts his foot in his mouth -- when he can shove it past the silver spoon -- and congressional candidates who demonstrate that the party is controlled by tea-party extremists, the Republicans should be in what George Bush the First called “deep doo-doo.” However, they are being kept afloat by the Democrats.
       Obviously, the Republicans are being helped along by the super-wealthy, who are willing to pay a little of their fortunes to keep their licenses to steal. It provides the GOP a huge advantage having all that money to finance a campaign of distortion and fearmongering.
       But the Democrats might be catching on. In the dirty pool competition, the party’s Senate leader, Harry Reid, is going for the tarnished gold. Without any evidence, Reid cites an alleged conversation with a “Bain Capital investor,” who claims that Mitt Romney failed to pay taxes for 10 years, and contends that’s why Romney won’t make his returns public.
       Who is this person? We have no way to know, since Reid ain’t saying, raising the possibility he is making up the whole thing. Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus has gone bananas, calling Sen. Reid a “dirty liar.” That’s because Reid’s comments have gotten traction. Romney felt compelled to respond: “Let me say categorically, I have paid taxes every year,” he insisted, “lots of taxes.” He demanded proof and that Reid “put up or shut up.” But he won’t budge off his refusal to put up his own tax returns, so Democrats aren’t about to shut up.
       Is this a dirty lie? Possibly. A justifiable cheap shot? Well, that’s a tougher one. It’s plausible this is a Harry Reid con to exploit the widespread impression of Romney as a tax evader. That would plunge the Senate majority leader into the political gutter. He’d certainly have plenty of company as he wallows around.

(Same preface: This shows up here a week after newspaper release because the syndication deal says so)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, AUG. 3, 2012
A LOSE-LOSE PROPOSITION
BY BOB FRANKEN
About winning presidential elections: It doesn’t happen. They are lost, not won. One side or the other puts up such a stiff that the other candidate waltzes into the White House. The overglorified campaign professionals don’t like to hear that because it threatens their golden goose, but after decades of covering this stuff, I consider that conclusion inescapable.
Proof? How about John McCain and Sarah Palin? We have made a lot about the historic significance of Barack Obama’s victory, as well as the media lovefest he enjoyed, but by this reckoning, the greatest factor was the stumblebum opponent he had in McCain — actually, two of them when you count Palin.
In case those two don’t seal the argument, let’s look at nonpresidents John Kerry and Al Gore, or one-timer George Bush the elder, who came across AS so out of touch that he blew his race for a second term. the was only elected the first time around because the Democrats decided to forfeit by nominating Michael “Tank Helmet” Dukakis.
Again, both sides are fielding candidates with major weaknesses. President Obama has the dreary economy, to say nothing of his inability to roll over dug-in enemies, which calls into question his leadership. And Mitt Romney has, well, Mitt Romney. 
Every time he opens his mouth without a script, he shows himself to be so tone-deaf that his rendition of “America the Beautiful” sounds like a virtuoso performance by comparison. Now he’s blaming the media, the self-pitying GOP default position. Relations with reporters have gotten so sour that a top press aide told one of them to “kiss my a**” (otherwise known as “kiss my asterisk”) and another one to “shove it.”
It was just the profane exclamation point at the end of a week in which the boss seemed hellbent on offending as many people as possible. His comments about London and the Olympics unleashed such a torrent of snarkiness that it was Romney who had to maintain the stiff upper lip. Same for his stop in Jerusalem, where he volunteered a mind bogging,y offensive comment  about the superior “culture” of Israelis compared with the far less prosperous Palestinians. The world gasped at the revealing combination of insensitivity, misplaced values, outright racism and total disregard for the realities on the ground. 

(One more time: Because of the syndication deal, these columns appear here a week after their newspaper release)

       FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
       CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2012
       FUNDS AND GAMES
       BY BOB FRANKEN
       What a spectacle! With performers ranging from Queen Elizabeth II herself to high-stepping genuine doctors and nurses to real sheep, about all that was missing in the Brits’ opening Olympic extravaganza was a real sheepish Mitt Romney tap-dancing away from his embarrassing TV comments about England’s preparations for the games. By the time he skipped town, he had managed to turn all of jolly old England not so jolly. And this is the guy who is traipsing around on an overseas mission to demonstrate how adept he is at foreign relations.
       Where he is adept is fundraising. Before he had slunk out of London, he had a cozy gathering with high-finance types that included several connected to the Libor-rate scandal. The price of admission was $25,000 to $50,000 per fat cat. Ka-ching! The take was about $2 million.
       Then it was on to Jerusalem, where he held another. This one also was $50,000 a head, for wealthy donors who are intent on replacing Barack Obama because he hasn’t been deferential enough to the Israeli government. Among the visit’s choreographers was Sheldon Adelson, that international gambling tycoon and Jewish American militant. Adelson plans to dump $100 million into the campaign on top of the millions in financial support he has already lavished on just about any Republican who will toe his hard line and agree that Obama has been far too evenhanded in the Middle East. Never mind that Obama is president of the United States, which, for those who forget, is a separate country.
       Romney made sure his fervent patrons got what they paid for, declaring that as Benjamin Netanyahu threatens an attack on Iran’s nuclear sites, “We will not look away, nor will our country ever look away from our passion and commitment to Israel.” That is music to the ears of those nervous about Obama’s lack of fealty to the tough Likud agenda.
       He also held talks with old buddy Netanyahu and a blur of other officials, including lesser Palestinian leaders. Mitt and Bibi go back to the ’70s, when they worked together as corporate advisers. Now they are prime minister and president-wannabee. While Romney insisted he would not complicate the Obama administration’s open differences with Netanyahu’s agenda, he did just that: “Diplomatic distance in public between our nations,” he proclaimed, “emboldens Israel’s adversaries.” How could that not be a reason to believe the Israelis might have a more pliant U.S. chief executive after the election?

I'm doing Al Sharpton's show tonight (Thursday) on MSNBC during Tge 6:00 PM eastern hour. You'll have to see it to believe it.. And then you might not.

(Same old same old: The deal with the syndicator stipulates that this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

       FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
       CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, JULY 27, 2012
       THE SORRY CAMPAIGN
       BY BOB FRANKEN
       Allow me to be the jeerleader at one of the most pitiful political games. It’s the one where the public figure wimps out after saying something provocative. Generally, it’s some variation of, “If my words hurt anyone, I am sorry.” Wouldn’t it be great to hear, “If what I said upset some people, then that’s GREAT.”
       Actually, that’s close to what we’re getting from the Barack Obama campaign, saying to Mitt Romney: “Apology? You gotta be kidding.”
       Kidding or not, Romney is substituting self-righteous outrage for answers, trying to deflect the shots at his record while he headed venture-capital firm Bain Capital. As we all know, uncomfortable questions swirl around his claims regarding when it was he left the company. Was it before or after it got into the outsourcing game? Romney insists it was before, even though there is documented evidence that he was head honcho years later than when he now claims he had severed the relationship.
       His team’s responses have been all over the map, raising more new doubts every step of the way. We’re still scoffing at Republican strategist Ed Gillespie’s assertion that Mitt’s departure from Bain Capital was “retroactive.” Figure that one out. And while you’re at it, explain the campaign’s insistence that it wasn’t “outsourcing” deals at all, but “offshoring.” It’s distinction without a difference. Both relocate jobs that could be filled in the United States.
       Since that obfuscation hasn’t worked, Mitt and his peeps are working on Plan C. That, of course, is the personal counterattack. The Obama outsourcing barrage is “beneath the presidency,” sputtered Romney. Therefore, he deserves an apology. Not this time.
       So it’s on to the tried-and-false tactic of branding Obama as some sort of unpatriotic, Muslim weirdo outsider -- and worst of all, he hates free markets. Romney: “I’m convinced he wants Americans to be ashamed of success.”
       Of course, there is the default position that Barack Hussein Obama really is a foreigner. The latest on that front comes from top Romney surrogate John Sununu, lamenting, “I wish this president could learn how to be an American.” He later expressed regret for his formulation, but Sununu chose those words the exact same day Maricopa County, Ariz., sheriff and federally accused profiler Joe Arpaio claimed that his investigators have proven the president’s birth certificate is fraudulent. Coincidence? Probably. Low blow? Definitely.
   

  
     (Once more with feeling: Because of the syndication deal, this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
       CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, JULY 24, 2012
       NATIONAL GRACE AND DISGRACE
       BY BOB FRANKEN
       I have been trying to get my thoughts and emotions around what the Aurora, Colo., massacre says about the United States. Thinking, for me, is always an ongoing struggle, but here goes: First off, a great part of the response demonstrates how largely we can be “united.” The sympathy from most of us, manifested in the individual kindnesses and memorials, shows us off at our best as we come together in collective mourning.
       President Barack Obama reflected all that is good about his fellow citizens by traveling to Aurora to meet with the families and act once again, in the face of all-too-frequent national horror, as “consoler in chief.” And so did Mitt Romney, who took just the right tone in supporting the president’s trip as “the right thing” to do. Their actions and words showed that even a brutal campaign can be set aside briefly for gentle dignity and simple humanity.
       Sad to say, these tragedies can bring out the worst in some of those who have managed to occupy an undeserved spot on the public stage. Congressman Louie Gohmert comes to mind. The man is an embarrassment even in the world of politics, getting elected from an East Texas district where a majority apparently celebrates his moronic extremism.
       It’s on display constantly. Gohmert was one of the Republican House members who joined Michele Bachmann to send a letter accusing Huma Abedin, a longtime aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, of having ties to a Muslim Brotherhood plot to infiltrate the government. And just a day or two later, there he was, attributing the movie house slaughter to “ongoing attacks on Judeo-Christian beliefs,” pandering to the harshest theocrats. Even worse, he went on to wonder: “With all those people in the theater, was there nobody that was carrying? That could have stopped this guy more quickly.”
       What is scary about that was not just the possibility a shootout could have added to the carnage. What is really frightening is that millions of Americans agree with Gohmert.
       They buy into a tradition of guns that stains our history. It extends to weapons that are built for warfare. We cannot even pass restrictions that keep firepower for mass extermination out of the hands of the depraved and insane.

Al Sharpton and I will be mixing it up on MSNBC tonight (Thursday) during the 6:00, Eastern, hour. As always, it'll be a laugh a minute.

(As always, thanks to the syndication deal, this appears here a week after its newspaper release)

       FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
       CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, JULY 20, 2012
       OLD MCCARTHYISM, NEW NAMES
       BY BOB FRANKEN
       This is an Action Eyewitness News Alert! Michele Bachmann and four other House Republicans have written letters to government agencies demanding an investigation into whether longtime Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin has connections to Muslim Brotherhood efforts to infiltrate the government. They cite a website, the Center for Security Policy, that calls Abedin one of “six Islamic sympathizers” who “have achieved positions within or advisory roles serving Team Obama.”
       Never mind that the “www” for the site stands for “WorldWideWacko.” Sen. John McCain made a highly unusual speech on the Senate floor, defending Huma Abedin as a longtime friend and condemning the “sinister” accusations, “an unwarranted and unfounded attack on an honorable woman, a dedicated American and a loyal public servant.”
       Say what you will about John McCain -- and there is plenty to say, both good and bad -- but his intolerance of intolerance is definitely on the “good” side.  Still, I think he’s missing an important possibility: Could it be that Bachmann and the others are infiltrators themselves? Might they have been backed by our nation’s enemies to get elected to Congress, where they can continuously embarrass the United States of America?
       I have no evidence whatsoever to back this up, but think about it: It certainly would explain some of the crazy charges she makes that rile up those who don’t really think about much of anything. She ran for president and got votes. What could be more embarrassing than that? I rest my case.
       Of course, she and the others are back-stepping so fast that they would do Mitt Romney proud, Bachmann is insisting her intentions “are unfortunately being distorted,” but then she has a track record of goofy pandering that kind of distorts itself.
       Maybe that’s not the only nefarious plot here. Huma Abedin is married to Anthony Weiner; we all remember “Weinergate,” where he was caught on Twitter with his pants down. Literally.
       He resigned from Congress, but in just the past few days, we have seen all kinds of stories suggesting that he wants to make another run for political office. Is this a coincidence or some clever way to gin up some sympathy for him? Is this really a conspiracy involving Weiner, his wife, Bachmann and the other House cheap-shot artists? Is John McCain part of it? How about Hillary Clinton?  
       Again, there is absolutely nothing to give credence to any of that, but it is plausible, particularly for those of us who have gone off the deep end.

(The usual stuff: The deal with the syndicator means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

       FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
       CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, JULY 17, 2012
       WORDS TO NUMB OUR CONSCIENCES
       BY BOB FRANKEN
       There are few expressions more offensively amoral than “collateral damage.” It is frequently used by military types to dismissively describe the innocent civilians whose lives are carelessly destroyed in a bombing run or other battlefield operation. The term designates them as “incidental” victims in the pursuit of some combat victory. What is so horrific about the abstraction is how it reflects a mindset that trivializes individual human beings, reducing them to background props in “the big picture.”
       I have been thinking of this while trying to grasp the conduct laid out in that honorific report on the investigation into the sexual abuse of so many young boys under the control of Jerry Sandusky, for three decades a trusted assistant to legendary Penn State University head football coach Joe Paterno. What is revealed is almost as contemptible as the assaults themselves. It clearly lays out the scramble by Paterno and other top university officials that lasted for years to conceal this torture of young boys from the public.
       Why? At all costs, they wanted to preserve the image of Paterno’s vaunted football program. That took precedence over the victims, who were left with no recourse, and left no protection for the children who would become Jerry Sandusky’s next prey. Paterno and the others didn’t use the term, but these kids were collateral damage to them. Their lives were ruined in childhood, as we learned in Sandusky’s trial, but the Nittany Lions could continue to win football games, the program unmolested, unlike the boys.  
       Only now are there calls to severely sanction Penn State to send the unmistakable message that such shameful indifference cannot be tolerated. There is a growing demand that the NCAA gut the school’s football program, which would be appropriate, since that seems to be the only thing that matters at this university.

(The usual disclaimer: The deal with the syndicator requires that this appears here a week after its newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236 BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, JULY 13, 2012
DO NOTHING, CONGRESS. JUST LEAVE
BY BOB FRANKEN
Now that the Republicans in the House of Representatives have had still another temper tantrum with their vote to repeal Obamacare, it’s time to suck it up and make a decision that would be wildly popular: Putting it simply, we should just shut down Congress till November.
Let’s face it, what little business the House and Senate must do easily can be deferred till after the election, since all they’re doing is campaigning on the public dime. So send the members home; ban them from D.C. -- not only to protect the nation, but for their own good. It’s hard to perceive of lower approval ratings than they already have, but each new day of their slapstick politicking threatens to push them all the way down to zero.
Their ridiculously juvenile behavior is expensive, and not just in terms of the scorn that is heaped on the legislative branch. It is also big money, for nothing but blatant electioneering. According to the Congressional Research Service, the House costs $24 million a week, the Senate about $17 million. That doesn’t include the Capitol police and other joint administrative outlays.
Of course, that’s chicken feed compared with the tens of billions of dollars the campaigns will spend by the time the races are over. Not only for president, but for the congressional seats for all those aspiring to their slice of the pampered life in Washington.
Imagine if they were able to campaign full time in person; we’d have a summer free of those seriously irritating TV ads that serve only two purposes: distortion and making tons of money for the distorter. Wouldn’t it be wonderful to clear away their airwave pollution?
The latest Washington Post poll is amazing, not only because it shows Messrs. Obama and Romney in a dead heat, but also for what it reveals about the voters: Almost all of them have made up their mind. Just 8 percent of the Romney supporters said they could change their minds, likewise just 4 percent of those who prefer Obama.
Obviously, the few not committed to either candidate will be key to the election. But instead of frittering away all those hundreds of millions of dollars on TV spots, why not just bribe the undecided ones? Of course, we can’t use the word “bribe,” so let's just use the words “campaign contributions”; that’s what we call the bribes that are paid to officeholders and candidates.

(As a,ways the syndication means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

  FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
       CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, JULY 10, 2012
       CHANGING THE HIDDEN-ASSET REIGN
       BY BOB FRANKEN
       Let’s not waste time with the usual preliminaries and instead get right to the brass tacks. Or, in this case, taxes, because taxes are behind this latest brainstorm: It is time for the United States to annex Switzerland, Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and those other countries whose main industry is hiding dirty money. Yes, I’m sure the naysayers already are coming up with their piddly negatives, but imagine the positives.
       Consider how collecting normal taxes on all those hidden funds would help the U.S. put a dent in its financial problems. “How obvious,” you’re exclaiming, “Why didn’t our political leaders come up with it?” What’s really amazing is that Mitt Romney didn’t think of it himself, since he has squirreled away some of his own fortune in these secret havens. How much? We don’t know. He ain’t telling.
       By now you’ve gotten accustomed here to inspired approached instead of the usual predictable dithering. Who can forget innovations like auctioning off naming rights to federal buildings and monuments, turning the Capitol’s audience galleries into corporate loges and making Guantanamo Bay an exclusive high-priced condominium, a true gated community?
       Now, add this to the list: Simply take over those nations that are disreputable havens for wealth and tax evasion.
       I know. It’s not that simple. They might not really love the idea, but hey, even though our leaders have so irresponsibly stretched our military, there should still be enough left in the tank to move in. Or we can accomplish the same result in the conventional way: a banking merger. No sweat.
       More problematic would be the opposition from our own rulers, by whom I mean the very Americans who stash their hoards, the ones who control most of the United States government and are trying to buy the rest in this year’s election. Look how their front man Romney raised $100 million in June. And that doesn’t count all the unreported cash coming in to the private shadow groups that support him.
       However, the hoarders suddenly are going public. They’re complaining that they aren’t getting who they paid for. They have trotted out their apologists and advocates to trash Romney for looking “confused, in addition to being politically dumb,” as it was put in The Wall Street Journal editorial page, otherwise known as the right-wing bulletin board. The paper’s owner is Rupert Murdoch, who seems to have switched from hacking to tweeting. He weighed in on Twitter with his own complaint that Mitt is in trouble unless “he drops old friends from the team.”
       That’s a refrain being sung a lot on the conservative side: Romney is being poorly handled by his campaign staff, which should be gutted. It’s an intriguing prospect, because it brings up the possibility that he would find replacements in the way he has so many times before: He would outsource.

If you're around at 10:00 Sunday morning check out Melissa Harris Perry's show on MSNBC. I'll be there to lower her normal standards.

Yes, it's the Rev and me doing our thing on MSNBC tonight (Thursday) during the 6:00, Eastern hour.

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
(As usual the syndication agreement means this appears here a week after its newspaper release)

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, JULY 6, 2012
LAUGHS AND GRIMACES ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL
BY BOB FRANKEN
Is it asking too much for us all to lighten up a bit? Please? Case in point: The commentators and other political groupies were foaming at the mouth after President Barack Obama got some good-natured booing at his own recent fundraiser. This is not serious, people. He and they were having some fun. Do you understand that concept, puckered ones: f-u-n?
Non-baseball fans bear with me: Obama, a Chicago White Sox die-hard, was in Boston and clowned around to Red Sox fanatics (pardon the redundancy) about the fact that longtime Boston idol, third baseman Kevin Youkilis, had been dealt to Chicago. He thanked them with a smirk, and went on with: “I’m just saying. He’s going to have to change the color of his socks.” That, of course, was followed by a cascade of boos from his audience of paying supporters. “I didn’t think I’d get boos out of here. ... My mistake, you’ve got to know your crowd.”
He probably didn’t even think about the crowd of pontificators who would search for cosmic meaning and once again demonstrate that their lack of levity is really, uh, sad. Truth is, all the jousting needs some jesting.
This is not partisan. When Mr. Obama warbled to show off his inner Al Green, it was good for a few yucks, that’s all. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney seems to love puns. He let loose with a great one in a restaurant about serving eggs Benedict in a hubcap, “Because there’s no plate like chrome for the hollandaise.” That is a first-rate ad-lib. No analysis needed.

(The usual: This column, thanks to the syndication deal, appears here a week after its newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, JULY 3, 2012
HIGHER EDUCATION FOR OUR COUNTRY
BY BOB FRANKEN
This is a stretch, but indulge me: As we take the Independence Day break and celebrate the work of the Founding Fathers, let’s focus on what else one of them, Thomas Jefferson, uh, founded. That, of course, is the University of Virginia, which he established in 1819.
We are probably tired of hearing how Jefferson must be rolling in his grave over all the turmoil seizing his scholarly haven. In contrast to his foresight, we’ve witnessed today’s shortsighted actions by the school’s governing board, largely a collection of corporate types.
How appropriate that the UVA teams are called the Cavaliers. “Cavalier” would definitely describe the board members’ attitude toward the unique realities and sensitivities of the academic community that they were treating like any other profit center.
By now we know that the crude attempts to impose their top-down management blew up in their faces. They tried to dump the university president, Teresa Sullivan, whom they suddenly, and with no public discussion. She dared to be collaborative and not a slash-and-burn team player who was not moving at the warp speed they wanted to speed into the “forefront of change.” But Sullivan made a triumphant return and ended up kicking sand in the bullies’ faces. They had to eat their so-called strategic dynamism, which is business-consultant gobbledygook for “Ready-Shoot-Aim.”
She was the defender of academic excellence. They were the anti-intellectual dictators, and when things blew up, they did what their types usually do when they mess up: They hired a so-called crisis-management firm that gets big bucks to put lipstick on their pig clients. This time, in a rare turn of events, there wasn’t enough lipstick.
Sullivan’s job is supposed be modernizing a flabby academic establishment that is dithering the institution into financial peril. But it’s a complex problem, requiring delicacy. Instead, some of the board members demanded simplistic heavy-handedness. They have gotten used to getting their way within their own world, where the only input they get is from sycophants.
They were so shocked when they encountered resistance, they folded. Still, their myopia provides sharp focus on the shortcomings of the corporate mentality. And that brings us to this year’s presidential race.

It's Al-Franken on MSNBC tonight ( Friday) once again during the 6:00, Eastern hour. Al Sharpton and Bob Franken that is. Who did you think?

I'll be solving all the world's problems with Al Sharpton on MSNBC tonight (Thursday) during the 6:00, Eastern, hour sometime. Or causing a few more.

(Same old razz-a-ma-razz: This is a week old because the syndication deal requires that delay after its newspaper release)

       FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
       CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, JUNE 29, 2012
       HEALTH CARE: FAR AWAY FROM THE ELECTION
       BY BOB FRANKEN
       There is nothing more delicious in politics than being magnanimous as you rub your enemies’ faces in their big loss. So it was that President Barack Obama reacted to the Supremes’ ruling upholding almost all of his signature reform widely known as Obamacare: “Whatever the politics,” he said with a straight face, “Today’s decision was a victory for people all over this country.” Call that passive-aggressive gloating.
       Certainly there is a lot of celebrating in the Obama White House. Some of the “I told you so” focused on the author of the 5-4 decision, the deciding voter, Chief Justice John Roberts.
       This is the same man liberals had vilified as a right-wing ideologue, but now he was providing the legal rationale for proceeding with the Affordable Care Act, even with its financial penalty for not buying insurance, the hated mandate.

       The four dissenters complained that the law “exceeds federal power both in mandating the purchase of health insurance and in denying non-consenting states all Medicaid funding.” On that last point, the majority did say there were constraints on enforcing the Medicaid expansion, but they lost the big argument. The health-care bill lives

      
(The usual disclaimer: Thanks to the syndication deal, this appears here a week after its newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
       CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 2012
       CONSIDER THE OUTSOURCE
       BY BOB FRANKEN
       Have you noticed these days that a few companies make it a point when answering calls from customers to have the rep announce he or she is speaking from someplace in the United States? Very smart.
       Those enlightened enterprises have recognized that they can gain points from the hostility so many Americans feel toward outsourcing. In addition to the constantly irritating communication problems, the so-called customer service centers, the ones relocated to the far reaches of the planet, reflect the mentality of profit-at-all-cost corporations who cavalierly wrench jobs away from home and send them to the Third World boiler rooms with their meager wages.
       Outsourcing has become such a potent symbol of U.S. economic travails that Mitt Romney campaigns on the promise to bring jobs back. Turns out, he helped send them away in the first place.
       That’s the gist of a Washington Post story detailing how Bain Capital, Romney’s now-infamous private-equity firm included in its portfolio ventures that specialized in creating and operating those offshore pittance-wage outposts. Such revelations have a potential to inflict critical injury on the campaign of a candidate who has had to fight an image of fat-cat insensitivity, someone who represents the excesses and manipulations of financial operators who make their fortunes with little regard for the rest of society.
       Certainly, President Barack Obama thought so. The same day the article appeared, he worked a slam into one of his speeches, excoriating Romney as an “outsourcing pioneer.”
       Pretty powerful stuff. Or it could be, except that given the Democrats’ normal inability to play offense and exploit a huge advantage, this issue probably will be allowed to get lost in that gnat-size memory span of the American voters.
       The way these things usually work is that anytime the Hood Robins are exposed, they use their tremendous resources to distort the issue. They come up with a response that is so confusing that the voters simply give up.
       Case in point: After the article appeared, the Romney campaign put out a statement, calling it a “fundamentally flawed story that does not differentiate between domestic outsourcing vs. offshoring nor vs. work done overseas to support U.S. exports.”
       Will someone please explain what those words mean? That response had no purpose whatsoever except to obfuscate, which is a polite way of saying ... well, you know.
       And it works. While Mitt and his lackeys were sniffing in outrage at the very suggestion that such business practices were helping to create what amounted to an American caste system, he and his corporate pals were gathering behind very closed doors with Republican stars and top campaign advisers to celebrate their purchased royalty and plot the final steps of their United States of America buyout.

(As always this appears here,nthanks to the syndication agreement, a week after its newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236 BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, JUNE 22, 2012
THE EDWARDS AND CLEMENS DECEPTION BY BOB FRANKEN
Even if Roger Clemens is a coddled athlete-narcissist who cheated by taking performance-enhancing drugs (which he denies), I personally am glad that the jury acquitted him of all his lying-to-Congress charges. Why is lying to Congress even a crime? Isn’t turnabout fair play? Remember all those campaign promises? I rest my case.
Besides, why in the world do they hold showboat hearings on whatever is the sensational scandal of the day -- like, say, steroids in baseball? Well, we know the reason: It’s to get on TV as the members glower behind their microphones on the dais, their wattles flopping in outrage as they hammer at the accused malefactor sitting at the witness table and sweating bullets.
I had a similar gloaty reaction to John Edwards beating the rap of misusing money while trying to hide his affair with Rielle Hunter and deny fathering a love child, while his wife was dying of cancer and he was still trying to foist his lying self into the top levels of U.S. government. Sleazy though all that may be, what was the Justice Department smoking when it decided to spend millions of dollars to prosecute Edwards for violating campaign-finance laws? It was shaky at best, an opportunistic political vendetta at worst, particularly since the really odious campaign-finance crime is entirely legal.,

(Blah blah blah: This column appears here, thanks to the syndication deal, a week after its newspaper release)

       FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
       CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, JUNE 19, 2012
       SAME OLD NEWT
       BY BOB FRANKEN
       Ah, Newt Gingrich. His every utterance is like a breath of hot air. Just when we thought he had gone on hiatus to rework his act, he pops up again, reading from his usual melodramatic script. And his adoring fans never tire of hearing the same old monologues.
       This time, he was playing to the audience at a Faith and Freedom conference, informing one and all that Americans have a “national, patriotic duty” to defeat Barack Obama. One can only extrapolate that supporters of President Obama are unpatriotic. Of course, Newt’s love of our nation is boundless. How can we ever forget the explanation he had for his extramarital affair with his current wife: “There is no question at times in my life, particularly driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate”?
       Those were the immortal words he used when he was competing for president. That was around the time when he delighted in describing Mitt Romney as “someone who will lie to you” and Romney’s Bain Capital ventures as corporate “looting.” Now that candidate Gingrich has bitten the dust, Newt is now slinging the dirt on behalf of Mitt: He declares that conservatives must “ensure that our children and our grandchildren live in a country in which working with Gov. Romney ... can create a dramatically better future.”
  

I'm on MSNBC with the Rev and Melissa Harris-Perry tonight (Friday) about 6:15, Eastern, to talk about, uh, stuff.

(As if you didn't notice: This column is delayed here for a week after it newspaper release. It's because of the deal with the syndicator)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, JUNE 15, 2012
LABOR PAINS
BY BOB FRANKEN
It’s a war that’s been going on for decades in the United States. As bitter as any divide in our country, it is the fight-to-the-death struggle between organized labor and the corporate interests who plainly and simply would like to eliminate unions.
That’s what the Wisconsin recall vote was all about. But it was just the latest rout of labor. Generations of this conflict have brought unions almost to the point of extinction. In the private sector, they are already on the brink. In 2011, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, union membership had fallen to less than 7 percent, a record low and barely above the asterisk level. And that includes manufacturing and the trades.
The public sector is quickly becoming the last outpost. Government workers now make up half the entire membership in the labor movement. But as we saw in Wisconsin, their clout is diminishing as their enemies — yes, ENEMIES — in the political and corporate world are winning every fight.
For the Republican Party, shattering unions destroys the power center of the Democrats. Labor, with its millions of dollars in contributions and its millions of members of ground forces, has traditionally kept the Democratic Party afloat. As the unions sink, so do the “D’s.” And the employers will have their employees right where they want them.
One would think that the organization that purports to speak for the many would have the loyalty of most Americans. After all, unions exist to give collective clout to the employees of business interests whose sole purpose is making a profit.
But one would be wrong. According to an August 2011 Harris Poll, which was typical, while two-thirds of the respondents “agree that unions improve the wages and working conditions of workers,”  more than seven in 10 also believe they “are more concerned with fighting change than with trying to bring about change and stifle individual initiative.”
That is a brutal indictment in a world where the rules mutate with blinding speed. Put another way, organized labor is viewed as a relic and an impediment to progress. In this atrocious economy, people who are desperate for a job have little patience for those they see as lazy, protected by unions and coddled by obsolete work rules. They have been encouraged to draw that conclusion from the very same people who brought on these hard times. For proof, we need look no further than the just-released Federal Reserve report that shows the median American family suffering a 40 percent decline in net worth between 2007 and 2010. Forty percent wiped out in just three years!

   (Usual stuff: Thanks to the syndicators deal this appears here a week later than its newspaper release)

    FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
       CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2012
       WRETCHED RHETORIC
       BY BOB FRANKEN
       Obviously Romney-Biden Disease is contagious. It’s also known as the Gaffe Syndrome, and in 2012, symptoms have spread throughout the political world.
       No less a silver tongue than Barack Obama just got a bad case, which meant he made a bad case. How else to describe his news conference? He was arguing that his economic program has added jobs, but then he went wild and crazy, blurting out that “The private sector is doing fine.” It’s hard to remember what he said next, because his foot was so jammed into his mouth.
       Romney, whose own boneheaded remarks are numerous and legendary, could barely contain his glee. He jumped all over President Obama, the now former smooth talker: “Is he that out of touch?” he gloated. As Vice President Joe Biden was caught whispering to the boss one time, this was a “big f------ deal.” So much so that POTUS wasted no time.
       As his very next White House photo op, he tried to untrip, stating it is “absolutely clear that the economy is not doing fine.” So there. That’s that.
       Except, of course, it isn’t. The relentless TV ads paid for by the Republicans and their corporate cabal already have begun. They juxtapose those six little words with reminders that the economy is still in the toilet.
       Maybe this is overwrought. Maybe by “private sector,” he meant those at the very top who hoard the nation’s wealth by hook and crook. Like Mitt Romney. To be fair and balanced here, we should note that Mitt, on the very same day, made his own stupid remark (will wonders never cease?) in his zeal to slam Mr. Obama. “He says we need more firemen, more policemen, more teachers. ... It’s time for us to cut back on government and help the American people.” Who needs all those teachers and first responders?

(First the yada: Because of the syndication deal, this column appears here a week after is newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, JUNE 8, 2012
LESSON UNLEARNED
BY BOB FRANKEN
Democrats do not like to hear that they’re in danger of losing. Trust me. On any number of occasions, when I’ve been in a room or a TV studio with them, the mere suggestion that the other side might somehow prevail engenders the disgusted reaction one gets for fouling the air. Try mentioning that Mitt Romney actually might beat Barack Obama, and see how you become an instant pariah.
So it has been with the Wisconsin Scott Walker recall campaign. Appearing on a panel with a union leader, my reminder that polls showed Walker might escape was met with barely disguised scorn. Labor, after all, had pushed the vote in this fight to the death over public employee collective bargaining and benefits. “People Power,” he insisted, would prevail. After all, we like to believe it is the essence of a democracy like ours.
Unfortunately, Wisconsin showed once again with the Walker cakewalk that these days “people power” is obliterated every time by “money power.”
According to the nonpartisan Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, the conservative anti-recall forces had accumulated $45.5 million, largely from the major corporate donors bent on the destruction of unions. The pro-labor effort had collected $18 million. By the time the muck settled on election day, the right had outspent the left 7 to 1. Game over.
What’s fascinating is how so many Democrats are shying away from the obvious implications this has for the big game, meaning the presidential election. They want to pretend that “What goes in Wisconsin, stays in Wisconsin.”
The exit polls, after all, show that President Obama still holds a lead over challenger Romney there, and the state has been in the “D” column for the past six presidential elections.
Could be, but that was before the Supreme Court Citizens United decision, which declared the nation a constitutional plutocracy. Now, the super-rich can blatantly drown any notion of representative government in a flood of money.
Any upstart who might have the temerity to mildly suggest the notion of fair play can be swept aside. That’s what makes the liberals, who live in their cocoons of self-righteousness, so vulnerable. No matter how much they assure each other that they have virtue on their side and that Americans will vote in their obvious interest, the self-styled progressives miss an important point.

  
(Here's the disclaimer: The deal with the syndicator delays the appearance of this column here until a week after its newspaper release)

     FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
       CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, JUNE 5, 2012
       SWEET-TALKING NANNY
       BY BOB FRANKEN
       All hell is breaking loose, particularly on the right, about New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s order to impose a ban on the sale of large sizes of sugary soft drinks. But count me among the many who wonder why the very same people who want the authorities deeply involved in prohibiting gay marriage or abortion also condemn any government efforts to combat obesity.
       Never mind the overwhelming evidence of the threats to public health from what The Center for Science in the Public Interest calls “liquid candy,” Hizzoner is constantly vilified for his aggressive efforts to regulate the egregiously dangerous products we eat and drink. He’s condemned for infringing on our “personal choice.”
       Actually, one could argue that his beverage limits are kinda namby-pamby. First of all, by aiming at soda pop, he’s overlooking the massive number of other products that contain the same toxin: sugar.
       And yes, it is a toxin. Whether corn or cane or beet, refined sugar kills and maims as it bloats the guts of fat Americans everywhere. In Bloomberg’s New York, for instance, an estimated 50 percent of the population is overweight or outright obese. Half. No wonder the city can be so harsh.
       Portion control is really a wimpy way to deal with such a dangerous poison, particularly one that is so shamelessly marketed to a flabby nation hobbled by this substance abuse. The “personal choice” protestations against any public-health programs sound eerily like the ones we used to hear about cigarettes.
       That helps explain the full-page ad showing a huge picture of Mayor Bloomberg headlined in large bold type: “The Nanny.” Who paid for it? The group calls itself The Center for Consumer Freedom; it’s a nice-sounding name until we find out it was originally set up with money from a tobacco company, and that one of its funders these days is Coca-Cola. It’s comparable to one of those shell entities that are fronts to launder the money of bad guys.

       (Usual stuff: The deal with the syndicator means this appears here a week after its newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
       CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, JUNE 1, 2012
       BLOWING OFF THE BLOWHARD
       BY BOB FRANKEN
       There are three months till the conventions and the two parties have their nominees, so whatever will we talk about between now and then?
       Let’s agree that there is someone we won’t talk about for a while. You got it: The time has come to declare a moratorium on Donald Trump.
       It shouldn’t be that hard to do. There’s really nothing to talk about. But somehow, The Donald always manages to take his bottom-feeding to the top of the agenda. It’s time to cut off his blood supply of undeserved PR.
       When he’s not writing pretentious pieces about baseball, which often are slower-moving than the game itself, George Will usually muses about politics from the ultraconservative point of view. But in this case, not only is he right, as in “wing,” but he’s also right as in “correct” when he calls Trump a “bloviating ignoramus.” The real point, though, is the fact that Will and the rest of us pay any attention to Trump whatsoever. Instead, George should stick to bloviating about baseball. The best way we can all stick it to Trump is by ignoring him.
       How idiotic that we have indulged the Birther rants of a creature like him, who probably should have to prove where he was spawned. The day before Trump and Mitt Romney appeared together at a Las Vegas fundraiser, he justified his lowest-common-denominator ranting by insisting to CNBC: “I’ve been known as a very smart guy for a long time. I don’t consider myself ‘Birther’ or ‘not Birther.’ But there are some major questions here.” Here’s a clue into the guy’s mindset: He doesn’t have one. A law of nature is, “If someone feels it’s necessary to say he is ‘very smart,’ he isn’t.”

(As always Tge deal with the syndicator means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

  FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
       CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, MAY 29, 2012
       COW PIES
       BY BOB FRANKEN
       It is a highlight of the campaign: President Barack Obama, in Iowa getting in touch with his inner farmer and ridiculing Mitt Romney’s “cow pies of distortion.” Or is it a lowlight?
       Whatever, it obviously appeals to my inner immaturity. So much so, I am recommending to one of those fact-checking columns that keep track of the half-truths and outright lies on both sides that they rate them on a scale of one to four “cow pies.”
       It’s a polite version of that word we so often associate with politicians, and it’s amazing to see how there are so many in modern times continuously depositing their methane patties. The ongoing “Birther” movement is a genuine diaper-filler.
       Mitt’s BFF Donald Trump has decades of experience dropping his waste onto all aspects of our society. Somehow, it always seems to fertilize a career that is built totally on hot, foul air. So as he latches on to the campaign once again to milk it for all the PR he can, of course he would be the one to raise questions about Barack Obama’s true birthplace.
       For the cheesiest of “Big Lie” practitioners, meaning The Donald, it doesn’t matter how discredited the issue is. In this case, he’s citing a long-ago book proposal that listed Mr. Obama’s birthplace as Kenya. The editor who wrote it insists it was a “fact-checking error,” but it continues to be another Trump dump on the intelligence of the voters.
       Unfortunately, too many of those voters don’t have all that much intelligence. All they know is that they’re looking for some way to express their Obama hostility without facing the real reason for their hatred. Trump is happy to help.
       That way, Romney can stay removed from the fray and present himself as being above such distasteful tactics, while at the same time reaping the low-life benefits. If you believe he and his professional manipulators are innocent bystanders, there are some decrepit properties closed down by Bain Capital you might want to buy.

    (The usual blah blah: The deal with the syndicator means this appears here a week after its newspaper release)

  FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
       CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, MAY 25, 2012
       THE BAINS OF OUR EXISTENCE
       BY BOB FRANKEN
       Advisory: Next week’s column dated 5/29 will move on Tuesday instead of Monday due to the Memorial Day holiday.
       “I know what it means to meet a payroll,” Mitt Romney says. Unfortunately, during his leadership of Bain Capital, sometimes the way he would “meet a payroll” was to get rid of that payroll altogether. Then he and Bain would take the money left from the sucked-dry company and run.
       Republicans like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell condemn the Obama Bain disdain. “Capitalism seems to be under attack,” he sputters, the same kind of demagoguery we get from Romney. Even some Democrats, like Newark, N.J., Mayor Cory Booker, kowtow to rich patrons. Booker called any such discussion “nauseating.”
       The conduct and responsibilities of our plutocracy are exactly what we should be arguing about. It seeks to define what this nation aspires to be.  President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are on the same page, for a change, arguing that Romney's profit-at-any-cost business experience, is different from “the job of a president.”
       It’s true we celebrate entrepreneurial success in this nation, but the country’s chief executive is in charge of a society that claims to protect those who haven’t had the good fortune to amass a fortune. Part of this intense campaign fight is over how much the lucky ones should pay back for their accidental privilege.
       What truly is “nauseating” is how this issue is invariably presented in such a simple-minded way. It usually is depicted as an absolute choice between a stifling public sector and greedy private enterprise. It’s not either/or.
       Obviously, the two must coexist. The real issue is how.
       The relationship hasn’t been working. It seems like every day we witness our financial operators making huge blunders. Look at what a mess the Facebook IPO became. JPMorgan Chase, anyone? Those are not isolated examples. The economy is still struggling to recover from the inept game-playing that destroyed the dreams and well-being of innocent millions.
       Yet the perpetrators continue to thrive. It’s no wonder they are funding a ferocious battle to prevent effective government regulation.

The Rev and I will be making the world a better place tonight ( Wednesday) on MSNBC during the 6:00 PM, Eastern hour.

(Same doo doo, different day day: The deal with thevsyndicators requires that this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

       FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
       CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, MAY 22, 2012
       SUPER PAC MENTALITY
       BY BOB FRANKEN
       It should be easy to see why the nation so badly needs quality, aggressive journalism and why so many partisans, particularly on the right, despise it. An informed electorate is vital to the success of a democracy and anathema to those mercenaries hellbent on distorting the issues and inflaming prejudice.
       The latest case in point is the New York Times story about the racist proposal circulating in one of those so-called super PACs. You know these organizations: Enabled by the infamous Supreme Court Citizens United ruling, they allow the very wealthy to crush the opposition. Meanwhile, their favored candidates are shielded from accountability for this often-scurrilous propaganda.
       But thanks to the Times, a hate campaign was exposed before it could foul the airwaves. It was a proposal circulated by Fred Davis, one of the consultants who makes tons of money practicing his profession’s dark arts.
       Davis was touting a $10 million expenditure for commercials that would again tie “Barack Hussein Obama,” as his memo was titled, to the rants of his former minister Jeremiah Wright. It would attempt to finesse the certain “bigotry” outcry by employing a black conservative to do the voice-over.
       The memorandum to the Ending Spending Action Fund made it clear it hadn’t been decided whether to launch by the leader of the PAC, Joe Ricketts, who, by the way, is the founder of Ameritrade.
       Suddenly, when Ricketts was flushed out, he abandoned the idea with back-stepping worthy of Mitt Romney. Even the possible beneficiary, Mitt, made sure he stayed clear.

Al Sharpton and I are among those getting the weekend going with our repartee on MSNBC tonight (Friday) during the 6:00 PM, Eastern, hour

(This is delayed a week after its newspaper release because the deal with the syndicators says so)

       FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
       CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, MAY 18, 2012
       THE CORPORATE MOP-UP
       BY BOB FRANKEN
       What a feel-good story: 52-year-old Yugoslav refugee Gac Filipaj, who scratched out a living as a janitor at Columbia University for a dozen years, graduated there after studying the Classics. When he wasn’t washing and waxing the floors, he was reading Latin and Greek, and now he has an Ivy League degree.
       He says he plans to pursue a master’s and maybe a doctorate, which shows just how smart he really is. It’s not all that clear what kind of employment his elite education would get him. Chances are the only answer would be janitor.
       Or CEO.
       Certainly he could do no more harm than many who run our mega corporations and banks -- even the few sharp tacks like Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase, whom President Barack Obama calls “one of the smartest bankers we got.” The Obamas, it turns out, keep some of their fortune at his bank. But even the celebrated Dimon couldn’t stop his subordinates from making trades in derivatives that he himself called “stupid” and “sloppy” to the tune of $2 billion losses admitted to thus far.
       Let’s give the man some credit. At least he had the good sense to admit the obvious, particularly since the FBI is investigating whether crimes were committed. And of course, the fill-in-the-blank lawsuits have been filed.
       That’s because it wasn’t Jamie Dimon’s billions his minions were blowing. As usual, they were gambling with what everyone calls “OPM” -- “other peoples’ money,” squandering funds from investors.
       It so happened a stockholders’ meeting had been previously scheduled for just days after the embarrassing debacle became public. Dimon did manage to defeat attempts to strip him of his chairman title. He also escaped with his full $23 million annual salary intact, which the more naive thought he was paid to make sure such disasters don’t happen.
       It’s no wonder some have begun describing the “too big to fail” financial giants as “too big to manage.” At most of these behemoths, the top executives continue to receive hugely bloated pay packages as if their ineptitude and scandalous policies don’t seem to matter one bit.

      (Usual disclaimer: This is delayed here till a week after its newspaper release thanks to the deal with the syndicator)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
       CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012
       TAKING LIBERTY
       BY BOB FRANKEN
       There was one favorable result of the youthful thuggish-assaults story about Mitt Romney and the Bullyboy gang: It drew attention away from the time he strapped his dog on the car roof for a tortuous vacation trip. Now we know that his cruelty is interspecies. He must have thought he’d feel cozy at Liberty University, that academy of gay hatred, where students are not allowed to be openly homosexual.
       So, of course, Romney made it a point to slip into his commencement address that “Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman.” In a week where Barack Obama had expressed his personal support for same-sex marriage, Romney’s restatement of opposition unsurprisingly received a standing ovation.
       But perhaps there was more to that sentence than homophobia. The words “one man and one woman” obviously rules out polygamy. Even though that is no longer accepted in Romney’s Mormon religion, it still comes up in the rantings of those whose intolerance includes The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the ones who dismiss it as a “cult.” In fact, there was an active debate at Liberty whether his membership disqualified him from speaking.
       There were no incidents, thankfully. Such prejudice has no place in our society. Obviously. Mitt Romney’s Mormonism is not worthy of notice. Period.
       His Mammonism is. The sin of wages that he and the other corporate rulers get for their greedy pursuits at the expense of so many others, and the policies he champions, are the most valid issues of this campaign. The sociopathic insensitivity that he showed others in school is matched by what he demonstrated as an adult to those whose jobs were lost while he and his other soulless-mates were making their millions and billions.

(The usual blah blah: Thanks to the deal with the syndicators, the column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

       FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
       CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, MAY 11, 2012
       OBAMA AND ROMNEY’S BULLY PULPITS
       BY BOB FRANKEN
       So, the vice president “apologized” to President Barack Obama for forcing the issue of same-sex marriage, and the boss accepted. That’s the official story being peddled to reporters by various administration “sources.” Usually, there is good reason to be skeptical when these unnamed officials spread the party line in such a coordinated way.
       Is there any reason to believe that Joe Biden’s comment on “Meet the Press” was not some slick move -- a clever way of allowing the president to have his coming out on this hot issue so he could get rid of the controversy long before the election and turn it to his advantage just in time for some huge Hollywood fundraisers? The best reason is that the Democratic strategists usually just aren’t that slick.
       However this really played out, the fascinating point is that Obama’s new embrace of gay marriage seems to be a big positive for him. The polls have shown a quickly growing acceptance of it in society. It also might help explain the push to end the president’s “evolution” in his thinking, particularly when we note how his side is so quickly touting it and reaping fundraising rewards.
       At the same time though, the hard-rock conservatives are going bonkers. The mainstream Republicans are trying to get the emphasis back where they want it. “The president can talk about it all he wants,” sniffed an irritated House Speaker John Boehner, “I’m going to stay focused on what the American people want us to stay focused on, and that’s jobs.”
 

      (As always, the deal with tyevsyndicator means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
       CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE MONDAY, MAY 8, 2012
       RECKLESS FECKLESS ROMNEY HECKLES
       BY BOB FRANKEN
       It will be fun to watch as Mitt Romney once again demonstrates what he does best, which as everyone knows, is backtracking. His running shoes will be covered in whatever he steps into. This time, he’s being criticized for interfering in the tense negotiations with Beijing over dissident Chen Guangcheng.
       Chen is the blind, self-educated lawyer who has spent years in prison because of his anti-government agitations. After incarceration, he was confined in extra-legal house arrest in a far-out province, and had become another of the faces of the shameful brutality directed at anyone who doesn’t march in lock step with China’s rigid and often corrupt system.
       Somehow, he managed to escape the thuggish guards who seriously mistreated him and kept him inside his home and visitors out.  After a perilous journey to the capital city, he was secreted into the compound of the U.S. Embassy.  
       The Chinese government was furious over “an interference in China’s internal affairs,” and demanded a U.S. apology. Like that is going to happen, particularly with the Mitt Romneys of this world heckling from the sidelines.
       Making matters even messier, the surprise crisis erupted at the exact time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner were arriving for talks about a wide range of difficult issues -- trade and economic matters among them. They were all vital, but suddenly completely overshadowed by the quandary over human rights. The very mention of the subject causes Beijing’s autocrats to bristle, not exactly the best atmosphere in which to discuss business dealings.
       Obviously, this was a delicate situation. It still is. Each time it appeared the sides had carefully worked out a face-saving understanding, it would fall apart, done in by the treachery of the communist rulers, confusion or Chen’s capriciousness. The latest flimsy arrangement, which would allow Chen and his family to travel to the United States, easily could unravel. The Chinese government said the travel documents will be issued “expeditiously.” That means what it usually means: not much.
       One might think that this is the very worst time for heavy-handed domestic politics. And one would be correct, unless he or she is Mitt Romney, who’s eager as always to make the case that Barack Obama is over his head or soft on human rights, or whatever. Ignoring the possibility that his heckling might undermine U.S. efforts, Romney absolutely, positively had to describe the reported roller-coaster developments as a “dark day for freedom, and it’s a day of shame for the Obama administration.”
       It was a dark day all right, a dark day of irresponsible opportunism and careless rhetoric for the man who so desperately wants to replace the Obama administration with his own. Never mind how this type of situation used to be treated, with a modicum of restraint. That was practiced in a time where statesmanship had a role, with the understanding that “politics stops at the water’s edge,” meaning, of course, our ocean boundaries. How quaint.
  

(Usual schtick: The column is delayed for a week here here due to the deal with the newspaper syndicator)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, MAY 4, 2012

MITT HIT MAN SHOT DOWN

BY BOB FRANKEN

Let's face it: There is no shortage of people who think Richard Grenell is a jerk. Don't know who he is? He is now the former Romney for President national-security and foreign-policy spokesman after lasting less than a couple of weeks in the job. His infamous public comments about prominent women in politics and his ugly relations with the media have nothing to do with his hasty exit. It is simply because he's openly gay.

Never mind his trail of demeaning Twitter messages, and never mind the coercive tactics he used as an official press secretary against journalists who had the audacity to cover stories unfavorable to his various clients. He had a reputation for chewing out reporters who didn't get with the program. Sometimes he would go over their heads and occasionally threaten their bosses. But he was done in by even bigger bullies.

(Usual drag: The deal with Tge syndicator requires this column appears here after its newspaper release)

       FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
      CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, MAY 1, 2012
       A BREAK FOR THE BROKEN
       BY BOB FRANKEN
       “Give me a break.” That was Republican House Speaker John Boehner’s scornful reaction to charges from Democrats that his party was again waging a “war against women.” At issue was the political imperative to prevent student-loan interest rates from doubling. Both sides claim that they agree the legislation is needed. Why wouldn’t they? After all, the youth vote is a big prize for both parties. So what’s the problem?
       The problem is in the House, where the restive tea partiers and other GOP members want to extract the usual pound of flesh, from the usual place: You guessed it, from the Obama health-care law. That, says the D’s, means the R’s want to cut back on programs that support mothers and their children. Hence the new “War on Women” accusation, and hence Boehner’s contemptuous “Give me a break.”
       A fuller look at the tape shows that he also snarled, “This is beneath the dignity of this House and the dignity of the public trust that we enjoy from our constituents.” Now, that begs at least a couple of questions: What dignity? And what “public trust.”
       After watching more than a year of House of Representatives brawling that has stopped just short of violence, and taken the nation time and again to the brink of financial disaster, it’s evident Speaker Boehner is on shaky ground. How many polls do we need to see that Congress suffers from 90 percent disapproval? Their rating is below used-car salespeople, lawyers and even journalists. Truly the bottom.
       What’s really unfortunate is that the speaker’s “Give me a break” demand can’t be granted. If there were only some way we could adjourn both the House and the Senate for the rest of the year. Then, instead of destroying the country, Congresspeople could go home and grovel full time for the money to finance their deceptions. It’s enticing, but impossible.
       The student-loan mishmash illustrates the dilemma. Thanks to the Constitution, the squabblers of Capitol Hill are necessary to keep the nation operating. There are certain problems that we need them to solve. The basic one is to agree on funding the federal government. As always, some of the more radical rightists are threatening a government shutdown.
       There will be some rough head-knocking before the two sides can agree on tough budget cuts and/or tax hikes that will prevent mandatory slashing of Pentagon spending, among other vital outlays. Somehow, it has to be accomplished in the poisonous swamp that is Washington, enveloped in an atmosphere that was already toxic before the campaign made it even more foul.

     (Usual disclaimer: The deal with the syndicator means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

  FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
       CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, APRIL 27, 2012
       DOG TIRED
       BY BOB FRANKEN
       Romney haters, listen up: You’re overplaying the dog-on-the-roof thing. If you’re not careful, there’s going to be a barklash.
       That includes Gail Collins of The New York Times, who is one of my favorites in newsbiz. But she’s made such a big deal out of Mitt Romney’s Irish Setter Seamus being strapped on top of the family station wagon, and written about it so often, that it has now gotten tiresome. That’s not the norm for a columnist whose insights are usually refreshing and whose humor is incredibly biting (sorry, I couldn’t resist).
       First of all, let’s get something straight: I, too, am a dog nut. My golden retriever pup, Mingus, is a beloved member of the family. I adore him. To me, there’s no greater joy than being around him and his canine buddies. For those who reside in D.C., Harry Truman nailed it when he said, “If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.” I would add, “If your life includes dogs, who needs other friends?”
       That said, we really need to get past the animal test when deciding which human will be leading our country. Rick Perry apparently loves dogs, although you might want to stay away from him if you’re a coyote. Barack Obama seems to get along with the family’s Portuguese water dog, Bo, but those relationships don’t mean a lick compared with the other issues of the race.
       Take Seamus’ owner: There are so many other reasons to embrace him or reject him. Now that he seems to have escaped his party’s primary kennel, with all his opponents snapping at his heels, he is working on remarking his turf. His backtracking is the stuff of legend. Once again, he’s rewriting his narrative about what breed of politician he is.

(The usual note: The agreement with the syndicator means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

       FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
       CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 2012
       HIGH LIVING ON OUR MONEY
       BY BOB FRANKEN
       No argument here about the outrage over the outlandish General Services Administration bacchanal in Las Vegas. The organizer, Jeff Neely, said he wanted this $800,000-plus “team building” conference with its mind reader, exorbitant food and other costly merrymaking to be “over the top.” He sure succeeded.
       But now he’s squirming under the Capitol big top, refusing to testify before a congressional committee. He has decided to take the 5th, which probably makes sense since there’s a possibility of criminal charges.
       He and his fellow party animals have managed to spawn a Washington rarity: bipartisanship. The twaddle from members of both parties was flapping in outrage as Republicans and Democrats alike were filling the air and TV news channels with their righteous sound bites over such a cavalier waste of government money.
       And they are absolutely correct; we should stop all those in power who act like the federal Treasury is their personal slush fund and that they are entitled to waste the people’s money to satisfy their lavish tastes.
       Imagine how much money we’d save, for instance, if we not only scaled back the unnecessary retreats that have so long been a part of the management culture, but also the superfluous travel abroad by members of Congress on the public dime.
       Yes, maybe this time we finally can do something about those notorious “Codels,” the bureaucratic shorthand for congressional delegations, meaning all those international trips for senators and representatives. The planet becomes their playground during recess.
       Their longstanding argument has been that the trips are necessary to expose them to firsthand knowledge of the world’s problems and acquaint them with foreign leaders.
       To be fair, this is not about the excursions by the likes of Sens. John McCain, Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham, who so often pop up in garden spots like Afghanistan and other hellholes.
       But will someone please explain why so many of the others repeatedly traipse around exotic resorts or in glitzy cities, along with family members and staff entourages.

The Rev and I do our song and dance again tonight (Friday) on MSNBC during the 6:00 PM, Eastern hour.

(The usual disclaimer: Because of the deal with the syndicator, this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, APRIL 20, 2012

THE IDIOT PRIZE

BY BOB FRANKEN

So now Mitt Romney is charging that there is a “vast left-wing conspiracy” to discredit him. That’s how he put it on a conservative radio program the other day.

He obviously was mimicking the claim years ago by then-first lady Hillary Clinton that a “vast right-wing conspiracy” was out to sabotage her husband’s presidency.

Bill Clinton was doing a pretty good job at that himself, but the conspiracies she and Mr. Romney describe are real. They're also exaggerated. They are not vast, they’re half-vast.

Dopey though such pronouncements can be, they are relatively well thought out when compared to some of the other rhetoric we get these days.

On the liberal side, we witness the clumsiness of a Hilary Rosen and her now-infamous ASSERTION that housewife Ann Romney “had never worked a day in her life.” The Romneys milked that one so much that Mrs. Romney herself was overheard calling the controversy a “birthday gift.”

But Hilary Rosen doesn’t hold a birthday candle to the ultra-conservatives. As usual, they swept the latest competition for the Insanely Demagogic Invective of the Times award, the coveted IDIOT prize.

This time, it wasn’t Newt Gingrich who captured top dishonors. He’s pretty much out of the running, even though he doesn’t admit it. We have a tie though, between Allen West and Ted Nugent.

West IS Rep. West,. He's A Republican from Florida, but he speaks for the entirety of Cuckoo Land. He sure did when he declared that in Congress, “I believe there’s about 78 to 81 members of the Democratic Party that are members of the Communist Party.”

And here we thought Joe McCarthy was dead. In spite of the ruckus, West isn’t backing down, demonstrating that, like McCarthy, he doesn’t have shame either.

However, when it comes to standing his ground, he meets his match in 1970s pop-music rock star and present extremistrock star Ted Nugent harranguing at the National Rifle Association convention. Who knew that by "Heavy Metal" he meant guns? In any care, he was firing away: "If Barack Obama becomes president in November again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year.”

The Rev and I will be doing a Slow Jam tonight (Wednesday) on MSNBC during the 6:00 PM, Eastern, hour

      (As usual, the agreement with the syndicator means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release.)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
       CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 2012
       CHINESE VS U.S. GUTTERS
       BY BOB FRANKEN
       Those pesky Chinese seem to be besting us in far too many ways. Now they’ve obviously won the prize for killer politics.
       Let’s make that ALLEGED killer politics. The Chinese committee of authoritarian rulers involved in a nasty battle to determine who will be running the country in the years ahead has not only tossed out one of the contenders, Bo Xilai, but announced that his wife is under investigation for murder, suspected of being responsible for the death of a shady British expatriate.
       Face it, Americans: We just can’t compare with viciousness like that. We’re less ruthless than ludicrous, as the Republican primaries demonstrated. The only murder there was the sort where various candidates did themselves in.
       And now they have a winner -- a survivor, actually. Mitt Romney was able to shrug off all his self-inflicted wounds and use superior financial firepower to obliterate his opponents.
       So now he can target Barack Obama and hope that the party rank and file’s apathy for him will be overcome by their passionate hatred of Obama.
       Unlike China’s machinations, this fight will be relatively open. There will be unhealthy doses of religious zealotry, racism, gun nuttiness, homophobia, even Birther babbling -- anything to stir the pot.
       Add to that toxic mix all the churning over so-called women’s issues as Romney desperately tries to close a yawning gender gap. We’ve already witnessed a yawner in the contrived outrage over a Democrat’s clumsy comments about stay-at-home moms. Never mind that she was merely one of us pundit political groupies. Everyone was all a-Twitter. Literally. And of course we’ve heard Mitt’s shameless distortions about the impact of the financial meltdown on women’s jobs.
       It reinforces the point that even with all the diversions, at its core, this year’s election is about the nation’s lifeblood: money. It is a struggle over the nature of our economy: who controls it, who regulates it, who gets how much benefit,

(The usual: The deal with the syndicators means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)
       FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
       CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, APRIL 13, 2012
       THE GENDER FLAP
       BY BOB FRANKEN
       It’s time for an excursion into really dangerous territory. Already there’s a huge uproar over Democratic hanger-on Hilary Rosen’s clumsy effort to belittle Ann Romney by saying Mrs. Romney had “never worked a day in her life.” By Rosen’s admission, after it had hit the fan, her words were “poorly chosen.”
       You bet they were. For starters, they really disrupted her party’s plan to exploit the big “gender gap” advantage that President Barack Obama enjoys over Mitt Romney, otherwise known as “husband of.”
       Obama wasted no time trying to tamp down the controversy and leave Rosen twisting in the wind. At first opportunity, which was an interview on an Iowa local TV station, he hastened to argue that “There is no tougher job than being a mom.” But then he added, “I don’t have a lot of patience for commentary about spouses of political candidates.”
       Sorry, folks, this will antagonize the gallant lot of you, but since when is any campaigner immune? Put another way, if a candidate offers up his or her wife or husband or kids, for that matter, to make speeches and appearances, then said spouse or child is fair game. Not foul game, like what we get from a Rush Limbaugh, but certainly open to criticism once they’ve decided to become participants.
       In the case of wives, it is anti-female condescension to advocate sheltering them from the unruliness of a political process they’ve decided to join. That reduces them to a delicate little flower role that we have thankfully discarded. If Ann Romney decides to let Mitt Romney ride on her skirttails, then she’s part of the untidy process.
       Besides, she showed she is fully capable of defending herself, telling Fox News “We have to respect women and all those choices that they make. And by the way, let me give a shout out to all the dads that are home raising kids.”

(As usual, the syndication deal means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 2012

DARWIN'S NATURAL ELECTION

BY BOB FRANKEN

We all know what President Barack Obama means to convey when he says Republicans stand for “social Darwinism.” It's his way of describing the enemy's consistent coddle-the-wealthy tenets that reflect a modern-day “survival of the fittest” philosophy. It is a rare case of political rhetoric matching reality. What's perplexing, though, is how the less prosperous, less fit in today's cruel world often are the most self-certain advocates of the very dogma that threatens their own survival.

The best explanation comes from Charlie Darwin himself, in a pithy line, already probably well-known to the well-read, as well as to those of us who found it on a smartphone quotation app: “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”

Too many conservative leaders are fully aware of that, so they try to appeal to the hearts and mindlessness of the millions who are looking for easy answers when they don't even want to bother to understand the questions. They have rock-solid opinions based on squishy thinking, and they are easily bamboozled as the principal targets of unprincipled demagogues. They are riled up by hot-button sloganeering that's meant to distort: “reform” becomes “socialism,” “women's rights” a “war on religion.” Such deception helps assure the survival of the specious.

Before Democrats get all sanctimonious, we should remind them of how they take their own cheap shots. Barack Obama is hardly above the fray. Our reminder came when he tried to frame the health-care case with some clumsy remarks about the fundamental concept of judicial review. It was transparent game-playing, and all he got out of it was embarrassment. It shows he has some work to do before he can blow smoke like Republicans. For starters, they seem incapable of embarrassment, which is a huge advantage.

Al Sharpton and I will be bouncing ideas around this evening (Friday) on MSNBC during the 6:00 Eastern hour.

(As usual, the arrangement with the syndicator means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, APRIL 6, 2012

CONTEMPT OF COURT

BY BOB FRANKEN

How sad it is that so much about the Supreme Court is so petty. For starters, the justices are blatantly abandoning any pretense of fair reflection and replacing it with foul politics. The health-care hearing with its slanted questions was just the latest example of how the “umpires,” to use Chief Justice John Roberts' famous description, have been replaced by biased referees.

That criticism is nothing new. Long before the ridiculous Citizens United decision, which expanded human rights to inhuman corporations, and long before the uproar over the Obamacare sessions, millions have bitterly complained about federal judges with lifetime tenures, abusing their power.

There's an old joke about the young, famous psychiatrist who is struck dead and stands at the Pearly Gates plaintively asking, “Why take me away now?!” “Well, we need you,” St. Peter tells the therapist, “We have a problem with God. He thinks he's as powerful as a federal judge.”

It usually has been told by those of the conservative persuasion, who howl about “judicial activism.” That was a familiar rallying cry of the segregationists as the courts were helping overturn Jim Crow laws. Now, the same screams from the right are coming from the other side. That includes the president of the United States, apparently fearful he is going to get a butt-kicking over his signature health-care reform.

President Barack Obama was speaking shortly after the rough hearings when he mused out loud about the court taking “an unprecedented step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” It doesn't take a former constitutional-law professor, like he was, to know full well that the Supremes have had that exact power since the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision.

He was flogged for his words almost immediately, and tried to back off faster than Mitt Romney ever did. What he meant was the court has “traditionally exercised restraint and deference.” Too late: Republicans were all over this. He was “bullying the Supreme Court,” charged South Carolina GOP Gov. Nikki Haley.

Ironically, this places Barack Obama uncomfortably close to Newt Gingrich. Gingrich is the one whose “big ideas” include a president ignoring disagreeable Supreme Court orders. He backs his argument by completely distorting the words of Alexander Hamilton, who, in fact, supported the opposite point of view. Of course, he, too, is a former professor. What's with these academics?

(As usual, the arrangement withe the syndicator means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 2012

THE FATE OF THE MANDATE

BY BOB FRANKEN

If the hostile questions from the justices who make up the Supreme Court's right wing are predictive, their ruling, at the very least, will mean the individual mandate is a goner, because, argues the tea party's Antonin Scalia, “you can make people buy broccoli.”

What is it with Republicans and broccoli? In any case, just joshing about Scalia's tea-party connection; Clarence Thomas is the justice literally in bed with the movement. The politics caused both sides to make a mockery out of judicial temperament. This was a temper tantrum, as the GOP appointees on the bench competed to shower the most scorn on Obamacare (except for Thomas, of course, who was doing crosswords, or whatever he does while sitting silently up there).

As we've heard ad nauseum, the laughable irony all along was that the mandate originally was the creation of the very conservatives who oppose it now in their zeal to discredit Barack Obama. So these days, it's up to the liberals and president to defend it, even though, as we all know, candidate Obama in 2008 was outspoken against the idea. “I mean, if a mandate was the solution,” he declared, “we can try to solve homelessness by mandating everybody buy a house.” Presumably, there would be a dining room in which to eat all that broccoli.

The president, meanwhile, is eating a little crow. After he took office, all his sound bites collided with reality, and here he and his peeps are left to defend the individual mandate. But they're missing an important point: Those who do not have insurance impose a collective mandate on all of those who do. We are required to pay their costs, in the form of higher rates to finance their medical care in emergency rooms and elsewhere.

As usual, the agreement with the syndicators means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

       FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
       CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, MARCH 30, 2012
       TRUMPETING THE HORNS OVER THE BULL
       BY BOB FRANKEN
       “THIS IS ACTION EYEWITNESS NEWSCENTER BREAKING NEWS (audio of dishes shattering): RICK SANTORUM HAS USED A CUSSWORD!!!”
       Bless you for cursing, Rick. We’ve run out of hyped stories, and we’re getting desperate. How many times can we talk and write about the same old narratives: Mitt Romney has a delegate lead, ho-hum; Newt Gingrich says he doesn’t care, he’s going to wrest them away at the convention, yawn; and Rick Santorum ... wait a minute; Rick Santorum has used profanity.
       This is HUGE. This is almost an OMG! Santorum, the campaign goody-two-shoes, has snapped at New York Times correspondent Jeff Zeleny that his question was “bull----.” I can’t even use the word. Be still, my heart.
       Santorum accused Zeleny of misquoting him during a question, “lying” is what he said, along with the “B” word. Again, palpitations. The world of politics has gone crazy. The stories and columns about this momentous development are popping up everywhere -- here, for instance. What does it all mean?
       How about a big nothing? Notwithstanding the phony shock because the choir boy uses profanity, which merely means he’s a living, breathing human being, hostility toward the media has been a tried-and-true winner in GOP circles. It’s been a conservative favorite since the beginning of time. It’s almost as big an issue as how the beginning of time, uh, began.
       Santorum is milking this for all its worth, telling Fox News it proves he is a “real Republican.” Romney got into the act, suggesting to Jay Leno that if he became president he might name Santorum his press secretary. What’s notable there is that the frequently tone-deaf Mitt Romney made a joke without embarrassing himself, or telling Leno that he’s friends with the owners of NBC.
      

(As usual, the agreement with the sydicator means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, MARCH 27, 2012

STANDING ON OUR SHAKY GROUND

BY BOB FRANKEN

Whether George Zimmerman is ever punished for gunning down Trayvon Martin, those responsible for “Stand Your Ground” laws deserve condemnation. But even more worthy of scorn are those who are to blame for allowing nearly everyone to carry handguns. The list includes craven politicians who bow and scrape to the lobbyist mercenaries at the NRA and other gun “rights” organizations, who exploit the country's insane shoot-'em-up mentality.

Panic-stricken or simply vicious people have been granted a license to kill. Twenty-three states have “Stand Your Ground” laws on the books, extending the so-called Castle Doctrine beyond the home.

No longer does someone outdoors in our wild frontier need to try to escape danger to justify a self-defense claim. Florida permits “deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm.”

Who decides whether the presence of a young black stranger really caused Zimmerman to “reasonably” conclude he was threatened by a young man wearing a hoodie -- as millions do, by the way?

Geraldo Rivera is taking a lot of flak for maintaining “if he didn't have that hoodie on, that nutty Neighborhood Watch guy wouldn't have responded in that violent and aggressive way.” Ridiculous though Geraldo's analysis might be, the hoodie has now become the symbol an outraged reaction. Whatever put him over the edge, Zimmerman was able to end someone's precious life simply by pulling the trigger.

The police did not make an arrest. They claim they are stymied by a law that requires mind-reading. But Sanford, Fla., is a city with a history of ugly racism. In fact, given the nation's history of ugly racism, it's heartening to see how the revulsion against what happened in Sanford is causing an outpouring of anger against the dangers of simply being black.

(As usual, the agreement with the syndicators means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

  FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
       CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, MARCH 23, 2012
       MITT-A-SKETCH
       BY BOB FRANKEN
       “We’ve been in the movies ‘Toy Story’ and ‘Elf,’ but nothing like this.” Martin Killgallon, senior vice president of the Killgallon-family-owned Ohio Art Company in Bryant, Ohio, tells me that the sudden attention, courtesy of a Mitt Romney spokesman, to the iconic Etch A Sketch toy they’ve been manufacturing for more than 50 years is obviously welcome Killgallon hastens to add that they are not aligned to any of the candidates. “We have left knobs and right knobs,” he tells me. “Together we can draw in circles.”
       Once again, the Romney campaign is circling the wagons. Senior adviser Eric Fehrnstrom obviously was attempting to be clever on CNN while trying to explain how, after Romney secured the nomination, the candidate would switch from “severe conservative” to a more-sane moderate to attract independents. By now, we all know about Fehrnstrom’s unfortunate analogy: “Everything changes. It’s almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again.”
       On a day when Jeb Bush offered a tepid endorsement and when Freedom Works, the tea-party brain, even more tepidly decided to abandon its opposition, all that good news was obliterated by Etch A Gate.
       Ohio Art stock prices have soared. Their devices were flying off the shelves, at least wherever you’d find Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich using them as props for their predictable put-downs. The candidates also enlisted their staff -- a Santorum aide even showed up outside a Romney event with her model in hand. Poor guy. He wanted to talk about gas prices; instead, it was another gaffe crisis.
       It seems that every time Romney opens his mouth, he risks leaving an impression that he is out of touch with everyone but the “owners” of our society -- those who would agree that $300,000-plus a year in speaker’s fees is “not very much.” But it’s not simply the Mitts that keep on coming; as we see with Fehrnstrom, his advisers also can be out of touch ... with their brains, fully capable of providing their own head-slapping groaners. And it’s not just what they say. Their staging of a “major economic address” in a nearly empty NFL stadium comes to mind. They like to portray their campaign as methodically slogging toward the finish line. Actually, stumbling is a more accurate description.
       Even more toxic than the candidate’s cluelessness is the scorn the party’s dominant hard extremists heap upon Romney for his tacky tack to the far right. That’s why they embrace the various “Not Mitts,” some of whom have ended up looking like nitwits. This latest foul-up reinforces their view that when it   FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
       CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, MARCH 23, 2012
       MITT-A-SKETCH
       BY BOB FRANKEN
       “We’ve been in the movies ‘Toy Story’ and ‘Elf,’ but nothing like this.” Martin Killgallon, senior vice president of the Killgallon-family-owned Ohio Art Company in Bryant, Ohio, tells me that the sudden attention, courtesy of a Mitt Romney spokesman, to the iconic Etch A Sketch toy they’ve been manufacturing for more than 50 years is obviously welcome Killgallon hastens to add that they are not aligned to any of the candidates. “We have left knobs and right knobs,” he tells me. “Together we can draw in circles.”
       Once again, the Romney campaign is circling the wagons. Senior adviser Eric Fehrnstrom obviously was attempting to be clever on CNN while trying to explain how, after Romney secured the nomination, the candidate would switch from “severe conservative” to a more-sane moderate to attract independents. By now, we all know about Fehrnstrom’s unfortunate analogy: “Everything changes. It’s almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again.”
       On a day when Jeb Bush offered a tepid endorsement and when Freedom Works, the tea-party brain, even more tepidly decided to abandon its opposition, all that good news was obliterated by Etch A Gate.
       Ohio Art stock prices have soared. Their devices were flying off the shelves, at least wherever you’d find Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich using them as props for their predictable put-downs. The candidates also enlisted their staff -- a Santorum aide even showed up outside a Romney event with her model in hand. Poor guy. He wanted to talk about gas prices; instead, it was another gaffe crisis.
       It seems that every time Romney opens his mouth, he risks leaving an impression that he is out of touch with everyone but the “owners” of our society -- those who would agree that $300,000-plus a year in speaker’s fees is “not very much.” But it’s not simply the Mitts that keep on coming; as we see with Fehrnstrom, his advisers also can be out of touch ... with their brains, fully capable of providing their own head-slapping groaners. And it’s not just what they say. Their staging of a “major economic address” in a nearly empty NFL stadium comes to mind. They like to portray their campaign as methodically slogging toward the finish line. Actually, stumbling is a more accurate description.
 

(As usual, because of the syndication agreement, this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012
SARAH PALIN FOR REAL
BY BOB FRANKEN
I know I speak for pundits everywhere in saying that all of us want to give a special appreciation to Sarah Palin. We’ve missed you, Mama Grizzly. Yes, showbiz came up with “Game Change,” but those of us in snowbiz need the real thing, and from the bottom of our alleged hearts, we thank you for rescuing us from the desperate scratch for new ways to tell the same story about Mitt and the non-Mitts.
Let’s face it, there are only so many times you can ridicule Mitt Romney’s daily reminder that he’s clueless and out of touch, Newt Gingrich’s latest blowhard deception, Rick Santorum’s efforts to return us to the Dark Ages or Ron Paul’s pronouncements from the Dark Side. But you have always been special, Sarah. For starters, you keep popping up undeterred by embarrassment.
Just a few days after people watched your shredding on HBO, you’re out there demanding a “vetting” of President Barack Obama, and enthralling all your Facebook friends and monitors by offering yourself up to confront him over “the problems everyday Americans face due to the abject failure of our current administration’s policies,” generously telling your fellow citizens “I’m willing and free to discuss these issues with the president anytime and anywhere.”
What more could one ask from a presidential candidate? Wait. What’s that? She’s not a presidential candidate? Not yet, but while all those other guys are making fools of themselves, disgusting everyone with all their thrashing around, she is now dropping huge hints that she just might have no choice but to do her patriotic duty and rescue the nation. How would she do that? Easy.

(As usual, the sgreement with syndicators means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)
      
              FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
       CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, MARCH 16, 2012
       CLASS AND NO CLASS
       BY BOB FRANKEN
       Let’s give Barack Obama the credit he deserves. He has worked very hard to overcome the big disadvantage of his youth. I am referring, of course, to his Ivy League education.
       Let’s pause for the voices of outrage (refined, of course), screaming bloody murder that this is some “anti-intellectual” screed -- a term academics love to use when anyone dares to intrude on their self-image of inherent superiority.
       It is not. This is anti-arrogance and, at the same time, anti-inane, as you’ll see when you read on. But first, the haughtiness part, the kind that seems to be part of the curriculum in the temples of higher education, where students mainly major in networking. Through their alumni cabals, they take care of their own and appoint each other to run things. At the very same time they have made a huge mess of just about every facet of our society. Still they flaunt their obvious low regard for those they consider beneath them. Their snootiness, in turn, is easily exploited by opportunists whose one talent is demagoguery.
       The ammunition for these rabble-rousing politicians comes from the brainier-than-thou crowd. I was watching a member of my pundit subspecies gabbing away on some news program, cheaply filling the time between commercial breaks. I heard him discuss polls measuring the preferences of a demographic he labeled “uneducated.” Realizing he had slipped, he quickly blurted, “Uh, I mean those without a college education.” At least he recognized his blunder. Far too many wouldn’t understand why it was one. Unfortunately, he also revealed the kind of condescension that understandably irritates the people he would consider “lessers.” In his mind, they may not be deserving but, hey, they do have the right to vote, and their pique is being milked for all it’s worth by opportunistic candidates like Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Joe the Plumber and, of course, Sarah Palin.
       Santorum gets his traction by charging that President Obama’s emphasis on a college education makes him a “snob.” Many others like to make a virtue of their ignorance or lack of qualification by rebuffing any questions as “elitist.” They do make the valid point that it’s the highbrows who have laid us low
      

(The usual: Thanks to the deal with the syndicator, this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 2012

THE FIBS AWARDS

BY BOB FRANKEN

There are so many awards -- the Oscars, Emmys, Grammys, all those that range from journalism to graphic design, you name it. But some of the most creative work has gone unrecognized even though it is part of our day-to-day existence. Until now.

It's time for the annual Fiction In Broader Society (FIBS) award. This is the first and probably only annual, but let's not quibble.

As the name suggests, the categories cover what we witness routinely. The plain white envelopes, please...

THE COMPANY LINE

The winner is: “We are family, a team of allies pulling together toward a common goal”

Some family. Employers and employees have conflicting goals. The bosses fight to pay as little as possible for as much output as they can extract; their workers struggle for all the money they can get for the least effort possible. They are not allies; they are adversaries. These days, the ones at the top make sure they get huge profits and therefore ridiculous paychecks by simply lopping off however many underlings they need to eliminate, and never mind how the consumer product, service or safety suffers.

It would be impossible to single out one corporation. So there is more than one winner. And millions of losers.

I am playing mind games with the Rev on MSNBC tonight (Friday) during the 6:00, Eastern hour.

(As usual, the arrangement with the syndicators means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, MARCH 9, 2012

RUSH TO THE BOTTOM

BY BOB FRANKEN

It is painfully clear that none of the GOP presidential candidates is capturing the imagination of fellow Republicans. Of course, that doesn't count all of those in their party who imagine a better selection.

Right now, many despair at the choice between boring and loopy. How excited can one get about someone like a Mitt Romney, who seems to be about as genuine as a tourist at a dude ranch; a Rick Santorum, who informs us that separation of church and state makes him want to “throw up”; or a Newt Gingrich, who simply makes a lot of people want to throw up?

All of them don't measure up in one way or another. But there is one man who does capture the harsh essence of the conservative movement. Is there anything more that needs saying? Of course not. That man is Rush Limbaugh, the Tin Man of rhetoric. He gets the juices going, and never mind that they are pure poison.

The fact that Democrats have been pouncing all over Limbaugh reinforces the extremists' perverted sense of victimhood, because they can cling to their tale of woe that they're under attack from sinister forces. Oh sure, Limbaugh called a young woman a “slut” and a “prostitute” because she supported paid coverage of contraceptives, but a lot of them took secret delight in his words. After all, if you can't stand being barefoot and pregnant, get out of the kitchen.

(The usual drill: The deal withntgevsyndicators means this column appears here a week after its newspaper unveiling)

       FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
       CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 2012
       THE RUSH TO DESTROY REASON
       BY BOB FRANKEN
       In effect, Sandra Fluke is ignoring the apology from Rush Limbaugh for the perverted “insulting word choices” he smeared on her. Good for you, Sandra. For starters, Limbaugh has been making “insulting word choices” for decades. And let’s not overlook the fact that some of his advertisers are dropping like a stone. Of course he said he was sorry. Carbonite CEO David Friend hoped bailing would “ultimately contribute to a more civilized public discourse.”
       It won’t.
       Why were Carbonite and the others sponsoring these insane rants in the first place? Limbaugh’s 10 million to 15 million listeners, that’s why. (That’s a conservative listener estimate, but he is a conservative kinda guy, after all). Millions upon millions of “Dittoheads” tune in, so-called because their knowledge and beliefs are “whatever he says.”
       Their intellectual leader, Rush, slimed Fluke, a Georgetown law student. In a series of weirdly disturbed outbursts, he called her a “slut” and “prostitute.” The harangues were borderline incoherent. It was all because she had the audacity to speak out in favor of paid contraceptive insurance. His loyal listeners were presumably unmoved when the president of Georgetown University -- who, by the way, disagrees with Ms. Fluke -- called Limbaugh’s tirades “misogynistic.”
       Let’s face it. Most of Limbaugh’s fans probably think that a misogynist is someone who gives back rubs. They are generally not the brightest lights on the grid. But they do vote, which explains why the Republican politicians who are battling so hard for the far-right turf in Limbaugh land are so vapid in their responses to his latest outrage. After all, they have long groveled for his favor. So here we have Mitt Romney, mildly criticizing the incendiary diatribes as “not the kind of language I would have used,” and Rick Santorum, abandoning his usual hellfire-and-brimstone language with a wishy-washy “he’s being absurd,” but then adding “But that’s, you know, an entertainer can be absurd.” I don’t know, but that seems like apologia to me.
      

(As usual, the syndication agreement means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

       FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
       CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, MARCH 2, 2012
       THE DRUG FIX
       BY BOB FRANKEN
       It’s easy to dismiss the efforts by Republicans to require demeaning drug tests from those applying for welfare or unemployment benefits, but maybe it’s an idea that simply needs some tweaks so that it isn’t so one-sidedly cruel.
       Here’s where things stand now: At last count, conservatives in nearly two dozen states are pushing variations of the idea. In Congress, GOP members tried to make it a part of the payroll-tax deal. They were thwarted, but they tried. And they keep trying, even though judges have rejected such laws when they do pass.
       Of course, most of their party’s candidates in their competition to win the Nasty Award are supporting the measures. Mitt Romney calls it an “excellent idea.” After all, it fits right into his “severe conservative” charade of the moment. Rick Santorum says it should be left up to the states, which is a safe bet because the right wing thinks almost everything should be left up to the states -- and, of course, Santorum is focusing on other drugs, the contraceptive ones. As for Ron Paul, he’s probably against the idea, since he opposes drug laws, and for that matter just about all laws.
       Newt Gingrich? Hey, this is right out of his poison-recipe book: It’s mean and it has simple-minded appeal. Besides, it made for an easy catch phrase when he told Yahoo! News: “It could be through testing before you get any kind of federal aid, unemployment compensation, food stamps, you name it.”
       It would be a mistake, however, to dismiss Gingrich’s words this time as just his standard operating viciousness. Perhaps the self-described man of “bold ideas” is being too timid. Let’s not stop where he did; let’s make drug testing mandatory for all recipients of government money, and not just those directly on the payroll. This could encompass all who drink from the public trough.
       Everyone in the oil industry, industrial agriculture and those many other corporations that get subsidies would have to fill the cup. Defense contractors would, too, although we’d probably have overruns.
       All of the wealthy who receive special tax expenditures in the form of loopholes and favored treatment would get them only after their samples had passed the test. And let’s not overlook their lobbyists and other influence peddlers who pretended not to be lobbyists, like Newt was and probably will be again when he returns to the private sector.
       What makes the most sense of all is that it be required for anyone in public office or seeking to be. Let’s face it, given the bizarre behavior of the current crop, a drug test would seem to be a terrific idea; clearly our leaders are on something.
      

   (As usual, the syndication agreement means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

    FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
       CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, FEB. 28, 2012
       MITT’S MISFIT MISTAKES
       BY BOB FRANKEN
       It’s the Romney team’s campaign salute: the head in the hand, shaking in disgusted misery. At least it ought to be. How about that “major economic address” their guy gave in Detroit? Let me quote a longtime political advance man: “What a debacle! What awful optics!”
       By “optics,” he meant the bizarre backdrop. Empty seats ... thousands upon thousands of them, in Ford Field, which is where the Detroit Lions play NFL football. Mitt was seen playing to 1,200 people, establishment types all, members of the Detroit Economic Club. They were scrunched together in a tiny corner of the surface, the TV shots making the candidate and his audience look itty-bitty when framed against row after row of unoccupied stands in a cavernous structure that packs in 65,000 people. Somehow, even with all the money his campaign has, that was the best shot his gaggle of consultants could contrive.
       With that “optic,” can anyone remember a word the candidate said? Oh wait, there was one little tidbit: In his “golly gee” kinda way, he wanted to remind everyone he had grown up in Michigan, that he was just one of them, a native-son stalwart for the U.S. auto industry. That claim of innate support seems inane to many who recall how he opposed the bailout, but never mind that. “I like the fact that most of the cars I see are Detroit-made automobiles,” he insisted. But he was just revving up: “I drive a Mustang and a Chevy pickup truck. Ann drives a couple of Cadillacs, actually.”
       His wife drives not just one but TWO Cadillacs?! Truly head-in-the-hand material. When his consultants aren’t blowing it big-time themselves, they hover around their boss trying to make sure he doesn’t. It’s a lost cause. There have been so many unscripted bonehead moments when he’s tried to pull off that “I can relate” act, and each makes it clear he doesn’t relate: the $10,000 debate bet he wanted to make with Rick Perry; the $374,000 in one year’s speaking fees that he described as “not very much”; his assertion that he “likes to be able to fire people”; “corporations are people”; the hits keep comin’.

    
  FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
       CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, FEB. 24, 2012
       SUPER PAC SCAM
       BY BOB FRANKEN
       Just about everyone envies the opulent lifestyles of the stratospherically wealthy, no matter how decadent. So let’s not dismiss the “Politics of Envy” accusation, even though it is meant to deflect attention from the excesses of the super-rich and from the “class warfare” they conduct against the rest of us.
       It’s not their money we begrudge them, per se -- it’s their shameless greed. So if we can’t join ’em, beat ’em.
       They make it easy to trash them when they flaunt a system that is supposed to ensure everyone a decent chance at the “pursuit of happiness.” It’s not true that money can’t buy happiness; of course it can. That bromide is a myth promoted by the people who want to take yours. And the flagrant abuses of those who do so make another myth out of democracy.
       The “Super PACs” are glaring examples. They allow the bloated ones to finish the job of taking over a country that is supposed to belong to all of us. To paraphrase Will Rogers, what we have now is a government that’s “the best that money can buy.”
       What flimsy election laws we had at least put some limits on the amounts an individual or corporation could donate -- weak restraints, but at least these token efforts required that these self-serving benefactors would be identified.

(As usual, the agreement with the syndicator means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, FEB. 21, 2012

STARK ELECTION CHOICES

BY BOB FRANKEN

Say what you will about the campaign -- and most of us have some pretty ugly things to say about it -- but it's not just ridiculous. All the negative brings with it a big plus: It's been a long time since competing visions of the United States of America have been brought into such sharp focus. More than usual, where different approaches to government had been fuzzied by platitude, this time around the stark differences are plain to see: The voters' options are either/or.

For instance, the Republican candidates are in a fight to be the most “severely conservative,” as Mitt Romney put it. He and the others have sided with the ultrareligious forces who have very firm, some call them harsh, views about how we live our lives, particularly our sex lives. Whether the contenders are sincere or not about their Christian fervor, whoever finally gets the GOP nomination certainly will be beholden to those who, by their own admission, want to turn the clock back to much more restrictive times.

     (As usual, the agreement with the syndicators means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

  FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
       CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, FEB. 17, 2012
       THE CHINA SYNTHESIS
       BY BOB FRANKEN
       Wasn’t that nice, how Xi Jinping, the apparent Chinese president-select (they aren’t elected by the people, of course), spent some time during his U.S. tour in Muscatine, Iowa? He was renewing friendships with Muscatiners he’d met there in a 1985 trade mission and was moved to describe Americans as “honest, warmhearted, hardworking, friendly” (remember, he was outside Washington).
       Isn’t it a shame he wasn’t in the state before January’s caucuses? Maybe he even could have taken part in the debates as a candidate. He certainly wouldn’t have been any more bizarre than the rest of the field.
       It is true that Li was not born in the United States, but we know how little anyone cares about that these days. In fact, the time has come simply to do away with that requirement.
       But how? Amend the Constitution? That’s one way, but it is so time-consuming and cumbersome; besides, conservatives are too busy trying to dispense with several parts, like freedom of religion, the income tax and other impediments to their ideologies.
       There is a better way. Sadly, I doubt President Barack Obama and Li spent a moment exploring it, even though it would address so many problems for both nations. It’s probably obvious where this is going: The People’s Republic of China and the United States of America need to merge.
       Breathtaking but simple. Can’t you just hear Newt Gingrich exclaiming, “Now THAT’S the kind of bold idea I’ve been talking about!”
       Think of it: The corporate titans who run this country would clearly love it. They have been playing the conglomerate game for decades of their rule here. The way they’ve been kowtowing to their counterparts on Beijing’s Central Committee, they have already laid the groundwork. And their obvious admiration for the way the Chinese mistreat their workers and ignore consumer protections has long established a common ground.

A magical time will be had by all when the Rev and I have at it tonight (Tuesday) during the 6:00 Eastern hour

As usual, this ciolumn, by agreement with the syndicators, appears here a week after its newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, FEB. 14, 2012

DAZZLING AND BAFFLING ON THE RIGHT
BY BOB FRANKEN
As the saying goes, “If you can’t dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your baloney.” I know, that’s not exactly how it goes, but absolute accuracy is just not worth the hassle, so go with me on this.
In that spirit, I’m going to mimic Newt Gingrich and look up a relevant pretentious quote from a dead guy to try and leave the false impression that I’m one erudite kinda guy. Actually, Newt does it with the obscure out-of-context history he inflicts on an unknowing someone. It fills his insatiable need to come across as really, really smart.
My Googled quote comes from 10th-century British philosopher John Stuart Mill, who said “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”
That seemed to be the operating premise of Newt, Mitt and Rick, to say nothing of Sarah and the rest of the gang, at the weekend gathering in Washington of CPAC. CPAC, for those who don’t follow these thing closely because they have a life, means Conservative Political Action Conference. It’s an annual event featuring thundering politicians who pander to the worst instincts of the far right, whether it be anti-black, -woman, -gay and -whatever, or whether it’s pro-plutocracy and pro-theocracy — usually, all of the above.
Many others have put it this way: They want to “repeal the 20th century,” meaning they intend to chip away at everything from civil rights to Medicare to poverty programs to even the income tax — actually, especially the income tax.

I will be spouting pithy thoughts with Tye Rev tonight on MSNBC during the 6:00 Eastern hour

      
(Usual drill: This appears here a week after its newspaper release because of the deal with the syndicator)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019
       CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, FEB. 10, 2012
       THE PEOPLE’S GRAFTCRAFT
       BY BOB FRANKEN
       We can rail all we want about the stench of legalized corruption, but the use of campaign-finance funding to control our officeholders is here to stay. It’s time to stop fighting the lost battle and join the “pay to play” game.
       It would target the same politicians who grovel before the bad guys and their lobbyist bagmen (bag people?), clamoring for their, uh, generosity. In return they stack government and the laws in favor of deep-pocketed selfish interests. Since the politicians are for sale to the highest bidder, why not shower them with dollars, free trips and other shady financial rewards from the other side? They get their goodies if they work for and vote for good-guy meaningful reform.
       Hey, Warren Buffett: You always want the world to know that your billions of dollars have not destroyed your conscience. But it’s one thing to complain about your secretary paying more taxes than you and quite another to put your money where your mouth is.
       How about if you and that very small group of plutocrats with very large fortunes were to establish a fund that would match the dollars used to maintain the toxic unfairness that is eating away at our system? Instead of filling the wallets of politicians in return for maintaining a lopsided playing field, where economic inequality sets the rules, you would base your contributions on action to further the interests of society as a whole. You could call your effort Buffett’s Righteous Interests Buyoff Enterprise (BRIBE).
       These “righteous interests” would include laws that punish the kind of high-roller fraud that is currently legal -- enabling financial manipulators to profit while they bring down the society around them. As it is now, these hustlers avoid prosecution and fines.
       BRIBE would include incentives, meaning money, to establish a tax system that requires the obnoxiously wealthy to pay their fair share. It would also put an end to subsidies for favored megaindustries, like oil and gas. No matter how great the public outrage, somehow they manage to survive after onslaughts by their government relations armies.

It's me and Rev on MSNBC tonight (Tuesday) during the 6:00, Eastern hour

     (The usual deal with the syndicators means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release which is certainly apparent this time)

  FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
       CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, FEB. 7, 2012
       TRICKY NEWT
       BY BOB FRANKEN
       Oh sure, Newt Gingrich got stomped in the Nevada caucus. For starters, Mitt Romney benefited from a turnout of his fellow Mormons -- a full 20 percent of those voting, making it somewhat of a Latter-day Saturday -- but even though Gingrich finished a distant second, he might very well have engineered a real setback for Romney.
       Obviously we’re talking about the endorsement by The Donald, a real bad fit for The Mitt. There they were: Trump, blustery as usual, bestowing his dubious blessing as Romney stood off to the side, looking almost prissy by comparison. Who wouldn’t, appearing alongside such a blow-dried blowhard?
       The night before, various news organizations displayed quite the confusion as they grossly overcovered the entire matter. In their haste to claim the “First, Fast and Semi-Factual” prize, several got it wrong when they reported that Trump was planning to endorse Newt Gingrich.
       But, consider this scenario: Maybe the media were NOT incorrect. Don’t forget that Newt is one Machiavellian dude. Maybe, he called Trump and asked him to reverse course because he could do far more good for Gingrich if he endorsed Romney.
       Or maybe he had Sheldon Adelson make the call. Adelson is pretty much Newt’s sole financial backer -- in a relationship so deep that if he withdrew support, there could be an alimony battle. He’s a billionaire casino owner. Perhaps he made the overture to his fellow billionaire casino owner instead, using the kind of persuasive tactics people in this world have been known to employ.
       It’s just a theory, mind you, but it certainly makes more sense than what actually transpired. When Romney nervously told reporters, “There are some things that you just can’t imagine in your life; this is one of them,” he wasn’t kidding. He’s someone who gives the impression that he hasn’t a clue what “What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas” means.
       He certainly didn’t stay any longer than he had to. He and the others took their circus maximus on to the next stops, where they are now besieging the poor people of Colorado, Maine, Minnesota and points beyond.

(As usual, the agreement with the syndicators means that in a fast changing world the appearance of this column here is delayed here until a week after its newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, FEB. 3, 2012
NEWT AND MITT’S MASS CLASS
BY BOB FRANKEN
If Mitt Romney does win the Republican nomination and if the Democratic brain trust is uncharacteristically smart, we will be seeing campaign ads featuring Newt Gingrich making some of his speeches trashing Romney; the one, for instance, in which he asks, “Is capitalism really about the ability of a handful of rich people to manipulate the lives of thousands of other people and walk away with the money?”
Rush Limbaugh, in a rare moment, got it right when he complained that the commercial could finish with “I’m Barack Obama, and I approved this message.” Many GOP partisans are nervously complaining because Newt’s “scorched earth” tactics are, in fact, scorching their earth.
Mr. Obama couldn’t come close to matching Gingrich’s incendiary words. The best the president could come up with was insisting his arguments weren’t “class warfare” but “common sense.” Mild stuff. Maybe if Newt fails to get the nomination and there’s no lobbying job immediately available, he can accept a position as Obama’s speechwriter.
Of course, it’s hard to beat the boost that Romney gives to his opponents. His “I’m not concerned about the very poor” statement — where even he now admits he “misspoke” — is just his latest mistake. It’s still another blunder reaffirming the view that he’s so out of touch that he’s numb. He needs guidance from someone who is careful with his language. Maybe his new BFF Donald Trump can be HIS speechwriter.
Such revealing slips by Mitt and the others in their gated communities contribute to perceptions borne out by nearly all the polls. They show that between 60 percent and 70 percent of the American people believe income inequality is a real problem in the United States. They believe it because it is. Study after study documents that those in the now-infamous top 1 percent of income earners control about 40 percent of the nation’s wealth. Pay gaps are widening between executives and their employees — those who haven’t lost their jobs. It’s not hard to understand how a disorganized Occupy Wall Street (or wherever) movement could have such effect with its “99-1” mantra.,

I'm on MSNBC talking politics trash with The Rev. Sometime during the 6:00 PM, Eastern hour.

If you check out the Sharpton show tonight (Tuesday) on MSNBC during the 6:00, Eastern, hour, I will be there somewhere.

(The usual: The syndicators want a week's delay between this column's newspaper release and its appearance here)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, JAN. 31, 2012

LOBBYING GAMES

BY BOB FRANKEN

There's an old story about the super lobbyist who's asked by a corporate type to solve some sort of Washington problem. He takes care of it with one phone call and sends a bill for $10,000 (this is an old story).

“That's ridiculous!” shrieks the executive, “I demand an itemized bill!” It came immediately.

“Phone call: 25 cents. Knowing whom to call: $9,999.75.”

Which brings us to Newt Gingrich and his insistence that, “I have never done any lobbying of any kind”: Put that in the Bill Clinton “depends on what 'is' is” category, or in this case, what “lobbyist” is.

While it's probably true that Gingrich did not officially register as one, per a 1995 law (one, by the way, that was created with strong involvement of the lobbying industry), and that he perhaps did not visit government officials or directly call them on behalf of clients, he did advise his paying customers whom to call and used all the connections he'd made while doing favors as a congressman to make millions of dollars peddling influence in an indirect way.

He walked such a fine line that, by his own admission, his firm hired an “adviser” to make sure that he didn't cross it ... barely. Speaking of lines, where is the one between deception and outright lies?

(As usual, the agreement with the syndicators means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

       FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
       CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, JAN. 24, 2012
       NEWT’S MITT PICKING
       BY BOB FRANKEN
       Because they make buckets of money from it, political professionals hate to hear us smart alecks contend that their hovering presence around candidates means little. That’s because elections are not won but lost. There’s a lot of evidence to back that up. Do the names John McCain, John Kerry and Al Gore make that point? How about Michael Dukakis? In the elite arena of presidential campaigns, they all are in the Stiffs Hall of Fame.
       Among the active players who are making a valiant effort to reach those fallowed heights we certainly can include Mitt Romney.
       Romney’s awkward pretense that he has any idea about common-people concerns time and again end up with him blurting out in ways that demonstrate he’s oblivious. His little aside about making “not very much” from speaking fees quickly becomes an embarrassment when we find out he’s talking about $374,000 in one year. When the pressure is on to release his tax records, he seems to become visibly agitated. He starts speaking faster, his eyes appear to jump. It’s no wonder. At least a chunk of his massive fortune was made by causing misfortune for many others.
       All of that said, we cannot ignore the very clever tactics of Newton Leroy Gingrich. He loves to disparage Romney’s “poll-driven, consultant-guided” campaign. His rise and fall certainly have defied the political industry’s conventional wisdom. This is Newt’s Law of Gravity -- the opposite of the other Newton: What goes down goes back up.
       Gingrich’s life has been one big roller-coaster ride. However, to give credit where it’s due, the man is a master at reversing a slide. He is a ferocious counterpuncher, most dangerous when he’s against the ropes.
       Just one example: The very same day the tawdry interview with his ex-wife Marianne was released and then grossly overplayed on cable TV, Gingrich turned what might have been mortifying embarrassment into a triumph that will be long remembered in debate history.
       The memorable moments usually are defined by a single sound bite. Lloyd Bentsen’s “Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy” shot inflicted permanent damage on Dan Quayle. Ronald Reagan’s “There you go again” arguably had a lot to do with his making Jimmy Carter a one-termer.
       Poor John King of CNN. When he led off the evening by asking about Wife No. 2’s bitter comments, Gingrich made mincemeat of him, getting a roar of approval from the audience. It was a defining moment in a state chock-full of rock-solid conservatives and evangelicals who scorn the “elite media,” as Gingrich put it, for “protecting Barack Obama.”
       A chagrined King, a consummate professional, nevertheless became Gingrich’s Quayle. It will be replayed forevermore..

Start off the week with the Rev and me tonight (Monday) during the 6:00 Easterrn hour. Call me crazy but I'm thinking politics might be on the agenda.

(As usual, the arrangement withn the syndicator means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

       FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
       CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, JAN. 20, 2012
       WAR CRIMES PERSPECTIVE
       BY BOB FRANKEN
       I don’t know if the same signs are in every Whole Foods, but there are several that adorn the walls of my neighborhood store. Probably the most cloying one extols the corporation’s support of The Animal Compassion Foundation for “raising animals naturally and humanely.” “In short, we believe,” it goes on, “that through the work of the foundation, we can improve the lives of farm animals.”
       Now, ain’t that nice? Of course, they did leave off a line: “THEN WE SLAUGHTER THEM!!!”
       It brings to mind all the moralistic hand-wringing over those U.S. Marines who made the mistake of being photographed as they urinated on the bodies of apparent Taliban fighters the Marines seem to have killed before they were killed.
       Inevitably, the pictures hit the Internet, and just as inevitably, U.S. officials of the highest rank, the secretaries of state and defense among them, expressed their outrage: “Utterly deplorable,” said Defense Secretary Leon Panetta; “inconsistent with American values,” added Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Panetta promised appropriate punishment for this violation of the international laws of war prohibiting “abuse of corpses.” Tellingly, military officials also were pondering charges against those who took the pictures. It’s not nice to embarrass the United States.
       Nobody seemed to state the obvious, which was that the worst mistreatment of the dead was making them dead in the first place. Nobody spoke up for the Marines who were cast in that role. Nobody, that is, but that noted wise man Rick Perry.
       Yes, that may have been a tad sarcastic, considering that Perry has since decided to pack it in and go lick his own wounds, but he was one of the few voices when he went on a Sunday gabfest to bemoan the “over-the-top rhetoric” about the Marines’ actions, saying they should be reprimanded and not punished since, “Obviously, 18- and 19-year-old kids make stupid mistakes all too often. And that’s what’s occurred here.”
       What occurred there in Afghanistan was depraved and ghoulish, but also understandable when you remember that these young men have been fighting for their lives for however many months and were probably in a rage about the friends they have lost in hostilities that are hard to understand.
 

I take my act to Rev. Al Sharpton's show again tonight (Thursday) during the 6:00, Eastern hour on MSNBC

I'm on with the Rev tonight (Monday) during the 6:00 PM, Eastern hour. Whatever will we discuss? (Hint: It's an NBC GOP debate later this evening.

(As you can see this is somewhat dated. The arrangement with syndicators means this appears here about a week after its newspaper release)

       FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
       CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, JAN. 17, 2012
       THE END OF HUNTSMAN’S HUNT
       BY BOB FRANKEN
       The appropriate observation about the latest from the world of politics is downright Orwellian: Sanity is Insanity. How else would we describe Jon Huntsman’s belief that he could succeed by taking the middle of the road, using rational ideas against competition that is way out there, spouting extremist babble that is only sometimes coherent.
       Happily for Huntsman, he seems to have regained his connection to reality by pulling out of the race. Now he can reconcile those fantasies where he assumed he ever had a chance. Obviously, he had some moments when it occurred to him that this wasn’t quite right; the time, for instance, when he tweeted “To be clear, I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.”
       OK, Jon. You were crazy. You want evidence? How about when you uttered, “I don’t think you need to run down somebody’s reputation in order to run for the office of president”? Of course you do, Jon. What would possess you to think otherwise? It was that kind of thinking that put you so far down in the South Carolina polls ... way down. Even Stephen Colbert was ahead of you, and his participation is a big joke.
       Of course, “big joke” might describe the candidacies of those still in the running. Surely when Mitt Romney declared that “Corporations are people,” he was making a funny. Or when Rick Santorum compared gay relationships to bestiality, he couldn’t have been serious. Could he? Actually, someone thinks so, since he got that endorsement from evangelicals.
       We don’t even need to list all the wild rantings of Newt Gingrich or Ron Paul. First of all, there isn’t enough space, and besides, they would be hard to believe outside the election loony bin. As Rick Perry said, “Oops.” By the way, Perry is still strutting his stuff.
 

      
(As usual, the agreement with the syndicators means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
       CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, JAN. 13, 2012
       ROMNEY CAMPAIGN BAIN BANE
       BY BOB FRANKEN
       Here is what’s confusing: The free-enterprise system, held up as such an ideal, is supposed to reward those who risk THEIR capital and THEIR livelihoods in pursuit of the American Dream.
       How did that morph into the nightmarish way Mitt Romney and the others of his ilk game the system? They make huge fortunes gambling with the precious savings scraped together by millions of others who than suffer the loss of their future. These greedy manipulators add to their bulging coffers no matter what.
       They love to proclaim that their frontier spirit of entrepreneurship is what encourages innovation. But, research and development is one of the first outlays to go in their process of reducing every business to nothing more than a ledger-sheet entry. There is no more cutting-edge experimentation. Cutting workers, however, is high on their list of ways to achieve precious efficiency, tossing them off onto an economic landscape the profiteers have robbed barren.
       Romney started out wealthy, thanks to his accident of birth. His claims that he ever sweated unemployment deserve the ridicule they’ve gotten. He’s used his silver spoon to scoop up untold millions at Bain Capital, a private equity firm that used OTHER people’s money to buy existing companies and do whatever it took to maximize their resale value. If, as it so often did, that meant pulling the rug out from under employees, so be it. That’s the way things work in their Darwinian world, where Survival of the Richest

I'm on with the Rev during the 6:00 PM, Eastern hour tonight (Thursday). Whatever can we find to talk about?

      (As usual, the deal with the syndicators means this appears here a week after its newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
       CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, JAN. 10, 2012
       SPORTING GAMES, POLITICAL GAMESMANSHIP
       BY BOB FRANKEN
       If it seemed like an inane question at the end of Saturday night’s New Hampshire debate, that’s because it was. But, in the effort to inject some warm humor into the long conversation among cold, humorless people, ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos, who was participating as co-moderator, actually got a telling response in spite of himself by asking if each wasn’t at the debate, “What would you be doing on a Saturday night?”
       The candidates were quick to say they’d be watching sports on TV, answers calculated to demonstrate that they are just regular guys, and not the weirdly irregular ones they appear to be.
       The problem is that they took this puff ball and dropped it. As the sportscaster used to say, “LET’S GO TO THE TAPE!”
       NEWT GINGRICH: I’d be watching the college championship basketball game.
       (UNKNOWN): Football game.
       GINGRICH: I mean, football game.
       (LAUGHTER)
       Thank you.
       RICK SANTORUM: I’d be doing the same thing with my family. We’d be huddled around, and we’d be watching the championship game.
       Sports fans everywhere would have seen how the disingenuously jocular candidates were genuinely un-jock-u-lar.
       Obviously, Newt shot still another airball.
       And Santorum, who claimed he’d be taking in the college football championship, also fumbled, since that game was to be played two full nights later.
       The fact is, it was NFL playoff games that were broadcast Saturday night. That’s professional football, of course, not the semi-pro college version. It might seem somewhat nit-picky, except that anyone who really would be tuned in knows the difference. Of course, they probably didn’t see the debate.
   

(As usual, Tge deal with the syndicators means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

       FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
       CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, JAN. 6, 2012
       NO ONE IS NO. 1
       BY BOB FRANKEN
       It’s quite possibly the outstanding news photo of 2012. OK, that might be a little gushy, since it appeared in The New York Times Jan. 3, but it may best capture the mood of the entire election year.
       It shows a sign depicting a ballot with a check beside “NO ONE!” According to the caption, it was taken outside a barn in Marshalltown, Iowa, but it certainly reflects the sentiments of mass disgruntlement everywhere in this nation.
       How many polls do we need to quantify how fed up millions are with what they consider a dismal choice to lead a “government of the people” that only seems to function on behalf of rich people -- that is, when it functions at all.
       Only Nevada offers a “none of the above” option, but it’s nonbinding. Unfortunately, huge numbers of American voters make that selection in an even more damning way: They don’t vote. Time after time, they’re in the majority. And those who do show up at the polls all too often are registering not their support but their opposition ... not FOR a candidate, but AGAINST the other.
       Instead of a participatory democracy, we’ve deteriorated into a passive-aggressive one, where citizens have good reason to believe their well-being and beliefs will be sold out to the highest bidder and feel powerless. That’s probably why there’s an organization that advocates for “none of the above.” Since there’s a group to push just about any case, why not this one? Naturally, it has a website, NOTA.org, with its own pitch:
      

I will be spreading my usual disdain for politicians around the 6:00 PM Eastern hour tonight on MSNBC

(As usual, the deal with the syndicators, for now, means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, JAN. 3, 2012

THE TRAVELING SALESPEOPLE AND THE HOME FOLKS

BY BOB FRANKEN

Every four years, we dust off the Willie Nelson song “On the Road Again,” because presidential campaigns are one big road show. The moment the contrived drama is over in Iowa, the actors and their directors, their tap-dancers, as well as the Greek chorus of reporters, all strike the set and move to New Hampshire. Then it's on to the next one-week stand, talking love and rewriting the lines to fit the local mood.

Each quadrennial (I LOVE using that word), the various states get to enjoy a moment in the cold light of pretend concern about the issues that fester there. The candidates rejigger their kinship message for a week and then move on.

But there are performances that stay in the same theater, in the same district or within the borders of the same state, from beginning to end.

Obviously, each is the war story about a slice of congressional turf. These set pieces ultimately determine which party controls the House and Senate, and which decides the fate of the agenda put forth by the one who ends up in the White House.

Tony Blankley's home in Great Falls, Virginia, outside Washington, was routinely described as a "gentleman's farm", which was appropriate because Tony was the consummate gentleman, befitting his birth in London. But the farm animals on this property were of the exotic kind. It always occurred to me during visits that the worn out cliche might have been changed to "If you want a friend in Washington, get a llama"

The truth of the matter is that Tony's human friends included an equally diverse collection of the human kind. It is a mix of people coated in a wide variety of political stripes and those who wear different hats.

I was in the herd of journalists whose relentless pursuit of his clients was never taken personally by him. No matter how hard the collisions that came with our work, when he would finish defending his client, Newt Gingrich, from our professional onslaught he would go to dinner with his antagonist to laugh about the day and chew over ideas and gossip along with our meal.
.
I enjoyed many such evenings as well as warm times with his family and Our get togethers would always range from lofty intellectual discussions to low humor. And of course, time with the llamas.

Now he's gone. He died this weekend, leaving a large group of admirers who will now circle around his incredible wife Lynda and their children.

He never forgot his British roots and manners. Frankly, it was amusing, because he had come to the United States at such a young age. I used to joke that when we got angry at someone, he would "smite the bounder", while I would "kick the ---- out of him". On this side of The Pond, his family settled in Hollywood where he became a child actor. He grew up to be an attorney, speech writer, columnist, editor and during his years as Newt Gingrich's press secretary, a fireman who was constantly putting out Newt's rhetorical fires. He somehow managed to be bon vivant and down to earth at the same time, which is remarkable when you think of it, as was his ability to bridge the gap between restless curiosity and graciousness.

A few years ago, he showed me video of his role in the movie "The Harder They Fall". He was eight years old and played Rod Steiger's son. I was astonished at how he looked like a miniature of his grownup self, a munchkin duplicate. In adulthood he managed to be bigger than all the pettiness that so often reduces Washington. I am among the many who will mourn his premature passing and celebrate the good fortune of sharing his life, both professionally and personally.

I'm dishing with the Rev on MSNBC tonight (Friday), sometime during the 6:00, Eastern, hour.

(As usual, the agreement with the syndicators means these columns appear here a week after their newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
BOB FRANKEN
FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, DEC. 30, 2011
MORE PROMISES TO BREAK
BY BOB FRANKEN

Gonna be a resolution ...
Actually it’s that time of year, the beginning, when we make a slew of resolutions. As a public service, let’s resolve to help our leading lights promise to change their ways in 2012. It’s Make and Break Time.

Where do we begin? With whom? So little space, so many irritations and so many irritators. But let’s start at the top of the list.

Newt Gingrich promises to rid his speech of all bombastic, bomb-blastic adjectives and adverbs. That means no more meaningless but incendiary qualifiers like “radical(ly),” “secular,” “Islamist” and “socialist,” so often spit out in various combinations, and no more self-aggrandizing ones like “profound,” or “truly conservative,” “historical” and “professorial.”

That last one has antagonized professors everywhere, given Newt’s habit of bragging that he’s read a book and then spewing a few CliffsNotes ideas from it. History scholars are particularly incensed with the “historical” one, since he so often embarrasses them with his out of-context descriptions of past world events.

He comes across as a pedantic someone trying to snow the voter who thinks the Ottoman Empire was a furniture store and has no idea what the Federalist Papers are but thinks it sounds nice when Gingrich cites them, albeit inaccurately.

(As usual, the arrangement with the syndicators means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, DEC. 27, 2011

PAUL'S HATE-SOILED PALL

BY BOB FRANKEN

I love the season right after Christmas. You can say “Happy holiday” without someone getting bent out of shape. And we can all drop the forced yuletide smiles and return to the normal sneer.

That's good, because the subject at hand is something to snarl about ... the efforts to put the best face on the hateful writings in the name of Ron Paul.

This is major league bigotry. After the 1992 Los Angeles riots, according to his newsletter, “order was only restored ... when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.” He predicted the “coming race war in our cities” and, to spread the poison around, warned of a “federal homosexual cover-up.” This was in between Paul's gigs in Congress and before he went from despicable fringe hater to widely celebrated weirdo.

Now his people say he had nothing to do with the vile words. He did make an estimated million dollars from them. They were the work of “ghost” writers, as one staffer told Reuters. That would be opposed to the “night riders” of the Ku Klux Klan, who, like ghosts, also wore sheets. Paul himself told The New York Times, “I was pretty careless about what was going into my own newsletter.”

Call me a skeptic, but it sure seems highly implausible (translation: probably a lie) that Paul or anybody could be that “careless” and not be aware of such invective going out in his name. And if that is true, then one has to question how grossly unqualified he would be as an executive of anything, to say nothing of the United States chief executive.

I'll be riffing with The Rev tonight (Thursday), during the 6:00 PM, Eastern hour.

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, DEC. 23, 2011

THE SILLY SEASON'S VERSE INSTINCT

BY BOB FRANKEN

'Tis the time around Christmas, Hanukkah and whatever,

And the season to suffer in Iowa's weather,

This year, the winter's unusually raucous,

As we mark that state's big day, with the GOP caucus.

The voters are nestled at home in their bed,

Watching campaign ads nonstop that fill them with dread

But on Gingrich, on Romney, on Paul in that fight,

Along with Rick Perry, deer in the headlight.

They're quite a collection, these partisan souls,

Amazing to watch as they bounce in the polls,

Each of those chosen as the someone-not-Mitt,

Is quickly deposed, from not-Mitt to nitwit.

Except for the Newtwit, it's twice that he's managed,

To slither the heights even with all his baggage,

For a second time, though, his lead's going south,

It happens each time he opens his mouth.

And as his prospects again start their flaggin'

Party heavyweights flock to the Romney bandwagon.

It's easy to find, and easy to spot,

It's the one with the dog tied down on the top.

He claims he's the one with the most stable views,

Not like the others who light up cable news.

To say nothing about Palin and, of course, Donald Trump,

Who again hint they'll add to the candidate dump.

The others have shown all their skills as debaters,

Each trying to be No. 1 among haters.

Judges, and immigrants, to say nothing of gays,

Just some of those slimed by their venomous spray,

But they're not the main villains in this demagogues' drama,

That honor, of course, goes to Barack H. Obama.

If cheap shots escape them, in ideas, there's a dearth,

Once again, they'll bring up the president's birth.

I'm doing the Sharpton show tonight on MSNBC tonight (Tuesday) during the 6:00 Eastern) hour.

(The usual: This is a week old column-, thanks to the agreement with the syndicator, which I'm working on)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, DEC. 20, 2011

AREN'T WE ALL AMERICAN SOMETHINGS?

BY BOB FRANKEN

It is not hard to conclude that the two prevailing political philosophies in our country are democracy and demagoguery.

The former includes a belief in our better instincts to see to it that bigotry won't be jammed down our throats, and similarly that a particular religion won't be imposed on us, nor will hatred of another be successfully whipped up by shameless exploiters.

The very first provision in the Bill of Rights covers that. The problem is, it also allows for the same free speech that can be used by demagogues to inflame the worst primal reflexes of a mob.

Unfortunately, mob psychology often carries the day. Look at how one extremist group with the innocent-sounding name Florida Family Association has managed to so intimidate the Lowe's home-supply company with its intolerant threats that Lowe's pulled its commercials from the TLC program “All-American Muslim.”

Instead of showing mainstream U.S. followers of Islam as regular people pursuing the same good life we all are -- estimates vary, but there are up to 7 million in the United States -- the FFA insisted that the show was “propaganda that riskily hides the Islamic agenda's clear and present danger.”

Lowe's buckled, explaining that the program had become a “lightning rod.” Then the travel website Kayak.com buckled too, albeit insisting that “the show just sucked.”

Tomorrow morning (Monday) during the 8:00 hour,Eastern, we rev up the political season again on MSNBC

Lots of MSNBC (guess who's in town for the holidays). Tomorrow (Saturday) at 11:30-ish (Eastern), we'll be talking politics

I'll start out the week talking the usual trash on MSNBC, Monday morning, the 26th during the 8:00 (Eastern) hour

Its Thursday Night Live with me and the Rev on MSNBC during the 6:00 PM, Eastern Hour

(The current understanding with the indicators means this coumn appears here about a week after its newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, DEC. 16, 2011

NEWTMITTPICKING

BY BOB FRANKEN

Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, or “Newt Romney” in the Book of Bachmann, are both right. Not “right” as in pretend ultraconservative, but correct. About each other.

When Romney suggests that Gingrich should give back the $1.6 million he was paid being a “historian” for the disgraced mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, he was onto something. The payoffs were really for Newt's membership in the D.C. family, with relationships so incestuous that the theme song could be “Dueling Banjos.” For those barely past puberty, the song is from the movie “Deliverance.” Of course, Newt didn't really deliver anything but his inbred connections, even though he insists he was never a lobbyist. In Washington-speak, one doesn't have to be an official “lobbyist” in order to lobby.

As always, Newt Gingrich was ready with a scathing putdown citing all of Mitt Romney's money “earned bankrupting companies and laying off employees.” In case someone is wondering about Gingrich's promise to stay “positive,” in campaign-speak, “positive” means “negative.”

It also is possible that each can be on the winning side of the argument and the losing at the same time.

Gingrich has never missed an opportunity to take big bucks from the very same inside-the-beltway operators he trashes when it suits his purpose.

And Romney's highly touted business career is riddled with the kind of financial manipulation and job slashing that got us into the economic mess and keeps us mired in it.

(As usual, the arrangement with the syndicator means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, DEC. 13, 2011

SPEW IN THE ZOO

BY BOB FRANKEN

We can thank Gingrichproductions.com for making sure we know that “Newt has liked animals since he was a little boy” and that he and his wife, Callista, “visit zoos and museums everywhere they go.”

One can only assume that they particularly prefer those with panda bears. How could they not, considering his close relationship to them? He has, after all, built an entire career as a hard-to-bear panderer, intentionally igniting the passions of extremists in one group after another.

But he may have gone too far when he tried to whip up Israel's staunch defenders in the United States by telling a Jewish Channel interviewer that Palestinians were an “invented people,” suggesting that they had no right to the land they have claimed for decades, nor, by implication, a Palestinian state. That ran afoul, of not only virtually all foreign-policy experts from both parties, but also the Israeli government, which is engaged in negotiations, albeit sputtering ones, that would have such a state as an end result.

He is being chastised for more than his “incendiary” rhetoric, which is nothing new to Newt. Gingrich is a historian, as he loves to tell us, but once again he has taken facts about ethnic groups who rose out of the collapsed Ottoman Empire and twisted them into untruths. He knows that, but he also knows that a lot of gullible voters out there don't, so he's employing the old adage, “If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bullfeathers.” (Hey, it's close enough.)

He is not the lone panderer in the Republican presidential shootout. When speaking before the Republican Jewish coalition forum in Washington recently, he was just one of a gang who each described President Barack Obama's Mideast and overall international policies as “appeasement.”

What a loaded word that is, since it usually describes the kowtowing before Hitler in the 1930s by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. Normally, any connections to Nazism and its unspeakable horrors are considered excessive in political debate, but not by this crew.

I'm mixing it up with the Rev tonight, but this is FRIDAY Night Live during the 6:00. (Eastern) hour.

(As usual, the agreement with the syndicator means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release. This one, for instance, has had subsequent events, namely Trump's bailout, proving even he can be chagrined)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, DEC. 9, 2011

THE TRUMP DUMP

BY BOB FRANKEN

In 1991, when we were broadcasting the bizarre Clarence Thomas hearings -- brimming with salacious charges about his past behavior -- the coarse language and juvenile silliness of the debate juxtaposed with the droning pomposity of the senators. It made for truly entertaining TV. What a hoot it was to be involved; what terrific, uh, exposure.

At one point, during a break, a panel of us inside-the-Beltway pontificators was having another of those “What does it really mean?” discussions, also pompous. One of the analysts was deploring the wall-to-wall telecast because it left such a negative impression about supposedly revered institutions, namely the Senate and the Supreme Court.

My response was that his lament was misdirected, that it wasn't the coverage but the buffoonish reality that was the problem. Generation after generation of lowest-common-denominator politics had eaten away at our grand concepts and left them too often hollowed-out jokes. The public needed to know that, and we had a responsibility to show it in all its inglory. And it has only gotten worse in the decades that followed.

Fast-forward to this year's contest for the most powerful job in the world, and now the hand-wringing about Donald Trump hosting a Republican presidential debate. “This reduces the campaign to mindless inanity” is the common cry, particularly from those who still believe real journalism is relevant. That lament is only half-accurate. This doesn't reduce anything. This year's contest is another circus, guided by a “sucker born every minute” mind-set. Substance is unwelcome. The dopier the discussion, the better.

So why shouldn't Trump run a debate? He symbolizes the entire clown act, even conning us into frenetically covering his possible entry into the fools' derby. We bit, even though we knew full well this so-called musing by “The Apprentice” TV-show host happened to coincide with the all-important ratings period.

(As usual, the agreement with the syndicator means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, DEC. 6, 2011

TIME FOR THE OTHER RICK

BY BOB FRANKEN

Andy Warhol famously called everyone's fleeting moment in the spotlight “15 minutes of fame.” In the wild and wacky world of Republican presidential politics, it's more like 15 days. That's about the time it takes for the latest GOP ABM candidate (Anybody But Mitt) to rocket into the poll stratosphere as the great right hope to challenge steady Mitt Romney, and then to flame out.

There has been fleeting dazzle from Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain (now, uh “suspended”), to say nothing of those who decided to avoid the slippery slope, like Sarah Palin, Chris Christie and Donald Trump. Round and round it's gone, settling on one, then the other; in fact, it has landed twice on Newt. But it passed right over Rick Santorum. He has never been able to move from the debates' nosebleed section. Maybe when Gingrich self-destructs, it'll be time for Rick the Other.

He certainly has the conservative credentials, a GOP hard rock as a United States senator from Pennsylvania, until losing a re-election bid in 2006. The way things work is that losing in politics is the prerequisite for a presidential run. Just ask Gingrich. Still, Santorum has never risen much past the three- to five-point level in the preference polls, stuck there while the others took off, still there to welcome them back to obscurity.

Is this his moment? He's someone who comes across as a nice guy with some mean positions. As he and his very, very small entourage have been traipsing around Iowa in what he's calling his “Faith, Family and Freedom” tour -- always at the ready to take on anyone who is against faith, family or freedom -- he has let the world in on the personal sadness that drives his campaign.

The last of his seven children, his 3-year-old daughter, Isabella, was born with a rare debilitating genetic disorder. A major motivation, he says, is the necessity he feels to overturn the Obama health-care law, which he feels will endanger proper medical treatment for her. Many, however, believe he has it backward, because that law actually prevents insurance companies from denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions.

(As usual, the arrangement with the syndicator means this column appears here about a week after its newspaper release. This, for instance, came out before Cain packed it in)

       FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
       CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, DEC. 2, 2011
       CAIN AND THE SEX HEX
       BY BOB FRANKEN
       Well, so much for that self-imposed Herman Cain hiatus, a timeout from dwelling on the many facets of his improbable candidacy. To maintain some proportionate coverage, it was time to focus elsewhere, like on Newt’s bizarre rise from the dead. But the moratorium must be broken in order to ponder the Cain campaign’s mortality and, specifically, its death. 
       When Ginger Smith came forward with the claim that she and Cain had indulged in a 13-year affair, it was nails in his coffin. He was already toast after all the unanswered harassment accusations. Following the latest disclosures, true or not, it’s clear that no matter how long he held on, he was just a dead candidate talking. The allegations would be our entire focus.
       Why? Let’s spell it out: S-E-X. It’s one thing to gloss over policy shallowness and other boring substance, but we just cannot, nor do we want to, shy away from nosiness about every detail of who’s doing what or who’s done the deed and with whom. Or tried to.
       It doesn’t have to be workplace propositions, inappropriate language or the other allegations of brutish behavior. This is merely a claim of doing it on the side. 
       In a somewhat-puzzling statement that failed to deny the specifics, Cain’s attorney, Lin Wood, decried coverage of “private, alleged consensual conduct between adults -- a subject matter which is not a proper subject of inquiry by the media or the public.”
       First of all, let’s thank Mr. Wood for sharing his opinion, which surely is motivated by personal feeling and not the billable hours he’s charging. Sorry, though; it is a proper subject of inquiry.
       We can all moan that the obsession with scurrilous behavior distracts from the truly important problems, but we lap up every smutty detail.
       And, of course, many conservatives are charging “liberal conspiracy.” Never mind that we all devoted massive amounts of attention a couple of presidencies ago to the adventures of Bill Clinton, proven and unproven.

(As usual, the agreement with the syndicators means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)       

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
       CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, NOV. 29, 2011
       OLD NEWT, NEW NEWT
       BY BOB FRANKEN
       Think about how scary this is: Newt Gingrich is in trouble with the haters. That’s right; Mr. Nasty himself has become controversial for not being hardhearted enough.
       It seems that in the babble of the nonstop debates, he was detected being “humane,” to use his word, about allowing longtime illegal immigrants who have been otherwise law-abiding to stay in this country.
       Now he’s gone and done it. The extremists he usually incites are extremely upset with him. It has created an opening for Mitt Romney, who is working so hard to be a part of the Fringestream. He jumped right in with the accusation that Gingrich is promoting “amnesty.”
       Ever the brawler, Newt punched back by displaying a 2007 TV interview in which then-Massachusetts Gov. Romney contended illegals should “be able to stay, sign up for permanent residency or citizenship.”
       That, in turn, caused Mitt to squeal like a stuck prig. His campaign quickly complained that the line was taken out of context, that in the same sentence, he went on to clarify “but they should not be given a special pathway.”
       His outrage probably would have some credibility, except for the inconvenient fact that Romney is being accused of the same kind of distortion. He’s running an ad that purports to show Barack Obama acknowledging that “If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.”
       What we don’t see in this replay of candidate Obama in 2008 is that he was mocking John McCain as the bottom fell out during a Republican administration.      This is the usual swimming in the dirty poll. Sound bites can be manipulated, and unscrupulous politicians (pardon the redundancy) will do so with glee.

I'm on MSNBC tonight (Friday) batting it back and forth with The Rev during the 6:00 Eastern hour. Whatever "It" is.

(As usual, the arrangement with the syndicator means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE friday, NOV. 25, 2011

UNDERSTATEMENT FROM RICK PERRY?

BY BOB FRANKEN

Maybe we've mis-underestimated Rick Perry. Maybe his gaffe-a-minute debate performances and the various campaign positions that are downright goofy have caused many to dismiss every word that comes stumbling out of his mouth. But let's be fair and give him credit where it's due.

Take, for instance, his Nov. 15 speech in Iowa, where he promised to eliminate various government agencies, set a limit on the now-lifetime terms of federal judges and cut the pay senators and representatives receive in half. That last one is the biggie. It would make them part time because, as he explained, “They are completely detached from the people.”

Let's hear it for Rick. But has he gone far enough? The polls consistently tally a contempt rate for Congress at about 90 percent. Put another way, nine out of 10 probably believe Perry's part time should be NO time.

Get over it, people. We need a Congress. The Founding Parents made the very first article of the Constitution about the legislative branch. But they were envisioning an effective one. Silly them. What we've gotten less than three centuries later is one that makes a mockery of the entire system of government they created.

Look at the latest example to pile on the modern-day garbage heap of futility. That, of course, would be the failure of the so-called Supercommittee to cobble together the beginning of government financial rescue. The members finally admitted defeat, and whimpered something about the need to continue to save the country from future economic collapse. “You can't just ignore this crisis,” Co-Chair Patty Murray, D-Wash., said as she and the others closed shop.

(As usual, the arrangement with syndicators means these columns appear here a week after their newspaper release. This is an obvious case in point)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, NOV. 22, 2011

TEMPERING THANKSGIVING

BY BOB FRANKEN

For so many, Thanksgiving has largely become Black Friday Eve, the day before merchants hope for a bang-up first day of Christmas sales that push their year to the profitable side of the ledger. In the black. Get it?

Oh yeah, Thanksgiving is also the day that tradition sets aside to express gratitude for the bounty. Unfortunately, far too many are not sharing in it. They face a Bleak Friday, and, for that matter, every day. Even if they swallow their pride and show up to accept the turkey and dressings provided by the prosperous looking for a feel-good moment, most of the time they wonder where the next meal is coming from.

There are even reports that some Salvation Army chapters, along with various other agencies that serve the destitute, have run out of turkeys and the other fixings this year. As the number of those in dire straits grows, the contributions diminish.

That is the uncomfortable truth that should erase the smug glow. As we go over the hills and through the woods to Grandmother's house, we need to take stock of those of all ages who have lost their houses and/or are among the nearly one in 10 who can't find work and/or the millions of others who are struggling to make ends meet in lesser jobs. Let's also remember there are many more millions who have simply given up looking.

I'm doing the MSNBC thing tonight (Monday) during the 6:00 Eastern hour. Me and the Rev

I'm taking a break from the gridiron to toss around the various political footballs on MSNBC this afternoon (Friday) in the 3:00 and 4:00 PM hours (Eastern). Afterwards, I'll work on better sports metaphors

(As usual, the agreement with the syndicator means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release and gives an opportunity to see whether it stood up to subsequent events)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, NOV. 18, 2011

TRICKY NEWT

BY BOB FRANKEN

How could we forget? Nov. 7 was the anniversary of the 1962 news conference during which defeated California gubernatorial candidate Richard Nixon snarled to reporters that they wouldn't “have Nixon to kick around anymore.” As we all know, we did. He rose from the ashes to be elected president of these United States, and then flamed out again, consumed by Watergate.

Forty-nine years after the “kick around” moment, the late Mr. Nixon has been reincarnated in the form of Newt Gingrich. That can be the only explanation why their careers have followed similar trajectories. Nixon made his name “red-baiting”; Gingrich is willing to bait any convenient target. Muslims, gays, “secular elitists,” the “secular left,” secular “fanaticism.” He is among the haters' favorite baiters.

It has worked for both of them, lifting them out of congressional back-bench obscurity. Nixon became vice president before his up-and-down run to the top job, and Gingrich rose to House speaker, before that gig dissolved in various ethics scandals. Now he's trying to take that same, improbable upward path as his role model and become the next POTUS.

He's certainly employing one of “Tricky Dick's” favorite tricks. No matter what the question, he uses it as a springboard to demonize the media. Maybe Gingrich was just marking the Nov. 7 anniversary when he went on the “Today” show to chastise all the attention paid to Herman Cain's past sexual-harassment allegations, sputtering, “There is just a huge gap between the gossip that fascinates political reporters and the average person's concerns.”

Nixon called that “average person” a part of the “silent majority.” Whatever the tag, huge numbers of them consider us reporters and commentators total scumbags. Gingrich knows that full well, just like Nixon did.

For both it was and is payback. Newt Gingrich is the first to acknowledge that he holds a grudge, actually telling Ann Curry: “I went through two months in June and July where folks in New York and Washington said my campaign was dead, I was gone, it was all hopeless. Nobody in the country said that.”

And in true Richard Nixon style, he is beginning a turnaround. After some huge blunders, his top campaign professionals abandoned the sinking ship of his candidacy. Pack journalists, like we usually do, swarmed to pick away at the fallen runner.

(As usual, the arrangement with the syndicator means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, NOV. 15, 2011

LESS CAIN MORE NEWT

BY BOB FRANKEN

Let's honor the recent passing of Andy Rooney by asking the question his way: Have you ever wondered why halting something is called a MORatorium? Is an increase a LESSatorium?

Whatever. It's time for a Herman Cain moratorium, time to impose some Herm limits.

He doesn't want to talk anymore about the accusations of sexual heavy-handedness, but they must be cleared up. Right now, the controversy is stuck in the “he said, they said” netherworld, with no real way to get at the ugly truth, no matter what it is.

Sending his wife, Gloria, out from seclusion to the friendly confines of Fox News to declare that she believes her husband because “he would have to have a split personality to do the things that were said” just isn't going to cut it. We need to know. Somehow.

Waterboarding is presumably out of the question, even though Cain was one of the Republican candidates at the most recent debate who endorsed it as an acceptable “enhanced interrogation technique.”

Even as Cain rises to the top in the polls as a contender, we still need to put him on pause. He's only the latest concoction of the Republican flavor-of-the-month club; meanwhile, Mitt Romney plods along, serving up plain vanilla.

So, it won't be easy to take a Cain break. With all his basso-bizzaro bluster, his oversimplifications, inaccuracies and outright stumbles, he is a gift that keeps on giving. He's similar to Sarah Palin, another “candidate” from whom some of us pundits decided it was time to take a hiatus a few months ago.

To be sure, the two offer some contrasts. He's a candidate; she decided to get off the bus. He has that voice like a fine wine. She should be fined for her whine.

But there are fundamental similarities: Each panders to the far right, and both are a gaffe-a-minute. They share an exquisite talent for self-promotion and an innate understanding of how bad publicity is actually good and is easily deflected as a “witch hunt” (Cain) by pencil necks in the “lamestream media” (Palin).

Tonight's MSNBC appearance has been moved to next Tuesday because of a scheduling conflict

I'm doing MS tonight (Thursday) with the Rev during the 6:00 Eastern hour. What could go wrong?

(As usual, the arrangement with the syndicator means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

       FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019  
       CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236
       BOB FRANKEN
       FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, NOV. 10, 2011
       UNSLICK RICK
       BY BOB FRANKEN

       You know how Republicans have taken to mocking President Barack Obama for using a teleprompter when he speaks. It’s standard practice for many politicians, to say nothing of us TV twinkies, so it’s kind of a cheap shot. But then, just about all the shots in politics are down in the bargain basement. Be that as it may, certainly Rick Perry could have used a teleprompter in the latest GOP debate Wednesday night.

       There he was, cruising along with one of his oversimplifications about how he would upend Washington, joining those who promise to obliterate various federal departments that make life inconvenient for the party’s wealthy donors what with all their pesky regulations and stuff. “It is three agencies of government, when I get there, that are gone,” Perry began, “Commerce, Education and the --what’s the third one there? Let’s see.”

       It was hard to tell on my TV if he reddened as he tried to recover: “Commerce and let’s see. I can’t. The third one I can’t. Sorry. Oops.”

       The agony went on as others tried to help him, even suggesting the Environmental Protection Agency, another agency that Perry and his corporate puppeteers despise. Nope, that wasn’t it. For the record, it was the Energy Department he was trying to remember, but “oops” indeed.

       His handlers later called it a “human moment” and “authentic,” but a chagrined Perry realized that wouldn’t cut it, so, to his credit, he simply admitted “I stepped in it.”

(The story has changed somewhat, but, as usual, the arrangement with the syndicator means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, NOV. 8, 2011

THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT

BY BOB FRANKEN

Sorry, Mr. Cain. Yes, it's true you are demanding that those of us in the media, ethics-challenged that we are, move on and away from our questions about the sexual-harassment charges against you. You insist that real people (meaning you, apparently) want to hear about important issues, so stop with the questions that linger about your conduct with female employees during your tenure as head of the National Restaurant Association.

Let's see how to put this, sir: How about, It ain't gonna happen. As a matter of fact, it is fair to say that those the only questions we should be asking. All the other stuff is just a diversion from a relentless inquiry into whether you acted like a sexual thug with female subordinates.

Thuggery is the only way to describe the accusations of Sharon Bialek, who has come forward with a claim that back in 1997, when she sat down to discuss a job: “He suddenly reached over and put his hand on my leg, under my skirt and reached for my genitals.” Then, she went on that he (meaning you) tried to pull her head toward his crotch.

This is vile. If true, it could possibly have been pursued as a sexual assault, but it wasn't. And the statement from your campaign that “all of the allegations of harassment against Mr. Cain are completely false,” just will not suffice. This now is far beyond the “witch hunt” that is, as you claim, some concoction of the “inside-the-Beltway” crowd. If these accusations are anywhere near true, you need to withdraw from a candidacy that would be a blight on our country.

If they are not, then we all need to know, so that any lingering doubts about such accusations of heinous actions can be swept away, and the nation can level appropriate scorn against those would engage in such a smear. When your organization goes on to say “Fortunately, the American people will not allow Mr. Cain's bold '9-9-9 Plan,' clear foreign-policy vision and plans for energy independence to be overshadowed by these bogus attacks,” that is wishful thinking.

(As usual, the agreement with the syndicators means this column appears here a week after it's newspaper release which was just as all the sexual harassment hell broke loose)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, NOV. 4, 2011

POLITICAL JABBERWOCKY

BY BOB FRANKEN

It’s a shame that Lewis Carroll isn’t around to write a modern-day “Through the Looking Glass,” because our current political wonderland would have provided even more bizarre material.

There are so many purveyors of reverse reality, and Herman Cain is just one of them. Here is a man who never wastes an opportunity to tell us how uniquely plain-spoken he is, and yet, as we discover time after time, he’s just another candidate who bullshoots from the lip.

Cain’s version of the events regarding his past sexual-harassment charges is ever-changing, a classic case of obfuscation. He grudgingly provides new details —after they are revealed by the media. And, of course, he accuses the same-said media of engaging in a “Witch Hunt.” That’s right out of the campaign I manual, and it goes over really well on the right, which is his election stumping ground.

A Washington Post poll taken after the initial POLITICO reports on all this show that seven out of 10 Republicans say the charges don’t matter.

Rush Limbaugh has rushed to his defense, characterizing the media frenzy as an “unconscionable, racially stereotypical attack.”

Now, remember, that’s from Rush Limbaugh, the grand dragon of radio, whose years broadcasting vitriol to his Ditto Heads frequently have included gratuitous bigoted rants. But there he is, suddenly playing the great emancipator.

And the arch-conservative wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has wasted no opportunity to exploit her husband’s bizarre confirmation hearings with his racially charged claim that he was the victim of a “high-tech lynching.”

Those hearings forced sexual harassment to the forefront, where it belonged. But what followed was the inevitable descent into the bureaucratic HR Hell of another reverse reality.

In far too many companies and organizations, bureaucrats and obstructionist lawyers have created such a tangle that, notwithstanding the sanctimonious stated policies of management, the environment at work is as “hostile” as ever. Human Resources departments are too often demonstrably INhuman. More material for the 21st-century Lewis Carroll.

Accountability becomes irrelevant. It is thwarted by a process that only serves the enforcers and not the victims. It also provides, as we’re witnessing, for the candidate who wants to avoid exposure until the controversy goes away.

(As usual, the agreement with the syndicators means that this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, NOV. 1, 2011

DEBATE AND SWITCH

BY BOB FRANKEN

Whether it's the ardent admirers of Rick Perry or those who consider him a dangerous buffoon, everyone needs to take seriously what is behind his campaign's announcement that he might bag some of the upcoming GOP debates.

Oh sure, it's easy for the haters to conclude that his performance in past encounters has been an embarrassment that nearly pulled the props out from under his pulpit. However, his spokesman, Ray Sullivan, of course had a much more elegant spin.

Sullivan told CNN, “The candidates need to spend time in Iowa.” On Fox, he elaborated: “These debates are set up for nothing more than to tear down the candidates.” Translation: Gov. Perry is challenged when he's challenged.

Once he floated his trial balloon and it attracted some flak, he erected the usual candidate “Let Me Explain” mantra and immediately tiptoed back a little. He's now saying that he hadn't really decided.

Notwithstanding his story behind the story (I've always wanted to use that expression), he does have a point. We've already had eight TV debates, and there are scads more scheduled. After all, they are good theater and get good ratings, but they also get in the way of more traditional events.

They take huge chunks of time away from town halls and other photo-op contrivances, to say nothing of the valuable behind-the-scenes meetings to grovel for money from fat cats who want to buy influence.

Even so -- and even though some of the other contenders complain about how these encounters get in the way -- the bad-mouthers have it all wrong.

We need MORE debates, not fewer. There should be so many that we set aside a TV slot for them ... let's call it “D-Span.”

(As usual, the agreement with the syndicator means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, OCT. 28, 2011

FLAT TAX FLAT-OUT FOOLISHNESS

BY BOB FRANKEN

Why call something a “flat tax” when it causes the playing field to be even less level? Since what it really does is make the rich richer at the expense of everyone else, wouldn't a better name for it be “fat tax” -- as in “fat cats.” Funny how each of the plans offered by the Republican presidential candidates manages to accomplish that.

You can call it “9-9-9,” as Herman Cain does, or “Bold,” as Rick Perry does, or whatever catchy title the others use, but it's really just a con that lowers taxes on the wealthy and often raises them for all those who can't afford lavish campaign contributions.

Their best moniker would be “subterfuge,” since each is usually pitched as a way to uncomplicate the labyrinth of Internal Revenue Service loopholes that already benefit the super-moneyed interests. These approaches simply make it even easier for them to pay less than their fair share.

Is it any wonder that all but one of the GOP candidate offerings eliminate or reduce the capital-gains and estate taxes? Guess who is burdened by those taxes. The ones who have the most substantial capital gains and estates? Good guess.

More importantly, is it any wonder that the latest New York Times-CBS News poll registers two-thirds who believe that the wealth in this country is distributed unfairly? The good news is that apparently the vast majority of Americans have a grasp on reality, even if the politicians don't.

(As usual, the arrangement with the syndicator means these columns appear here a week after their newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, OCT. 25, 2011

THE TV NEWS' UNCOMPREHENSIVE REPORTS ABOUT OCCUPY WALL STREET

BY BOB FRANKEN

How many days in a row will every TV news outlet in the country assign an 8-by-10 glossy correspondent to cover the Occupy Wall Street protesters and ask the same burning question: “But, what is their agenda?” “What do they want to accomplish?” or some other variation of “This is not being handed to me on a spoon, so I don't get it” “Back to you in the studio, Heather and Scott.”

Television anchors are all named Heather or Scott. Or Diane. But I digress. The point is that the message of the demonstrators isn't outlined on some bullet-point PR release, and is therefore not penetrating the on-the-scene journalists' makeup and hairspray, so we keep hearing the same story line on Action-Eyewitness-News Center.

The furrowed-brow puzzlement is not only nauseatingly repetitious, but it's also a bit dense, since the movement may be loosely formed, but its message is very precise: Change. Not the loose “Change” of campaign promises, but real change.

Undo the control that wealth has over the country -- control that sabotages the promise of our founders. Allow an opportunity for personal riches, as long as a proper amount is given back to the society as a whole, the one that provided the opportunities for success.

That means an equitable tax system, where the fortunate share larger amounts of their bounty. As Massachusetts Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren declared in an August speech: “There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own.”

(As usual, the agreement with the syndicators, meansthese columns appear here a week after their newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, OCT. 21, 2011

REPUBLICAN SNITTY SNITTY BANG BANG

BY BOB FRANKEN

When out covering combat, I would always keep in mind that the producers back home in TV land would positively drool anytime there was what we all called “Bang-Bang” -- in other words, the sights and sounds of combat were a sure-fire (pun intentional) way to get on television.

The folks at CNN had to be in ecstasy the other night. The GOP confrontation they co-sponsored from the Las Vegas strip “war zone” certainly provided a bang-bang-up ending to the current debate series.

If only they had recruited Hank Williams Jr. to sing the opening theme. He's available, since ESPN dumped him. He would have been perfect in this setting, belting “All my rowdy friends are comin' over tonight.”

The candidates certainly were rowdy. Maybe it's a Vegas thing, a group decision that the party's nomination is still a crapshoot.

First of all, who put that “Kick Me” sign on Herman Cain's backside? There's no shortage of suspects, considering all those he's left in the dust while zooming to the top tier

But maybe he pinned it on himself, in the form of that “9-9-9” plan. The Tax Policy Center has compiled a study concluding that the proposal would mean higher taxes for 84 percent of Americans. Cain insisted that the criticisms were “erroneous” without citing specifics. Rick Perry announced that he's about to unveil a flat-out flat-tax scheme, so he challenged Cain with “I'll bump plans with you, brother.” He repeatedly referred to Cain as “brother.” What's with that?

I'm doing MS tonight (Thursday) during the 6:00, Eastern hour. This is a wild guess but we'll probably talk about politics

(As usual, the arrangement with the syndicators means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

^BITTEN BY THE SOUND BITE@<

^(For use by New York Times News Service clients)@<

^By BOB FRANKEN@=

^C.2011 Hearst Newspapers@=

WASHINGTON _ Let's face it, the very most anyone remembers from any political debate is one sound bite. But sometimes, as in the Oct. 11 Bloomberg-Washington Post debate at Hanover, N.H., we have a rhetorical embarrassment of riches. Or just an embarrassment.

There was Texas Gov. Rick Perry, fending off comparisons with Mitt Romney's economic proposals, blurting, “Mitt’s had six years to be working on a plan. I’ve been in this for about eight weeks.”

Usually a candidate's admission that he's been thinking the economy for just eight weeks would have easily made him the sound bite award winner. But he was contending with Michele Bachmann.

No one yields a pithy phrase like her. And this time she was actually on target when she turned to Herman Cain. Cain has now shot slightly ahead of the field in the Oct. 12 NBC poll, even edging out Romney, 27 percent to 23 percent. Much of Cain’s traction has come from his so-called ``9-9-9’’ plan which makes taxes on all individuals and corporations 9 per cent and adds a 9 sales tax for bad measure. Never mind that it's truly a Hood Robin, in that it takes from the poor and gives to the rich. It's really, really simple.

That gave Bachmann her opening to clobber him. ``When you take the 9-9-9 plan and turn it upside down, I think the devil is in the details.’’ Now that as Perry himself might say, is a whuppin'.

Not that it does her much good. In the NBC poll, she is down at 5 per cent and Perry is at 16. Both are former hopes of the ABM crowd, meaning ``Anybody But Mitt.’’ Now it's Cain's turn.

(As usual, the arrangement with the syndicator means that this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, OCT. 11, 2011

THE FAT OF THE LAND

BY BOB FRANKEN

Setting aside any opinions about his politics, it's a shame that Chris Christie decided not to get into the presidential race, because we probably won't have a rip-roaring debate about one of our most deep-seated prejudices. It's the one against fat people, bigotry with a capital “BIG.” In the immortal words of Christie himself, much of the commentary was fat-out “ignorant.”

Those, for instance, who characterized his extremely portly physique as the manifestation of an inner lack of discipline were revealing their own flabby thinking about a subject that is much more, uh, weighty than the usual fluff.

First of all, the battle of the pounds is a struggle of massive proportions. Ask former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, who is again on the upward trajectory of the loss-gain seesaw. Or inquire of Newt Gingrich how rough it is on one's self-esteem to labor with a condition that is so widely ostracized. He would much rather tell us about the other “big ideas” he alone has.

Should those of us pondering a potential candidate for our highest office even bother discussing the size of his waist? Or is it a waste of time? A really good ancillary question would focus on the chances of corpulent woman. Fat chance?

By the way, there's a reason for the snarky language here. It reveals the steady diet of cruelty we could expect if anyone so demonstrably unfit and untrim got into the race. When Christie ran for governor of New Jersey, the forces of his Democratic opponent, Jon Corzine, released a TV commercial showing Christie getting out of a car with his belly jiggling while the announcer complained about how “Christie threw his weight around.” Christie beat Corzine, but it is common for us to hear slim showoffs make sure we know how swell it is that they're svelte.

(As usual, the arrangement with the sydicators, means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

^SARAH PALIN TO THE BARRICADES@<

^(For use by New York Times News Service clients)@<

^By BOB FRANKEN@=

^C.2011 Hearst Newspapers@=

WASHINGTON _ Now that Sarah Palin has decided not to run for the presidency, the burning question is this: Where does she take her act next? Actually, there's a natural forum for her campaign-tease catch phrase deriding ``Crony Capitalism.’’

It’s the street. The woman needs to take it to The Man.

, ``Crony Capitalism’’ is what the spreading protest is about. She and that disorganized group of young people and, now, unions, that huddle under the "Occupy Wall Street" umbrella, both target what she described in an Iowa speech as "the capitalism of connections and government bailouts and handouts and influence peddling and corporate welfare"

Both argue that the corporate-political complex needs to be taken on. (A generation ago, it was called the ``Military-Industrial Complex.’’ Same thing.)

While she and her cohorts on the right would claim that the Tea Party movement she's nurtured is similarly anti-establishment, it is not. It's really anti-tax which plays right into the hands of the fat cats who are well represented among crony capitalists.
Palin leaves behind a Republican presidential field dominated by candidates who also want to maintain the current economic structure. Not only are Mitt Romney and Rick Perry at the top of the party heap, but they are now joined by Herman Cain.

Yes, Herman Cain. He's either tied for second with Perry behind leader Mitt Romney (Washington Post-ABC News-October 4th), or in another October 4th survey (CBS News), he's tied for first with Romney.

All three are unapologetically on the side of big money. Romney will forever be remembered for his ``corporations are People’’ statement, Perry's policies favoring mega businesses in Texas are the stuff of legend, and now we have Cain out there touting his ``9-9-9’’ plan.

(As usual, the arrangement with the syndcators means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, OCT. 4, 2011

BOYCOTT? WHY NOT?

BY BOB FRANKEN

Anyone who questions the danger to this nation where public support is essential should check out a widely read August memo from GOP consultant Bill McInturff, who warned of the growing “lack of confidence in our political system and its leaders,” or look at the polls, like Gallup's Sept. 27 installment, which measured 81 percent of respondents dissatisfied with the way government is being run.

The numbers are so overwhelmingly negative that perhaps a double negative is appropriate: We Can't Do Nothing.

Standing by, watching society slide down the tubes, paralyzed by the politics of moneyed special interests while waiting to vote in the next election -- it may not be enough. So, if we shouldn't do nothing (this is fun!), and it's time for action, what action? What are the choices for those of us who have gotten used to wallowing in the apathetic complacency of disgust?

Confrontation? It's the new old thing. Taking it to the man. But, as we've seen in the massive protests in Madison, Wis., and elsewhere, our elected officials sometimes seem impervious. Even if a few are recalled, their cuts and successful union-busting advance the schemes of the powerful corporate leaders who financed their campaigns. And when a small group raucously takes it to the streets where it counts -- that most important street of all, Wall Street -- they certainly are aiming at an appropriate target. After all, it is the real seat of government, the nation's capital capitol, which exercises control over the symbolic seat that they've bought and paid for in Washington. But remember, the powerful exercise massive power, so participants are manhandled by police and are pepper-sprayed. Even so, the protest movement is moving out a bit ... spreading not just to the Brooklyn Bridge but to a few other cities. Good start.

(As usual, the agreement with syndicators means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release. This was written before Mr. Christie decided not to make a run)

^CHRISTIE FINDS FLIRTATION IS FUN@<

^(For use by New York Times News Service clients)@<

^By BOB FRANKEN@=

^C.2011 Hearst Newspapers@=

WASHINGTON _ Sometimes we can be really insensitive. How many of us, for instance, have worried about the hurt feelings of all the GOP presidential candidates whenever they see or hear still another Republican bemoan the sorry lineup now challenging incumbent Barack Obama?

Even the Obama campaign guru, David Axelrod, acknowledges that his guy faces a ``titanic’’ struggle to win re-election. No one needs a reminder about the fate of the Titanic.

But Republican Party faithful worry that their present choices will give Obama clear sailing.

To be clear, many of them are looking for someone who is not Mitt Romney. This would-be candidate would demonstrate competence and experience _ and also generate heat compared to Mitt's tepid.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is just the latest to be basking in the warmth reserved for those on the pedestal of the unannounced. The clamor had reached such a fever pitch in spite of Christie's repeatedly stated non-interest that he wondered aloud what it would take to be convincing, ``short of suicide.’’ Now it's fair to wonder if he convinced himself. His denials have slipped to wily non-answers.

To the repeated pleeeeze-will-you-run question after his Reagan Library speech earlier this week, Christie was cagey with his answer. The question, he said, is ``incredibly flattering.’’

That's way short of ``short of suicide.’’

But it's one thing to enjoy what can be described as a pre-commitment honeymoon and another to take the plunge. Just ask Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who was the last one anointed a savior. Since he jumped into the pool, Perry's been having a harder time staying afloat, weighed down by debate performances.

A Fox poll, released Sept. 29, shows he has dipped behind Romney, down 10 points in the last month. By the way, there seems to be a Cain mutiny going on. Herman Cain is now in third place, although Sarah Palin dismisses him as the ``flavor of the week.’’ Of course Palin's outsider game is leaving many faithful with a bad taste. It's getting stale.

(As usual, the deal with syndicators means these columns appear here a week after their newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, SEPT. 27, 2011

THE CAMPAIGN MUNCHKINS

BY BOB FRANKEN

What with all the back and forth about hearts and brains, it doesn't take too much imagination to see the similarities between the Republican presidential debates and another work of on-screen fiction, “The Wizard of Oz.”

There, for instance, was Rick Perry skipping merrily along the yellow-brick road, imagining an easy jaunt from Texas to Washington, when he fell into the gaping pothole of illegal immigration and bitter hostility against those who sneak across the border looking for menial jobs and facing life on the run. The very same man whose extreme views on a variety of subjects have thrilled the extremists who control the GOP is suddenly on the defensive.

It seems that Gov. Perry's record is not entirely cruel. So, he's fending off attacks over his executive order mandating student vaccinations in his state against the virus that causes cervical cancer. Now he has to own up to his record of compassion for the undocumented. Not only had he opposed the idea of a 1,200-mile fence along the border with Mexico, calling it “idiocy,” but suddenly he was under attack -- the most wicked which came from Mitt Romney -- for supporting in-state resident tuition for the children of parents who had brought their families as they crossed into life as U.S. illegals in Texas.

Perry was indignant, insisting during the last Florida debate that those who oppose the approach “don't have a heart.” “I think if you're opposed to illegal immigration, it doesn't mean that you don't have a heart,” shot back Romney, a day later, “it means that you have a heart and a brain.”

I'll be on MSNBC tonight (Thursday) during the 6:00 PM, Eastern, hour.

(As usual, the agreement with the syndicators means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

^(For use by New York Times News Service clients)@<
^By BOB FRANKEN@=
^C.2011 Hearst Newspapers@=
WASHINGTON _ It's outright predictable. Whenever anyone, usually on the left, has the audacity to suggest that the rich should be giving back just a teeny bit more, their paid protectors on the right side of the feedlot will scream: ``CLASS WARFARE!’’

As we all should know, those words are loaded ones, implying that any reform is tantamount to Marxism.

So it was when President Obama outlined his proposals to address the overlapping disasters of the economy _ massive national debt and desperate unemployment. The mere mention of added taxes on the wealthy or subtracted subsidies for their corporations gets the automatic GOP response. ``Class warfare,’’ complained House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis. ``Class warfare,’’ muttered House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.

It's become so predictable that the president was ready in his Rose Garden presentation earlier this week with a killer sound bite: ``It’s not class warfare, it’s math.’’

At least Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., put on a different spin, going to the floor to sniff: ``This is not a jobs plan, this is a re-election plan.’’

This the same Mitch McConnell who so famously declared, even before this year's congressional firefight had started, that ``the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president’’?

(As usual, the arrangement with the sydicators means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, SEPT. 20, 2011

BULLY FOR THE PRESIDENTS

BY BOB FRANKEN

Does anybody remotely care that it was Teddy Roosevelt who came up with the term “bully pulpit”? Well, he did, to describe the uniquely prominent platform available to a very powerful officeholder, like, say, a president. President Barack Obama is trying to shout from his these days, but he might want to remember that a bully pulpit works only if the user is willing to be a bully.

And that's been his problem. He's advocated a “balanced approach” while dealing with adversaries who will accept only the unbalanced. The latest New York Times-CBS News poll, taken in mid-September, shows his disapproval rating now at 50 percent, his lowest as POTUS.

A new book by Pulitzer Prize winner Ron Suskind won't help. It's called “Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington and the Education of a President” and depicts a chief executive who can't control his very top level subordinates. It reinforces a toxic notion that Obama is a weak leader. That, in turn, has fed the idea that he's vulnerable and can be defeated in next year's election.

Apparently, his team worries this self-fulfilling perception can become reality. So his chief strategist, David Axelrod, has sent a memo to news reporters and organizations complaining we have “focused on the president's disapproval ratings as if they existed in a black box,” disregarding that “Americans are increasingly rejecting the tea party” and that the GOP's candidates for the White House “are busy courting the tea party.”

(As usual, the arrangement with the syndicators means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

^GOING THROUGH THE DOWNWARD MOTIONS@<

^(For use by New York Times News Service clients)@<

^By BOB FRANKEN@=

^c.2022 Hearst Newspapers@=
WASHINGTON _Score one for Herman Cain.

Cain is running for the Republican presidential nomination as the un-politician so when confronted during a GOP debate over not understanding how Washington works, he shot back: ``Yes, I do. It doesn't.’’

Of course, he's only half right. It took a blend of government incompetence and greed in the private sector, which Cain always champions. Together, they have dragged the nation into a financial crisis that is documented still again by newly released figures from the U.S. Census bureau:

In 2010, 46.2 million Americans were living below the poverty line, the highest number in the 52 years the bureau has been keeping track, 15.1 per cent of the population. The upward mobility we have always held sacred has become a national downward mobility. Median income, overall, is at the lowest level since 1996. Of course, this is fed by the scourge of unemployment: 14 million out of work, another 10 million scraping by in lesser jobs or simply abandoning the search...and hope.

So here comes President Obama to the rescue. He has presented a new collection of old ideas for using strategically placed federal funding to jolt new hiring and the repair of crumbling infrastructures. Pretty obvious stuff.

Also obvious is the mechanism to pay the estimated $450 billion needed for his American Jobs Act, with its features like cuts in payroll taxes, incentives for hiring long-term unemployed and tons of money for highways, bridges and school construction.

The wealthy individuals who have fed on the fat of the land need to share a few more of their crumbs. The Census Bureau, by the way, points out that the only significant gains in income last year occurred among those in the top one per cent of the economy.

(As usual, the arrangement with the syndicators means this column appears here at least a week after its newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, SEPT. 13, 2011

PRESSING THE PRESS

BY BOB FRANKEN

Here's a little nugget that was buried in President Barack Obama's address before the joint session of Congress last week: “Already, the media has proclaimed that it's impossible to bridge our differences.”

Right you are, Mr. President. Given how some Republicans boycotted your address and one held up a protest sign, it's not hard to suspect that the partisan gap is too wide for any meaningful cooperation. Feel free to prove us wrong.

Then there's Newt Gingrich who, the night before the speech at the GOP debate, when host Brian Williams asked him about differences over health care among the party's presidential candidates, replied: “Well, I'm frankly not interested in your effort to get Republicans fighting each other.”

Call me crazy, but isn't that what a debate is about, Newt? According to the dictionary, it's “a discussion of opposing viewpoints.” One would assume you knew this. Is this how you're hoping to breathe some life into your campaign, what's left of it?

Come to think of it, maybe Messrs. Obama and Gingrich are onto something. They have seized on one of the few remaining bipartisan issues, because whatever their political persuasion, our leaders generally come to dislike the reporters and the organizations who cover them.

Frankly, a lot of the scorn is deserved. It's true that we in the media often don't do the job we should in applying aggressive skepticism to what our officeholders and candidates dish out. Instead, we go for the cheap-shot, mindless stories about scandals and personality clashes. But if we did perform adequately, they'd really despise us.

To be honest, I usually shy away from writing about “us.” First of all, we are too self-involved. Look no further than the coverage of 9/11's anniversary, which so often degraded into our reflections about what we were doing and thinking that day. Who cares? In addition, those of us in the news biz get far too sensitive about professional animosity when we should wear it as a badge of honor.

(As usual, the arrangement with the syndicators means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, SEPT. 9, 2011

CONGRESS, OBAMA FOCUS ON SAVING JOBS

BY BOB FRANKEN

The president himself called it a “political circus,” and the season of clowning around has begun. The focus of President Barack Obama and members of Congress this time is squarely on jobs. Sad to say, it is mainly on saving theirs.

Oh yeah, they're also trying to appear like they're doing something about the 14 million people who are unemployed in this nation and the 10 million untallied others who are struggling with lower-paying work than they used to have, and sadly, those who have given up looking.

People can be forgiven for concluding that the D.C. politicians simply were going through the motions of caring about anything but themselves. There was the president, before a joint House-Senate session, outlining a new stimulus program with a price tag of $447 billion. He gave the legislation a catchy title, “The American Jobs Act,” and got right to the point:

“The question is whether in the face of a national crisis we can stop the political circus and do something to help the economy, whether we can restore some of the fairness and security that has defined this nation since our beginning.”

Well, the answer didn't look all that promising, if the first reactions were any indication. The Republicans largely sat on their hands. Quoth Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell: “This isn't a jobs plan. It's a re-election plan.”

Mercifully, it wasn't too long before we could watch the Green Bay Packers-New Orleans Saints game that followed -- a game that somehow started as scheduled even though players and management struggled for months over bitter differences. In the end, they demonstrated that they could negotiate their way past the differences. All it took was deciding that they had a mutual interest in working out a deal.

That feeling of common purpose is sorely missing among the players on the two sides in politics. They are each singularly consumed by the desire to get re-elected by making sure the other doesn't.

What is so galling is not just that they are ruining the lives of millions, it's that they are making things worse by creating what could be a self-fulfilling prophecy of further downfall.

It's another night on MSNBC for me. The fun goes on during the 6:00PM Eastern hour tonight (Friday).

(As usual, because of the arrangement with the sydicators, this column appears here at least a week after its newspaper release)

TURF BATTLES

"It is a beautiful night for political football".

Chances are the news anchors won't say that but they should. They and their colorless color analysts will be doing play-by-play of a presidential address to a joint session of the House and Senate about the nation's debilitating unemployment.

Significant as that should be, our government's leaders have managed to reduce the event into nothing more than a part of the pregame show leading up to the NFL season opener.

After all, some amateurish heavy-handedness by the opposing sides had threatened to schedule the speech in the Capitol at the same time the gridiron professionals were playing smashmouth at their own stadium, Lambeau Field in Green Bay.

Once Washington's best and brightest realized just about all of us would choose to watch the giant athletes collide, the small minded officials hastily decided to set aside their pettiness and do their thing beforehand.

The White House had already fumbled on the first play. What a bad call it was to try originally to schedule the congressional appearance on Wednesday night. And what a coincidence that the Democratic administration chose the precise time Republican candidates seeking to take Barack Obama's job from him would be debating in California.

Maybe they should just wait to let Obama simply hand it to one of them, since he seems to be hellbent on forfeiting. It was predictable to everyone but him that he would be sacked for a big loss by Speaker John Boehner, who defended his team's turf with a No-Way-Mr.-President

Come to think of it, maybe the Packers and Saints will be providing a postgame show, following the pushing and shoving in the Capitol. Whatever happens, our nation's leaders have once again left a widespread impression they're out of their league

If the D's versus the R's played by pigskin rules, instead of their piggish ones, the House floor would be littered with yellow flags. But they don't.

For example, while blocking behind the back is a major gridiron violation, it isn't in DC where most everything is done behind the back. And while the fundamental part of football involves blocking and tackling, here in Never-Never land it's only blocking, as in preventing anyone from coming up with any solutions to the problems which are dragging us to the ground.

I'm on MSNBC during the 6:00 Eastern hour this Tuesday evening to lead a group cringe over the latest political developments

(As usual, the arrangement with syndicators means these columns appear here a week after their newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, AUG. 30, 2011

WINDS AND WINDBAGS

BY BOB FRANKEN

It's a confession that makes me cringe: I have been one of those TV types like those we've witnessed standing in the middle of Hurricane Irene with everything flying around, informing the world that yup, it sure is stormy out here. It's what we do.

In and around politics, however, the blowhards pretend to ignore the obvious; such as there is no way in the world that Republicans in Congress are going to make any deal with the White House that furthers any purpose but unelecting President Barack Obama. That internal debate we hear of in the current administration about whether to pursue compromise or force the issues is a big waste of time. The only motivation for any accommodation by their adversaries will be avoiding embarrassment.

Still, there's the pointless argument between the “let it all hang out” crowd and the incrementalists. The White House needs to abandon what AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka calls “little nibbly things” and instead chomp on the other side with an aggressive push for higher taxes on the rich, tough regulations on financial flimflam artists and spending on labor-intensive public-works projects. Never mind that the tea partiers will scream about “class warfare”; it will be and should be, since their wealthy patrons have been conducting class warfare against the poor and middle class for a long, long time.

The Democrats need to point fingers at the GOP enablers in Congress who take campaign contributions in return for keeping legal what should be white-collar crimes. As for the president, instead of pandering to big-business interests, he should make a forceful issue out of their misconduct.

I am on MSNBC tonight (Friday) during the 6:00 Eastern hour. Think of it as a send off to your long weekend

^LEFT AND RIGHT FEET IN MOUTH@<
^(For use by New York Times News Service clients)@<
^By BOB FRANKEN@=
^C.2011 Hearst Newspapers@=
WASHINGTON _ Let's set aside for the moment the argument over who is ``fair and balanced’’ or whether that idea even suggests that the various sides in our public arguments should be granted automatic equivalency.
Frankly, they often should not. But what they do deserve from those of us who aspire to journalism is fairness.
Which brings us to the epidemic of foot and mouth disease.

Many of us have been getting some gaffe laughs at the expense of Rep. Michele Bachmann for her various factual errors and exxagerations. But if she's going to get bruned by us, shouldn't we also hold Vice President Joe Biden's loose lips to the fire?
After Bachmann's recent reference to the present dangers of the ``Soviet Union,’’ I was one of those joining in the ridicule, saying that she didn't need the kind of ``gotcha’’ questions that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich complained about in the last Republican debate, because she was ``a walking, talking gotcha answer.’’ The point was that she has repeatedly made foolish verbal mistakes.

But Biden has been doing that for decades. Those who keep track remind us that in August 1987, he was forced out of a presidential run when he was caught plagiarizing the words of a British Labor Party leader and inflating his law school standing. In that case, he claimed he had graduated in the top half of his class at the Syracuse University Law School, when he actually ranked 76th out of 85. 24 years later, he’s still going strong.

There he was last weekend in Chengdu, China, speaking to Sichuan University students during his official visit when he blurted out this intended criticism about that country's harshly enforced one-child-per-family rule.
His point, as he put it, was ``you have no safety net. Your policy has been one which I fully understand, I'm not second guessing, of one child per family. The result being that you're in a position where one wage earner will be taking care of four retired people. Not sustainable.’’

"Fully understand"? "I'm not second guessing"? This is a forced population control policy, he was talking about, one that the US State Department itself in 2010 called one of China's "principal human rights problems"

(As usual, the agreement with the syndicators means this colu,m appears here a week after its newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, AUG. 23, 2011

MEETING THE MEANING

BY BOB FRANKEN

Don't you sometimes wish that for once, someone would break off a romantic relationship by saying, “It's not me, it's you.” Or that a boss firing an employee would end the memo with, “We wish him the very worst.”

The point is, there are so many situations when it would be wonderful if those involved simply said what they meant, instead of using platitudes that are transparent anyway.

That's certainly the case in politics. In fact, it is almost always the case in politics. Imagine how refreshing it would be if everyone just bleated the truth instead of putting lipstick on their spinning piggishness.

The president could get over his “let's reason together” act and hammer away at the Republicans with his real feelings. Instead of calling for a “balanced approach,” he'd shout: “These tea-party crazies are out to destroy the country. Their fanaticism is matched only by their simple-minded understanding of government.” Instead of telling big business, “I'm convinced we can and must work together,” which is what he told a U.S. Chamber of Commerce meeting a few months ago, he'd tell them: “You guys are predators who have wreaked havoc on the country just to fill your financial bellies to the point of obesity. Instead of coddling you, we should arrest you -- or at the very least tax you blind!”

But no, the president prefers subtlety, based on the mistaken belief that people are in the mood for reasoned nuance. And certainly, he's not the only one who uses words as subterfuge.

(As usual, the arrangement with the syndicators means these columns appear here a week after their newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, AUG. 16, 2011

IOWA'S OUTGOING AND INCOMING

BY BOB FRANKEN

Even though it seems to be another moneymaking gimmick for the Iowa Republican Party, and even though it has a spotty record of picking eventual winners, 2011's did serve as the straw poll that broke candidates' backs. Tim Pawlenty wasted no time. After too few of those voting saw much good in Pawlenty, he quickly folded his nearly empty tent. He isn't the only also-ran who was run over.

Michele Bachmann came in No. 1, proving once and for all that the “Are you a flake?” question is irrelevant. She even topped Ron Paul, whose “Well, yes, I AM a flake” rants usually have served him well in these nonbinding tallies.

Mitt Romney opted out, but among the nonplayers, Rick Perry was the big winner. He was 1,200 miles away in South Carolina, where he stole a lot of thunder by announcing that he would be running for president himself. In spite of his studied country-boy demeanor, he demonstrated he was no hayseed. He immediately made a big splash in the pool of candidates, particularly for Romney and Bachmann.

The three have much more in common than their big hair. Like Romney, Perry is in the governor's club and can lay claim to real experience running a state. Like Bachmann, he's adored by social conservatives, including so many who would replace America's traditional religious pluralism with rigid singularism.

It is easy to dismiss their simple-minded presentations as dumb. But considering their audience, they are dumb like a Fox News. They camouflage their judgmental views with smiley faced harshness.

I'm on MSNBC tomorrow (Tuesday) morning at 9:00, Eastern. Probably will be discussing current events.

I'm on MSNBC tonight (Friday) during th 6:00 Eastern hour, the rescheduled appearance from last night.

My MSNBC hit tonight (Thursday) is now rescheduled for tomorrow (Friday). Same time: 6:00PM, Eastern hour.

I'm on MSNBC tonight (Thursday) at 6:00, Eastern, with more of the ridicule of our politicians

(As usual, the arrangement with the syndicators means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

^STEPPING OUT OF THE CRISIS ADDICTION@<

^(For use by New York Times News Service clients)@<

^By BOB FRANKEN@=

^C.2011 Hearst Newspapers@=

``My name is U.S. Politician. I am addicted to widespread destruction. I am a Debacle-holic.’’

We're looking in on a meeting of AA+ . . .the self-help organization for those who cannot resist wreaking havoc on our desperate nation. This is not the highly respected Alcoholics Anonymous. Rather, this is grossly disrespected Absurdity Anonymous. The ``+’’ means REALLY Absurb.

No one is identified, not because of secrecy, in this instance, since these people are hooked on publicity.

``I am drunk with power, poisoned by Demon Dumb. My irresponsible actions have not only brought serious harm to my family and friends but millions upon millions of others who have suffered great harm from my irresponsible actions. I am held in contempt by all of them.’’

If there was ever a need for an intervention, this would be it. Look at the polls. A Marist survey, taken Aug. 2-4, shows that a startling 70 per cent of those questioned believe the United States is heading in the wrong direction. The scary part is that there's no assurance we've fallen as far as we will.

The downward slide got a big push from that action by Standard & Poor’s, the financial rating firm, the weekend after the debt deal. It left a bad taste in everyone's mouth. Whatever S & P's competence or motivation, its downgrade rationale is difficult to dispute: ``... the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policy making and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges.’’

Maybe that blow to national self-esteem and the investment gyrations that followed were big enough jolts.

Maybe the August break can be best used for rehab programs. Then, the time might be right for the AA+ 12 Step Program:

1) Put aside personal agendas and pursue reasonable solutions that will rescue the country everyone claims to love.

2) Pass laws where those who are responsible for careless and shady dealing that led to the economic downfall are punished instead of rewarded with greater wealth.

3) Raise taxes on those who keep their riches, instead of hiring the unemployed.

4) Take steps to live up to the historic promise of equal opportunity and equal protection.

5) By all means, eliminate the fat and fat cat favoritism from government spending without cutting to the bone of social need.

6) Create a congressional mechanism where every member of government must accompany his support for or against legislation with a list of all campaign contributions that might have influenced the decision.

7) Tone down the toxic rhetoric.

That's enough. We don't need 12 Steps to get started on the road to recovery, particularly since most of these are in the ``Ain't Gonna Happen Category.’’

(As usual, the arrangement with the syndicators means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, AUG. 9, 2011

TROUBLE AND BLAME

BY BOB FRANKEN

“We got trouble, folks, right here in (Potomac) River City,

“With a capital “T” and that rhymes with “P” and that stands for Politics.”

Unlike Broadway's “Music Man,” in Washington there's no music, man. All we have is dissonance as the members of this marching band follow their own distant drummers. Instead of the shiny “76 Trombones,” they've managed, by strictly blowing their own horns, to tarnish the once-gleaming credit instruments of the United States.

When Standard & Poor's took the U.S. debt rating from the exalted Triple-A and knocked it down a notch to AA+, it knocked the nation down a notch, too. Whatever the practical effect, slipping from the top of the monetary heap to below France, Germany, Britain and Canada certainly is a wound, a real hit on our exceptionalist hubris. And it's a self-inflicted wound. A top S&P official called the bitter war over raising the borrowing limit a “debacle.”

To complete the picture, it should be noted that the other two credit-ratings agencies, Moody's and Fitch, are sticking by their AAA designations, at least for now. Just as importantly, all three of them certainly failed to cover themselves in glory leading up to the 2008 economic collapse. They all stand accused of providing unduly positive analyses of the exotic mortgage bundles, enabling the massive hustle that crumpled under the weight of financial reality. Many contend that Standard & Poor's is acting now out of skittishness.

“AAA,” by the company's definition, means that an entity has an “extremely strong capacity to meet financial commitments. “AA,” even with a “Plus,” is “Very strong.” If this were put in college terms, we'd have slid from a 4-point GPA to high 3-point, which would mean we wouldn't graduate with honors. In fact, we'd drag our entire institution out of the elite category.

In this case, just about everyone involved has dishonored his and her public-service responsibilities. This is a real morale killer. So, let's play the blame game. For starters let's turn to Congress, which is now under the control of fringe elements. It's easy to point to tea-party anarchists, but we also should reproach their craven leaders who are unwilling to corral them.

I'm on MSNBC tonight (Monday) during the 6:00 Eastern hour, picking at the remaining straws.

I'm on MSNBC tossing it back and forth with Rev. Al tonight (Thursday) during the 6:00, Eastern hour.

(As usual, the arrangement with the syndicators means these columns appear here a week after their newspaper release)

^AMERICAN POLITICS: LOW SCORE, HIGH SCORN@<

^(For use by New York Times News Service clients)@<

^By BOB FRANKEN

^C.2011 Hearst Newspapers

WASHINGTON _Members of Congress, past and present, are among the many that etiquette assigns a designation of ``HonorableÆÆ in front of their name. The proper address on a letter, for instance, is ``Honorable (Name)

Maybe the time has come to undo that tradition.

If you decide to attend some meeting with your congressperson if he or she is masochistic enough to confront constituents during the August vacation, consider offering this question: ``Are you ashamed"ask sweetly, ``that you are in Congress?"

If the answer is ``no"be concerned. Be very concerned.

He or she has just come slinking back from Washington, taking part in a process that barely avoided doing serious and lasting harm to the credit of the United States. In the process, the participants brought serious discredit on themselves, as well as their institution and the country itself. Russia's spook-strongman Vladimir Putin jumped at the chance to say that the U.S. is ``living like parasites off the global economy"

Harsh? Possibly so. But listen to the words volunteered by respondents in a Washington Post-Pew Research Center poll that asked: ``If you had to use one single word to describe your impression of the budget negotiations in Washington, what would that word be?"The survey concluded on July 31, as the debt deal was consummated.

``Ridiculous"topped the list, but ``Stupid" ``Childish," ``Idiotic" and ``Pathetic" were well represented.

A New York Times/CBS News poll showed Friday that public disapproval of Congress is at an all-time high. A record 82 percent of Americans now disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job. More than four out of five people surveyed said that the recent debt ceiling debate was more about gaining political advantage than about doing what is best for the country. Nearly three-quarters said that the debate had harmed the image of the U.S. in the world.

(As usual, the arrangement with the syndicators means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, AUG. 2, 2011

THE UNSTABLE BALANCED-BUDGET AMENDMENT

BY BOB FRANKEN

John McCain calls it “bizzaro.” Even John McCain. The reliably hardscrabble conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page calls it “crack political thinking.” This has to be loopy, particularly since it's the same old Republican/right-wing (pardon the redundancy) shtick about a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution.

This time it's been playing in the debt-crisis melodrama. You've heard the refrain -- a simple-minded song-and-dance about how the federal government should be held to the same standard as families and individuals who must live within their means. The ultimate argument is that debt is bad, whether it's public or private.

Frankly, if the cheap-shot politicians want to demean the Constitution, maybe they should set their sights higher. How about a balanced-budget amendment that simply bans borrowing by anybody? Think of it: no more monthly payments, no more defaults, no bankruptcy nor worrying about paying anybody back. Since we're tampering with the nation's fundamental charter, let's go big-time and make sure the change encompasses all facets of this nation's life.

It's living within our means, right? And never mind the really mean consequences. No longer in our personal lives will we be able to afford a house, or a car to park in the driveway or a TV inside to watch the news, which will show the economy sliding into oblivion, because no one will be buying much of anything.

It will mean that the millions of people who make the stuff we finance will be out of work; sticking with cash-only will result in not enough for buying anything, even food or medical care in an emergency. It'll work the same way with our government: If some other country decides to push the U.S. around, there will be inadequate funds to protect our nation. If there's not enough to provide for the less fortunate, they'll just get sick or starve. But hey, at least the budget will be balanced.

I'm on MS tonight (Monday) during the 6:00, Eastern, hour. Whatever is there to discuss?

(As usual, the agreement with syndicators means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

BOB-FRANKEN-HNS

EXTREME DYSFUNCTION

(For use by New York Times News Service clients)

By BOB FRANKEN

C.2011 Hearst Newspapers
WASHINGTON - "The American people may have voted for divided government," uttered a frustrated President Obama, "but they didn't vote for a dysfunctional government."

"Dysfunctional"? How about "disgusting" or other words that describe the sorry state of our national government? Sorry to disagree, Mr. President, but that's exactly how they did vote. They were already distressed with the poor performance of those in power, so they ignored all the warnings and proceeded to elect fringe candidates who made no bones that they wanted to come to D.C. and wreck the place.

And that's what they're doing. It brings to mind that old line "Cheer up, things could be worse - and sure enough they are." To put it mildly, reason is in even shorter supply these days, kept out by ideologues who won office by spouting overly simplistic solutions.

Now, they have no choice, as they see it, but to stand by their glib one-liners, even when they are exposed to the harsh complexities of grownup politics. Like so many who constantly proclaim their toughness, they're really too timid to take bold action and face the consequences of breaking naive campaign promises they shouldn't have made in the first place. They scurry on, chattering away, refusing to acknowledge the probability that their tunnel vision will send the economy down the shaft.

Here's another "diss" word: "Disdain."

There's a lot of that going around. Real Clear Politics, an online politics blog, averages all the major public opinion polls. Its July 27 average showed President Obama's job approval rating at just 45 per cent, but that is stratospheric considering the congressional number, just barely over 19 per cent.

Those who believe the country is headed in the right direction amount to 26 per cent of those asked. They're either the wealthy or those who watch cartoons when the news is on. For the most part, voters are showing true buyers' remorse, with the next chance to undo the damage over a year away when we have elections again.

(As usual, the agreement with the syndicators means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, JULY 26, 2011

THE DEBT CRISIS: DROPPING THE BALL

BY BOB FRANKEN

With the NFL wrapping up agreement while the players here in Washington drop their political footballs, it is tempting to make the comparison between a league with some fumblers and the bumblers running our country as we lurch toward economic disaster. Their turf is the quicksand of intransigence, and so far, the opponents have been unwilling to pull themselves out of their grudge match even as the bottom starts to fall out of the economy. There are cheers as the professional jocks get back to business, but polls show almost nothing but jeers for those scorned as amateurish jerks and their political monkey business.

The news and sports worlds are jam-packed with cliches. Any commentator will sooner or later quote Otto von Bismarck. What a shame he was rattling around Germany in the 1800s because he'd be quite a tweeter today (ein hochtoner auf Twitter?). The guy was a Prussian machine. Bismarck is the one who said “Laws are like sausage. You should never see them made.” I should point out that there are some who think he stole the line, but who cares; they should get a life. The point is that the present-day sausage is so riddled with ideological and rhetorical pathogens that it threatens to poison the economy.

(As usual, the agreement with syndicators means this solumn appears here a week after its newspaper release)
^WHOSE FAULT WOULD DEFAULT BE?@<
^(For use by New York Times News Service clients)@<
^By BOB FRANKEN@=
^C.2011 Hearst Newspapers@=
WASHINGTON _ The reason an important part of American greatness is teetering on the edge of her financial credibility is because the Tea Party team that the voters sent to Congress last year is keeping its promise.

Why would anyone be surprised by this?

In district after district, successful Republican candidates pledged they would cut the federal government down to size, no matter what. Disgusted voters, who were amply warned about what ``no matter what’’" meant, sent them to Washington.

Now, with a sufficient number of lawmakers to block any sort of compromise that other congressional leaders are seeking, this bloc of Tea Party-supported House members is holding fast to the rigid position of no-deal-without-painfully-crippling-cuts and no-way-on-higher-taxes-no-how, even if a financial default will result, even if they block increased borrowing authority, even if that destroys the ``Full Faith and Credit’’ that symbolizes the strength of the United States. It will severely weaken the country they profess to love.

Then there are the convenient deniers, the Michele Bachmanns of this world who want to make political hay out of the scorched earth. She's out there declaring to the world that she is not going to vote to increase the debt ceiling, because, as she puts it again and again, this is about ``scare tactics’’ from President Obama who is unwilling to ``tell the truth.’’

That ignores entities like a coalition of influential business groups, which never met a Republican they didn't like...at least until now. The Business Roundtable, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers _ usually the powerful champions of corporate self-interest _ have organized top CEOs to sign a letter to the politicians involved, warning them that “failure to raise the debt ceiling would strike an immediate and serious blow to any economic recovery, and failure to make significant progress on long-term debt reduction will continue the uncertainty which is hampering our investment climate.”

That sounds positively Obama-like, which is remarkable, but so is the danger.
This explains why Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has come up with his Plan B, which would effectively hand over the power to increase borrowing limits to Obama and, as he argued, put the onus on the White House to explain why times are so hard.

(As usual, the agreement with syndicators means this column appears a week after its newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, JULY 19, 2011

PASS THE PEAS, PASS THE BUCK

BY BOB FRANKEN

By now, possibly you've heard that “eat healthy” Michelle Obama was spotted at a baseball game ordering a milkshake, burger and french fries -- along with a Diet Coke, probably to assuage the guilt. She was busted by a Washington Post reporter who tallied the calorie count at 1,700.

The far-right, eat-UNhealthy crowd has gone bananas, and not the high-potassium kind. They are heaping scorn on the first lady for hypocrisy. Maybe, though, we should give her a serving of sympathy.

Her husband recently nagged his fellow debt-crisis negotiators that it is time to “eat our peas,” meaning they need to make huge decisions about budget cuts that are extremely unpalatable. (Imagine how many times she's heard the same “peas” line at home.) The budget talks got downright snippy. The president obviously left a bad taste in everyone's mouth.

Both Mr. and Mrs. Obama are participating in efforts to reduce the nation's unhealthy fat. Both are caught up in bitter controversy.

The first lady's various nutrition and exercise initiatives bring squeals of “nanny state” and “government intrusion” from anyone seeking a rhetorical advantage and anyone who gets campaign support from food-industry giants who market a lot of dangerous products.

Similarly, the president has slammed into a Republican Party that has become a subsidiary of the tea party. T.P. is controlled by those who insist that before they'll go along and increase the nation's borrowing limit, there must be an agreement to slash trillions of dollars from even the most fundamental social programs. They sneer at compromise even in the face of a first-ever default by the United States of America. Reduce everything, they demand, except when it comes to losing body weight.

(As usual, the agreement with the syndicators means these columns appear here a week after their newspaper release)

^WHOSE FAULT WOULD DEFAULT BE?@<

^(For use by New York Times News Service clients)@<

^By BOB FRANKEN@=

^C.2011 Hearst Newspapers@=

WASHINGTON _ The reason an important part of American greatness is teetering on the edge of her financial credibility is because the Tea Party team that the voters sent to Congress last year is keeping its promise.

Why would anyone be surprised by this?

In district after district, successful Republican candidates pledged they would cut the federal government down to size, no matter what. Disgusted voters, who were amply warned about what ``no matter what’’" meant, sent them to Washington.

Now, with a sufficient number of lawmakers to block any sort of compromise that other congressional leaders are seeking, this bloc of Tea Party-supported House members is holding fast to the rigid position of no-deal-without-painfully-crippling-cuts and no-way-on-higher-taxes-no-how, even if a financial default will result, even if they block increased borrowing authority, even if that destroys the ``Full Faith and Credit’’ that symbolizes the strength of the United States. It will severely weaken the country they profess to love.

(As usual, the arrangement with the syndicators means this column appears a week after its newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, JULY 12, 2011

UNSOUND BITES

BY BOB FRANKEN

While all the principals dither about whether they’re seeking a big deal or a not-so-big one, this is a huge deal: House Speaker John Boehner has won the mythical Sound Bite of the Week Award. As always, the competition is brutal, but in describing the maddening intricacies of the sputtering debt-ceiling negotiations as “a Rubik’s Cube that we haven’t worked out yet,” he captured the very essence of the twists and turns that frustrate a solution. He also scored points for clarity — using a plain-spoken butcomprehensive metaphor. Not only that, it was delivered in a clear eyed way (yes, that’s a cheap shot).

Most importantly, it was accurate, which sets it apart from the usual misleading bites. On any given day, the partisans stomp to microphones and cameras to confuse any given issue with their distortions. Usually, while facile, they are not entirely factual.

They blow hard from both sides and sabotage the quest for compromise, or as President Barack Obama put it in his news conference, “voices in our respective parties that are trying to undermine that effort.”

When the debate focuses on Social Security, the granddaddy (literally) of all the impossible political issues, someone always pops up on the left to shout “Social Security has never contributed to the deficit. Ever!” That’s true. But what happens in 25 years or so, when trustees say the self-sustaining trust fund will be depleted? Who will finance payments to the glut of senior citizens, unless there is reform very soon? As for the massive, costly entitlement reform, meaning Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, they are huge drains right now.

Meanwhile, on the other flank, a favorite is “job killing,” the ultimate, uh, killer sound bite. Everything the right opposes is “job killing,” a useful accusation anytime anyone has the audacity to suggest adding revenue ... readily available revenue. That means added taxes and reduced subsidies for our most prosperous individuals and corporate entities, who are paying far short of their fair share back into a nation that provided a framework for creating their fortunes.

That deception is starkly exposed right now. As the wealthy add to their piles of money, they hoard it. Witness all the big companies and money marketeers who report hefty profits. They don’t spread that around. For proof, look no further than the fact that one in six Americans is either jobless or underemployed — or worst of all, has given up even trying to find work.

(As usual, the arrangement with the syndicators means these columns appear here a week after their newspaper release)

^THE AGE OF TWITTER COULD HELP PIERCE THE WASHINGTON FOG@<
^(For use by New York Times News Service clients)@<
^By BOB FRANKEN@=
^C.2011 Hearst Newspapers@=
WASHNGTON _ That ``Hail to the Tweet’’ meet at the White House opens a lot of possibilities, even though President Obama didn't have to comply with Twitter’s rule that limits thought spurts to 140 characters.

That requirement applied to his online questioners but the president responded verbally and talked as long he wanted, which is really unfair when you consider that TV news has long adhered to micro word limits. We call them ``sound bites.’’

Even worse, he made no news whatsoever, choosing instead to do the real governing the old fashioned way...in secret. We get only hints about what really goes on behind closed doors in the negotiations over... say...the debt ceiling. Witness the pabulum we got the two sides emerged from the most recent session to give us a few of the aforementioned sound bites

President Obama called the discussions "Very constructive, adding "People were frank". And from House Speaker John Boehner it was "We had a conversation. It was productive".

Not the kind of stuff that will cause anyone information overload.

Typically, these boilerplate comments don't even begin to suggest all the intricate deal making or the complex legislation that these people are hatching. It’s often unclear whether even they understand the details or how such a labyrinthine plan fits together.

Perhaps the time has come to take the incomprehensible and simplify it. We could by imposing that 140 character limit on arguments by all the characters in Washington. Debates in Congress would no longer go on and on, press conferences would pick up some zip, the TV networks would only have to interrupt prime time programming for a couple of minutes to accommodate speeches from the White House. Think of all the free time that everyone would suddenly have available for more commercials

It's not such a radical idea, considering that some present and former members of the House have so famously had experience with Twitter.

In the Senate, of course, it will mean being dragged kicking and screaming into modern times, but maybe it really is the moment to replace the filibuster, which literally dates back to ancient Rome, with more economic and efficient ways of communication. With apologies to Broadway, maybe this is the dawning of the Age of Twitter.

If a deal is reached, we could hold the debate with dispatch in the Twitspatch:

(About the draconian cuts to social programs... Medicare and Medicaaid and Social Security accompanied by just a smattering of loophole closings which are shaping up to be the only tax increases when the President caves):

``@Barack Obama: Remember that `balanced deal’ I talked about? We didn't get it but it's the best we could do.’’

``@MitchMcConnell: (Can you believe he has a twitter address? Well he does). Yes, there are job killing tax hikes which I promised wouldn't be on the table, but it's the best we could do.’’

I am doing MSNBC tonight (Tuesday) at 6:00 Eastern. Who knows what we'll learn?

(As usual, the arrangement with syndicators, means this column is released a week after its newspaper submission)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, JULY 5, 2011

JULY 4TH: NO HOLIDAY FROM DESPERATION

BY BOB FRANKEN

Now that the July Fourth celebration of the nation's beginning has come and gone, the day off should serve as a reminder of those millions of desperate unemployed countrymen and -women who are forced to be “off” every day. The number is about 14 million, in fact; 14 million people who are trying to find jobs but cannot, in a dreary economy that is so wildly inequitable that it threatens the vision of our founders.

One poll after another shows the optimism of the American dream being jolted by the pessimism of present-day realities. A new one from CBS News/New York Times counts 39 percent of those asked who “believe the current economic downtown is part of a long-term decline and the economy will never fully recover.” Tellingly, CNN also tallies 30 percent who feel they'll lose the jobs they have now.

Nearly half of the respondents -- 48 percent -- fear a great depression. After the last crash, unemployment rose to a quarter of the workforce.

Bleak statistics explain this emotional depression: The New York Times commissioned another analysis that demonstrates how top-heavy the recovery has been. In 2010, the typical top executive at the top 200 corporations made $10 million, up 23 percent from the year before. They have been well-compensated for protecting profits, often by laying off staff. As for the holders of those stocks, the wealthiest in the U.S. make up 80 percent of them.

Pollster Mark Penn writes of a Time magazine/Aspen Ideas Festival survey in which “a startling 71 percent ... sees the U.S. as worse off than a decade ago.” Is it any wonder? “Americans,” he goes on, “blame their leaders and politicians for the decade of decline.” That's not hard to understand, considering the day in, day out display of self-interest chaos that passes for government. But blaming the “leaders and politicians” only tells part of the story.

The melancholy also is fueled by the feeling of being helpless to do anything about the stockpiling of financial resources by an amoral cabal of the wealthy. This self-anointed royalty is hoarding misbegotten trillions of dollars that should be plowed into an economic rescue. They get away with it by manipulating their office-holding puppets.

I'm doing MSNBC tonight during the 6PM, Eastern, hour. Could be about politics but that's just a wild guess.

^BACHMANN’S NEW TONE: FAREWELL TO ALL THAT@<
^(For use by New York Times News Service clients)@<
^By BOB FRANKEN@=
^C.2011 Hearst Newspapers@=
WASHINGTON _ It was the right thing to do. Chris Wallace, host of the ``Fox News Sunday’’ show, called an ``insulted’’ Michele Bachmann and said he's sorry. She has accepted his apology for asking her: ``Are you a flake?’’

He got a lot of flak for that, deservedly so. It was demeaning. And it was not exactly the right question.

After watching her official candidacy speech in Waterloo, Iowa, where she presented herself as the ``voice of reasonable, fair-minded people,’’ she now calls herself a ``unifier.’’

Her suddenly mellow tone had played well at the New Hampshire debate a couple weeks earlier so she’s now avoiding the incendiary rhetoric that made her a cable news inciter. She has switched from careless to calculated. So, the proper question is: ``Are you a fake?’’

Anybody who's been paying attention knows that Michele Bachmann has built her political career on ``Don't Confuse Me with the Facts’’ sound bites that range from bombast to bomb blast. She was right out in front of the fringe parade last November with the claim that President Obama's trip to India would cost $200 million a day.

Never mind that this was hogwash. She put it out there and the Obama haters had new reason to hate _ and to love her for it. Her oratorical resume is splattered with McCarthyisms, such as the suggestion in 2008 that members of Congress should be investigated for being ``anti-American.’’

She is stridently conservative, arguing, ``Literally, if we took away the minimum wage, if conceivably it was gone, we could potentially wipe out unemployment completely, because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level.’’ She overlooks the possibility that if we went all the way in that direction, to outright slavery, we could have full employment. Maybe she's forgetting that's been tried.

Her grasp of history has become legendary. Her most recent flub came in the opening speech of her campaign, in Waterloo, Iowa, where she was born, and where she is hoping to triumph in the state's first-in-the-nation delegate-selection competition. She declared that Waterloo was the home of John Wayne. Actually, it was the birthplace of John Wayne Gacy, the gruesome serial murderer.

Still Bachmann is running a killer campaign. She has shot to the top of the latest Des Moines Register poll that shows her neck and neck with Mitt Romney for the lead among Iowa Republicans.

They are a particularly conservative bunch in the state, so she gets a lot of points for her support for teaching ``intelligent design’’ in schools or rallying people to be ``armed and dangerous’’ in their opposition to an energy tax or last year claiming that Obama administration policies were ``turning our country into a nation of slaves.’’

(As usual, the arrangement with syndicators means these columns appear here a week after their newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 2011

CUTBACKS IN AFGHANISTAN AND THE UNITED STATES

BY BOB FRANKEN

It's hard to argue with President Barack Obama when he says, “America, it is time to focus on nation-building here at home.” Let's face it: That “exceptionalism” to which so many demagogues cling is in dire need of repair “here at home.” To put it bluntly, we are tapped out.

The debate about whether the U.S. has a moral obligation to protect the severely oppressed around the world is beside the point. Plainly and simply, the United States of America is stretched too thin -- its armed forces as well as its financial resources.

Two wars and one in Libya that the White House insists isn't really a “hostility” have sapped the country's energy. At home, no matter how many experts insist that the recession is over, desperate millions are still mired in its rubble.

Decades of fiscal irresponsibility have left an economy that is close to being crushed. It's not just a case of overspending; it's also the matter of catering to the rich and powerful who continuously have been allowed not to pay their fair share.

Worst of all, the political system that must somehow come to the rescue is itself paralyzed; the voices of reason and cooperation that are essential have been strangled silent. Instead, we get spectacle, like Republicans flouncing out of negotiating sessions because Democrats would even dare to talk about raising taxes on the wealthy. Democrats are no better, many refusing to budge when it comes to shaving back expenditures no matter how extravagant or unnecessary.

As laudable as each social program sounds, almost every one has flab that can be trimmed. That is certainly the case when it comes to defense spending. And yes, the entitlements, meaning Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, certainly could be reworked so that they could continue to protect the aged and needy but do so in less wasteful ways. The alternative is a looming bankruptcy.

I am on MSNBC tonight (Friday), during the 6:00 (Eastern) hour. Meaning, of course you will delay your weekend plans. Am I right or wrong?

(As usual, the arrangement with the syndicators means these columns appear here a week after their newspaper release)

^(For use by New York Times News Service clients)@<
^By BOB FRANKEN@=
^C.2011 Hearst Newspapers@=
WASHINGTON _ It's a great song: ``All my exes live in Texas.” George Strait goes on to explain that's why he lives in Tennessee.

Now we have Rick Perry, who proves some excess lives in Texas. At the moment, he's tippy-toeing around the idea of trying to leave the Lone Star state, after more than 10 years as governor, not for Tennessee but for D.C., which he basically promises to shut down if he became president.

So far, he's just a campaign tease, spreading the gospel about limited government and his version of economic success, while his many detractors bitterly complain that he is trying to use the Gospel to preach discriminationand telling a glaringly incomplete story about how good things are back home.

His latest controversy swirls around that massive August 6 “Call to Prayer” he is fronting in Houston's Reliant Stadium. He calls it ``apolitical’’ but defenders of the separation of church and state call it unconstitutional, citing his clarion call to ``come together and call upon Jesus to guide us through unprecedented struggles and thank Him for the blessings of freedom.’’
That might leave out a whole lot of Americans who are free to not call upon Jesus as their personal savior.

This is an event that is sponsored by the American Family Association, an organization that the Southern Poverty Law Center calls an anti-gay ``ate group.’’ One AFA top official, Bryan Fischer, even blames the Holocaust on homosexuals that made up ``all of the Storm Troopers (and) the Brownshirts.’’

Rick Perry makes no bones about his hard-right agenda. He's all for teaching Intelligent Design. On the ``anti’’-side there are gays, abortion, and the federal government unless . . . he's accepting federal money for the state. Otherwise, as he told the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, ``Our goal is to displace the entrenched powers in Washington.”

This is the governor who repeatedly pushes “anti-groping" state legislation that would prohibit TSA security people from conducting their controversial pat downs at airport checkpoints. Never mind that U.S. officials say they would refuse to let planes fly out of Texas if Perry signs the law.

(As usual, the arrangement with the syndicators allows the appearance of these columns here a week after their newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, JUNE 21, 2011

PAWLENTY OF NOTHING

BY BOB FRANKEN

Tim Pawlenty has gotten a case of the “shouldas,” as in telling Fox News' Sean Hannity “I should have been much more clear during the debate.” The statement follows the criticism that he was fainthearted when facing off on CNN against Mitt Romney and the other Republican candidates.

The beginning of his saga was nasty enough. On “Fox News Sunday,” he had taken a shot at the Massachusetts health-care plan that was Mitt Romney's creation as governor of the state, and model for the hated “Obamacare” that Romney is now repudiating every chance he gets as he disowns his public record. Pawlenty called it “Obamneycare.” But the day after, when he had Mitt in the palm of his hands, standing right there, T-Paw was too polite, the detractors charge.

The frustrated moderator, John King, even tried to goad him, asking: “If it was Obamneycare on 'Fox News Sunday,' why is it not Obamneycare here with the governor right there?”

Pawlenty refused to take the bait, depriving us all of the type of sound bite that makes these encounters memorable. One of the best examples is the unforgettable moment in the 1988 vice presidential debate. Democratic candidate Lloyd Bentsen confronted Dan Quayle over a comparison to JFK and scornfully lowered the boom with: “I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you are no Jack Kennedy.”

Given the accusation that Mitt Romney has spent so much time racing to the far right and away from his record on health care and the likes of gun control and abortion, how magical it would have been if Pawlenty had looked to Romney and said: “I knew Mitt Romney. You are no Mitt Romney.”

Alas, it didn't happen, and now Pawlenty is backtracking, after backtracking from his criticism of Romney's backtracking. One explanation of his squeamishness is that he has a bad case of “Minnesota nice,” given how the state prides itself in good manners. The problem is that good manners just don't cut it in a presidential campaign.

I'm doing MSNBC this evening (Thursday) during the 6:00 PM, Eastern, hour, offering solutions to all the nation's problems. Won't want to miss that.

(As usual, per the arrangement with syndicators, this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

^THE PRECIPITOUS DOWNFALL OF ANTHONY WEINER@<

^(For use by New York Times News Service clients.)@<

^By BOB FRANKEN@=

^c.2011 Hearst Newspapers@=

It's called "Chinese Water Torture", even though it apparently has nothing to do with the Chinese. Instead, the term came, for unexplained reasons, from escape artist Harry Houdini. We all know it refers to the slow dripping of water on the head of an unfortunate, which eventually drives him crazy.

Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., couldn't escape. He has been driven from Congress by the Chinese Water Torture of new Twitter escapade revelations. Why is it that these situations inevitably end up featuring some porno movie actress? This time, her name is Ginger Lee.

And why are they invariably represented by Gloria Allred, the prominent attorney and preeminent self promoter? In comparison to Allred, the always available Anthony Weiner was a media recluse.

We all knew how this would end after the steady erosion of support from most of his "friends" in politics, to say nothing of his foes.

Yes "friends" is in quotes. The cliche is if you want one in Washington, "get a dog." In this case, except for a few diehards, everyone else here was snapping at his heels as he fled to rehab. He had requested and been granted a two week leave from the House, but the clamor for Weiner to simply "LEAVE" grew too loud to ignore. So he disconsolately trudged to Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn _ where he first declared himself a candidate for city council in 1991 _ to tell the world he was stepping down.

The announcement came in a tumultuous news event that could only happen in New York. The screaming made mincemeat of any hope by Weiner that he could have made a graceful exit. He had tried to hang on, but "The distraction that I have created has made that impossible"

He had infuriated his fellow Democrats, who were about to meet in Washington and take action to strip him (pardon the expression) of his committee assignments, which would render him ineffective. Now Governor Andrew Cuomo will schedule a special election

(As usual, these columns appear here, per the arrangement with the syndicators a week after their newspaper release. This was one overtaken by subsequent events)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2011

WEINER AND LOSERS

BY BOB FRANKEN

Last we heard, Rep. Anthony Weiner's wife didn't want him to resign from Congress, perhaps because she simply didn't want him moping around the house. His fellow Democrats don't want him moping around the House, either, while they shun him for his Twitter escapades. Weiner himself has sought the all-too-familiar refuge of rehab, proving once again that D.C. truly is “Hollywood East.” Through representatives, he is now hedging on whether he'll resign. That's after Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has turned on him, urging him “to seek that help without the pressure of being a member of Congress.”

The Democrats have plenty of pressure to deal with themselves, playing D-fense while R's pile on. On the “Meet the Press” playing field, GOP party Chairman Reince Priebus argued that Weiner had “turned this town and this country into a three-ring circus.” His Democratic counterpart, Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, shot back that Priebus was using a “double standard.” That's hard to argue, given how getting caught, online and off, with your pants down in Washington is bipartisan, in fact, bi-everything.

If this flippancy seems cold, consider how obvious it should be, by now, that unlike Las Vegas, what goes on Twitter goes everywhere. Any fool should know that. Unfortunately, Weiner is only the latest fool on the Hill who insolently believed that he was somehow exempt.

Mindless sensationalism though it may be, this is still worth discussing because of the important insight it provides into the immaturity of some of those we have elected to deal with the nation's grown-up issues. Forget how juvenile his behavior, Weiner's biggest sin was flaunting it without even stopping to think about the consequences. That has to be really galling to the many conscientious members who get splattered with the embarrassment of a reckless few.

To make matters worse, Weiner ignored the bromide that the cover-up is worse than the un-cover-up. Now he's embarrassed, or at least, that's how he plays it for the cameras. It's hard to know if he's chagrined about what he did or for getting caught; for lying about it or for getting caught lying. He even gave a deceptive interview to Wolf Blitzer! If that's not a crime, it should be.

Although anything but impartial, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor nails it when he says: “We've got a lot of serious challenges going on in this country and a lot of work for Congress to do. The last thing we need is to be immersed in a discussion about Congressman Weiner and his Twitter activities.”

I'll be talking politics tomorrow (Saturday) morning on MSNBC at 8:00 AM. You'll be up, won't you?

(As usual the arrangement with syndicators means these columns appear here a week after their newspaper release)

^(For use by New York Times News Service clients)@<
^By BOB FRANKEN@=
^C.2011 Hearst Newspapers@=
WASHINGTON _ For those weary of Anthony Wiener and the word play with his name, let's move on and consider GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain. It's time for a Cain Scrutiny.

The man is conservative with a capital ``C.’’ He told the CBS Morning News Wednesday: ``I believe homosexuality is a sin. . . I believe it is a choice.’’

His position on Muslims, he says to Glenn Beck, would require them to prove their loyalty to the Constitution before they could serve in his administration, unlike, say, Catholics or Mormons.

It's easy to understand how the most recent Gallup poll of self-identified Republicans, raises Cain to the top when it comes to what Gallup labels as ``Positive Intensity Score,’’ which means a strongly favorable opinion.

Mitt Romney, who is leading the overall GOP preference pack, is in the tepid intensity range. So is Newt Gingrich. Michele Bachmann shows up well and Sarah Palin does OK but they are no Herman Cains, who has become a regular Mr. Excitement.

This shouldn't be a surprise. The Herminator, as he likes to call himself, does not engage in nuanced rhetoric. To lengthy applause at the Conservative Political Action Conference in February, he declared that ``stupid people are running America’’ and that liberals are ``liars.’’ It sure doesn't hurt his cause that he's an African-American with appeal to those who have tried to shed accusations that their opposition to Barack Obama is tinged with racism.
``Don’t condemn me,’’ he quipped to the Manchester Union Leader, ``because the first black one was bad.’’

I'll be on MSNBC, poisoning the political debate again tonight (Wednesday), during the 6:00 PM, Eastern hour.

(As usual, the arrangement with the syndicators means these columns appear here a week after their newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 2011

BEYOND MARRIAGE AND THE MOMENTS OF SEX

BY BOB FRANKEN

This shouldn't be a provocative question, but sadly it will be: Why is an act that, timewise, takes up a tiny part of our existence such a huge factor in how we're defined? Yes, this is about sex. When you strip away (pun intended) all the dogma, you are left with an activity that doesn't come close to consuming our schedule in the way that commuting or shopping or other day-to-day mundania do.

Gay mania seems hard-wired into so many people's procreative reflexes. But analysis demonstrates that we, as a society, finally are plodding away from this primitive revulsion to what we like to call “alternative lifestyles,” a term that betrays an overemphasis on the brief moments spent partaking in it. A 1996 Gallup poll found that only 27 percent of respondents favored a right to same-sex marriage. Gallup's most recent shows majority acceptance. It's simply the latest to do so. The various prominent surveys indicate an even higher level of support for civil unions; more than six-in-10 are for the concept.

Non-heterosexuality remains a perilous flash point, because of those who can't get past their oppressive passions. In mid-May, the Minnesota Legislature found it politically necessary to offer on the 2012 ballot an amendment to the state constitution banning same-sex marriage.

On the other side of the debate, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is trying to appeal to the conscience of state senators to stop avoiding the issue, chiding: “Do you want to be remembered as a leader on civil rights? Or an obstructionist?” He's pushing them to tackle a bill that would permit gay marriage, as the laws now do in five states and the District of Columbia.

At the same time, the Rhode Island House of Representatives has passed a bill granting civil-union rights to same-sex couples. Final passage would mean Rhode Island would join several other states choosing that approach -- Illinois, Delaware and Hawaii joined the list this year. It's the middle ground that, even with its legal protections, leaves many gays dissatisfied, since they contend it still makes them second-class citizens.

Maybe there's an answer to that. What if state-sanctioned marriage, involving couples of any coupling persuasion, was taken out of the equation? What if all unions -- with the rights, responsibilities and deductions -- were recognized under the law. Marriage itself would be reserved for the religious or ceremonial in the venue of the couple's choice, only as a supplement to the licensed binding relationship.

(As usual, the arrangement with the syndicators means these columns appear here a week after their newspaper release)

^SARAH PALIN STUMPING AND TRUMPING@<

^(For use by New York Times News Service clients)@<

^By BOB FRANKEN@=

^C.2011 Hearst Newspapers@=

WASHINGTON _ Of course The Donald would invite The Sarah up to his New York penthouse. She is, after all, taking her Clampett bus expedition to American shrines, and that's what Donald Trump considers himself.

In addition Sarah Palin and Trump share two interests: presidential politics and sham reality shows. Actually, that's just one.

``What do we have in common?’’ she responded after the get-together. ``Our love for this country, a desire to see our economy put back on the right track.’’ They both also have a remarkable ability to turn reporters into shills who chase after them to snap up whatever crumbs they toss.

Palin can even keep a straight face when she tells her Fox News BFF Greta Van Susteren that her bus jaunt isn't ``a publicity-seeking tour.’’ All the while she's getting disproportionate publicity from the very news people she disparages.

``I don't owe anything to the mainstream media,’’ she gloats. Actually, she might feel she owes us a measure of sweet revenge for making her squirm in the 2008 election, when she ran as the Republican vice presidential nominee. According to her disenchanted former top aide Frank Bailey in his new book ``Blind Allegiance to Sarah Palin,’’ the former governor of Alaska is someone who would ``routinely set out to destroy those who criticized her or her loved ones.’’

If that's what she wants to do to news coverage of political campaigns, more power to her. Her relentless attacks on the news media could result in some reforms that are long overdue.

It's high time that the usual candidate-journalist symbiosis is ripped apart. For too long some of us have been the lazy ``Boys (and girls) on the Bus.’’ Sarah Palin would be doing a great service if she continued to keep reporters off her bus and disrupted the inevitable Stockholm Syndrome that results from such extended captivity.

I join MS host Cenk Uygur tonight during the 6:00 PM hour for some verbal razzle dazzle

(As usual, this column appears here a week after its newspaper release, per the arrangement with the syndicators)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, MAY 31, 2011

THE UNREAL REALITY SHOW

BY BOB FRANKEN

With Sarah Palin now playing her maybe/maybe-not mind games, it's easy to forget how Donald Trump did his dance on the heads of those of us desperate for an interesting political narrative, no matter how flimsy. In fact, after pulling to a halt, The Donald has restarted his trip through egoland, even while The Sarah takes her bus ride through the same territory.

Trump is now saying he “won't rule out” reversing course and might run for president after all. Presumably, that decision will come right about the time his “Apprentice” show begins a new season and needs some promotion. What a shame, because his exit statement actually contained some food for thought. Consider this line: “I will not shy away from expressing the opinions that so many of you share yet don't have a medium through which to articulate.”

Yes, the word “shy” in connection with Trump is ludicrous, but his point that so many of us don't feel like anyone in the politics biz is taking up our cause certainly hits home. How many polls do we need to demonstrate that?

Look no further than the current foolishness about the debt ceiling. Vice President Joe Biden says that his bipartisan group of negotiators is closing in on budget cuts “well above $1 trillion pretty quick.” There are no specifics about which desperate needs of the poor, the young and the infirm are on the table, while tax hikes for the rich are kept off by adamant Republicans.

As for the elderly, GOP leaders still are defiant about their plan to gut Medicare despite the battering they're taking. Even after the issue wrenched an ultrasafe district from his party, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell says it is “still on the table.”

This unmellow drama is largely a contrivance, because the Republicans and Democrats could have reached an agreement on time if someone hadn't told them that the delinquency wouldn't occur immediately after the May 15 deadline. Instead, the United States government will have to play a financial shell game while partisan drama kings and queens get their maximum attention and scare us all to death.

(As usual, the arrangement with the syndicators means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

^THE ELECTION TOO FAR TO CALL@<
^(For use by New York Times News Service clients)@<
^By BOB FRANKEN@=
^C.2011 Hearst Newspapers@=
WASHINGTON _ The ``D’’ wins a special congressional election in what had been a long-safe ``R’’ congressional district in Upstate New York, after it became a referendum over Tea Party-driven overreach on Medicare reform.

The Republican Presidential lineup thus far is a collection of really light hitters and those, like Newt Gingrich, who are prone to strike out the moment they strike out on the campaign trail.
Many of those who might be sluggers _ Mitch Daniels, Haley Barbour and Mike Huckabee _ have decided to sit this game out. The rest of the field is left to some unflashy players, Tim Pawlenty, Jon Huntsman and others who have made a name for themselves mainly for having little name recognition. The moment's leader of the pack, Mitt Romney, can come across as a mannequin.

So, it's easy to see that the Republicans have Barack Obama exactly where they want him.
Yes, it is true that the president will probably have a clear track to nomination, a contrast to the other side's littered pathway. Never forget, however, how easy it is for a commanding lead to get chewed up by infighting and complacency.

Let's traipse back a couple decades to the initial term of President George H.W. Bush. He had led a coalition in the popular 1991 Iraq war, the first one. At this point, he was riding high, and the Democrats' usual suspects for running against him were bailing out because it looked like the incumbent would float to re-election.

That gave the governor of a small state, Bill Clinton of Arkansas, the chance he needed to take a shot. He was... after all, the ``Man from Hope,’’ _ Hope, Ark., that is. So when Bush-1 showed that instead of being out of reach, he was out of touch, Clinton overcame the incumbency advantages. Add to the mix the goofy but effective third party effort by Ross Perot, and William Jefferson Clinton won the White House. More to the point, George Herbert Walker Bush had forfeited.

(As usual the arrangement with syndicators means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, MAY 24, 2011

GAY BULLYING

BY BOB FRANKEN

This has to stop. Think what you will about Rupert Murdoch's various franchises ... and what a lot of people think is downright ugly. But whether people hate them or not, his U.S. news organizations are operating in a country with a jealously guarded free-press tradition. It doesn't matter how slanted they are. So, efforts by interest groups that slant the other way to apply economic pressure, or by a White House trying to intimidate Murdoch properties, are flat out un-American.

His Boston Herald was excluded from a press pool covering a presidential trip to Boston. The tabloid had run a story about Republican almost-candidate Mitt Romney that covered the full front page. Someone in Obamaland decided that was inappropriate.

Spokesman Matt Lehrich put out a statement saying, “I tend to consider the degree to which papers have demonstrated to covering the White House regularly and fairly in determining local pool reporters.” Lehrich and his administration colleagues insist they do not have any punishment agenda. To turn the Fox News chant inside out, “You decide, we'll report.”

To be fair, many administration officials do appear on Fox News. That list has included the president. But there also have been instances where these people shut out the channel or favor others as blatant retaliation. To be even fairer, though, we should point out that every White House I've ever reported on has played the same game.

The Bush leaguers, both 1 and 2, often would raise Cain about this or that, sometimes with a heavy-handed suggestion that access to their stars would dry up. That is a potent threat, given how TV news relies so heavily on live talking heads. The Clintonistas often would try to shut down my coverage of their boss's various escapades. And no one needs to be reminded about the sinister coercion from Richard Nixon and his henchmen.

Us usual, the arrangement with the syndicators means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

^THE NEWT AND MITT EVOLUTIONS@<

^(For use by New York Times News Service clients)
^By BOB FRANKEN

^C.2011 Hearst Newspapers
WASHINGTON _ They have a lot in common. It's a safe bet that when Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich pondered a presidential race they had no idea that they'd be racing backward.

Gingrich, when he's not hatefully base playing, occasionally wants to peddle some food for thought. So, on ``Meet the Press,just two days after his candidacy announcement, he decided to show he wasn't just a party hack, by hacking away at Republican gospel in the form of House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan's call to radically transform Medicare.

The Ryan plan _ which would provide eligible beneficiaries with vouchers to pay for their own private health insurance _ was ``right wing social engineering",Gingrich said.

Big mistake. Instantly, the clobbering began. His fellow Republicans began calling him every name but Newt. South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley was typical. ``Here you have Rep. Ryan trying to bring common sense to this world of insanity and Newt absolutely cut him off from the knees",she complained.

It's more like Gingrich cut himself off at the knees. So he called Ryan to apologize for what he called ``inelegant" language.

Of course, he's reflexively blaming ``media minions" for all this controversy. That was a quote from Rick Tyler, his spokesman. Faulting the press, or what Gingrich himself has called the ``gotcha press", is the default conservative excuse for anything.

Gingrich preemptively also took on paid media, meaning the inevitable future commercials from his political opponents: After Gingrich retracted his words he announced: ``Any ad which quotes what I said on Sunday is a falsehood."

He had blurted the words, he explained, after an ambush question on ``Meet the Press". It was all a big surprise, he insisted. ``It didn't occur to me going in that you'd have a series of setups". Gingrich has been a guest on the program 35 times.

(As usual, the arrangement with the syndicators means these columns appear here at least a week after their newspaper release and are sometimes overtaken by subsequent events)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2011

GINGRICH -- AFFAIR ASSESSMENT

BY BOB FRANKEN

Give the man some credit. Newt Gingrich isn't shying away from what one friend calls his “nontraditional” love life, which is to say two divorces and an admitted affair with his current wife leading up to marriage number three. It's a proven tactic. Tell everything, take all questions, and the people will get tired of hearing about it, since we all have the attention span of gnats.

Now that Gingrich has made his presidential run official, he was on “Meet The Press” expressing his hopefulness, saying, “I have a large number of social conservatives who support me because, as we've talked this through, they've reached a different conclusion about what America needs and what I can bring in trying to fill that role of leader.”

Make what you will about the fact that as House speaker, Gingrich kept alive the pursuit of President Bill Clinton's observance of the “nontraditional,” but he's right. Even though an April NBC poll showed that a little less than half of its respondents were comfortable with a candidate who has had “multiple marriages,” it's usually way more complicated than that. No matter how sanctimonious candidates may be, they are humans and their relationships are almost always tangled. The truth is that except for the automatons, most of these people are like the rest of us; they take their pants off just like you and me.

Gingrich also is correct in that there is so much more to discuss about the perception that his career is one big, calculated cheap shot. Barely two days after his announcement that he was off and running, he called President Barack Obama “the most successful food-stamp president in modern American history.”

Racist? “That's bizarre,” he declared on “Meet the Press.” His shopworn accusation that Obama didn't believe in “American exceptionalism” wasn't jingoism either. Would his recent alerts about a “gay and secular fascism” be an appeal to dark homophobic feelings, or is his constant attack on Islam or “Radical Islam” simply pushing a reliable bigot button? Don't be silly.

(As usual, the agreement with the syndicators means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

^FIGHTING THE PENTAGON BUDGET BATTLES. . . AND LOSING@<
^(For use by New York Times News Service clients)@<
^By BOB FRANKEN@=
^C.2011 Hearst Newspapers@=
WASHINGTON _ President Eisenhower fell far short in his 1961 farewell address when he warned that ``we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex.’’

He understated matters. It's a much more convoluted military-industrial-political-lobbying-bureaucratic complex. When it comes time to slash unnecessary defense spending, its influence can prove to be impenetrable.

Thanks to clever corporations that spread the manufacture of their billion-dollar big-ticket weapons bonanzas over dozens or even hundreds of congressional districts, they create a Gordian knot of employment that members of the House or Senate would untangle only at their political peril.

Enter Leon Panetta, now the CIA director but soon to become the new Pentagon chieftain. At least he knows how the game is played. After all, he was once a chairman of the House Budget Committee and one-time director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget.

But he hasn't been a secretary of the Department of Defense, surrounded by all the special interests who want to maintain their pet programs, no matter how obsolete or sometimes outright useless.

So when Panetta's soon-to-be predecessor, Robert Gates, insisted last year on shutting down the duplicate jet engine program for the F-35 Strike Force fighter, he went through lobbying and political hell. The redundant engine was finally stricken from the budget as an obvious waste.

But the pain was spread among many congressional districts, so sure enough, when the House Armed services committee rolled out its package for the new Pentagon budget, it included an amendment with procedures that could resurrect that second engine. We should not be surprised.

Gates had rattled his military-industrial-etc. constituency by proclaiming he would ram through $78 billion in Pentagon budget cuts over 10 years (the F-35 redundant engine accounted for $3 billion). That seemed quite bold, until President Obama chimed in to say he expected $400 billion in Pentagon cuts in the next 12 years, which seemed even bolder, until we heard from experts that even $400 billion in cuts would be relatively easy to attain.

(As usual, this column appears here, per arrangement with the syndicators, a week after its newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, MAY 6, 2011

DIMMING THE BIN LADEN LUSTER

Why do they do that so often? Why do our leaders, both in and out of uniform, find it imperative to take a super human military exploit and embellish it with an exaggerated narrative. Inevitably, they wind up taking shining victories and tarnishing them. They should know that. So is it some sort of compulsion?

Obviously, this is brought to mind by the awkwardness that followed astonishing heroics of the Navy Seals who took out Osama Bin Laden. 10 years of pent up frustration would have exploded into celebration in the same way, without US counter-terrorism chief John Brennan garnishing the saga. Their claim bin Laden was armed when he was shot dead and that he had used one of his wives as a human shield were great drama, but fiction.

They are usually unnecessary and only serve to distract from the national pride. Excuses like "Fog of War" fall flat and leave an opening for the opposition. In this case, GOP Congressman Pete Sessions of Texas had a good question: "Why don't they just say they don't know?"

To their credit, Obama administration leaders quickly owned up, which is far better than some of the coverups attewerempted during the Bush years.

Look at the hard feelings that fester still today over the combat death of former NFL star Pat Tillman. His valor was a legend itself, but now his legacy has been turned bitter because of the top level attempts to suppress the truth that he had been killed by friendly fire.

(As usual, the arrangement with thesyndicators means my columns appearhere a week after their newspaper release)

^AFTER THE BIN LADEN VICTORY, IT’S BACK TO BUSINESS@<
^(For use by New York Times News Service clients)@<
^By BOB FRANKEN@=
^C.2011 Hearst Newspapers@=
WASHINGTON _ Now that our leaders have shown they can take decisive steps to protect us from the mortal dangers of terrorism, maybe this is the time to demonstrate they can also rescue us from the corrosive effects of politics.

The matter of raising the debt ceiling is an immediate case in point. Wouldn't it be nice if the glow of unity that accompanies the end of Osama Bin Laden would spread into the tough debate that is revving up over raising the debt ceiling, considering that failure to do so could undermine the nation's financial credibility and credit for the foreseeable future?

Interestingly, in the same morning President Obama travelled to Ground Zero in New York, Vice President Joe Biden was convening the first budget negotiation between warring politicians in Washington.

Democrats have been calling for a clean bill that would raise the borrowing limit without any linkage to budget cuts. No way, say Republicans, who want to extract more spending cuts before they embrace a higher debt ceiling.

Biden bowed to reality and said: ``They're not technically connected but the fact of the matter is they're practically and politically connected.’’

And House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., conceded that he was ``under no illusion’’ that the Medicare slices he proposed would survive the political storm that was already thundering.

That's a start but they're a long, long way from determining how to undig each side's heels on spending cuts and tax increases. How often will we hear Republican House Speaker John Boehner mellifluously speak about Democratic ``job destroying’’ spending proposals and President Obama's mantra about the need to ``win the future.’’

(As usual, the arrangement with the syndicatoirs means these columns appear here at least a week after their newspaper release. This was written right after Osama biin Laden's death)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, MAY 3, 2011

THE TERRORISM WAR TRIUMPH, THE POLITICAL WAR MOMENTARY PAUSE

BY BOB FRANKEN

“Justice has been done” said President Barack Obama, as he dramatically announced the death, finally, of Osama Bin Laden, who was shot down in a meticulously planned effort by a U.S. special operations unit at his compound in Pakistan. The troops became national heroes for executing their violent and dangerous mission -- a mission that had been unaccomplished for nearly 10 years, during which hopes of retribution had been frustrated.

Let's be honest: Sometimes revenge is the best revenge. So the national celebration was immediate, with spontaneous crowds gathering to cheer outside the White House, at ground zero and around the country, even overseas.

The political impact will take time to evolve.

Obviously, Obama gets a huge boost, after all the opposition accusations that he has been too timid against terrorism. Although bin Laden roamed free during the administration of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney often has made the charge that Obama was soft on terrorism, complaining, for instance, “President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war.” Now, Bush, Cheney's ostensible boss, is calling the dispatch of bin Laden a “momentous achievement.”

The administration made sure we knew Obama had personally approved the raid and participated in months of planning. After all, how many times have we been confronted with reminders by American extremists and opportunists that “Obama” and “Osama” sound alike? Their relentless intolerance has taken many forms, the “Birther” obscenity being just one of them. They're the hateful manifestations of “He's not one of us.”

As usual, the arrangement with syndicators allows these columns to appear here a week after their newspaper released. Obviously a lot has happened since then)

^THE OIL COMPANIES OFFER A SLICK JUSTIFICATION FOR THEIR HUGE PROFITS@<
^(For use by New York Times News Service clients)@<
^By BOB FRANKEN@=
^C.2011 Hearst Newspapers@=
WASHINGTON _ What ingrates we are. How could we even think of rolling back $4 billion a year in tax subsidies for big oil and gas? Just because the energy corporation-nations are making even more gargantuan profits as they reap the windfall from gasoline prices that are bringing our economy to its knees, we're whining about their special-favor treatment. Have we no pride?

Has John ``I Never Met a Lobbyist I Didn't Like’’ Boehner turned into a mushy wimp when he said that ``we certainly should take a look at’’ the billions in tax subsidies the industry gets, at a time when the government is desperately looking for ways to close the budget deficit?
We expect that from President Obama and the Democrats, but Boehner? Doesn't he, doesn't everybody, realize that even though these gas and oil industry profits are extracted from all of us, the pain is worth it?

So as the reports of stratospheric quarterly earnings skyrocket, just remember, they're good for us, like really foul-tasting medicine.

Don't take my word for it. We can thank the American Petroleum Institute for a brand new study that explains the public service its member conglomerates perform. According to Karl Isakower, who is API's vice president of regulatory and economic policy, ``The oil and gas industry supports millions of jobs and a significant portion of our economy and the retirement benefits of America's teachers, police officers and thousands of others with a pension or 401(k).’’

The API study analyzed four states' public employee pension plans that invest heavily in energy stocks and therefore benefit from these profits. The API study was publicized to blunt any public anger about soaring oil company profits at a time when gasoline prices are hitting $4 a gallon.

And, days after the API study was released, sure enough, Exxon said it earned nearly $11 billion in the first quarter, compared with $6.3 billion, or 1.33 per share a year ago. Revenue increased 26 percent to $114 billion. The results even surprised Wall Street which had estimated $2.04 per share on sales of $112.6 billion. Shell, Occidental and Apache also announced results that were extremely prosperous.

(As usual, per the arrangement with the syndicators, this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

^FRITTERING AWAY FULL FAITH AND CREDIT@<
^(For use by New York Times News Service clients)@<
^By BOB FRANKEN@=
^C.2011 Hearst Newspapers@=
WASHINGTON _ Few phrases capture the sense of this nation's indestructible grandeur than the promise that a loan to the government is backed by the ``Full Faith and Credit of the United States.’’It means, according to various dictionaries, ``An unconditional commitment to pay interest and principal on debt....no matter what.’’ The Standard and Poor's company less elegantly assigns an ``AAA’’ designation to the highest quality securities, which have always included those issued by the U.S.

It's obvious where this is going: We are faced with a spreading perception that those who lead the government are squandering that precious faith in the country's financial credit. S&P fired a warning shot by reducing the description of U.S. sovereign debt from “Stable” to “Negative” while retaining the AAA rating for government debt for now.

Obvious though it may seem, it is still startling to read that the Standard and Poor's committee of experts was predicting there was a one-in-three chance that S&P would lower the all-important triple-A rating within the next two years because ``we believe there is a material risk that U.S. policymakers might not reach agreement on how to address medium and long-term budget challenges by 2013.’’

It caused immediate stock market reflux. The Treasury Department hastily put out an antacid statement insisting that S&P is ``underestimating the ability of America's leaders to come together.’’ Is it possible someone wrote that with a straight face and that the folks at Treasury so OVER-estimate the potential for meaningful accommodation?

What's really incredible is how much the warning shocked everybody, given all the loose cannon fire from Democrats and Republicans alike that could result in failure to raise the debt ceiling. That evantuality would make the S&P assessment moot since U.S. financial credibility would tank on its own.

Technically, U.S. borrowing tops out in mid-May, although the accountants at Treasury say they could probably play a few games with the ledgers and avoid default until there are no tricks left. Think July. That's not a lot of time. Connecticut Democrat Jim Himes, who sits on the House Financial Services committee, calls it "messing with live ammunition.’’

(As usual, because of the agreement with the syndicators, this column appears here a week after it's newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, APRIL 19, 2011

BIRTHER OF A NATION

BY BOB FRANKEN

It's about a year and a half before the “October Surprise,” that suspiciously coincidental, immensely favorable last-minute development for a sitting president right before an election. Even so, there's little question what President Barack Obama's 2012 October Surprise will be.

With a about a week to go, Obama will RELEASE HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE!

Now, that's HUGE! Normally, that would silence the Republican nominee, Donald Trump. But this is Trump, a man who's spent an entire lifetime spouting off about nothing but himself.

And Trump could well be the choice. Is there ever any question? As always, he is able to be enough of a crass act that he's a natural selection of the GOP (I forgot, many in the party don't believe in natural selection, but whatever ...).

What's fascinating is how he continues to suck us all in with his hucksterism. Each and every time he comes up with a new trivial PR stunt, like running for president, we go bananas. The more we ridicule him, the more we get bent out of shape by his shamelessness. Every time we watch MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell versus The Donald, up Trump goes in the polls. Each time he gets caught in a boldfaced lie, up again. He's right up there with the Republicans' leading candidates on the low road of a party whose slogan should be “Down is Up.” It makes as much sense as its other guiding principle, which is that tax cuts for the rich mean more government revenue.

Already he's staying true to form, trashing everybody in sight -- ripping critical reporters and now one of his competitors, Mitt Romney. You know, Mitt Romney, the rich avatar? On CNN Trump just had to point out, “My net worth is many, many, many times Mitt Romney.”

He last played us pundits like a fiddle in 2000, when he convinced us that a third-party run was anything but his usual schlock scam. This time, he might actually start believing in his GOP hustle, and then he could lead the ticket. In fact, he'd be the entire ticket, because he'd likely fire his running mate, Michele Bachmann. She's tea party; he's ME party.

(As usual, the column appears here a week after its newspaper release per the arrangement with the syndicators. This one was writen the day President Obama made his GWU Budget Reform speech)

^THE BUDGET TRAGI-COMEDY@<
^(For use by New York Times News Service clients)@<
^By BOB FRANKEN@=
^C.2011 Hearst Newspapers@=
WASHINGTON _ Speaking of his fellow politicians, as they court one fiscal disaster after another, Max the senator summed things up beautifully when he said, ``We're acting like we don't know how to run the country.’’ Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., is chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, so he should know,

It's a mighty convincing act in a budget melodrama that seems to never end. It moves from one familiar backdrop to another. The script stays the same, though there are a few variations. Take the current horror show over raising the national debt ceiling before it tops out in May _ and certainly before it becomes impossible for the U.S. government to borrow any money, probably in July.

This time, President Obama has decided to dabble at the role of leading man. Somebody probably reminded him that Harry Truman had a sign on his desk that read: ``The buck stops here.’’ It didn’t say: ``Pass the buck.’’

Before he delivered his speech at George Washington University on Wednesday afternoon, the president briefed congressional leaders at the White House. The Republican House and Senate leaders had their reaction to the meeting even before it began. In DC-speak, it was ``prebuttal,’’ as opposed to post-speech rebuttal. In this case, the ``buttal’’ was more like a taunt, with House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, offering sarcastic congratulations to a chief executive who had ``finally decided to engage.’’ That was for consumption by his tea party backbenchers in the Capitol.

The scene quickly shifted. Obama took his script and teleprompters to nearby George Washington University, which is appropriate because if the entire national debt was individual dollar bills, we'd see Washington's face more than 14 trillion times.

(As usual, the arrangement with the syndicators requires that these columns appear here a week after their newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 2011

THE SHUTDOWN SHOWDOWN

BY BOB FRANKEN

There are two ways to look at the averted government shutdown: It was another sad display of big-league politics played by little-leaguers, instead of “grown-ups,” to quote President Barack Obama. Or ... actually, that's the only way to look at it.

Never mind Obama's contrived victory lap to the still-open Lincoln Memorial, the president got hosed. House Speaker John Boehner was able to jack up the price of a deal with negotiating tactics that are familiar to any used-car salesperson.

His ploys were hardly sophisticated. They have been around since the first bazaar haggling. Eons later, this bizarre haggling featured some of the same transparent tricks.

Look at how he used his tea party chorus as snarling background music for blatant intimidation. Each and every time he agreed to a figure, he knew he could count on his crazies to provide an excuse for welching on the deal. It was obvious deception, but it worked.

So did the rider artifice, in which the Republicans demanded provisions that would sabotage abortion rights, environmental protection, health care reform and the like. These were all near and dear to Democrats, who were easy marks willing to trade off more money -- nearly $40 billion this year -- to save these straw men. All they could do is whine about it, while trying to look like tough guys by putting out stories about how firm the president was with Boehner behind the scenes, or how the affable Joe Biden chewed him out (Boehner, not the president).

(Writer's note: As usual, the arrangment with syndicators means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

^OBAMA SUPPORTERS DON'T GITMO SATISFACTION@<
^(For use by New York Times News Service clients)@<
^By BOB FRANKEN@=
^C.2011 Hearst Newspapers@=
WASHINGTON _ What were they thinking? What possessed his strategists to decide to make President Obama's re-election effort official on the same day his administration was making its final surrender on Guantanamo Bay?

Is their campaign slogan ``Cave You Can Believe In’’? It certainly won't be ``Change You Can Believe In.’’

Given how it's widely believed Obama will be the first candidate ever to raise and spend a billion dollars in a presidential election campaign, ``Big Bucks You Can Believe In’’ might be more appropriate.

It looks like he'll need every bit of that treasure to turn burnout into turnout.
The danger for him is that so many Barack Obama supporters have joined the ranks of the formerly-ardent.

They are disgruntled by what they perceive as an abandonment of lofty promises. Instead of raising taxes on the rich, they see him kissing up to corporate interests.

He's done little, they feel, to rein in Bush-era hard-line national security practices and now he's buckled under political pressure to wimp out on his pledge to close Guantanamo.

So the world still has the American Devil's Island to despise and will witness military tribunals there instead of civilian courts. The decision amounts to a vote of no-confidence in the Constitution. The brutal terrorist defendants get to be tried not as the low-life violent criminals that they are, but as warriors and martyrs.

(Writer's note: As usual, the arrangement with the syndicators means this column appears here a week after its newspaper release. Obviously, since then, the parties have reached their budget agreement, temporarily averting what some construe as a crisis.)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 2011

FEATHERWEIGHTS FIGHTING HEAVYWEIGHT PROBLEMS

BY BOB FRANKEN

Don't you love the TV anchors who treat us like idiots when they describe issues of great magnitude by saying something like "If you placed all the eggs in this recall end to end, they would reach the very top of the Empire State Building!"?

Actually, they would fall and splatter, leaving a terrible mess on 5th Avenue, but let's not quibble. The news-huckster consultants have won. So let's talk about the Washington budget negotiations.

If all the dollar bills of the national debt were stretched out, they would go to Pluto and back. The amounts in the cutbacks that cause such mortal combat between Democrats and Republicans wouldn't even make it halfway to Mars.

This debate seems to happening on a different planet. The drama king and queen politicians in the nation's capital are putting on their theater of the irrelevant as they scramble to come up with some sort of unhappy medium deal to keep the government we no longer can afford up and running.

What a performance! On any given day, we could count on bizarre showmanship from those of the far-out right, like Indiana Republican Mike Pence. He's the one who yelled, at a Capitol tea party rally, "It's time to pick a fight!" That means make painful cuts to every program that doesn't affect a hard-liner's particular district, nor its voters, nor its corporate campaign contributors, nor its families' individual federal subsidies. On the left, we hear Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid portray his forces as the defenders of the children, the elderly and other "innocent bystanders" whose lifeline programs are in danger.

(Writers note: As usual this column appears here a week after its newspaper release per the arrangement with my syndicators)

^NEWT NEWS IS NEVER OLD NEWS@<
^(For use by New York Times News Service clients)@<
^By BOB FRANKEN@=
^C.2011 Hearst Newspapers@=
WASHINGTON _ The Libyan desert's shifting sands have nothing on Newt Gingrich's Libyan shifting stands.

You have to give the man credit. In his never ending fight to stand out in the ``Trash Obama Republican Sweepstakes,’’ he shows himself to be so fast on his feet, that he sometimes puts one in his mouth. He's a one man ``Crossfire.’’

When President Obama hadn't yet committed to military intervention, the March 7 Gingrich sound bite on FOX was: ``Exercise a no-fly zone this evening.’’...``All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we're intervening.’’

Here's a scary thought: Maybe the White House was following Gingrich's lead and that's why Obama and NATO later pulled the trigger. Obviously, though, Newt Gingrich is not someone who can take ``yes’’ for an answer.

On March 23, he was telling the ``Today Show’’: ``I would not have intervened.’’ Inconsistent, to say the least.

No problem. A couple days later in Des Moines, Gingrich acknowledged that ``obviously there were contradictions’’ in his views. Not his fault though. It was Barack Obama’s, he insisted. "The fact is that on each day I was on television I was responding to where the President was that day. I was trying to follow Obama.’’

But then, he subsequently told the Greenville S.C., Women's Republican Club on March 24 that the president had failed to show leadership on Libya and that he was ``spectator in chief instead of commander in chief.’’

So, Gingrich contended he was ``trying to follow’’ the ``spectator in chief.’’
Confusing? Maybe he wants it that way.

What’s really happening here is that Gingrich is attempting to position himself as a Republican presidential contender and Obama critic by playing the old game of ``whatever he’s for, I’m against.’’

The man is no newcomer to verbal gymnastics. In February 2007 he was saying on the TV program ``Frontline’’ of the proposed ``cap and trade’’ approach to limiting greenhouse gases: ``Frankly, it’s something I would strongly support.’’

That was then. By April 2009 in Newsweek, he was strongly opposed. ``Such a plan would have the effect of an across-the-board energy tax on every American. That will make our artificial energy crisis even worse.’’ Again, only two words can explain what set off the schizophrenia: ``President Obama.’’

.

(Writer's note: Per the arrangement with the syndicators, this column appears here a week after its newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, MARCH 29, 2011

REDSKINS AND OTHERS OUT OF THEIR LEAGUE

BY BOB FRANKEN

It's always good when there's a news lull like we have right now, so we can dwell on matters that keep our attention far longer and raise more emotion than the likes of wars, natural disasters or imminent government shutdowns.

Automatically, our thoughts can go to that other mess, the National Football League. No, this is not the usual incredulous musing about a strike by millionaire employees against billionaire owners. Frankly, it's kind of fun to watch the two sides thrash around. It provides us the opportunity to ponder the nature of the sport, particularly its fundamental sensitivity.

Where else would you find a team with a name that is out-and-out racist, like “Washington Redskins”? In the NFL, of course. Not only that, but as the franchise of our nation's capital it is particularly remarkable. This, after all, is where a showboating politician was once asked, “Have you no decency?”

(Pardon the “showboating politician” redundancy, and also the “decency” question with such an obvious answer.)

The name “Redskins” is a disgrace and needs to be replaced. This would be a good time to take the plunge, since the league isn't doing anything else at the moment.

There are so many D.C.-appropriate names. The question is which one to choose. What best captures the essence of this unique market? So many possibilities, such a small word count.

Now, now. Who's the cynic who said “Bozos”? Bad idea. Think of the copyright problems.

There certainly are other possibilities almost as obvious: The Washington Presidents, the Congressionals or, to borrow from sports history, the Senators, who had about as much success in baseball as the professional football franchise has had since owner Dan Snyder took the helm.

What yawners. We need to capture that power-grabbing greed and deception that defines D.C.'s way of life. The Politicians comes to mind. That would work if the team decides to emphasize deceptive plays.

Or how about the Lobbyists, to pay homage to those who buy most of the loges at our stadium. Maybe the Fat Cats, as a tribute to the ones who really run things, or the Spinners, who are their apologists.

(Writer's note:) The arrangement with the syndicators allows these columns to appear here here a week after their newspaper release. This is an obvious case in point)

^THE LIBYAN ROAD TO POINTS UNKNOWN@<
^(For use by New York Times News Service clients)@<
^By BOB FRANKEN@=
^C.2011 Hearst Newspapers@=
WASHINGTON _ The U.S. adventure in Libya is already looking like one of those here-we-go-again trips where we don't know where we're going.

Not only that but we can't be sure whether our fellow passengers will be with us all the way to the final destination, whatever that is. So far it seems to extend to the next news cycle.

While we're firing away missiles, at a cost of over a million dollars a pop, according to the Navy, there is already squabbling with the other coalition partners about whether they will take up some of the heavy lifting. So far they've been junior partners. Or less.

What happens when the facade of support from the Arab League unravels, as it has already begun to do? That is complicated by the jumbled Mideast puzzle, with pieces strewn all over the place. Libya is hardly the only place in an uproar. Some of the very rulers called on to support the military force against Moammar Qadhafi have their own popular uprisings to suppress.

Worst of all is the confusion over how it all ends. Is wildman Qadhafi still in power? Does that threaten other countries in the region? (After all, this is the man who at a 2009 Arab League meeting declared himself ``King of Kings.’’) What about the deadly consequences if he does hold on to power? Will this end in a stalemate with the Libyan rebels?

Before we hear too much more about ``no fly zones,’’ let's not forget that there were two such zones over Saddam Hussein's Iraq for 11 years _ and we know where that got us.

Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., is not exactly a firebrand but he's offering the same criticism of Obama’s decision to attack that many fellow Republicans and Democrats are leveling. There is the usual grumbling about a president’s constitutional overreach. But that lament is always futile.

Of more immediate consequence is the complaint that Lugar leveled on CNN when he said, ``I do not understand the mission because as far as I can tell in the United States there is no mission and there are no guidelines for success.’’

The best the administration’s designated explainer could offer was basically no explanation. Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, could only say: “I think it’s for others to determine where this will go long term.”

I'm on "White House Chronicle" this Friday, Saturday and/or Sunday, depending on the local station.

JAPAN’S CATASTROPHE PUT WASHINGTON SQUABBLES IN PERSPECTIVE@<
^(For use by New York Times News Service clients)@<
^By BOB FRANKEN@=
^C.2011 Hearst Newspapers@=
WASHINGTON _ When we look to Japan and the scope of the tragedy inflicted there on our fellow human beings who have been betrayed by the planet we all call home, it puts into perspective the petty budget bickering in Washington. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., accurately calls it ``absurd political theater’'.

The debacle at Japan’s nuclear plants forces us to realize how much time our policy makers have wasted for generations, leaving us so far behind when it comes to coping with progress and technology that we court disaster from unpredictable forces, like a 9.0 earthquake and tsunami. No matter what assurances we get, these facilities are not only vulnerable, but when they do fail, it can be catastrophic.

So thanks to decisions or the lack of them over decades, we are stuck, forced to rely on them as part of what Deputy Energy Secretary Daniel Poneman calls ``... a very important component to the overall portfolio we're trying to build for a clean-energy future.’’ He was merely expressing the widely accepted view that we must accept the well-known downsides of what is sometimes called atomic electricity, even with its inherent dangers and questions about how to safely dispose of the growing piles of radioactive waste and store it for centuries in its acutely toxic and volatile afterlife.

The reason wind and solar and other relatively clean energy sources have gotten mere lip service is because the corporations that peddle the dirty sources like oil and coal have seen to it that our pliant politicians remain short sighted, never looking beyond the next campaign contribution.

How ludicrous it is that nuclear power is called a ``clean’’ alternative fuel when, as we're seeing, it can literally endanger the world. We still don't know what the scale of the health and ecological ravages from the collapsed plants in Japan will be.

We do know that widespread damage from the 1986 accident at Chernobyl still lingers, decades after it happened.

(Writer's note: The arrangement with the syndicators allows these columns to be posted here a week after their newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 2011

THE BULLY KING

BY BOB FRANKEN

How appropriate that the two events were held on the same day in Washington. At the White House, it was a conference on bullying. Up the road in the Capitol complex, it was the committee hearing to encourage the bullying of Muslims.

Obviously, the hearing's organizer, Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., wouldn't agree with that characterization; he was, he insisted, simply exploring the “The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and that Community's Response.” The more that people hammered him for pandering to anti-Islam bigotry in the United States, the more he railed against “political correctness.”

By the way, “bigotry” is the right word. Recent polls like those of Gallup and Pew Research Center show the consistent number of people who will admit to negative views of Muslims in this country hovers around 40 percent. So King and the others from within his party know full well their targeted fear-mongering would score points politically, in much the same way that Sen. Joe McCarthy exploited anti-communist hysteria back in the 1950s.

If King and the rest were serious about exploring the danger of violence from radical extremists, they wouldn't be focusing solely on Muslims. While it is true that we continue to be frightened by the deadly violence and attempted violence of jihadists, shouldn't we be talking at the very same time about the deadly actions of some of those on the fringes of the anti-abortion movement? Or fundamentalist Christians? Should we have hearings aimed at those religious groups? How about the other armed militia militants. And the loners? Timothy McVeigh was not a Muslim.

(Writer's note: By arrangement with the syndicators, these columns appear here a week after their newspaper release)

^QUANTICO AND GUANTANAMO: THE WIKILEAKS’ NAKED COMPARISON@<
^(For use by New York Times News Service clients)@<
^By BOB FRANKEN@=
^C.2011 Hearst Newspapers@=
WASHHINGTON _ Now that President Obama is making Guantanamo Bay the Land of Broken promises and keeping the notorious prison camp open, Army Private First Class Bradley Manning might want to request a transfer to Gitmo from the Marine Corps brig at Quantico, Va.

In his new executive order, the president promised that the Guantanamo prisoners will be treated in conformity with the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit, among other abuses, ``outrages against personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.’’

Right now PFC Manning is being held in near solitary confinement at Quantico; he’s kept in his cell 23 hours a day with one hour out for limited exercise.
He's facing allegations that he leaked tons of classified documents. Military prosecutors just added 22 other charges, including ``Aiding the Enemy.’’ That one carries a potential death penalty, although prosecutors say they will not seek capital punishment.

His Marine jailers confirm that while he awaits preliminary legal action, he is required to spend a chunk of his time without clothes on. His lawyer David Coombs complains that Manning was ``stripped naked...forced to stand naked in front of his cell.’’ ``This type of degrading treatment...is inexcusable and without justification.’’

We have gotten some explanations from Quantico officials that Manning is on a POI, a ``Prevention of Injury’’ watch. Marine spokesman Lt. Brian Villard would not offer details, saying: ``I can't explain it to you without violating the detainees’ privacy.’’

``PRIVACY’’? The man stands there without a stitch, totally exposed.
Let's suffice here in this family environment to suggest that this rationale is a bit ludicrous. By the way, medical officers at the base reportedly insist that POI monitoring is not necessary.
Pentagon chief spokesman Geoff Morrell sheds more light on the justification for Manning’s treatment by explaining that it is appropriate because of the ``seriousness of the charges he's facing.’’

Now we're getting somewhere. Could this be bare spite? Literally?

(Under agreement with the syndicators, these columns appear here a week after their newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 2011

THE GOP PRESIDENTIAL ENTERTAINERS: BEATING THE HUMDRUM

BY BOB FRANKEN

This column has nothing to do with Charlie Sheen or anything he's said. In fact, his name is here only as a shameless attention-getter for the search engines. Other than that, who needs him? We have Newt Gingrich and others in the GOP who are flirting with a presidential run. Some of them are outright groping the idea.

Newt's at it again, and he's still able to get a huge amount of attention simply by taking a preliminary step before the preliminary step before the big step into full-fledged candidacy. When it comes to name recognition, the good news for Gingrich is that everyone knows who he is and what he stands for. The bad news for him is that everyone knows who he is and what he stands for, which is fundamentally anything that:

A. Trashes Democrats (“the party of food stamps”), President Barack Obama (a “Kenyan anti-colonialist,” which a lot of us are still trying to understand), liberals (“part of a secular socialist machine ... that represents as great a threat to America as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union”) and/or Muslims (excuse me, “radical Islamists”).

B. Keeps his name out there.

It seems to work, despite a lot of baggage: Even if he succeeds in overcoming all the questions about his personal morality (two divorces, an affair with the woman who became his present wife), he also has a mixed public record. On the one hand, he has a reputation as a really smart guy. After all, he led the 1994 charge of Republicans who wrenched control of the House from the Democrats, who had held it for 40 years. But he also was forced to step down as speaker in 1999, as ethics charges swirled around him and after the forces he led in Congress got the blame for a government shutdown.

Now he's trying to fall up, and become one of his party's wild things. He'll need to pass the one who really makes the hearts of the faithful sing. That, of course, would be Sarah Palin, whose comments about anything and everything have become the stuff of legend, and satire.

(Writer's note: The arrangement with the syndicators allows these columns to appear here one week after their newspaper release)

^GAO REPORT FINDS HUGE GOVERNMENT BLOAT _ BUT DON’T EXPECT A DIET ANYTIME SOON@<
^(For use by New York Times News Service clients)@<
^By BOB FRANKEN@=
^C.2011 Hearst Newspapers@=
WASHINGTON _ As Republicans and Democrats have given themselves two more weeks to agree on a budget and avoid the partial shutdown of the federal government, except for ``essential’’ services, there is a lot of bruised self-esteem at the various agencies among those deemed ``non-essential.’’

According to the GAO, there probably should be a lot more of the latter sort.
The Government Accountability Office, the auditing arm of Congress, is certainly trying to live up to its name by performing an important service. A new GAO report released this week documents program-by-program how ``reducing or eliminating duplication, overlap or fragmentation could potentially save billions of taxpayer jobs annually and help agencies provide more efficient and effective services.’’

The ``duplication, overlap or fragmentation’’ is laid out in damning detail: There are a hundred departments assigned to surface transportation matters, 82 deal with teacher quality, 80 supervise economic development, 56 have a piece of ``financial literacy.’’ (How ironic is that one?)

Food safety is supervised by 15 entities, with conflicting mandates from the likes of the Agriculture Department and the Food and Drug Administration. We end up with confusion and contradictions that are breeding grounds for deadly illnesses that spread throughout the country. The dreary list of disorganization is a long one.

(Writer's note: The arrangement with the syndicators allows my columns to appear here a week after their newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2011

LABOR PAINS

BY BOB FRANKEN

Among the expressions that are grossly overused and all too frequently misleading is the word “team,” certainly when uttered in context of the workplace.

While it is a fact that employer and employee are on the same side, they are, as often as not, playing against each other. Whether it's like the battle raging right now in state capitals between government employees and adversarial politicians, or less boisterous, this is a class struggle that crosses the border between public and private sectors.

To put it simply, the boss wants to pay subordinates as little as possible for as much product as possible. Unions exist, management believes, to protect those who want just the opposite: higher wages for less time and effort.

At the top of a corporation's heap, organized labor usually is seen as the enforcer of mediocrity. Meanwhile, those looking up have a similarly unfavorable impression of the executive suite, controlled by an unscrupulous ruling class that rewards its members with bloated salaries and outlandish perks for doing too little and doing it badly.

What we get is never-ending ferocious warfare, some of which is fought in the political arena. Generally, Democrats and unions support one another while Republicans and the top brass have the same symbiotic relationship. On “Meet the Press,” Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker said that this is his “moment in ... history.” It's the moment, as he sees it, for completing his party's and its benefactors' quest to crush organized labor.

(Writer's note: Per arrangement with the syndicators, these columns appear here a week after their newspaper release)

^U.S. SHOULD GET OUT IN FRONT OF HISTORIC CHANGES@<
^(For use by New York Times News Service clients)@<
^By BOB FRANKEN@=
^C.2011 Hearst Newspapers@=
WASHINGTON _ He is demonstrably a madman, a ruthless dictator. Until recently, Moammar Gadhafi was the outcast he deserved to be.

That is sadly not the case in so much of the Mideast, where for decades the United States has backed oppressors for our own convenience, making a mockery of promises to be a beacon of democracy. Time after time when it suited anti-Soviet, anti-terrorist and pro-oil needs, America sided with the bad guys.

At his Feb. 15 news conference, President Obama had a lecture for these leaders, saying: ``You've got to get out ahead of change, you can't be behind the curve.’’

Given how long the U.S. has been behind the curve in the region, those words may ring hollow. As these entrenched despots lose their grip, this country is left to worry whether those dubious allies will be replaced by adversaries.

Let's face it, we have been controlled by an instant gratification compulsion to act on short-sighted needs and neglect the longer term.

This same kind of short-sightedness is evident here at home. After generations of raised alarms, the financial walls are starting to crumble. Individuals can pretend they are so much more prosperous than they really are. Money is lavished wildly and the charges put on a credit card with little regard for where it was spent or how it was misspent. No one is bothered with a realistic revenue stream. Taxes are disdained. There is always money to borrow. Or so it seems.

(Writer's note: The arrangements with the syndicators allow for my columns to appear here a week after their newspaper release.)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, FEB. 22, 2011

BUDGETS AND GRUDGES

BY BOB FRANKEN

What a shame that our leaders can't call in one of those debt-relief companies that bombard us with promises that they can help us crawl out of our deep financial hole. Some of them are even honest. With a crushing arrears that right now stands at an incomprehensible $14 trillion, with $1.65 trillion more in deficits expected on the pile this year, the nation could certainly use somebody's expertise at setting up budgets that eliminate the frivolous while maintaining the basic necessities.

It sounds simple, but it gets goofy when politicians are involved. They answer to constituents who have vastly different opinions on what is frivolous and what is necessary. You've heard of NIMBY, as in “not in my backyard,” the cry we hear when it's time to place some garbage dump or human dump somewhere? Now, as we attempt to spread the cutback pain, we're getting squeals of NIMBA, meaning “not in my budget allocation.”

It works for some, particularly those who have bottomless resources for lobbyists and campaign contributions. So oil subsidies remain for the energy companies that won't be satisfied with profits that are only obscene. In fact, we get to continue promoting the culture of petroleum excess. The Army gets to continue spending $7 million or so a year advertising itself on NASCAR racers.

But the right wing rolled over one social program after another, and worked hard to settle some old grudges. If these lacerations remain, we will kiss the Corporation for Public Broadcasting goodbye, as well as Planned Parenthood grants and, of course, the money to implement the GOP-hated health-care reform, as well as any meaningful business regulation.

The grim reapers would mow down all but their favorites, with little regard for the unfortunate who would be left behind in a barren landscape. “After all,” quipped a sarcastic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, “you can lose a lot of weight by cutting off your arms and legs”

(Writer's note: By arrangement with the syndicators, these columns appear here a week after their newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, FEB. 15, 2011

CPAC ATTACK

BY BOB FRANKEN

Sarah Palin is such a big star on the right that when a look-alike actress appeared at the Conservative Political Action Conference shindig in Washington, she caused a huge commotion. Palin had decided not to show up, but even her parody can cause true believers to swoon. Then again, some of the real deals who did drop by looked like they, too, were parodies of politicians.

For a change, it wasn't Rep. Michele Bachmann who stole the spotlight, which she usually does when Palin is sucking all the air. Her convention-starting speech was just her usual perky gruel, in which she charged that Barack Obama had “ushered in socialism.” Same bit, different day.

There was Donald Trump, who served up another of his repeated presidential-candidate apprenticeships, trying to comb over his lack of political know-how with a tea-party-market-tested complaint that the United States has lost respect in the world during Obama's time in the White House. “And I can tell you this,” he declared, “if I run and if I win, this country will be respected again.” Although he got booed by his audience when he insisted that the guy who garnered the most votes in the conference's candidate straw poll, far-out libertarian Ron Paul, could never win, it didn't matter. This is great PR.

Newt Gingrich is no stranger to self-promotion, and he definitely is planning a run. So he was there raising his finger to the wind (you can decide which finger), issuing a clarion cry to get rid of the Environmental Protection Agency and decrying administration proposals to create a “cap and trade” carbon-emission policy as a “war on American energy.”

But wait. Isn't this the same Newt Gingrich who, in 2007, said about cap and trade: “Frankly, it's something I would strongly support”? Hey, people can change. That was then, in Gingrich's pre-tea phase. The man has had more makeovers than, say, Mitt Romney.

(Writers note: Per the arrangement with the syndicators, these columns appear here a week after their newspaper release)

^CYBERSPACE'S UNSTOPPABLE FLOOD OF INFORMATION@<

^(For use by New York Times News Service clients)@<

^By BOB FRANKEN@=

^C.2011 Hearst Newspapers@=

WASHINGTON _ Let's hear it for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her continuing campaign for what she calls ``the freedom to connect.’’ There she was again, this time at D.C.'s George Washington University, castigating regimes that try to ``clamp down on Internet freedom.’’

Clinton argued that ``the scale should always be tipped in favor of openness.’’ You listening, Iran? You listening, Burma? You listening, United States?

Unfortunately, in an awkward bit of timing, prosecutors for the U.S. government were in a federal courthouse just a few miles away in Alexandria, Va., trying to convince a judge they should have access to Twitter communications in their zealous pursuit of WikiLeaks.

The government wants the Twitter accounts of three people linked to the WikiLeaks probe _ screen names, mailing addresses, telephone numbers, credit card and bank account information and internet protocol addresses.

In this country, the official scales apparently tip away from transparency when it causes inconvenient embarrassment.

Many who used to hide behind opaque screens are now finding the new openness overwhelming. That goes for those not only in public positions, but their chroniclers in the private sector as well.

The rush to be on top of developments in Egypt by journalists as well as intelligence operatives became a self-feeding frenzy of miscalculations, which were then breathlessly passed on to the world by correspondents citing the likes of ``knowledgeable sources.’’

Turns out all these knowledgeable sources didn't know jack. They were frequently relying on the news organizations. A big case in point was testimony before the House Intelligence Committee by CIA Director Leon Panetta, that ``There's a strong likelihood that Hosni Mubarak may step down in Egypt tonight.’’

The TV networks, along with print and internet sites, took that as official confirmation of their breaking stories that a departure was, in fact, going to happen later that day. The problem, as we now know, is that Panetta was simply echoing what he had heard from the media.

(Writer's note: The arrangement with my syndicators allows for these columns to appear here one week after their newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, FEB. 8, 2011

CAIRONIC POLITICS

BY BOB FRANKEN

I tried to hold back, but I couldn't, and it's her fault. I had decided to join some of the columnists who had announced they would make February a Sarah Palin-free month. I did so even though I had reservations about being on a collusion course with them, further fueling the anti-trust of media types who present themselves as separate and independent commentators.

Besides, Ms. P. made it easy by slowing her usual gush of mindless inanities. She even had been keeping quiet about the crisis in Egypt.

But she just couldn't contain herself. She had to take a shot at the Obama administration's ginger tiptoeing through the diplomatic and strategic minefields. In a Christian Broadcasting Network interview released Saturday night, she proved as glib as ever, using the old Hillary Clinton for President imagery for her clever sound bite: “This is that 3 a.m. White House phone call, and ... it seems that that call went right to the answering machine.”

So, even though we all needed a break, my boycott is over. (Language police: Is BOYcott the right word when we're talking about a woman? The mind wanders.)

Besides, there were plenty of others filling the void. We already had heard Newt Gingrich spew out his take on the Obama people, which was: “I don't think they have a clue. I think it is very frightening to watch this administration.”

(Writer's note: By agreement with the syndicators, these columns appear here a week after their newspaper release)

^SLINGS AND ARROWS ON CUPID'S DAY@<
^(For use by New York Times News Service clients)@<
^By BOB FRANKEN@=
^C.2011 Hearst Newspapers@=
WASHINGTON _February 9, 2011.
Feb. 14th is not just a day for romantics, but this year it's a big day for political science and economics wonks every where.

Feb. 14th is, after all, when President Obama will release his administration’s budget proposal for the next fiscal year. It sounds like it will not be the Valentine’s Day massacre of government programs that his Republican adversaries are demanding.

He's calling it ``a responsible 10-year path for reining in the deficit.’’ Those on the right are demanding something that gets the job done in say, one year. Tops.

All this is a tad strange when you consider Congress couldn’t get fiscal and pass this year's budget blueprint because, as Maya McGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, lamented, ``No one wants to spell out what they would do, given that the choices are humongous deficits or tough policy choices.’’

Everyone is as far apart as ever. Each side believes it is aligned with the angels against the devils.

Pick your poison: Liberals argue that more government spending will mean more government revenue because social programs will turn those in need into taxpayers. They describe that spending as an ``investment.’’

As for stirring up calcified government bureaucracies, that is obviously a right-wing plot to demonize public service. Instead, their watchword now is ``Jobs, Jobs, Jobs.’’

(Writers note: By arrangement with the syndicators, these columns appear here a week after their newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, FEB. 1, 2011

EGYPT: LOST OR FOUNDERING

BY BOB FRANKEN

Oh sure, the president is grappling with the conflicting considerations swirling around the chaos in Egypt ... human rights vis-à-vis the need for maintaining ties to a longtime reliable Arab ally. We're hearing a lot of tepid public statements as the administration tries to have it both ways. As the man says, though, make no mistake about it, there is a political undertone that easily could become an overtone if Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is run out and replaced by anti-American Islamists.

If that happens, Barack Obama will face a huge uphill battle to overcome Republicans piling on and accusing him of being the president who “lost Egypt.” Just ask Jimmy Carter about Iran. His failed attempts to live up to this nation's human-rights rhetoric merely resulted in a despotic shah being replaced by even more oppressive religious fanatics, who threaten the world still today.

Or ask the Democrats who “lost China,” which became a potent campaign slogan that helped propel the GOP's Dwight Eisenhower to power after the pro-American Nationalists were overrun by Mao's revolutionaries. Again, we're still bedeviled by that one.

Now we have Mubarak, trying to hang on as a popular wave across the Arab deserts threatens to sweep him away after 30 years of brutal rule and cronyism, buttressed by massive foreign aid from the United States through the entire period of his rule. The great bulk of that is spent on the military, which this year is $1.3 billion. That's a huge investment in a dictator who has weathered decades of U.S. sanctimony from one president to another.

So, in an effort to stay with the shifting sands, there was Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton playing the role of U.S. government pinball and bouncing from one Sunday talk show to another. She recited carefully constructed talking points, like that the U.S. is “ready to help with the kind of transition that will lead to greater political and economic freedom.” In diplo-speak that translates to “Hosni, don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out.” But it also hedges the American bets to make sure no one is antagonized. The obvious worst case is that Egypt is seized by those who would turn that pro-American government, and not incidentally pro-Israeli government, anti-both.

I'm doing MSNBC today (Sunday) during the 2:00 and 3:00 PM Eastern hours. Which is good because I won't miss the Super Bowl.

(Writer's note: The agreement with the syndicators requires these columns appear here a week after their newspaper release)

^`WINNING THE FUTURE’ ALSO INCLUDES THE 2012 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION@<
^(For use by New York Times News Service clients)@<
^By BOB FRANKEN@=
^C.2011 Hearst Newspapers@=
WASHINGTON _ We get it, Mr. President. We need to ``Win the Future.’’
You said some variation of that point nearly a dozen times in your State of the Union address, so consider the message signed and sealed.

The delivered part is something else. To see how that goes, we will have to wait for the, uh future.

Wasn't it nice to see all those Republicans and Democrats sitting next to each other, without even holding their noses? But President Obama had it just about right in his speech when he said, ``What comes of this moment will be determined not by whether we can sit together tonight, but whether we can work together tomorrow.’’

We didn't have to wait till ``tomorrow’’ to see how that would work. Just a few seconds later, on the very same night, all we had to do was watch. As Rep. Michelle Bachmann, R-Minn., raced to the cameras to speak derisively for the Tea Party. ``For two years,’’ she declared, ``President Obama made promises just like the ones we heard him make tonight. Yet still, we have high unemployment, devalued housing prices and the cost of gasoline is skyrocketing.’’

Bachmann seems to fancy herself the real Republican leader, as opposed to people like Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, or Rep Paul Ryan, R-Wis.

In the official GOP response, Ryan wasn't being all that conciliatory himself: ``The facts are clear: Since taking office, President Obama has signed into law spending increases of nearly 25 per cent for domestic government agencies _ an 84 per cent increase when you include the failed stimulus.’’

(Writers note: Per the arrangement with my syndicators my columns appear here a week after their newspaper release. This one was written before the State of the Union address)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, JAN. 25, 2011

THE OBAMA PRESIDENCY COMMERCIAL BREAK

BY BOB FRANKEN

The halfway point of President Barack Obama's first term easily could inspire another of those GEICO commercials.

You know the ones: The huffy-puffy anchorman type asks in his exaggerated way: "Could switching to GEICO really save you 15 percent or more on car insurance? Has there really been 'change you can believe in'?"

Cut to a shot of Obama out for a walk with some of his aides. He's stopped by a man who asks if he can break a buck. "Yes, we can!" shouts the president. "Hey!" the guy complains, "You only gave me 15 cents!" "Sorry," says Obama, "I inherited the deficit."

Obviously there has been some change but oftentimes, it's nickel-and-dime stuff. As massive as health-care-reform legislation was, for instance, it was so diluted that it didn't really cure the fundamental illness. The insurance companies still run the show, and they will be able to shift tactics to make sure they still get their outlandish financial returns. It's certainly not the "big f------- deal" Vice President Joe Biden called it.

The same is true for financial reform. While there are new regulations in place, those who gutted our economy with their recklessness and/or fecklessness still finagled ways to come out ahead. Now they are hoarding their subsidies, while millions of people who are unemployed get more desperate by the day, and month, and year. Ask them about change.

Or ask the wealthy, who would have had to pay more taxes if President Obama had managed to live up to Candidate Obama's promises. He didn't; they don't. This isn't chump change, by the way. They are getting to keep $700 billion that otherwise would have made a dent in the onerous national deficit. Their Republican protectors were plainly and simply able to outmaneuver the Democrats, which wasn't very hard because the Dems were scattering.

^THE SENATE IS WHERE PROGRESS SINKS IN QUICKSAND@<

^(For use by New York Times News Service clients)@<

^By BOB FRANKEN@=

^C.2011 Hearst Newspapers@=

WASHINGTON _ It was nice to see that House members could play nice and have their debate over health care repeal without gang warfare. Still, are the Democrats and Republicans really ready to sit next to each other during an entire State-of-the Union speech next Tuesday?

In a letter to colleagues, Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., wrote: ``Beyond custom, there is no rule or reason that on this night we should emphasize divided government, separated by party, instead of being seen united as a country.’’

That's all well and good but is it pushing our luck to put these momentarily subdued warriors within physical reach when they jam into the crowded House chamber to listen to President Obama?

What happens when one partisan leaps up to cheer, while the other one sits there like a bump on a log? In other words, do we risk a hostility relapse?

Besides, we can take this pretend politeness too far. Look no further than the exaggerated chivalry in the Senate. It's in the rules: ``No senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another senator or to other senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a senator.’’
It's called ``comity’’ and it's transparently contrived.

The next time you're having an insomnia problem, don't pop an Ambien or Lunesta. Instead switch your TV to Comity Central, otherwise known the C-SPAN feed of what traditionally is called the “World’s Greatest Deliberative Body.” That's ``deliberative’’ as in stupefyingly glacial. Guaranteed, you'll be unconscious in no time. Meanwhile, on the screen, the members will be still referring to their arch enemies as ``my friends.’’

(Writer's note: By agreement with the syndicators, my columns appear here a week after their newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, JAN. 18, 2011

CIVIL FIGHTS

BY BOB FRANKEN

The new concern about irresponsible political invective, temporary though it may be, obviously is overdue. It's worthwhile to put a lid on the vitriol, but, as we deal with those who have damaged our country, we also must differentiate between civil and servile.

President Barack Obama has embarked on a course of closer cooperation with business and financial giants. If he's not vigilant, they can roll over his administration as he cozies up to them. And I say that with all due respect.

Let us not forget for a moment that our economic disaster was inflicted on us largely by the free-market profiteers. They brought the country to its knees while those who were supposed to rein them in were afraid to rain on their parade from one quarterly report to the next.

Now, in an effort to steady the Obama presidency, the administration is making nice with the same corporate interests who spent massive amounts of money to finance his “shellacking.” They succeeded in discrediting his effort to bring some order to the frontier that's their home. Now he's responding by planning a speech in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce lion's den to reassure the fat cats that he will work with them to see to it their interests are protected. It's not as if they aren't already shielded by the pliant politicians who grovel for their campaign donations and their armies of lawyers who are expert at gaming the system and undermining enforcement of laws against abuse that are already too weak. And I say that with all due respect.

(Writer's note: The arrangement with the syndicators allows these columns to be posted here a week after their newspaper release. This one preceded the tragic events in Tucson, which has been reflected in subsequent material)

^TEA PARTIERS DISCOVER THE CONSTITUTION!
^(For use by New York Times News Service clients)@<
^By BOB FRANKEN@=
^C.2010 Hearst Newspapers@=
WASHINGTON _ January 5, 2011 -- About that decision by the Republicans to mark their control of the newly formed House of Representatives by reading into the record the U.S. Constitution:

This was a GOP flourish, apparently to celebrate their discovery of rule under law. In any case I know I speak for many when I say to them, ``Thank you for sharing’’ _ and also for your new requirement that all legislation include language about how it follows the Constitution.

One has to wonder exactly why the new guard of insurgent Republicans and the old guard Republican leaders that they've frightened to death are doing such a show-and-tell with the entire document and passing out little booklets with the text of all the Articles and Amendments.

One can only suspect this is merely the usual political showmanship, pandering to the Tea Partiers and others who vehemently seem to believe (they seem to believe everything vehemently) that the very idea of government is unconstitutional. At the very least, they think it sure has been lately.

(Writers note: The arrangement with the syndicators allows my columns to be posted here a week after they have been distributed to newspapers. Obviously, this one preceded the Tucson murders. Reflections on that will appear on this site after the normal delay)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE DAY, TUESDAY, JAN. 4, 2011

BEDBUGS AND DEFICITS TAKING A BITE

BY BOB FRANKEN

While it is true that most of us are lulled into believing that the important work of government is done by the White House and Congress, and every once in a while the Supreme Court, they are just a distraction. The real show in Washington takes place in officialdom's hidden branch, the work group.

With that in mind, make plans to be in D.C. Feb. 1 and 2 for the national summit of the Federal Bed Bug Work Group, organized by the Environmental Protection Agency and including the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Agriculture, Commerce and Defense, along with the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. No, this is not made up; it's for real. In fact, it's the second-annual summit.

Various lobbying groups will show up, perhaps maybe even one to represent the pests themselves. The greatest news of all is that you and I can attend. It's open to the public, so the first order of business should be identifying hotel rooms that are not infested.

Why focus on the Bed Bug Work Group? Because it represents a real slice of Washington life, or in this case, a chomp. Work groups are sometimes called study groups or commissions. Whichever, they are all motion and no movement, a substitute for action. Usually, for those who don't have a solution to any problem, they are an excuse simply to pass the buck.

(Writer's note:The arrangement with the syndicators allows my columns to appear here a week after their newspaper release)

^ASSANGE, THE WIKILEAKER, GETS SCOOPED BY A LEAK@<
^(For use by New York Times News Service clients)@<
^By BOB FRANKEN@=
^C.2010 Hearst Newspapers@=
WASHINGTON December 22, 2010_ You gotta love it: The news that WikiLeak's Julian Assange was writing his memoirs was leaked before his announcement. Given what we've read about his personal life, a good title would be ``IckyLeaks.’’ Truth is, we know way more than we should about the guy.

He's not the really important part of the story about the massive amounts of confidential material his group has dumped into the public realm. Nor is the content, which is generally harmless ho-hum stuff. What matters here is the vindictive attempt by embarrassed officials to crush him.

Set aside, for the moment, those Swedish sex charges, meritorious or contrived, and focus instead on the reported efforts by the United States government to imprison him for heinous crimes that carry severe penalties.

What has leaked out (of course) from the Justice Department is that _ given the difficulty of pursuing full-fledged espionage charges against Assange _ prosecutors are now exploring a conspiracy charge instead, as in conspiring with the alleged computer hacker, Army Pfc. Bradley Manning, to spill the secret beans.

How spiteful is that, particularly when one considers what a cinch it is to get an indictment? The old bromide is that any prosecutor can get a grand jury to ``indict a ham sandwich.’’ Imagine how easy it will be for any ham-handed attempt to get an indictment in the alleged Assange-Manning conspiracy.

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, is sometimes way out there, but this time he is spot on with his recent speech in the House of Representatives about the furious administration response.
Paul, speaking on the House floor, issued a challenge to the ``hysterical reaction’’ in the form of several questions. Probably the most fundamental was this: ``Do the American people deserve to know the truth regarding the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen?’’

The answer to Paul’s question should be a resounding, ``Of course,’’ though many higher ups clearly don't think so. They are chagrined at how the WikiLeaks have laid bare the reality of a cyber-system that is vulnerable to the whims of a 23-year-old computer jockey. That reality is scarier than any actual disclosure in the leaked cables.

(Writer's note: Per the arrangement with the syndicators, my columns appear here a week after their newspaper release)

FROM NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE, 300 W 57th STREET, 15th FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019

CUSTOMER SERVICE: (800) 708-7311 EXT. 236

BOB FRANKEN

FOR RELEASE MONDAY, DEC. 20, 2010

DEMOCRACY'S HYPOCRISIES

BY BOB FRANKEN

Doctors have their Hippocratic oath with its “First do no harm” ideal. In politics, it's a corrosive, unspoken Hypocritic oath. For proof, look no further than the games with earmarks played by the very members of the Senate who made a big deal out of the claim they had sworn off them.

Never mind that they ultimately voted down a pork-laden spending bill stuffed with billions of dollars in goodies that were snuck into the legislation by many of the most sanctimonious anti-earmark Republicans. That only happened because they got caught dunking their hands in the bacon jar.

That recently reformed dunkerd Mitch McConnell was suddenly opposing earmarks as “the kind of thing the American people are tired of.” Did we mention that the nonprofit group Taxpayers for Common Sense tallied earmarks embedded in the measure by McConnell at $112 million? He was just one of many.

Another one we've all noticed is the new chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, which is the spigot (rhymes with piglet) through which most of this largess has always flowed. He is Hal Rogers. In a long congressional career, he has become known as the “Prince of Pork,” always making sure he spreads federal money back home. Now, he's suddenly another convert to the tea party religion, where ending the practice is an article of faith.

Before those tea partiers start shouting hallelujah about their big victory over Washington's way of doing business and over all the lobbyists who grease the skids, maybe they should pay attention to how so many of their flock are abruptly flocking to fundraisers here in D.C. to pay off campaign expenses. Guess who ponies up the big admission to those events? That's an easy one. The lobbyists, of course.

I'm on MSNBC tomorrow (Thursday) throughout the 11AM, Eastern hour.

(Writers note: The arrangement with my syndicators means these columns appear one week after their newspaper release)

^IS AMERICA `EXCEPTIONAL’?@<
^(For use by New York Times News Service clients)@<
^By BOB FRANKEN@=
^ C.2010 Hearst Newspapers@=
WASHINGTON December 15_ ``American Exceptionalism’’ _ the notion that the U.S. is the greatest nation, right or wrong _ has been drummed into our brains from the day we're born. Anyone who dares to debate the concept is dismissed as unpatriotic.

The concept of the country as a ``City on a Hill’’ dates back to the Puritans. Now, it's the conservatives who try and enforce a ``Love It or Leave It’’ zealotry. It's also handy to them as another reason to attack President Obama, for having the audacity to adjust to the modern world.

When the president was asked about it last year he responded: ``I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.’’ That was enough for the conservatives.
Just about all Republican wannabee presidential candidates have jumped on the exceptionalism bandwagon.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., former Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., are all onboard. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee declares: ``To deny American Exceptionalism is in essence to deny the heart and soul of this nation.’’

Sarah Palin _ never one to be outdone in the heart and soul department _ went right after the president in her book, saying that ``when President Obama insists that all countries are exceptional, he is saying none is, least of all the country he is leading.’’

(Writer's note: By arrangement with my syndicators, this column appears a week after it is released to newspapers.)

^IT’S TIME FOR A CALM LOOK AT THE WIKILEAKS PHENOM@<

^(For use by New York Times News Service clients)@<

^By BOB FRANKEN@=

^C.2010 Hearst Newspapers@=

WASHINGTON December 2, 2010 _ Let's go against the grain and try and temper some of the hand wringing about the latest WikiLeaks dump. Let's clear the air about what it means and what it doesn't.

It definitely means chagrin, the same kind we feel when writing a scathing email and accidentally hit ``Reply All.’’ Everyone can read the ridicule, including the target you were trying to trash behind his or her back. If we’re now front-stabbing someone we've been buttering up, we suddenly experience the agony of deceit.

It also means we have a system of secrecy that is so klutzy that the lowest level malcontent has the ability to open the leaky floodgates. Let's not overlook the fact that the main suspect here is an Army private.

For an analysis of what the content of the deluge means, we can rely on Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who's been around the track a few times. Here’s his reaction earlier this week: ``Now I've heard the impact of these releases on our foreign policy described as a melt-down, as a game-changer and so on. I think those description