Did you ever see the movie Fast Times at Ridgemont High? Do you remember the scene where Jeff Spicoli (Sean Penn) crashes his friend's older brother's car into a pallet of cinder blocks? After they both survey the devastating damage to the front-end of the car, Spicoli announces confidently, "Relax, all right? My old man is a television repairman, he's got this ultimate set of tools. I can fix it."

The GOP might be getting a kick out of learning that our current president used to act a lot like Jeff Spicoli in high school, but right now it's Mitt Romney that reminds me of him. The Republicans drove the economy into a pallet of cinder blocks and now they're offering us the exact same tools they used to wreck it as a way to fix it.

I mean, at its most basic, "Dudes on 'ludes should not drive." We tried the Reagan way and wound up with a giant debt, a Savings and Loan crisis, and a nasty recession. We tried the Bush the Lesser way and wound up with the biggest goddamned disaster since James Buchanan was president, and the worst economy since Herbert Hoover. We got an even bigger recession, an even bigger banking crisis, and much more debt.

And where did the government's "ultimate set of tools" go when it came time to fix New Orleans. We had Republicans out there saying that the city should just be abandoned.

The truth is, the Republicans' toolbox never changes. It comes down to, leave greed alone to do its magic, less government revenue equals less government debt, and a whole bunch of lies and divisive language to confuse everyone.

Don't let anyone try to convince you that elections don't matter. In 2000, if we had nominated Bill Bradley and John McCain, we would have had less money in politics. In 2004, a Kerry win would have tilted the Supreme Court to the left instead of giving us Citizens United and unlimited corporate cash in our elections. Do you know how fucked up the Middle East and Central Asia would be right now if Sarah Palin and John McCain had been running our government over the last three and a half years?

Mitt Romney's out there saying that he has a pro-business plan that will cause full employment, like we have no memory banks and it's some kind of guarantee.

Businessman Romney: It says one hundred percent guaranteed, you moron!
Barack Obama: Mister, if you don't shut up I'm gonna kick one hundred percent of your ass!

That's how this needs to go down.

I'm a little late getting to this, but I must say I'm shocked to see the Republican Party playing the class warfare card on behalf of the 99% and trying to stick it to the 1%:

The Republican National Committee released a new web video Monday lampooning the Obama campaign's latest fundraising effort, a web ad with Vogue editor-in-chief Anna Wintour that came out Friday, the same day as the dismal jobs report.

The RNC's online video titled "Meanwhile" pokes fun at the Wintour web video, beginning with the line "On the same day the unemployment rate rose to 8.2 percent. ...”

This ad is attacking success! This ad is making the socialist argument that wealthy people are responsible for the troubles of the less fortunate! This is the politics of envy!

I understand why it's supposed to work -- Republicans love to attack the cultural elite so the public won't attack the economic elite, the people whose wealth dwarfs that of Anna Wintour and Sarah Jessica Parker. But I'm not sure this ad works even on that level. Wintour isn't Rosie O'Donnell or Barbra Streisand or Sean Penn -- she's not someone known, even on the right, for holding forth on politics. Same with Sarah Jessica Parker. And as for the mainstream voters who might see the ad online, I'd say a lot of them are either consumers of the work Wintour and Parker do or are indifferent to it. Most Americans see celebrities as interesting distractions from humdrum lives, people whose work is entertaining and comes at a reasonable price, and offers a chance to daydream. They don't hate celebrities for being celebrities.

And the weird thing about the ad itself, at least for me, is that it draws my eye to Wintour, so I don't even read the economic statistics. And then the sound begins to fade and I think it's some sort of technical glitch or arty effect, or something wrong with my computer. Come on, Republicans! Go for the cliche scary pseudo-Carmina Burana music!

Do you read it differently? I think the ad utterly fails.

And I know I shouldn't defend it, but if our political system requires pols to rake in bucks by hobnobbing with swells, I'd rather it be these swells.

(X-posted at No More Mister Nice Blog.)

How rich people think:

American International Group Inc. (AIG) Chief Executive Officer Robert Benmosche said Europe’s debt crisis shows governments worldwide must accept that people will have to work more years as life expectancies increase.

“Retirement ages will have to move to 70, 80 years old,” Benmosche, who turned 68 last week, said during a weekend interview at his seaside villa in Dubrovnik, Croatia. “That would make pensions, medical services more affordable. They will keep people working longer and will take that burden off of the youth.”

Or, you know, we could raise taxes on rich people instead.

Has anyone noticed that the right-wing blogosphere seems to have gotten a little weird lately? I mean, they've always been an atrocious lot of paranoids and bigots, but lately they've been going off on tangents that are totally unrelated to the upcoming elections. Their hallucinatory obsession with the #twittergulag is only one piece of evidence that Mitt Romney's successful campaign for the nomination has made them lose interest in conventional politics. Their main focus of late has been on demonizing a couple of liberal activists that, because they are not actually very consequential, I had never heard of before. I don't say that to insult the victims of this right-wing smear campaign; I'm just pointing out that the nutters' energies don't seem to be calibrated very well. Destroying ACORN made sense. Destroying a couple of dudes named Brett Kimberlin and Neal Rauhauser will accomplish nothing. And, amusingly, the only one who has so far wound up in jail is the main wingnut leading the charge against them.

I think the real problem is that no one in the wingnut blogosphere actually has anything good to say about Romney and they've already maxed out on the anti-Obama stuff. What's left to do or talk about? They are picking over scraps at this point. Dan Rather was a long time ago.

Live in a trailer home where the land your trailer sits on was bought out by a company (owned by the former head of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources -- you can't make this crap up!) that wants to divert 3 million gallons of water per day to the hyfrofracking industry? Welcome to your eviction notice:

Hey, they're just poor people who can't afford to move. It must be their own fault, right?

This is probably Maureen Dowd's worst and most irresponsible column ever. Truly beneath contempt, and totally dismissive of any kind of stakes for anything she has ever pretended to care about.

Things are getting pretty nasty in the Wisconsin recall. If it is true that Scott Walker got his girlfriend pregnant in college, denied paternity, told her he didn't care if she had an abortion, and then eventually had to acknowledge paternity after she had the baby, that's not very impressive behavior on his part, and certainly isn't consistent with either his personal anti-choice stance or the GOP's mantra about personal responsibility. But the timing of the story isn't great. It makes it look like a last minute dirty trick. The same can be said for David Schuster's report that the governor faces imminent indictment for campaign finance crimes. I guess the stakes are pretty high here, and both sides are playing for keeps.

The way I see it, Mitt Romney's Mormon faith shouldn't interfere with his ability to do the duties of a president anymore than Harry Reid's Mormon faith interferes with his ability to serve as Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate. There are plenty of reasons to believe that Mr. Romney would be a terrible president, but his faith doesn't concern me and I don't think it should be an issue in the campaign. But the same is true of President Obama's faith. Obviously, both the Church of Latter Day Saints and the traditional urban black church have elements that are far outside the experience of the majority of Americans, and both candidates can be effectively attacked for their religious associations. That is going to happen on blogs and in restaurants and bars and office break rooms. But the campaigns and their party organizations should leave the issue alone. The Democratic Party shouldn't be the anti-Mormon party and the Republicans shouldn't be the anti-black church party. So, that's my answer to Jason Horowitz's question: "Should Romney's Mormon faith be fair game?"

Yet, I don't like this:

Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign has developed a simple method to determine whether coverage of the candidate’s Mormonism has crossed a line.

“Our test to see if a similar story would be written about others’ religion is to substitute ‘Jew’ or ‘Jewish,’ ” Romney campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul wrote in objection to a Washington Post article last fall about the candidate’s role as a church leader in Boston.

If they picked a different religion for comparison like, say, Buddhism or Catholicism, I probably wouldn't be as offended. But when you invoke Judaism, you automatically evoke the Holocaust, and I think that is too aggressive. I understand that the Mormons have experienced some very thorough, and violent, persecution, but this method of fighting back against the press doesn't seem to be fair play to me.

First, it inappropriately does what we call in philosophy "begging the question." What question is that, you ask? Well, the question is whether Mormonism is a religion or a cult. When we agree not to make Mormonism an issue, we're agreeing not to engage in theological examinations. But when the Romney campaign insists, for example, that there's no difference between Moses receiving the Ten Commandments and Joseph Smith digging up the golden plates, they're forcing us to concede the point or be accused of religious bigotry. When we agree out of politeness and a sense of respect for private beliefs not to question to veracity of the central story of Mormonism, we should not have that story's accuracy thrust in our face. Horowitz paraphrases Michael Purdy, media relations director for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as saying, "as a relatively young religion, Mormonism does not enjoy the authenticating quality of antiquity. Because it came of age in a modern time, its theology and saintly visitations can strike people as stranger than those of older religions shrouded by centuries." And here is Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul:

“Would you write this sentence in describing the Jewish faith?” Saul asked in a November e-mail, adding: “ ‘Jews believe their prophet Moses was delivered tablets on a mountain top directly from G-d after he appeared to him in a burning bush.’ Of course not, yet you reference a similar story in Mormonism.”

Both Purdy and Saul raise valid points, but they are points that they expect us not to discuss. What they're saying is really an invitation to start a theological discussion, not a rationale for shutting down a theological discussion. When they make a straightforward comparison between the prophetic age of Judiasm and Christianity and 19th-Century America, they're forcing us to question whether the story of Moses is historically accurate. Did angels really visit Mary? When did the prophetic age end, and why? How literally do Jews take the story of Moses? What's the Christian equivalent of a Mormon in terms of Holy Book literalism?

Second, once they open this door, we have to consider Romney's rather exalted position within his Church. If he were a Catholic, he'd be considered a cardinal or bishop. At least, he has served that role for a time. He isn't just some guy who was raised in the faith and never really questioned it.

As for Romney, church officials said it is up to the candidate how much he divulges about his beliefs and his role within the church. “But it is a matter of public record that he served as a Mormon bishop and a stake president, which is somewhat a larger responsibility,” said Michael Otter­son, the church’s head of worldwide public affairs. “It is up to him to decide if he wants to talk about that.”

When Romney was a student at BYU, some colleges refused to compete athletically against the school because of their ban on blacks in the priesthood. Romney, apparently, took the side of the church hierarchy. He's since said he is relieved that the ban was reversed, but there are many potential avenues of attack if the Romney campaign wants to open up that can of worms.

Finally, the press has a difficult task. To see how difficult, all you have to do is read Horowitz's piece. He's obviously walking on eggshells. They're being very aggressively asked to treat Mormonism as a religion as established and uncontroversial as Judaism, and any questioning of the religion is being overtly compared to the kind of anti-Semitism that led to the Holocaust. But Mormonism is controversial.. There are voters out there who won't vote for Romney because he's a Mormon, just as there are voters out there who won't vote for Obama because of Jeremiah Wright. It's a story. The press will be criticized no matter how they choose to deal with it. But they shouldn't allow themselves to be bullied.

“Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ-to have dominion in the civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.

But it is dominion that we are after. Not just a voice.

It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.

It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.

It is dominion we are after.

World conquest. That’s what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less.

If Jesus Christ is indeed Lord, as the Bible says, and if our commission is to bring the land into subjection to His Lordship, as the Bible says, then all our activities, all our witnessing, all our preaching, all our craftsmanship, all our stewardship, and all our political action will aim at nothing short of that sacred purpose.

Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land – of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ. It is to reinstitute the authority of God’s Word as supreme over all judgments, over all legislation, over all declarations, constitutions, and confederations.”

I came across the above statement by Dr. George Grant from a book he published in 1987 with Dominion Press, entitled The Changing of the Guard. Yes, they have been aiming for this for a very long time. And for a very long time they have worked under the cover of our ignorance. Who could have predicted a few nut cases could ever acquire such influence in our politics and our military? (No apologies to Condoleeza Rice).

Grant formerly worked for D. James Kennedy founder of one of the largest Christian Dominionist networks, Coral Ridge Ministries, which is based out of Florida (now "Truth in Action Ministries"). Grant was formerly an Executive Director of Coral Ridge Ministries. He achieved a measure of infamy last year when he endorsed Michele Bachmann's candidacy for President:

Grant, of course is hardly the most well known or influential leader of the Christian Dominionist movement, but his remarks quoted above represent perhaps the most direct and concise statement of what the Christian Right in America is determined to accomplish. And make no mistake, while they are currently supporting the Republican Party, that party is no more than a vehicle for the imposition of their agenda. They may sleep in the same bed as Exxon, ALEC, Karl Rove and the Koch Brothers, but they do so out of convenience, not because they joined at the hip with the proverbial 1%. Indeed, I suspect they largely support ALEC's agenda because it works to their benefit. After all, ALEC works to dismantle all secular institutions to which people in extremis could turn to for support, from local, state and federal governmental agencies to labor unions.

Think for a moment about the conditions that would create an opportunity for a Dominionist political leader to rise to power. First and foremost would be an economic crisis that raised the level of unemployment to double digit levels. Second, monolithic, unregulated and corrupt financial institutions that profit even as millions lose their jobs and life savings. Third, and this is critical, a weakened and ineffectual government unable to act. Fourth, the tacit support of the leaders of a nation's military. Sound familiar?

Since the 2010 election, a small minority in the House, the Tea Party Caucus, has brought most legislation to a standstill, and almost shut down the government and cause the Federal Government to go in default on its debt obligations last year when they refused to vote for raising the debt ceiling absent extreme cuts in social programs. They have also advocated for the privatization of Social Security and Medicare, the elimination of Medicaid, more tax cuts and across the board funding cuts to all federal agencies and departments other than those related to defense and the military. At a time when the world's economy hangs by a thread, they would implement the very austerity measures in the United States that are threatening to dismantle the European Union, crash the world's equity markets and destroy the life savings of millions here at home. I do not believe they are all unaware of the consequences of their actions. Far from it.

Though they wrap themselves in the banner of the "Tea Party" most of them are not libertarians as much as they are fundamentalist Christians, or at least politicians who rely on the support of conservative churches and their members. Indeed, the Tea Party at this point is as much or more a vehicle for the Religious Right as it is for the Grover Norquist/Neo-liberal/Libertarian wing of Conservatism. They want the economy to falter and our economic crisis to deepen. I imagine they would prefer that Obama win re-election rather than Mitt Romney, so long as they retain effective veto power in Congress, because then the coming economic collapse could be laid at his feet. Remember your history: extremists whether from the left or the right always benefit when times are bad.

In addition, don't be surprised a High Ranking Military Officer is "chosen" as the leader of the Dominionist's power grab should the opportunity present itself. For years, Christian Dominionists have been actively infiltrating the military, especially among the officer corps. Read the following from Alternet's "Birth of the Christian Soldier: How Evangelicals infiltrated the American Military."

[T]he NAE [National Association of Evangelicals]and others aggressively lobbied to fill chaplaincies left vacant by other denominations, resulting in a marked shift in the selection process weighted more and more to religious demographics within the military itself, where evangelical numbers continued to swell. This consolidation of power would result, by the late eighties, in the NAE Chaplains Commission's acting as the endorsing agent not only for established denominations but for hundreds of nonaligned individual churches. [...]

Evangelical church support organizations began to bring their considerable proselytizing prowess to bear on the armed services, spearheaded by such entrenched outreaches as the Colorado Springs-based Navigators, the Officer's Christian Fellowship, the Overseas Christian Servicemen's Centers, the Christian Military Fellowship, Campus Crusade for Christ, and the Full Gospel Businessmen. [...]

It was inevitable, considering the concerted effort by evangelicals to penetrate every echelon of the service, from the lowliest barracks to the loftiest policy-making aerie, that there would eventually emerge a cadre of Christian officers emboldened to openly profess their faith and use the full influence of their rank to bolster the cause.

You may recall that in 2007, the Inspector General for the Department of Defense issued a report regarding a cadre of high ranking defense department officials and military officers who had abused their authority to promote a video for "Christian Embassy." Those officials and officers included, without limitation the following individuals:

1. Preston Geren, Action Secretary of the Army
2. A senior official in the Army Budget Office
3. Major General Peter Sutton, USAF, Office of Defense Cooperation, Turkey
4. Major General John Catton Jr., USAF, Director of Requirements, Air Combat Command
5. Brigadier General Vincent Brooks, US Army, Deputy Commanding Officer, 1st Calvary Division
6. Brigadier General Robert Caslen Jr., US Army, Commandant of Cadets, US Military Academy
7. Retired Colonel Ralph Benson, Former Chaplain for the Pentagon

Here's where you can watch the video for Christian Embassy that the aforementioned DoD officials and Generals in appeared in and/or promoted and supported while acting in their official capacity. The essential findings of the Inspector General's report are listed below:

The 46-page report dated July 20, 2007 found that:

• Pentagon Chaplain Colonel Ralph G. Benson obtained limited approval for the non-profit, non-Federal religious organization “Christian Embassy” to film in the Pentagon by mischaracterizing the purpose and proponent of their new, fundraising video. He had stated that the video was to document the Pentagon’s own ministry rather than that of a non-Federal entity, when it was actually intended to attract new supporters.
• Benson thus provided “Christian Embassy” a selective benefit, including permission to film and unescorted access to Pentagon areas and personnel that other organizations would not have received.
• Seven high-ranking military officers, including major generals and brigadier generals were filmed in interviews with “Christian Embassy” during the duty day with rank clearly displayed in official and often identifiable Pentagon locations.
• None of the officers had sought or received approval to participate in official capacity or uniform.

[...]

• The officers’ remarks conferred approval of and support to “Christian Embassy”, and some officers’ remarks implied that they spoke for a group of senior military leaders.
• Mr. Robert Varney, Executive Director of “Christian Embassy”, testified that the new video was used for his organization’s fundraising; indeed the new video covered exclusively the non-Federal organization, but did not mention the Pentagon’s ministry.
• The new, 2004 video updated “Christian Embassy’s” prior promo video of 2001 and included endorsements of the organization and its “services” from supporters working on Capitol Hill, other Federal agencies and embassies, wholly unconnected with the Pentagon’s ministry.
• The non-DoD speakers on the video included six congressmen, two ambassadors, two ambassadors’ wives, as well as the Under Secretary of Benefits for Veterans’ Affairs and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, who acknowledged in the video “Christian Embassy’s” international and federal-governmental evangelical outreach.
• The report concluded that Major Generals Peter Sutton and John Catton, Brigadier Generals Vincent Brooks and Robert Caslen “improperly endorsed and participated with a non-Federal entity while in uniform”. It recommends that the Air Force and the Army “consider appropriate corrective action…”.
• The report also concluded that the Pentagon Chaplain’s office authorized contractor badge status to 34 religiously affiliated volunteers, including “Christian Embassy” employees. Further, it noted that the Inspector General’s office is “unconvinced” that these passes were properly authorized and “suggests that a contractor badge is not appropriate for these individuals”.

Here is the statement on the website of Christian Embassy in which they describe who they are and their mission:

"We are a team of people who love what we do. We are passionate, creative and energetic. We come to work every morning knowing that what we do matters. We believe that by caring for people in positions of influence we help make a positive, eternal difference in the lives of those they serve. We are committed to helping world-changers achieve things that will outlast their lives.

We are a non-political, multi-denominational ministry that has been caring for, encouraging and equipping our country’s leaders and decision-makers for over 30 years. We were founded by Washington officials, concerned business leaders and Dr. Bill Bright, founder of Campus Crusade for Christ International. "Christian Embassy seeks to help diplomats, government leaders and military officers find real and lasting purpose through faith and encouragement."

Obviously, their weasel words about "caring for" or seeking to "help" military officers "find real and lasting purpose through faith and encouragement" are disingenuous and misleading euphemisms for their real focus: to convert as many members of political leaders, government officials and military members of all ranks to their form of radical Christian Dominionist theology. At this point, it would be remiss of me if I did not note that Bill Bright, of Campus Crusade for Christ and Christian Embassy, was a well known Dominionist leader and the co-founder of the infamous Seven Mountains Initiative which seeks as its goal to implement and promote radical change by creating the means for Dominionist Christians to influence and or assume control over the "Seven Mountains" or "Pillars" of our society:

These seven mountains are business, government, media, arts and entertainment, education, the family and religion. There are many subgroups under these main categories. ... In essence, God was telling these three change agents [Bill Bright, Francis Schaeffer and Loren Cunningham] where the battlefield was. It was here where culture would be won or lost. Their assignment was to raise up change agents to scale the mountains and to help a new generation of change agents understand the larger story.

Now let me refer you back to the first quote I cited from George Grant at the beginning of this post to reinforce for you what Christian Dominionists are working to achieve each and every day in "plain language" without of the lies, code words and misleading impressions they employ when they present themselves to the public:

“Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ-to have dominion in the civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.

But it is dominion that we are after. Not just a voice.

It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.

It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.

It is dominion we are after.

World conquest. That’s what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less.

If Jesus Christ is indeed Lord, as the Bible says, and if our commission is to bring the land into subjection to His Lordship, as the Bible says, then all our activities, all our witnessing, all our preaching, all our craftsmanship, all our stewardship, and all our political action will aim at nothing short of that sacred purpose.

Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land – of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ. It is to reinstitute the authority of God’s Word as supreme over all judgments, over all legislation, over all declarations, constitutions, and confederations.”

Could anything be more clear? In short, their goal is to overturn the Constitution take control of our country at every level. They are working to depose our Federal Government and replace it with a Christian Theocractic state. They would would impose their interpretation of "Biblical Law" on all Americans. We call them the American Taliban, and for good reason. Right now, they (in an alliance of convenience with conservative billionaires, Wall Street and other multinational corporations) with are using the Republican party and Republican elected officials to bring this nation to its economic knees. Dominionist Christians are actively working to create the very crisis that they believe will bring them to power. This election and every election that follows is a fight for the future of our country and our democracy (weak and flawed though it may be). After reading their own words regarding their goals and witnessing their actions to demonize and oppress gays, women, labor unions, Democrats, and any other group that would oppose them, nothing is more certain.

This is interesting:

A new Public Policy Polling poll finds that African-American voters in Missouri have shifted drastically on the question of same-sex marriage since they were last polled in January. They now support marriage equality 50-31, whereas before opposition was much stronger at 25-44, a 38 point shift. Missouri follows polls in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and nationally that all show African-American voters embracing marriage equality in the wake of President Obama’s endorsement.

I remember when Obama was running against Hillary Clinton that he wasn't initially winning anything like monolithic support from the black community. A lot of the polling focused on South Carolina because it was an early-voting state, and the first one with a heavily black Democratic electorate. I'm going from memory here, but I recall that his support among South Carolina blacks skyrocketed after he won in Iowa. The way this was explained was that black folks didn't think white people would vote for him until they saw them do just that in Iowa.

It now appears that Obama has won some rather fierce loyalty. For him to be able to move public opinion in the black community so significantly on a moral question like gay marriage is very impressive. My guess is that he did change a lot of minds. But I think there's a large segment of the black community who aren't going to answer a poll question in a way that they feel will be unhelpful to the president. In other words, they didn't change their mind about gay marriage; they suddenly started viewing the issue as a political question rather than a moral one.

One thing I think is going underreported is how black folks are experiencing the attacks on the president. Whether it's the refusal to work with him or the mean-spirited crap about his birth certificate, it can't be very pleasant for most black people to watch. And then there are the efforts to disenfranchise people of color and the endless nonsense about the New Black Panthers or Trayvon Martin or ACORN or whatever is the FOX-driven racism of the moment.

My guess is that a bit of a siege-mentality is taking root. A lot of people think that black turnout will be down from 2008, but I'm not so sure that it will be down as much as people are anticipating. I get the sense that black folks see a lot at stake. Obama cannot fail. Not like this.

David Maraniss' biography "Barack Obama: The Story," is supposed to be in bookstores by June 19th. I'm very interested to read it, but I find the whole thing a bit unsettling. I imagine the feeling of terror I would have if some reporter was going around trying to talk to everyone I ever went to school with. I would not want to read about my awkwardest pick-up lines or recounts of my near-death experiences. I don't think I'd look too good if my old partying buddies started telling stories about the time that I got severely impaired and did x, y, or z. I can even relate a little bit to the revelations about Mitt Romney's high school days. I never did anything close to that unkind, but I know there are some people who would have some unpleasant things to say about me. Fortunately, I didn't like to wear funny hats or smoke my cigarettes like they were joints, but I probably had other embarrassing affectations that I don't even remember.

What can a biographer learn about a person by digging into their childhood and adolescence? I think what emerges is a record of what's most memorable. This year, my high school class will have its 25th reunion. There are names I've forgotten. There are some names I never knew. But most of those people remain in my memory banks in some very abridged kind of way. I remember when they did something funny or stupid. I have a general positive or negative feeling toward them that I could probably explain only in the vaguest terms. What do people remember about you 25 or 35 years later? Do they remember that you edited the school paper or worked at the grocery store or know what was going on in your home that made you act so insecurely at school?

I think history is hard. But history that is this personal, that delves into the lives of middle schoolers and high schoolers, almost seems like a violation of privacy. It's not, of course. If you want to be president, this is the price you pay. But I think it's difficult to get a fair picture of what a person's adolescence was like. You get the controversial and the memorable, but most of the time being a teenager isn't controversial or memorable.

I share Jonah Goldberg's frustration that so many people in the electorate are stupid morons. It's regrettable. For example:

Forty-six percent of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form at one point within the past 10,000 years, according to a survey released by Gallup on Friday.

If we were to poll readers of the National Review, the number would no doubt exceed fifty percent. Now, do people believe something demonstrably disproved by basic biology because they're young? Do people outgrow such magical thinking, much like they give up on Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, and the Bogeyman? Some do, but most people grow more religious with age, and more religiously conservative as well.

Creationism is definitely a bipartisan affair, but it's particularly strong on the Republican side:

The numbers also showed a tendency to follow party lines, with nearly 60% of Republicans identifying as creationists, while 41% of Democrats hold the same beliefs.

Republicans also seem to be more black-and-white about their beliefs, with only 5% responding that humans evolved with some help from God. That number is much lower than the 19% of both independents and Democrats.

Using Goldberg's logic, we shouldn't allow any of these people to vote since they are too stupid or indoctrinated to understand a middle school science class. Also, following Goldberg's logic, we should literally beat these people with our fists or other implements until they stop being so dumb.

It's annoying and not a little dangerous that we have so many morons in this country, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't vote. The Republican instinct is to limit the franchise. They talk about it all the time. They say that only people who make enough money to pay income tax should be able to vote. Or they say, like Goldberg, that we should raise the voting age. Or they support purges of the voter rolls aimed disproportionately at people of color and the aged. Or they support state-issued photo identification laws that do the same.

They have more motivation to suppress the vote than they have to win the argument. If only they could get fewer blacks and Latinos and young people to vote, they'd win. Democrats never think like this. We never talk about suppressing the religious right's vote, for example. But we could. We could say that if you think that mankind was beamed down to this planet 4000 years ago then you're too much of a twit for your opinion to matter. But the truth is that people can be staggeringly dumb about some things and fabulously smart about others. In a democracy, we must have the consent of the governed, not just the consent of the people with half a brain in their head. All of our opinions matter. Even Jonah Goldberg's.

In a hundred years, who will be considered the best rock and roll band of all time, the Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, or Pink Floyd? And, no, no other bands will be considered.

(and other takeaways from that BuzzFeed article)

You've probably seen this BuzzFeed article by McKay Coppins:

After a day spent waging bi-coastal combat with the Obama campaign, Mitt Romney's team in Boston earned the highest compliment Rush Limbaugh has ever paid them Thursday afternoon: "I'm telling you," he said. "This is not the McCain campaign."

Once-skeptical conservatives knew exactly what he meant. In the eyes of many on the right, John McCain's 2008 presidential bid was a disaster not because he lost, but because he refused to fight. Conservatives believe McCain bought into a liberal media narrative that personal attacks on Barack Obama were unseemly and even racist....

But if the Vietnam veteran disappointed conservatives with his gun-shy campaign in 2008, Romney is uniting the right by playing the role of the bomb-thrower....

First of all, wasn't "taking the gloves off" and making clear you don't give a damn what the damn dirty liberals think the strategy of Sarah Palin? How'd that work out? Base-motivating, to be sure, but also opponent-motivating, as I recall.

Ahh, but we're told that Romney is trying to be a bomb-thrower without being a real right-winger:

...his new appeal to the right marks a recognition that he can court conservatives without, in any traditional sense, "tacking right." His aggressive tactics stand in for the sort of policy compromises that could damage him in November; better, his advisers argue, to court conservatives with a press conference shouting match than with a high-profile fight over abortion or gay marriage. What's more, they say, the media obsession with Romney “pandering” to the right represents a misunderstanding of conservatives, who can live with Romney's moderate record – as long as he's a fighting moderate.

Is Romney really a moderate? As Ed Kilgore reminds us, the answer to that is hell, no:

It should be enough for anyone that Romney has endorsed two large and violently immoderate measures: the Ryan budget, and Jim DeMint's Cut, Cap and Balance Pledge, those twin substantive litmus tests for a candidate's commitment to a long-term agenda focused on a radically reduced government at all levels supported by a more regressive tax system. He's also promised to try to make abortion and same-sex marriage illegal through federal policy if possible and judicial appointments if necessary; there is nothing "moderate" about reversing 40 years of legalized abortion. And don't get me started on Romney’s foreign policy views, which seem to combine the worst features of Dick Cheney and John Bolton.

But his campaign has now very deftly injected this meme into the narrative: for the right, Mitt-as-fighter; for the left and center, Mitt-fighting-with-fingers-crossed. A lot of people on the left and center actually believe Romney would govern as a moderate -- and this story reinforces that dangerous deception, which will be repeated in even more stories as the campaign progresses. Well played, Team Romney.

Another point I'd make is that, while Romney may have been pretty far to the right for a long time, the right-wing base didn't think he was, so they didn't like him. Now he's fighting, however, and they do like him -- even though he's no further to the right than he was a month or two ago. This suggests to me that these folks really don't give a crap about governance or ideology -- they just have an infantile desire to see the people they hate (us) get beaten up.

One final takeaway: it's about the money.

"There were a lot of folks who didn't think he’d have the edge to really take on the president," a Romney advisor, who outlined the campaign strategy on the condition of anonymity, told BuzzFeed, refrring to "the Santorum people and conservatives who have been off the bandwagon."

"They've been pretty surprised and impressed at how willing Boston has been to push back," the advisor said. "We're raising money, and I'm getting calls from people saying, 'This is amazing... I didn't think this would happen."

You throw a coin in Mitt's cup, he'll dance however you want him to.

(X-posted at No More Mister Nice Blog.)