Reports began coming out as recently as yesterday that the Obama administration was hoping to promote Susan Rice to the prestigious National Security Adviser position sometime in the near future. Note that I did not say he’d try. You see, that’s the rub that will get the Republicans all in a tizzy – it’s not a post that requires a Senate hearing or even their approval. He can just do it. The biggest news source on this is ForeignPolicy.com’s The Cable.

Insiders with ties to the Obama administration tell The Cable that U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice has become the heir apparent to National Security Advisor Tom Donilon – a post at the epicenter of foreign-policy decision making and arguably more influential than secretary of state, a job for which she withdrew her candidacy last fall amid severe political pressure.

Here’s the thing, though. The e-mails released recently concerning the Benghazi cover-up don’t show her as part of the process that led to the “hateful video” talking points. It is a lot more likely that she was handed the talking points and did what she was told. Ambassador to the United Nations is not a part of the State Department, and is an on-again-off-again cabinet-level position (was from Ford to Reagan, wasn’t for H.W. Bush, was for Clinton, wasn’t for W. Bush and is for Obama).

One thing I will venture an opinion on: Republicans should tread lightly around this bait. Right now, there is just enough evidence showing Rice had no direct involvement in the talking points to make trouble for Republicans who want to go out and trash the potential move. If I could advise McCain and Graham, who will be the most vocal on this (bless their hearts, they want to look like they’re doing something right), I would tell them to lay low on this one. There are better, more winnable and, God knows, more important fights. Sure, “Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs” sounds pretty important, but the front lines of the national security defense force will always be the alphabet soup of agencies, a post she will never, ever be qualified for or be offered a job at.

All that was over at 10 p.m. central standard time. I began writing this post at 10:41 p.m. central standard time. That is a 41-minute gap I am about to explain to you and why the little experiment I ran only shows we’re lagging behind. I took a brief trip first through YouTube. It didn’t take long to find what I was looking for. For variety, I typed in “CNN IRS scandal” in one tab and “Fox News IRS scandal” in another tab. Then, I opened up a sound recording software I have that I did legally purchase for the sake of a side job I have doing recorded newscasts via the Internet.

I went to my settings and changed the recording device to Stereo Mix, which means whatever I play on the computer is what gets recorded. I loaded up news clips of anchors, Jay Carney and Barack Obama. I recorded them individually in separate files. Then, reverting the settings back to my cheap microphone, I recorded myself reciting various phrases like “And these are the guys you want running our health care system?” You get the idea.

The final step was some music to set the mood. I simply used Garage Band on my iPad, used the pre-set melodies on the acoustic guitar to give a solemn air to what I was about to do.

Opening up a different program that allows me to put multiple tracks into an audio project, I inserted the music in first (I uploaded it to SoundCloud from my iPad, then downloaded it). It ran longer than I intended, so I chopped it off at about 30 seconds. Next, I inserted the briefest clips of reporters talking about the IRS scandal we’ve all come to know and love. Then, the final step was my voice, which I really don’t like listening to, but for the sake of the experiment, I had to do it.

That first commercial was a thirty-minute process, and most of that was spent on YouTube. The second commercial was Carney and Obama, followed up with my dulcet tones again. A much shorter process, given I’d already recorded everything.

Keep in mind, I am no professional. It used to be my job to do this, but I had a sound board and everything. Now, I just have a microphone, some nice headphones and my computer. I came up with two radio commercials in 40 minutes.

Since the scandal erupted, several conservatives watched all of this information come to light and scratched their chins, thinking “…And these are the guys we have set to run our healthcare system?” But, look on TV and listen to your radios. Nothing. This is an ad campaign that’s fallen into our laps. Why on earth haven’t we taken advantage?

I’m a dude sitting at a computer who will post this and then go read Sherlock Holmes stories, and I did it easily. There are people who do this for a living who have done nothing. And we wonder why it is we fall behind. There are people out there who probably think “We shouldn’t make this political. We don’t want to send the wrong messenger.”

But, you can’t shoot the messenger if he doesn’t show up in the first place. And you don’t know who might end up listening to him, either, right?

You may not know the name “Glenn Jacobs.” He is very libertarian, having spoken on Lew Rockwell’s show a couple of times. Again, a name you may not know all that well, but that’s okay. If, however, you watch World Wrestling Entertainment, you are aware of the tag team champions, Team Hell No. Glenn Jacobs is the masked monster commonly referred to as Kane.

Kane is demonic. He is sadistic. He is powerful. He summons fire from the four corners of the ring when he is proving a point. Or angry. Or just feels like it. It’s hard to tell sometimes, really. But, Kane is also libertarian.

Meanwhile, in Tennessee, one of the more well-known backers of the Internet Sales Tax is the state’s lieutenant governor, Ron Ramsey. Ramsey has called the tax “not new” and “not unfair.” And, sure, he’s entitled to that opinion, I guess, even if he is completely and totally wrong. But, if I were Ramsey, I’d watch my back now. Because a demonic, hell-spawn wrestler is onto his game.

“Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey claims that the Internet sales tax mandate is not a new tax. Nor, according to Ramsey, is it an unfair tax. Ramsey is wrong on both counts. I, therefore, invite Lt. Gov. Ramsey for a policy debate on the issue of the Marketplace Fairness Act in a public forum at his convenience.”

That is a quote from a wrestling news website and, yes, it is pretty spot-on in most of what it reports. However, if you want a slightly more reputable source, or at least a second one, go here. Honestly, I can only hope the meeting takes place in the squared circle and has Kane in full costume. Mask and all. And I hope he stays in character while schooling Ramsey on the damage the Internet sales tax can do to the country. If you are thinking “Well, what can a professional wrestler POSSIBLY know about economics and politics,” well…

And, while libertarianism can get insane (which is why I tend to avoid the label although we tend to be about 70-75% in agreement), I think Kane… I mean, Jacobs… really does a fine job of tearing the idea down. He’s anger over the tax was noted in US News and World Report.

Mind you, Jacobs is not the only libertarian wrestler. He said he was introduced to the political philosophy by the man wrestling fans know as Val Venis, a character who, according to Wikipedia, “was introduced with a series of vignettes that showcased Venis’ life style on and off the set, the most notable of these featuring Venis in bed with prominent real-life porn star Jenna Jameson.”

I love professional wrestling.

——————-

See this post and others of mine here. Follow me on Twitter: @joec_esquire

Let’s head down to Louisiana now, my home state, the land that birthed Mr. Erickson (It’s true. The ground just opened up and he walked out with a coat and no tie, just like all his profile pictures.), and turn our attention to the Louisiana education battle. Governor Bobby Jindal instituted an education reform package that has people all in a tizzy. I normally don’t comment on it because I had (and largely still do have) some concerns. But it was a start, a kick to the rear of a failing education system in the state. And it forced people to care.

Say what you want about the education overhaul, good or bad, and say what you want about unions – I’m a wee bit biased because my wife’s a teacher, my mom’s a teacher and I know teachers aren’t the problem. It’s the leadership (ain’t it always the way?). What you CAN’T say, however, is that Jindal feels children are a commodity, something we own and utilize as we see fit**.

You know who did, though? The Louisiana Association of Educators president, Joyce Haynes. ““There isn’t anything fair about using something like that only against the public schools,” she told WBRZ in Baton Rouge, “and then taking our children from us, and sending us where we don’t know what they’re getting.”

I know some folks will say “She was talking as a parent,” and I might agree, except this isn’t the first time the LAE has said some… disturbing things. Brian F. Blackwell, an attorney for the LAE, said that the New Orleans Recovery School District “is more a Katrina than a ‘Silicon Valley!’”

I’m very pro-education. And pro-teacher. I’m not pro-my-kids-aren’t-mine, however. Regardless of where the education reform goes from here (it’s not been successful in court, mind you), this kind of thing is something we should be teaching against.

*If anyone posts “All your kids are belong to us” in the comments, I will find you.

**Lawn mowing services excluded.

Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., is part of a diminishing number of Senate Democrats who have not endorsed same-sex marriage. That number is down to just nine among the Senate’s 53 Democrats and two independents who caucus with the party, after recent announcements by five Democrats that they support gay marriage.

Landrieu issued a statement Thursday night saying that she’ll accept the views of Louisiana voters, though her own have evolved. [emphasis added]

That sounds awfully familiar, doesn’t it?

Landrieu is in dangerous waters. Her state is Redder than ever and the more these deeply liberal issues come up, the more she has to shift (with the blessings of Democratic leadership, most of the time) to stay on top. In fact, Louisiana’s Forum for Equality is okay with her stance at the moment.

The New Orleans-based Forum for Equality, which works for equal rights for gay, lesbian and trans-gender Americans, is expressing patience with Landrieu, whom they praise for opposing a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and for supporting legislation that bans discrimination based on sexual orientation.

She has three votes under her belt that specifically run counter to her sudden opposition to a push for equal marriage. Instead, she is choosing to stay safe and try to keep the votes coming in. Those three votes? They’re reference in that last quote, but specifically, she voted against the constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman twice and also voted for an act to repeal DOMA in years past. Regardless of your views on gay marriage, you as well as I know this new position is simply a play to remain re-elected. It’s what politicians do.

Of course, she says she’s going to follow the wishes of Louisiana residents (who voted 78 percent in favor of the constitutional amendment), but she also “doesn’t scare easily”:

“I think it’s in my DNA. I come from a family that feels very passionately and very strongly about public service and about trying to always find a balance and keep our eyes focused on representing the people and not getting too caught up in the politics of the day.”

Huh.

Landrieu says voting on principle is more important than changing her positions to avoid campaign attack ads.

Huh.

Over the past several days, we’ve watched our country devolve into arguments over a social issue that is divisive and impossible to get everyone to agree on. I’m not here now to discuss our feelings on the subject of gay marriage, nor am I here to cast judgment on anyone for their views. Overall, friends, I think we’ve become a bit distracted.

At any given moment, when Obama is trying to govern (those moments are truly few and far between), conservatives (a group I find much more likable) and libertarians (a group that, until recently, I considered myself most like in thought and belief) are united by their disdain in his practices. Each side sees that liberties are being trod opponent and are appalled that the government is getting away with it. But, what happens next is absolutely shocking to me. Libertarians make it a point to not side with conservatives on anything because of the God thing.

Now, we once again are fighting among ourselves. Gay marriage is an issue that will continue to crop up every now and then in some form. In the meantime, we are ignoring what the government is (or is not doing) with regard to the deficit, debt and budget. We, as a team (and if you don’t realize we need to be a team, we cannot win in a meaningful way), have to find a common ground here: find the talking points we agree on (fiscal responsibility is a great and probably only way to start), we hit them hard and constantly, and we find a candidate who can make it a fight on the fiscal issues.

For the sake of continuing on, we have to come up with something that working for all of us.

But my friends, readers, countrymen and haters (who will continue to hate, if the Internet is as trustworthy as I believe it is), the fact remains that the words we use in the context of gay marriage are wrong. Now, first, I need to find my Libertarian hat (not the Alex Jones tinfoil hat, which will be available at the end of the post) in order to make my point. The right to get married to anyone (or, as the Right likes to conclude, anything if the act is taken to it’s logical ends) extends to all who wish to get married. Where we get confused, more often than not, is when we discuss it as a civil right.

It’s not one. Sorry.

I firmly believe that the union of one person to another, regardless of race, creed, orientation, etc. is a basic human right. If someone finds a person who is special to them and wants to spend the rest of their life with that person in happiness and love, I don’t see any reason why they shouldn’t. But there is a problem. Even a heterosexual marriage isn’t a guaranteed right in the United States.  There are restrictions. You can’t be under 18 (without the consent of a parent or guardian). You can’t get married more than once at a time. You can’t get married to Fido over there. The government currently dictates the terms of marriage.

That leads us to the second word that perhaps we ought to glance at further.

Mawwaige. Mawwiage is what bwings us togeddar today (I am so sorry). The government’s control over who can be bound together isn’t the main argument. It’s the end game. The battle is over the word “marriage.”

The word is based in religion. Not just Christianity, but people have been married before their gods for thousands of years. It is the holy union between a man and a woman. For the courts to dictate the definition of a religious word is a clear violation of the First Amendment’s liberal translation, the Separation of Church and State. But, there is a secular option – the civil union. It can be just as viable an option and made (and I hope it is) to offer the same legal benefits as marriage. Why we can’t push for that is beyond me (but then again, so is algebra).

As an aside, I fabricated that bit about Alex Jones tinfoil hats being available at the end of this post. If you wanted one unironically, I don’t think we can be friends.

A handful of ministers delivered the letter to the governor’s office at the State Capitol Monday morning.

Jindal wants to eliminate the state’s personal income and corporate taxes in favor of increasing the state sales tax by 47 percent and taxing services such as hair cuts, cable television and other expenses.

The proposal will be debated in the legislative session that starts next month.

Jindal’s press office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ministers’ concerns.

The ministers represent an array of faiths, including Baptist, Episcopal and Methodist.

Bishop Gregory Cooper said he feels comfortable reaching out to the governor because Jindal told legislators his proposal is not etched in stone.

Once again, this idea of the poor and middle class taking on the burden of the taxes in the new proposal is tossed out with no supporting evidence, other than rhetoric and some scary words,  like “regressive” and “47% tax increase.” But without actually explaining with facts, the entire argument can collapse. The letter itself can be tossed out at the clergy’s first argument:

First, we are concerned that Louisiana already has one of the most regressive tax systems in the nation, putting a disproportionately high burden on low and moderate income families. Currently, families earning minimum wage (less than $16,000 per year) pay 10.6% of their income in state and local taxes; the average Louisiana family pays 10.1% of its income in taxes; while the wealthiest Louisiana families (earning over $1 million per year) pay only 4.6% of their income in state and local taxes. That is unacceptable, as a starting point.

Let’s stop right here and think for a moment. Jindal’s plan is to get rid of income-based taxation, so are the clergymen arguing for or against the plan? It doesn’t make sense to open up your arguments against a proposal to get rid of the state’s income tax by pointing out the disparity between what the poor pay and what the rich pay, does it? If you read the paragraph, if looks like the exact argument you should make IN FAVOR of Jindal’s plan. Want the taxing of Louisiana citizens to be fair? Everyone pays the same rate in a form of taxes that doesn’t allow for breaks and exemptions. Stupendous.

Jindal’s plan is centered mostly around one thing: raising the sales tax by less than two cents per every dollar you spend. It widens what sales tax applies to and boosts cigarette tax by more than a dollar, but the bulk of the proposal currently focuses on that first part. Are you going to tell me that two more cents per dollar is going to break the bank? If that’s the case, rethink your personal budget.

——————-

See this post and others of mine here. Follow me on Twitter: @joec_esquire

Ha ha ha.

Minutes after the election of the pope, media outlets went berserk that the cardinals DARED to name a Catholic to the papacy. I might be a little hyperbolic there, but it’s incredible to me that people would expect the Catholic Church to pick someone who was Pro-Choice and all for gay marriage. No matter what your own personal belief is, it is almost insane to think that the Church would take a sudden reversal on these issues.

But, more than that, some of those who don’t see eye to eye with the Catholic Church are already hard at work trying to make this pope out to be a villain, too. Check out the New York Times.

He has been less energetic, however, in urging the Argentine church to examine its own behavior during the 1970s, when the country was consumed by a conflict between right and left. In what became known as the Dirty War, as many as 30,000 people were disappeared, tortured or killed by a military dictatorship that seized power in March 1976.

What the NYT (or almost any other outlet I’ve come across yet) doesn’t tell you is that the accusations are almost certainly false. <a title=”CNN tells it like
it is.” href=”http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/14/world/pope-5-things/index.html” target=”_blank”>CNN goes head-to-head with the allegations.

Francis, in particular, was accused in a complaint of complicity in the 1976 kidnapping of two liberal Jesuit priests, [CNN Vatican analyst John] Allen wrote. Francis denied the charge.

“The best evidence that I know of that this was all a lie and a series of salacious attacks was that Amnesty International who investigated that said that was all untrue,” said Jim Nicholson, former U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See. “These were unfair accusations of this fine priest.”

Of course, the more extreme on the Left, whose voices are typically heard in tweets and Facebook posts, are a little less accepting of that. Shouts of murderer and (my personal favorite) fascist groupie can be found on Twitter. Listening to Erick Erickson’s radio show yesterday provided me with a potential new job title when someone called in and called the new pope a “purveyor of fairy tales.”

However, I am willing to bet, these very naysayers are the same ones who tell us that we cannot judge the president of the United States because of his past actions and acquaintances. “You have to respect him because he’s the president!” doesn’t translate over to religion, I guess.

But that’s just the thing, isn’t it? We can’t talk bad about Obama, but we can jump on Pope Francis’ case the second he’s named to lead the Church?

I don’t like Obama, but I respect the fact that he is the president. I respect the office just fine. I respect what it represents – it is the head of our country. The leadership of the nation I was born in and raised to like. So, even if there have been guys I don’t like in that seat, what it still means to me is vastly important.

The same goes for the papacy. Yes, he is the most powerful man in the Catholic world, perhaps in the Christian world. There may have been unsavory men in the seat in the past (the Renaissance is a fascinating period of time in terms of the absolute worst the papacy had in its leadership) and maybe Benedict wasn’t the best one in the modern era, but there is still the fact that you don’t trash the religion or the seat of the pope because of one man.

Honestly, it’s a point that shouldn’t have to be made, but apparently, it needs to.

Well, dear Mary is up for re-election for the U.S. Senate in 2014 here in Louisiana, a state that has surged red to the point where an incredible amount of Democrats switched parties just to stay alive in the state political system (but that’s a different story entirely and in some cases, some remaining Democrats are more conservative than the party switchers). So, naturally, Landrieu is playing to the conservative lean of her constituents in order to boost her odds against a growing slate of potential opponents, right?

Hahahahahahahahahahaha.

U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu on Tuesday accused Gov. Bobby Jindal of refusing billions of federal funds that would help uninsured Louisianans get access to health care because of his ambitions to run for higher office. “He just seems adamant about putting his political future ahead of the economic interest of the people of Louisiana,” Landrieu said during a conference call advocating that Louisiana embrace the Medicaid expansion envisioned in the federal health law.

This NOLA.com story details Mary pitting herself firmly against one of the biggest conservative issues of the moment and also against her supposed opposition to the health care law originally (before the $300 million bribe detailed in the opening link of this post).

On the program, Jindal also criticized the inflexibility of the Medicaid program, saying that it needs to be changed before it grows. The federal health law calls for states to expand Medicaid to people with incomes up to 138 percent of the poverty law in order to provide health insurance to the poor.

Landrieu, a Democrat, challenged that assessment, saying the program is flexible. “He is hiding behind this cry for flexibility to blunt what he is actually doing,” she said. “It is really disturbing.”

Mary. Dear. I hate to tell you this, but it’s incredibly obvious what you’re doing. You see Jindal’s dismally-low approval rating and see it as something to take advantage of in order to secure votes. It’s a risky strategy, given that if his tax overhaul passes and gains some speed in the next year, you’re chastising the man who has turned your state around.

Landrieu’s playing the “Democrats care” card in a state where she is only tolerated because of her oil and gas industry support, something she is handsomely rewarded for, and outside of the New Orleans area, her support wanes. She has the minority vote, but it’s becoming more and more likely she’ll lose almost all of her conservative support come 2014.

——————-

See this post and others of mine here. Follow me on Twitter: @joec_esquire