Sometimes bariatric surgery is just bariatric surgery

If you’ve ever found yourself beating your brains out about why reasonable people don’t run for public office, it’s because even the reasonable things they do will be subject to accusations of “playing politics.” Case in point: Gov. Chris Christie’s (R-NJ) reason for secretly obtaining gastric band surgery in February. Why he felt the need to tell the New York Post this (of all papers!), I don’t know; it may have been a pre-emptive strike, in order to avoid the inevitable gawking and speculation that would come with significant weight loss on his part.

For those who are unfamiliar with gastric band surgery:

The operation included placing a silicone tube around the top of his stomach, where it restricts the amount of food he can eat at one time and makes him feel fuller, faster.

For the record, no, it wasn’t the surgery featured in the scene during which you covered your eyes in Super Size Me. That’s a gastric bypass, which divides the stomach into two “pouches,” one for food and one for remnants. Let that haunt your daydreams.

It seems pretty cut-and-dried, doesn’t it? Christie has struggled with his weight for a long time, and it’s come with a lot of unfair criticism that has nothing to do with governing. I will say, however, that when it comes to crafting policy around health and nutrition, it would be good for him to draw on his own experience in emphasizing long-term lifestyle change as opposed to surgery. If nothing else, it might remove one driver of health care cost growth.

But, since we’re talking about Christie, of course it’s not that simple. Not even the Post, despite being entrusted with this exclusive, believed him when he said it was for his family’s sake. If they did, they may not have included this part:

Despite Christie’s denials, political fund-raisers say that the surgery is a clear sign that he’s going to join the 2016 race — and will do whatever it takes to win. “This means he’s running for president. He’s showing people he can get his weight in control. It was the one thing holding him back,” a top political donor told The Post.

Sure, if you’re going to be in campaign mode for eight years, you’ll want all bodily systems go. But it does not mean that he’s running for president. This may be a shocking prospect, but it could mean that he’s heeding his family’s concerns about his health. There’s no need to assign an ulterior motive until he lets fly with one, as he let fly with the surgery itself, which he may now regret.

Is this what anyone considered a prospect for higher office must suffer? “I bet Newark mayor Cory Booker saved all those people and animals so he can be president one day!” How cynical is that, honestly? Even a politician can be noble once in a while.

Just take a hike, Sanford

Let’s see. What was it I said about former Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC) when we learned he was preparing to run for now-Sen. Tim Scott’s (R-SC) vacated house seat?

. . . if he thinks he could accomplish something in Congress, assuming he could get elected, he’s dead wrong. Like former President Bill Clinton, Sanford will forever be known as a guy who cheated on his wife and lied about it. What other congressional Republican would want to be seen with that?

And, of course, I get results. But it took a couple of instances of further public self-flagellation in order to make it happen. First it was the events leading up to the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) pulling its resources from his campaign, which are explained in the link. Then it was the approximately 1,200-word ad he ran in the Charleston Post and Courier explaining himself, which I can’t do a better job summing up than the headline of the Washington Post‘s account already has. Then there was this, which is either better or worse – I honestly can’t decide – than this.

Let’s talk about the trespassing allegations. Sanford insists that he was in his ex-wife’s home to keep his youngest son company while they watched football, which is a fair excuse, as Jenny Sanford was out of town that day. Although I don’t remember needing a babysitter when I was 14. And one of his older sons was in the house at the time, and there’s no sign that either son was about to party with hookers while Jenny was away. Regardless, being in Jenny’s house without her permission was a violation of their divorce settlement, which both boys should have known.

As for debating a cardboard cut-out of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) . . . well, I’ll let The Hill explain that one.

Sanford’s campaign has been struggling amid legal problems and polling that shows him falling behind . . . Candidates typically don’t demand more debates, or stage political stunts for media attention, when they are the front-runner.

I would never turn down a debate or support anyone else’s decision to do so. But, let’s be honest, the only reason Sanford wants more of those is to deflect attention from the fact that he a) constantly walks into the wrong headlines with his eyes wide open and b) has such a fundamentally bad reputation that he’s lost all ability to reframe the wrong headlines to his advantage. Colbert Busch hasn’t had a spectacular performance as a candidate; however, her kinds of mistakes are the ones voters can let slide.

The special election between Sanford and Busch is in less than two weeks. Under normal circumstances, painting Colbert Busch as a Pelosi acolyte would be all he ever needed to do to win. But at nine points behind her, his best plan is to erase the Appalachian Trail from America’s memory.

Mitch McConnell bugs out

Was Sen. Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) re-election campaign office bugged? The upcoming investigation will tell us for sure – but it probably was. Now I tend to believe that a campaign against a genuinely weak candidate never needs to resort to anything resembling spying, and therefore condemn any such tactics that were employed against McConnell. That’s really all there is to say about that. So let’s move on to what was recorded of his team’s opposition research on non-candidate Ashley Judd:

So you know one of the first themes we can sort of hit on, clearly, is that she openly supports President Obama.

Shocking. A liberal Democrat who supports Obama. I’ve never heard of such lunacy.

Clearly a theme that’s easy to hit is that she’s an out-of-touch, Hollywood liberal . . .

Duh. That even concerned me, although I later admitted she could be a strong voice for rape victims and mental health awareness.

Another thing is she’s clearly anti-coal.

That’s the best line of attack they’d have; it would ruin her in Kentucky.

So you can see there she’s on the record supporting cap and trade. I mean clearly she’s a carpetbagger.

I’m not going to back her up on cap-and-trade, but carpetbagger? Thanks for the update, Scarlett.

. . . she’s actually mocked Kentucky to Tennessee audiences. She was bemoaning the low voter turnout among women in Tennessee; she said, “People, that’s worse than even in Kentucky.”

Should she celebrate low female voting?

She described having children as selfish, and she thinks it’s unconscionable to breed.

Prove that she wants to stop breeding.

. . . she is critical . . . of traditional Christianity. She sort of views it as sort of a vestige of patriarchy.

I never worry about the literal interpretation of my faith, so I’d roll my eyes at her attitude. But it’s irrelevant.

She also is an open advocate of gay marriage.

So is every Democratic senator, even if they won’t vote that way for political reasons.

She’s clearly, this sounds extreme, but she is emotionally unbalanced. . . . she’s suffered some suicidal tendencies.

If you think that’s fair game, fuck off.

In a state that continues to elect McConnell, he wouldn’t have had to do anything more than this if he were running against Judd. But it would have been nice to know he was planning to fake concern for ideas.

Step 1: Stop listening to these guys

Want to know the real reason why former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR) don’t want the Republican Party to “go soft” on social issues? Because both of them have their own political action committees (PACs), and if they don’t get a return on their investments in like-minded candidates – or get as many donations to invest – they may have to consider getting real jobs. Follow the money.

I make this accusation because, even knowing how poorly they’ve performed in the past when it comes to thinking, there’s no way they can honestly believe stuff like this:

. . . Santorum . . . told Politico that the Republican party will cease to exist if it softens its stance on social issues such as same-sex marriage.

“The last two presidential elections, we had more moderate candidates, so if anything, a lot of conservatives went to the polls reluctantly or just didn’t go at all,” [Huckabee] said. “If the evangelicals had showed up, it might have made a difference.”

Isn’t that embarrassing? It’s like listening to some skeevy guy at the bar insist that the girl who just made this face at him secretly wants him and will come around when he starts hitting on other chicks. But perhaps that’s not the best simile when we’re talking about a guy who believes this. (I know I take a lot of cheap shots at him but he makes it so easy! It’s like beating up a baby!)

Santo. Huckster. Sit down. Have some pie. And listen. There’s a very simple reason why continuing to lean on evangelical voters is a bad idea. It’s because their numbers shrink by the day. Most young voters are not evangelical, and many of those who are aren’t nearly as rigorous about it as either of you, especially when it comes to the bedroom. And they’re a lot less likely to die in the next four years than your base. If you’re lucky, the generation after the next two will bring sexy back to evangelical voting. But this one? Don’t count on it.

Or you could just take it from Ken Mehlman, former Republican National Committee (RNC) chairman, who is (ahem) gay:

No smart political party, no successful company, says let’s just be satisfied with yesterday’s customers. They say how do we anticipate the needs of tomorrow’s customers consistent with who we are.

Well put, sir. You may also have pie.

So, they would do well to accept their inevitable loss, at least on consensual adult sex issues, and move on. But at no point should Santorum or Huckabee believe that social liberals want to silence them. On the contrary, they’re delighted when they speak. Not only is it hilarious, it reminds everyone who’s really on the right side of history (and culture, and politics, and law . . .).

The most egocentric identity crisis ever

Why did the Republicans lose in 2012? There are a hundred different answers to this question; mine is generally along the lines of “The party’s Neanderthals got too much press and its presidential candidate was seen as the Carlton Banks of America.” As for the answers from conservative activists, I’ll quote Brian from Massachusetts on this one:

Ahh, the group egocentricity phenomenon again. The party lost because they disappointed US. The secret to future success is to see things more like US. LMAO. Every special interest does this.

The special interests we’re looking at today as purveyors of group egocentricity are the Republican National Committee (RNC), various Tea Party groups and two groups on either side of the abortion debate:

• According to the RNC, the party has a very poor “data and digital operation” that it must improve by the midterms. They were caught off-guard by the accuracy of the Obama team’s polling and its online support.
• According to the Tea Party, the GOP lost because the RNC “failed to promote our principles.” (I don’t care if they don’t consider themselves a special interest. That’s what they are.)
• According to the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, they lost because they didn’t try to “grow and mobilize the energetic pro-life majority.”
• According to the pro-choice Planned Parenthood, they lost because “the majority of voters disagree with their agenda” on social issues.

See what Brian’s talking about when he talks about egocentricity? You can take your pick of reasons from this list; whatever validates your own preferences will do.

I won’t disagree with the RNC about polling and digital outreach, because the Democrats are better at both. Nobody will object to improvements in that area. They do object to the notion that it’s the solution to all the GOP’s problems, as they should. There’s no point in beefing up your social media if nobody wants to get social with you. The key is finding out why – and the absolute wrong way to go about finding out why is to take it from the special interests.

The right way to go about it is to eat a slice of humble pie in public. They need to admit to voters on a national scale – regional or state-by-state will skew the results – they need to be told what they’ve been doing wrong, and they’re soliciting suggestions from all voters. That may result in a lot of douchey responses from hardcore Democrats. But it’s the best way to get a comprehensive picture of what they’re up against.

To the Tea Partiers out there: I know you aren’t fond of top-down politics. This is as bottom-up as it gets, much more so than letting your PACs do the ground work.

The straight and narrow has its downside

Continuing what’s shaping up to be a trend of centrist politicians and organizations putting more of a stamp on process than on policy – not a criticism, just a fact – Reps. Jim Matheson (D-UT), who heads the Blue Dog Coalition of centrist Democrats, and Charlie Dent (R-PA), who heads the Tuesday Group of centrist Republicans, are now targeting straight-ticket voting. In Canada, that’s both more and less of an issue for us in the following two ways:

1. A vote for a Member of Parliament (MP) is automatically counted as a vote for that candidate’s party’s leader, who is running for prime minister. Yes, we use the word “leader.” Please judge us.
2. Our provincial elections rarely, if ever, coincide with federal elections.

I suppose you could also count the fact that most of us don’t elect senators, but let’s not get into that. Anyway, in the U.S., straight-ticket voting (which we will shorten to STV) allows voters to select all the Democrats or Republicans on the ballot by checking a single box. 15 states allow this, including Indiana, Iowa and North Carolina. If you don’t know why I specified those three, here.

But I digress. Matheson and Dent’s bill, the People Before Party Act, adds language to existing election legislation barring states from the ability to “provide a voter with the opportunity to indicate the selection of a political party as a representation of the selection of an individual candidate.” That may seem like an intrusion on states’ rights, but we are talking about processes used in federal elections. Check Section 5 of Article I if you don’t buy that.

Here’s a quote from Matheson’s press release:

Everywhere I go, people tell me how frustrated they are with the partisan bickering that overwhelms our politics today. This legislation is one step we can take to reduce the role of parties in our elections and encourage everyone to vote for candidates for each federal office by voting the person, not the party.

It’s pretty optimistic to think this bill will make congressional behavior less partisan, especially since this wouldn’t stop a voter from looking for all the Republicans or all the Democrats and making a few more check marks. But it’s a good idea to incentivize voters into looking more closely at their ballots, considering how many items aren’t partisan at all. If Matheson and Dent really want to accomplish their stated objective, their next step would be to require that ballots only list names and not parties. Don’t expect that one to pass.

They’ll also have to grapple with the fact that voters who have stood in line for six hours to vote probably aren’t fond of the idea that they may have to check more than one box. And we can all agree that reform in that area is a much higher priority.

How do you recognize Sanford’s name?

Republicans were thrilled when then-Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC) was appointed to fill the seat being vacated by then-Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), in no small part due to the fact that it made him the only black senator (and a Republican!). But that leaves South Carolina’s 1st congressional district without a representative. But who is turning out to be the biggest name to express interest in becoming that representative? Oh hai, Mark!

Yes, it’s former Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC), who held that exact seat from 1995 to 2001. It’s expected that he’ll announce whether or not he’s running at some point this week, although it’s already Thursday, so either he’s not planning to run or he forgot that announcements made earlier in the week tend to make more prime-time talk. (Unless he’s trying to avoid that.) Here’s how he retained a small, and I do mean small, measure of viability:

Sanford’s near-universal name recognition, his reputation for fundraising prowess, a staunchly conservative fiscal record and the potential for a crowded field could make him tough to beat. . . . While South Carolina is socially conservative, its GOP voters have shown they’re willing to overlook personal issues.

Well, good for South Carolina Republicans, if they stay focused on a candidate’s economic positions. Bear in mind that they gave the Republican primary to former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA), and that’s about as much you’ll get in the way of “personal issues” without committing a felony.

The trouble is that what Sanford did is not a personal issue. I’m not talking about his extramarital affair. (By the way: Jenny Sanford, thank you for not standing by this scum-sucker. Love, women.) I’m talking about the fact that while engaging in said affair, he disappeared for six days and incurred some expenses that taxpayers ultimately covered. He reimbursed them later, but only after pretending there was nothing to reimburse. Furthermore, he was once very proud of himself for sticking to a self-imposed three-term limit. What happened to that?

Careerism, that’s what. I don’t know why he’d want to take the pay cut (he’s been a paid contributor at Fox News since 2011) if not for the fact that he’s not even the most high-profile paid contributor at Fox News. But if he thinks he could accomplish something in Congress, assuming he could get elected, he’s dead wrong. Like former President Bill Clinton, Sanford will forever be known as a guy who cheated on his wife and lied about it. What other congressional Republican would want to be seen with that?

If he’s desperate for a way to exert influence, he might start a PAC like everyone else. If he’s as prodigious a fundraiser as they say, some candidates might not care about his history if they can get his money.

Like Brown vs. Warren, only much easier

This cycle’s Senate election in Massachusetts was one of my more-watched races, one of the few in which either candidate – now-outgoing Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) and Sen.-elect Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) – would have been a welcome presence. Now they both have an opportunity to serve, with Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) all but assured confirmation as Secretary of State. Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA), however, isn’t all that enthused; he’s thrown his hat into the ring, while Brown still has not.

Markey has already racked up endorsements from Kerry, Gov. Deval Patrick (D-MA), Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) and Victoria Kennedy, widow of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA). It’s doubtful that many Democrats, if any at all, would want to challenge him; Brown’s first election in 2010 may have made the party realize they did in fact have to campaign a little in the Bay State. It’s equally doubtful that many Republicans would want to challenge Brown, as his name recognition is considerably higher than Markey’s – according to a poll, approximately 99 percent for Brown versus two thirds for Markey.

Of course, the whole state votes for senators, whereas only the 7th (5th, now) district votes for Markey – not to say that voters elsewhere are ignorant of their congressional delegation. (Two thirds, anyway.) But with Markey serving since 1976, at multiple times as the result of uncontested races, it could be that more people recognize Brown’s name because it’s newer. And with his reputation of aisle-reaching, he’s more likable. (See: Markey on climate skeptics.)

On the other hand, as you can see from his special interest ratings, Markey is as solidly blue as his state . . . was. Warren is also a safely blue voter, but she makes up for her commitment to her party with her experience in banking issues. Markey’s principal issue in Congress has been global warming, which sadly for him has become a strictly liberal matter. And as a lawyer by trade, he doesn’t have environmental experience beyond the political sufficient to measure up to Warren.

Brown is a jack of all trades, in contrast to both Warren and Markey. But given the opportunity to serve again, he could become a bellwether in the Senate, making up for the absence of retiring Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME). In this political climate, his breadth more beneficial in Washington than Markey’s depth, such as it is. Now all he needs to do is accept how good his shot at re-election is and announce his candidacy.

If he does, though, he would have to pledge immediately to keep super PACs out of his campaign just as both he and Warren did in their contest. Would Markey do the same? We know he likes to poke fun at Citizens United, but who knows if he’d benefit from it unless Brown forced voters to check?

Mitt Romney, down and out

Hey, who was that other guy who wanted to be president? Something with an R . . . Robinson? Redford? Rachmaninov? Ratzenberger? Oh, right, former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA). He was spotted this weekend at the Manny Pacquiao-Juan Manuel Marquez boxing match at the MGM Grand, apparently saying this to Pacquiao in a pre-fight exchange of pleasantries: “Hello, Manny. I ran for president. I lost.” Good Lord. It sounds like the bitter rumination of a high school football hero who now sells women’s shoes for a living.

We haven’t heard much about Romney’s post-loss plans, other than a rumor that he and the Mrs. are moving to their vacation house in La Jolla, California – not a bad place to spend some time. While former Gov. Jon Huntsman (R-UT) is joining boards and non-profit organizations all over the country, and former Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) is spending time on K Street, and former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) is running some website or PAC or whatever, Romney isn’t doing much of anything. And he never strikes anyone as the type who would be comfortable doing “not much of anything.”

So what’s the best course of action now that his hopes for a political future are dead? Reality TV? As if anyone would watch that, except for RiffTrax-style purposes or to cure insomnia. Lecture circuit? See above. Consultant? Too obvious. Fox News contributor? Even they’d be embarrassed to be seen with him. Running a PAC? He could afford it, no doubt, but who would want to invest in his agenda (whatever it is) now?

PR-wise, a better idea for him would be to run a philanthropic organization, perhaps one for military families or multiple sclerosis research. It would keep him occupied, it would be on message and nobody would have an excuse to call it opportunistic or, worse, Bain-like. Besides, one of his stronger points is that he genuinely enjoys being charitable, so at no point would he want to kill himself.

Unless the current president of Brigham Young University decides to step down at some point in the foreseeable future, I can’t really imagine Romney doing anything else with his time. But, as I’ve said, the last thing I can imagine him doing is nothing at all. If that includes telling world-class boxers how he could have been president all day, he’ll become even more of a laughingstock than he ever was. But a few months to recharge and just enjoy the car elevator would do him some good, too. In the meantime, the media ought to treat him like the non-entity he is and stop paying attention to him until he does something worthwhile to deserve it.

As for another past-his-prime ex-politician who should just give up already: Former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) hasn’t ruled out a 2016 presidential run. Somebody stop him before he embarrasses us all. And by “us all,” I mean humanity.

You do stand for liberty, right?

Today we explore #259 on the list of Demographics Who Republicans Should Stop Ignoring (DWRSSI): libertarians. Remember how excited we were about Mia Love, who ran for Congress in Utah’s 4th district? As of this writing, absentee and provisional districts have yet to be counted, but it doesn’t look good for her, even though she’s a Republican in one of the most reliably red states in the union. Libertarian candidate Jim Vein is picking up 2.6 percent of that vote so far, enough to have put Love over presumptive Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT).

If you look strictly at percentages, large-L Libertarians aren’t much of a national threat now. But if they can keep picking up enough support to split votes in tight congressional races, it won’t bode well for Republicans in the long run. Given the enduring popularity of Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and his boy Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-KY) musings about a presidential run, the Republican establishment will need to begin its effort to co-opt the libertarian message now, as a pre-emptive strike against a three-party paradigm in Washington.

Not that this would necessarily be a good thing for Americans who are tired of choosing between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. But here in Canada, that paradigm, which includes a fourth party if you still think the Bloc Québécois counts, tends to result in much narrower party platforms and, therefore, narrower support. So the job for Republicans is, if you’ll pardon the imagery, to become a turd sandwich with extra bacon before the Democrats do.

But Republican rhetoric on things libertarians like is nothing without consistency, which they have lacked. You support fiscal conservatism? Great! Now stop spending like drunken sailors when you get into office. You support limited government? Great! Now get out of our bedrooms and our basements (where the pot is, obviously). You oppose nation-building? Great! Now stop trying to build other people’s nations.

The problem with modern Republicans is that they’ll claim to believe all of the above, but fail to articulate a good reason, assuming they have one, for bypassing those beliefs once elected. For libertarians, it always comes down to liberty. On social issues at least, Democrats have been starting to impress them, although they have more work to do, again on the pot issue. On economic and defense issues, large-L Libertarians have been making inroads. And that’s assuming they’re not so fed up with every option on the ballot that they won’t fill one out at all – definitely not a guarantee.

Republicans can still oppose everything they currently oppose while admitting government has no place restricting it. Hell, many libertarians feel that way about a lot of things. But that red line would be a big step in living up to the party’s promises of standing for the rights of the individual.