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.

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.

Where in the world is Jesse Jackson Jr.?

After former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) was shot, I proposed that someone be allowed to fill in for her until a few months before the end of her term, at which point she and her family would decide if she could handle re-election. The fill-in did not happen, but Giffords was able to decide to resign from Congress in January 2012. Meanwhile, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL) took six months longer to tell everyone that he might be mentally unable to perform his duties as a congressman – yet he still is.

Jackson was undergoing treatment for bipolar disorder and other medical issues at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, as of earlier this week. His father, Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr., is under the impression that he’s still there; a representative for the hospital says otherwise. His Washington-based spokesperson doesn’t know anything, other than that he hasn’t shown up at his office. His Chicago-based spokesperson, the family’s publicist and his wife have kept quiet so far. Unsurprising, but it doesn’t help us.

It should come as no surprise that Jackson, despite having disappeared like this and been investigated for ethics problems before, won his district last week with 63 percent of the vote. The district scores D+36 on the Cook PVI, and Jackson has held that seat since 1995. A donkey wearing a blue ribbon could sweep an election in the Illinois 2nd without so much as a hee-haw. At this point, that donkey might be more useful as a congressman than Jackson.

I don’t mean to offend him. Bipolar disorder is nothing to snark about. I wish him every success with whatever he’s doing to recover. At the same time, we haven’t heard any indication that he isn’t lucid enough to know whether he’s mentally able to serve or not. Either he’s very optimistic about his progress – I would hesitate to agree, seeing as his whereabouts are mostly unknown at the moment – or he’s having a very, very hard time letting go.

The Democrats had a lock on this seat from the beginning – they could have told him to step aside. His family has been around politics for years – they must know he’s far away from his standard. His constituents should know that just as well. Why is everyone afraid to ask Jackson if he’s really ready to come back to work? Why are they so willing to waste voters’ time and resources with a special election, in the event that he decides to step down before the term is out?

Whatever pressure was being put on him to reconsider staying before the election, it wasn’t enough. Hopefully, once we learn where he is this time, he’ll tell us from there, once and for all, whether he can or can’t fulfill his duties in Congress. Because his district doesn’t deserve an absentee representative, nor do the people in and out of his district helping pay his salary.

The national dialogue about Paul Ryan

Since former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) announced Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) as his running mate on Saturday morning, none of the politicos I follow, including the Winnipeg ones, have been able to talk about anything else. To make things easier on the rest of you, here are condensed versions of every micro-debate this pick has already created. (All sentences marked “counter-rebuttal” represent my views.)

Point: As Ryan is the architect of the House Republicans’ fiscal agenda, his selection has reframed the entire election around debt reduction. That will benefit Romney, since he can say they takes the debt more seriously.
Rebuttal: This election should be all about jobs. This pick is a tool to distract everyone from the fact that Romney doesn’t know how to create jobs via public policy.
Counter-rebuttal: Why not both? A healthy job market and fiscal stability are both key ingredients of an effective economic policy. Romney handles one, kind of, and Ryan handles the other.

Point: Romney clearly doesn’t take seniors seriously as a voting bloc. Ryan’s agenda is all about gutting Medicare.
Rebuttal: His aim is to keep Medicare solvent for future users. He’s always said so.
Counter-rebuttal: Just because he’s said so, doesn’t make his plan effective. Let’s turn to actual health experts for more on this.

Point: Ryan is a great choice. He’s proven his leadership mettle, and his conservative bona fides are well-established. He’s also a great speaker with awesome hair.
Rebuttal: I’ll give you the hair, but not the conservative bona fides. He voted for the bank and auto bailouts, and he’s voted for massive increases in defense spending. He might be conservative on taxes and entitlements, but not spending in general.
Counter-rebuttal: My guess is that he’d justify his votes for the bailouts the same way everyone else does: by saying they were urgently needed at the time but could have been better. And the GOP has nothing against massive defense spending.

Point: Ryan is a bold choice on the level of former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK).
Rebuttal: Enough people know who Ryan is to insulate him against the scrutiny Palin faced, so it’s really not that bold.
Counter-rebuttal: The skeletons in his closet remain to be seen, but he doesn’t sound like he’s angling for a Fox News contract.

Point: Ryan can’t get independents at all.
Rebuttal: He doesn’t go out of his way to repel independents the way some do.
Counter-rebuttal: We’re watching him. We don’t expect that he’ll give up on Medicare easily, but he does seem easier to deal with than other potential picks.

Three people Romney shouldn’t run with

I’m noticing an interesting paradox among some of the people speculating about former Gov. Mitt Romney’s (R-MA) as-yet-unnamed running mate. Two of the perceived favorites have served in Cabinet or other high-profile White House positions and have never held or tried to hold elected office. You could charitably describe both as “statesmen” of some repute. Why are two statesmen good enough for the role of running mate, one that requires them to be as political as possible, but one (you know who) isn’t good enough to be the presidential nominee? Something to ponder. Anyway:

1. CIA director Gen. David Petraeus. Why? Because it’s a waste of time even to think about it. The man has categorically stated, on numerous occasions, that he has no interest in partisan politics. Every aspect of his résumé has had to do with serving the country, no matter who was in charge of its federal government. I’m surprised (and disappointed) that he hasn’t flat-out told the speculators to stuff it before he has them fragged. Don’t even bother with someone who’s just not that into you.

2. Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. She, too, has refused to think about it, despite how many people wish she would. I like to think this is because she’s keeping her options open for 2016. That aside, here’s why Romney shouldn’t bother:

• Her approach to national affairs is too thoughtful for someone who would be expected to thrash Obama at every turn.
• She was in the GOP’s last worst administration. Don’t go there.
• She’d make Romney look like a chump.

3. Former Gov. Tim Pawlenty. He’s a safe choice in that he adds nothing. Nothing at all. The only readily visible difference between him and Romney is that he’s from the Midwest and Romney is from New England. The only other thing I can say about him is that he surpasses Romney in “middle-aged white-guy-ness.” He’s so bland that Hayden Christensen is all “That guy? Yawn.” He’s so boring that his Secret Service code name would be Tim Pawlenty. He’s so dull that insomniacs should ask their physicians if Pawlentis is right for them. He’s so useless that the inventor of the pet rock weeps in shame at having been outdone. Picking him would make Democrats shrug and say “Whatevs.” Just don’t.

That leaves Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Rob Portman (R-OH). They both have (some) personality. They both have sufficiently high profiles. They’re both reliably conservative. They’ll both be willing to maul the Democrats. Only one, Portman, has substantive foreign policy experience. Pick him, and let us speak no more about it.

The running mate next door

It’s 6 p.m. CST as I begin writing this column, and polls in the Texas primary should be closing right now. If former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) wins, as he is expected to do, he will have racked up enough delegates to clinch the Republican presidential nomination. Now everyone can feel comfortable speculating who his vice-presidential pick will be. So far it seems that everyone feels comfortable picking the same person: Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH).

Yes, Portman. Not that there’s anything wrong with him, although his rather skimpy foreign policy experience could prove a liability, but it appears I was completely out of step with all the other pundits when I said Romney needed a game-changing pick to prove his credibility as a Republican candidate. Meaning, not another white businessman. Perhaps safe-as-they-come is the new game changer in this election cycle.

So, what do we know about Rob Portman? On the pro side:

• long history in the legislative branch, having been a House member in the early 2000s, although less people approve of that than ever;
• experience in the executive branch as U.S. Trade Representative under former President George W. Bush;
• won seven consecutive elections with a 70 percent majority;
• grew up working in his father’s business;
• credited with working across the aisle (well, I think it’s a pro, anyway);
• married with three children;
• strong Second Amendment supporter;
• reliably pro-life, even to the point of supporting the Blunt Amendment (well, some think that’s a pro);
• serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee;
• member of the Sportsmen’s Caucus;
• from the Midwest;
• headed to Israel.

On the con side:

• not enough military or foreign policy experience to counter-balance Romney;
• ran the Office of Management and Budget under Bush, during which time the national debt grew by billions;
• another goddamn lawyer;
• generally speaking, as interesting as whole-wheat toast with no butter.

Of course, most of those cons will probably be considered nitpicky, although his OMB experience will provide an excellent opportunity for the Democrats. But here’s the main reason Romney will most likely choose Portman: He’s surrounded himself with too many nuts not to choose him. This pick will come more as a relief than a surprise, and Romney has a lot of voters to relieve.

Best moments from Newt’s drop-out speech

I’m not the first to say that former Speaker Newt Gingrich’s (R-GA) inevitable departure from the GOP presidential nomination contest was the most Gingrichian moment in the history of civilization, and I’m sure I won’t be the last. I’ll post the highlights here, but listen to it yourself if you have 23 minutes; it’s just fabulous.

1. The stammering in the first two minutes. For someone who prides himself on his speaking abilities as much as Gingrich, he didn’t sound nearly as calm as former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) did when he quit.
2. Thanking everyone. Slow down, Gingrich, this is a resignation speech. Snap it up.
3. Thanking former Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX), Herman Cain (R-GA), Michael Reagan and Todd Palin. Now there are four juggernauts of effective national politics!
4. “This will make me feel slightly guilty every time we go through South Carolina.” Will they ever go through there again?
5. The three-point plan of his campaign at the six-minute mark. If it can be better presented with PowerPoint, just don’t use it.
6. Going through his entire political résumé. Pointless, just pointless. Zzzzzzzzz . . .
7. All the Callista talk. If she wants to run a campaign of her own, she can, but don’t do it for her by proxy.
8. Everything he promises to do as a non-candidate (energy independence, religious liberty, American exceptionalism, national security, etc., etc.) is basically everything he promised to do as a candidate. Sounds like he wants to be a one-man shadow government.
9. Seriously, this list of promises for the rest of his career will not stop. Didn’t one of his think tanks go bankrupt not too long ago?
10. Captain John Smith. WHY.
11. He refers to “brain research and regenerative medicine,” as if that’s such a new concept the current health care system knows nothing of it.
12. He thinks the White House doesn’t know about al-Qaeda’s operations in Yemen. Even I remember that.
13. “Electromagnetic pulse?” Is anyone still worried about that? Like, at all?
14. Oh God, the space talk. Mining asteroids. Circling the moon. Awesome.
15. Drink when he says “private sector.”
16. And now he’s cycling through all his ideas again. Somebody take him off autopilot.
17. On former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA): “No,  he’s not conservative enough, but meh.” Which is what all Republicans are thinking, basically.
18. He thinks the business will invest and hire more the second President Obama is booted from office. Oh, you poor, fool.
19. His grandchildren’s generation will build the moon colony? Strictly a Newt issue.
20. “Kaiser.” “Khrushchev.” Yeah, he’s old.

The last temptation of Rick

Break out the butter because everyone except former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) is officially toast. His last serious challenger, former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), announced his decision to suspend his campaign yesterday. I apologize for putting it this way, but his daughter Bella’s health scare over the weekend gave him the perfect opportunity for the dignified exit he needed. Since this is probably the last chance I’ll have to say anything about him for a while, I figured a fitting send-off would be to combine my compliments for him (yes, there are a few) with a few remaining backhands.

Compliment: Nobody expected him to get as far as he did in this nomination race. He has proven himself to be the type of person who defies expectations.

Backhand: When expectations are that low, is it really worth it to be the type of person who defies expectations?

Compliment: He led a national effort to change the tone on social issues even though it operated mainly on a state level.

Backhand: It was a horrible, judgmental, archaic tone that does nobody any good.

Compliment: He is now able to create a political infrastructure unto himself, consisting of books, lectures, media appearances, corporate and political appointments, funding for think tanks, and a PAC for candidates just like him.

Backhand: It’ll all have that horrible, judgmental, archaic tone.

Compliment: However much I’ve ragged on him in the past, you can’t deny that he was intellectually consistent and honest about the type of person he was.

Backhand: Which was a judgmental, archaic person. I won’t say “horrible” because, to my knowledge, he’s never actually hurt anyone directly.

Compliment: He is resigning for a noble reason. It is absolutely more important for him to focus on his daughter instead of trying to become president.

Backhand: Actually, I don’t have a backhand for that last one because anything I came up with would just be for show. However, he should be open about the fact that Bella has the advantage of two loving, involved parents who can afford her health care, which many American children do not have.

So, that’s it for Santorum. It doesn’t even matter if the other two leave because most people have forgotten they’re there. So this race should be tied up quicker than we thought. Thank heavens.

Romney/Ayotte 2012? (meh)

With Wisconsin, Maryland and D.C. in the bag for former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA), everyone seems to have forgotten that his opponents haven’t actually dropped out yet – except for those watching next week’s vote in Pennsylvania, where former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) leads by six. So it’ll be easier for me to do the same and dub Romney the presumptive nominee. Which leads me to ask: Who’s next?

In Romney’s case, the criteria his running mate will need to meet are as follows:

• experienced in the legislative branch, preferably the Senate, to counter-balance his experience as governor
• appealing to women, minorities or both
• reliably socially conservative
• experienced in foreign/defense policy
• willing to be an attack dog
• from a different region of the country

My instinct after reviewing this list is to name Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), as she is a senator, a woman, solidly socially conservative, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and not the least bit media-shy. And after all, Romney named her as “one of 15” back in November. True, New Hampshire isn’t exactly far-flung from Massachusetts, but that’s not the highest priority. The real problem with her is that she was only elected in 2010 and hasn’t built up enough of a national profile to withstand all the inevitable attacks against her.

Except for Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who continues to reject the idea of being anyone’s running mate this year, no Republican senator stands out to me. So let’s take a look at another governor, which isn’t ideal in my opinion but will suffice. Former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-FL) is definitely appealing to Hispanics and has a strong national profile, but might not be enough of a full-throated conservative to satisfy the base. I like his persona as a politician, which probably means they won’t.

So that leaves current governors. (I refuse to consider House members; most of them are too full-throated.) Govs. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) or Nikki Haley (R-SC)? Possible, but no foreign policy experience. Govs. Jan Brewer (R-AZ), Rick Snyder (R-MI) or Scott Walker (R-WI)? Too much baggage. Gov. Susana Martinez (R-NM)? She has a son in the Navy, but she also rejected the idea. Gov. Brian Sandoval (R-NV)? Probably not a game changer, as they say.

Which brings us back to Ayotte. No, she won’t bowl anyone over the way former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) did before everyone realized what a dip she was. But maybe that will prompt Romney’s vetting team to take a much deeper look into Ayotte’s history than Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) ever did.