Mitt Romney and the Green State Strategy to Win

IT'S LOOKING A BIT SADDER for Mitt Romney with each passing day. No, no. He's still got his megabucks. His hair still looks great. The Mrs. seems nice. He has all those homes. And a car elevator would really be cool. But, hey, we all know money can't buy happiness, although short of happiness, as someone once said, it's Katie bar the door.

 

Lately, it's starting to look like money can't buy a chair in the Oval Office, either.

 

When last seen Mitt was making stupid comments about Egypt and Libya and being attacked for his stupid comments, even by members of his own party. Meanwhile, he's still rummaging around in the attics at his various homes, trying to find his old high school year book, and maybe his 2007 tax returns. Nice fellow, Mr. Romney. Maybe kind of an empty suit.

 

Still, America's bazillionaires love him and they're doing what they can to save a campaign that has all the spice and real substance of tapioca pudding. The Koch brothers, David and Charles, sons of Fred C. Koch, one of the founding lights of the John Birch Society are all in. (The Bircher motto goes like this: "Communism is Terrible; Everything We Don't like is a Communist Plot, Including, but not Limited to, Democrats, Labor Unions and Fluoridated Water.) So is Sheldon Adelson, owner of gambling casinos all over the world, the old codger whose company may soon be under investigation for money laundering.

 

Adelson, alone, has epressed a willingness to spend $100 million to defeat Barack Obama in 2012. Because we all know if Obama wins the Commies win and Adelson will have to cough up 3% more in taxes. In related news, the stock market hit 13,539.86 yesterday, on positive reports for U. S. home builders. That's right. More proof the Commies in the construction business are winning.

 

So: How's it going for Mr. Mitt Romney? Actually, according to RealClearPolitics, it's not going so good. Even the last Fox News opinion survey had President Obama up my 5 percentage points, 48% to 43%, which had to have Gretchen Carlson and all the blond Fox Talking Puppets spitting out their Wheaties when they reported the news. Worse yet, the blue-state tide seems to be rising faster than the GOP can shovel red-state cash to stop it. Gallup has Obama up 7, CNN/Opinion research 6. The other polls are closer, but all are currently showing blue. Well, no, not Rasmussen. They had the incumbent trailing by 1 point Wednesday, but Rasmussen was the one poll, in 2008, that consisitently understated Mr. Obama's chances of winning.

 

If you believed Rasmussen four years ago you kind of figured Sarah Palin was already picking out drapes for her White House office.

 

WE ALL KNOW IT'S NOT OVER until the Fat Bazillionaire sings--and we know money is still power. But Mitt is in trouble, sinking if possible under the weight of his own vacuousness. Obama has sizeable leads in 18 states and the District of Columbia, which would give him 237 electoral votes (270 needed to be elected). Romney lead in more states, 23, but with only 191 votes. He is likely, however, to sweep the coveted Dakotas. Yes, yes! Three electoral votes each!

 

That means nine swing states are almost certain to decide the election. Romney's best chance right now seems to be to turn those nine purple states green. Pour in the money. Or, possibly, supress the vote. How does it all look as of today?

 

Florida (29 electoral votes): It's close; but Obama is ahead by 0.6 percentage points, admittedly a margin as thin as a few hanging chads.

 

North Carolina (15): Betting men would say Mr. Romney's going to take the state, although the last poll did show a bit of blue.

 

Virginia (13) is balanced to go either way, although Obama leads in the Commonwealth, too, especially if you discount a poll taken by Gravis Marketing, which sounds like a telemarketing operation. But call this state red if you like Mitt.

 

Ohio (18): The Buckeye State is blue by 2.6 points.

 

Wisconsin (10): Blue, but not Paul Ryan's eyes blue; Obama by 1.4 points.

 

Iowa (6): Call it "too close to call." Blue by 0.2 points

 

New Hampshire (4): Obama up 4.

 

Colorado (9): Polling shows the president up 3.6.

 

Nevada (6): More blues for Romney, maybe; blue for Obama by 3.3 points.

 

Here's what's even more interesting, though. Intrade Markets, which takes bets on just about any subject, including the 2012 presidential election, has Obama a heavy favorite, with a 64.9 probabliity of victory to Romney's 35.1. Nate Silver, on his site FiveThirtyEight, handicaps the election this way: Obama predicted to win 312.5 electoral votes, Romney 225.5.

 

IT'S STILL POSSIBLE FOR THE STORMIN' MORMON to make a comeback, of course; but there's at least one other worrisome trend if you're an angry white guy or a fan of the GOP, which are pretty much the same things. When asked if they have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of President Obama, 51.2% of likely voters say favorable, 44% the reverse, positive by 7.2 points. For Romney the numbers are uglier: 44.0 to 44.6, putting him in negative territory by 0.6 points, in recent polling. It almost makes you think he needs to look a little harder for those tax returns.

 

A sarcastic individual might suggest checking the car elevator.

 

You never know.

 

 

P. S.: If you're on the same side as Mitt and his Band of Merry Bazillionaires you can still hope Geoffrey Chaucer was right when he said: "And wel knowen ye, that by moneye and by havinge grete possessions been all the thinges of this world governed. And Salomon seith: that 'alle thinges obeyen to moneye.'"

 

 

Can a Tea Party Man Set a Misguided Liberal Straight?

A TEA PARTY FRIEND TOLD ME THIS WEEK he felt sorry for me because, as he phrased it, my political beliefs were "misguided."

I admit that line brought me up short.

With a critical election nine weeks away, it seemed like this would be a good time to examine my conscience. After all, liberals know there is always a chance that the other side in any discussion may be at least part right. We're not like so many conservatives in that respect. We don't believe the pursuit of truth ended with the publication of the King James Bible or when the Founding Fathers closed up shop and headed for home.

According to Michelle Bachmann you can cure "gayness" with the right therapeutic approach. Might there be a cure for "liberalness," too?

I decided to make up a list to sort out my innermost feelings:

A is for Ann Romney. When she told her story on TV this week about receiving the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis you couldn't help feel for the woman. She teared up, just talking about how Mitt stood by her side. A liberal wonders:  how sad would this have been if another American family, just as loving as the Romneys, with both mom and dad working at non-union companies and lacking health insurance, got the same diagnosis? What would that family do lacking millions in various bank accounts?  Okay: this liberal still sees virtue in Obamacare.

B is for "you didn't build that." We know the other side took this phrase out of context; and we have our own opinions, besides. We think if conservatives can credit Romney for "building" Staples, we can credit carpenters and roofers who built the stores, truckers who hauled concrete, clerks who stocked shelves, and the blue collar guys in the paper mills. We say they deserve good wages and benefits. We believe something is wrong when the average CEO in America makes 231 times what the average worker does.

C is for communism? WTF! The right throws this epithet around like a football at a Manning family reunion. Liberals don't believe in communism, but notice when productivity rises dramatically since 1980, and the wages of the average American worker fail to keep pace. (See B, above.) Liberals see the stock market reports and take note that corporate profits have been huge the last two years. We don't remember hearing in economics classes that communism and corporate profits went hand-in-hand. (See O, below.)

Drill, baby, drill--we won't dwell on the fact that the lady who coined this cry was a numbskull. We don't feel misguided at all if we remember the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, courtesy of BP. Your side likes to insist that government is the problem. Our side notices who has to do the cleanup. We are sorry if we remember Love Canal and Exxon Valdez and the damage done to the ozone layer. We are sorry if we believe Romney is going too far when he suggests letting states decide who can drill for oil in national parks. We love this country for its beauty and want to hand it down to following generations in good shape.

E is for economics--and, oh my, how your side hates wasteful spending! We know you love a balanced budget like you love a 1950s America. We can't understand, though, why defense spending can never be cut. Somehow, your side believes a dollar of spending to build a bomb doesn't add to the deficit. It's a magic dollar. Yet, a dollar paid for early child education, that dollar is a stab in the heart of freedom-loving Americans.

Fiscal restraint--speaking of not trusting BP, we aren't trusting the GOP, either. We know the Founding Fathers gave the House of Representatives "the power of the purse" and we know your party has controlled that body for all but four years, from 1995 to 2012. And frankly, fiscally, your record sucks.

Greed/government--government can be the problem. We admit there are politicians ready to dip their hands deep into the public till. We remember one of our own, Congressman William Jefferson, who stashed $96,000 in bribe money in a home freezer. We've heard about the $535 million wasted by Solyndra because sometimes we watch Fox News, but normally only for comic relief. Still, we worry about greed and government in a different way. We notice that Solyndra was run by crooked business types--the real issue, we think. We remember Halliburton making obscene war profits in Iraq. We worry about the decision in Citizens' United, the handiwork of your very own conservative court, which allows Sheldon Adelson to pour $100 million into political campaigns. We think $100 million might tempt politicians of all stripes. Even Congressman Jefferson.

H is for hot (i. e. "global warming"). We know you don't believe this is happening. We also know NASA reported the Arctic ice sheet has been reduced by 40% this summer with two months of melting to go. We know it's statistically possible that this is nothing more than a normal, albeit extreme, variation and not evidence of climate change. We also know that the Cleveland Indians could win the next 30 games and sneak into the playoffs. We just don't think that's a bet a sensible person would make.

I is for illegal immigrants--Your side hates them. We know. Then again:  it's usually boys in Big Business who hire 'em. We're suspicious though. We sniff a strong scent of racism in what some on the right have to say. We liberals are proud of what the USA has long represented:  hope for "the tired, the poor, the huddled masses, yearning to breathe free." We don't believe a great nation like ours should turn its back on a heritage as glorious as that. We love America and support the Dream Act.

Jobs--remember when the Bush tax cuts were passed, how they were going to produce all kinds of jobs? Remember how the GOP took over the House of Representatives in 2010 and said they were going to focus on jobs, jobs, jobs? Liberals notice that your greatest efforts, related to jobs, have focused on dropping the axe on teachers, police officers, fire fighters and social workers. Hardly the classic definition of "job creation."

K is for KIA, which liberals usually hate. We know war may be necessary but we believe your side is too itchy on the trigger, too happy to send young American men and women off to die in places like Iraq. Now you want to send troops to join the fray in Syria and planes and ships to attack Iran. Liberals love America. See. We just aren't as anxious to see young Americans get killed, or young Iranians, for that matter. (See L.)

L is for Libya/lying--remember when President Reagan bombed Libya in 1986, because Muammar Gaddafi supported terrorist attacks? Remember the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988, which killed 270 innocent civilians? Well, our boy, President Obama, managed to use U. S. military power in calibrated fashion to knock out the longtime scuzbag dictator and not a single American life was lost. (See K!!!) He didn't get us bogged down in the mess in Syria, either, when your side said he should. Come to think of it, we liberals believe your boy, Dick Cheney, and some of his sorry crew lied to drag us into Iraq.

M is for increasing the minimum wage. Call us crazy, but we think any American willing to work deserves a living wage. We know your side's argument--ooooooo, we'll have to pay more for our pickles and peppers if pickers get paid minimum wage. We think the sacrifice might be worth it. We don't want to see America become Bangladesh.

N is for Noah/NASA--we are sorry, but sometimes we liberals prefer science for explanations over the Bible. (See H, above.) If you want to believe it rained forty days and forty nights and covered up the earth, meaning it rained 726 inches every day in order to inundate Mt. Everest, you are welcome. We'll take NASA and its pictures and you can have the strange preachments of Glenn Beck, the former radio DJ.

"N" WAS ADDED ONLY AFTER AN ASTUTE READER NOTICED THE MISSING LETTER.

O is for oligarchy--which the ancient Greeks felt meant death to democracy and freedom wherever it sank its roots. We liberals fear a system where swarming lobbyists, in the service of mega-corporations buy up members of state and federal legislatures like cookies at a July 4th bake sale. We absolutely fear the decision of the conservative majority on the U. S. Supreme Court in the Citizens' United case. (See G, above.)

P is for Paul Ryan, the man with the piercing blue eyes. Also the man with the plan to turn Medicare into a voucher system. That's right, we know what Representative David McKinley, of West Virginia, said recently. He's reminding voters that he gave thumbs down to the plan when it came up for a vote, warning that it “would privatize Medicare for future retirees, raise the retirement age and keep in place the Medicare cuts included in last year’s health care bill.” In a campaign flier, Mr. McKinney added: “The Congressional Budget Office determined the plan would nearly double out-of-pocket health care costs for future retirees.”  We liberals believe McKinley, a Republican we might add, knows his stuff.

Q is for questioning. We liberals love to question the status quo. We believe the world can be made better. We also believe in freedom of speech and the press. (See Z.) We have noticed, however, a tendency among some on the right, a willingness to wave guns about and warn us to "go to Russia" if we don't love the country in exactly the same manner as they do. We think this smacks of fascism; but the letter "F" has already been used.

R is for rape. Your side likes to believe that women who are raped can't possibly get pregnant; but if they do, God says they can't have an abortion. Our side tends to believe in science--and God, too--but we do have our questions (see Q) about when life actually begins. Certainly, we believe a victim of a brutal attack has the right to decide whether or not to carry a resulting pregnancy to term.

Small business--we support neighborhood business. We know the bar owner and hair salon operator work hard for their dollar. Still, we wonder how your side thinks it's fine if defense contractors get "cost plus" contracts that guarantee huge profits, pass on the inflated bills to taxpayers and then, like GE mangage to pay zero taxes. We do wonder how giant corporations and even Mitt Romney can get away with hiding money in Cayman Island bank accounts. We liberals think Big Business is happy to screw Small Business, whenever it can.

T is for terrorists. Remember when your side said President Obama would be soft on terrorists? Well, we do. We remember the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, as well. Slice your baloney thick or thin, however you like it. When your boy W. was in office he failed in eight long years to take down the mastermind of 9/11.

U is for unions--and we liberals do like labor unions. That doesn't make us union thugs and it doesn't mean we believe unions are perfect. We just happen to like the average American worker and know the average union worker makes $10,000 more annually than the average non-union worker. We think that's good; and we wish more workers were in unions. We think America needs a strong middle class. (No offense, but your side seems to love hedge fund managers.)

V is for vouchers--and don't you try to deny it, Mr. Paul Ryan. (See P, above.) You know you're just itchin' to turn Medicare into a voucher program. We're not going to say something stupid, like, "You want to unplug granny." But we think, if Granny discovers the truth, and we're going to try to be sure that she does, well, Granny is not going to be happy.

W is for wind power and alternative energy. We liberals don't focus narrowly on Solyndra. We take note of the solar farms all over New Mexico and Arizona. We pedal our bicycles across the entire United States (at least this writer does) and see wind farms spread across Indiana, Illinois and into Iowa, and farmers making good money for allowing installation. We see a report that Xcel Energy, Colorado's largest utility, was producing 57% of the electricity it provided, during one recent period, relying on nothing else but good clean American prairie winds. We see a push for alternative energy and see a chance to break the stranglehold of Middle Eastern nations on U. S. foreign policy. We think that's good. (See K.)

X is for Title IX. As far as liberals are concerned, it's simple. If you have a daughter who plays sports at an advanced level, in high school or college, thank a liberal. Title IX, baby. Sometimes government isn't the problem. Government is the solution. The same for Medicare, the program you say you want to save, but we know you plan to gut.

Y is for Y chromosome. We liberals believe women have equal rights. We believe, unlike Rick Santorum, that they can serve bravely in the U. S. military. Forty years ago we were arguing that women could work outside the home, that they didn't have to focus entirely on family, that it was okay if they weren't always subservient to the will of their husbands. In fact, we paved the way for Ann Coulter. (That probably classifies as "collateral damage.")

Z is zeal for freedom. We're not misguided at all and love freedom just as much as you. We don't want to take your guns away. We do think it might be nice to have registrations so felons can't get weapons in their hands as easily as they do. We believe in equal rights for gays, because last we checked they were Americans, too. We love the First Amendment almost as much as you love the Second. And we don't like torture, not even waterboarding. Your side is fond of capital punishment. Our side is less so, because we keep hearing about all the mistakes. Finally, we like all the amendments, including the V, VI, VII and VIII.

I FEEL BETTER NOW, not misguided at all. Like any good liberal, I'll vote my conscience in November. That's what good Americans always do.

I need to go find an empty chair and take a rest.

We liberals think this is a beautiful country.
We believe we should pass it down to future generations looking the same way.
(Near the top of Tioga Pass, Yosemite National Park.)
Again:  sometimes government is the solution.

 

Buy One Senator, Get One Free

IF YOU'RE LIBERALLY-INCLINED and don't usually read the Wall Street Journal, you probably didn't see the editorial, Money and the 'Appearance of Corruption', which ran June 14.

If you're a liberal--or even a living, breathing, thinking American--you might be worried about the toxic effect of the odious 2010 U. S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. You might be concerned about the torrents of money now unleashed and flooding our political system, tens of millions offered up to politicians by individuals like Sheldon Adelson or the Koch brothers, Charles and David. You might fear that tens of millions, donated by giant corporations, will inevitably warp the democratic system.

You might be concerned, as an earlier U. S. Supreme Court decision put it, about the "appearance of corruption." 

Ha, ha, don't fret. No way. Don't be ridiculous, thinking Americans! Remember what mom used to say:  "Money can't buy happiness--or politicians."

That's the position taken by Paul Sherman in an editorial defense of the U. S. Supreme Court in the Citizens United case. While many observers might tell you this was the Supreme Court's worst decision in a decade (actually the worst decision of the staunchly conservative, five-vote, John Roberts-led wing), Sherman, an attorney at the aptly named "Institute of Justice," a conservative group which litigates campaign-finance cases across the nation, begs to disagree. He begins by noting that the State of Montana is challenging the ruling based on laws passed at the turn of the 20th century and designed to deal with a rash of cases of political corruption. (What! Money can't buy politicians!! You people in Montana, in 1916, you must have been fooled by the lamestream media into thinking it could!)

Sherman called Montana's position untenable and in the deepest recesses of a conservative soul prayed that the U. S. Supreme Court would "double down on Citizens United and reject, once and for all, the flawed justification underlying much of America's failed experiment with campaign-finance law--the so-called appearance of corruption standard."

That standard, set in 1976, in Buckley v. Valeo, held that Congress and the states could pass laws to address "corruption and the appearance of corruption." Sherman called that decision misguided and dangerous:

The "corruption" half of that ruling is uncontroversial--few seriously dispute the validity of laws proscribing conduct like offering or accepting bribes. But the power to regulate the "appearance of corruption" has proven dangerously open-ended, leading inexorably to greater government control of political speech.

Sherman offered no examples of this chilling government control; and given the skill with which both the Tea Party on the right and Occupy Wall Street on the left have stirred political discussion in recent times (and rightfully so), his worries seemed clearly misplaced. Sherman took note of the original justification for the appearance-of-corruption standard (that "a deregulated system of campaign finance would lead to public cynicism and distrust of our democratic process") but then made it clear he was having no part of such lame judicial reasoning.

In fact, the opposite was true.

Sherman is an advocate of untrammeled freedoms. This nauseating sense we might get when we hear that huge corporations and insanely rich individuals can now pour tens of millions into political campaigns, effectively drowning out the opinions of others...why, don't be silly. There's no need to fear any appearance-of-corruption: 

That argument ignores that a healthy distrust of government is vital to ensuring that government stays within its constitutionally limited role. Campaign-finance proponents want to grant government the power to restrict political activity for the purposes of managing its own PR. The result of doing so is that government still has the same amount of power to abuse, but fewer people will notice or be concerned. That is a great way to promote big government but a lousy way to promote trustworthy government.

Yeah. Trustworthy government! That's the ticket! And thank god for guardians of our precious freedoms, stalwarts like Paul Sherman. Thank god for the unbiased positions of the Wall Street Journal when it comes to Big Business influence in government. Thank god, Sherman has reminded us that our campaign-finance laws, under Buckley v. Valeo, have created a mess that another WSJ editorial described as a "half-dead monster."

Sherman notes--one editorialist for the conservative paper agreeing with another--that the awful monster "keeps shambling forward, wreaking havoc on the First Amendment." You read that, and you almost want to shout, "Save us, save us, big corporations and insanely rich individuals!"

"Dump huge piles of money on the monster and kill it!"

*****

THE EDITORS OF THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, now reduced to servants of Rupert Murdoch and his vast corporate empire, and writers like Mr. Sherman, would have you imagine that this is a clarion call in the name of liberty!

In fact, Sherman's piece is a pile of steaming horse manure, dressed up in conservative logic in a vain attempt to make road apples, as we used to call them, look like fresh-baked apple pie.

Really, what do we have to look forward to if the decision in Citizens United stands, or worse ends up extended? Even Sheldon Adelson, the casino magnate who leads all individual contributors in this election cycle, with $35 million donated (we must stop Mitt Romney, he's unfit! not conservative enough! vote for Newt; no, wait, Newt can't win; we must elect Mitt Romney! he's actually a great American and I have the money to prove it!) has said he doesn't necessarily agree with the Supreme Court decision but as long as it's legal he's going to spend as much as $100 million to defeat President Obama.

So where does it all end?

Consider a story in today's New York Times, about Swiss bank UBS and its efforts to curtail activities by Robert Wolf, one its own top New York executives, a leading fund-raiser for Mr. Obama? Why does a Swiss banking institution care about a U. S. presidential election? It might have to do with the fact the federal government forced UBS in 2009 to pay a $780 million fine and divulge the names of 4,450 super-rich Americans  who were hiding tens of billions in secret accounts to avoid paying income taxes. You know. The kind of Big Business heroes you can trust to donate unlimited sums of money to politicians. Probably loyal readers of the Wall Street Journal and staunch conservatives who love America more than liberals do, who just don't want to give America any money to meet its needs--stupid stuff, like national defense, health care for seniors and disabled children, roads, bridges, you know, stuff like that.

In fact, conservatives seem to believe they're the only ones with a healthy distrust of government. But every liberal who can remember back to Watergate, to cite but one example, has his or her own healthy distrust of government.

It's just that liberals have an even healthier distrust of government when they think it's going to be taken over, lock, stock and barrel, and run entirely by Big Business interests.

Sherman doesn't dare touch that topic with an editorial ten-foot pole. But most Americans see the obvious danger. If one individual or one corporation can donate unlimited sums, how do we stop them from buying up politicians wholesale? Washington, D. C. is already swarming with lobbyists, like teenage girls at a Justin Bieber concert. It's not like Big Business can't already make its voice heard.

What happens next, if the wishes of the editors of the Wall Street Journal come true? Do big drug companies start pouring tens of millions into campaigns for the U. S. House of Representatives? Does Pfizer adopt a dozen Republican lawmakers, maybe a Democrat or two, and avoid unpleasant situations like the one the company faced in 2009:  coughing up $2.3 billion to settle civil and criminal complaints for the illegal marketing of Bextra, a pain-killing drug? Do these bought-and-paid-for legislators push for more of a "pro-business" stance at the Food and Drug Administration? Maybe they vote to curtail federal protections for whistle-blowers, too, since whistle-blowers at Pfizer exposed the company to begin.

Or maybe a few bought-and-paid-for members of the U. S. Senate lean on the FDA to go easy in its investigations of the harmful side effects of all-metal hip joint replacements, now failing at alarming rates, often shedding steel flakes into surrounding tissue. You know:  a lot of conservative politicians already believe tort reform, making it harder to sue for medical malpractice, is the real key to "health care reform."

And, aw, shucks, so what if grandma's hip replacement is causing her excruciating pain!

If the Supreme Court stands by or expands its Citizens United decision the possibilities are endless. (Mr. Sherman might even turn to a few news items in the Wall Street Journal if he'd like to see examples!) What! You say ING Bank has been fined $619 million for laundering money for Cuba and Iran, in violation of U. S. sanctions? Time for ING to buy, no, donate to the campaigns, of two or four or six U. S. senators and put them to work fighting Dodd-Frank regulations. Huh? You say Big Sugar, as the Journal itself labels corporate agri-business interests, want to protect billions in farm subsidies? Let them donate $5 million to the reelection campaign of three members of the House of Representatives for Louisiana and get the right kind of men and women into office, you know, fans of sugar. Watch Wal-Mart spread around $50 million to politicians in all kinds of local races in ten different states; because what do we know first and foremost about Wal-Mart? That all Wal-Mart executives care about in the end is expanding freedom! And all Wal-Mart asks is that the politicians they purchase help pass laws to make it harder to organize unions. The politicians get elected and if Wal-Mart likes their work, refinanced, and re-elected. Wal-Mart clerks still earn $11 per hour and still sometimes qualify for food stamps.

And see what happens now when UBS forks over $10 million during the 2012 presidential race. Watch Mitt Romney take a stand against increased federal regulatory power! Watch Mitt opine that President Obama doesn't understand how to run a business! Watch Wall Street bankers, in their enthusiasm for the First Amendment, dump hundreds of millions into Republican coffers! Watch the banking industry prove, as it did in 2008, that only businessmen and businesswomen know how to run a business! Watch the politicians sit idly by; squint a little, and if you look at it just right, it makes a UBS donation seem like a wise investment.

Especially if they can avoid a few hefty fines next time around.

You might say, "This has the appearance of corruption to me." But you would be stupid and probably a socialist and the editors at the Wall Street Journal would insist you were secretly a foe of all human freedom, anti-American at heart, as well, and say that you hated god and your mom and that apple pie, too.

TRUST PAUL SHERMAN on this one. After all, he's a lawyer.

Money can't buy happiness or politicians.