The supercommittee’s impending failure is a golden opportunity for Obama to reposition himself for the 2012 campaign.

For the past three years, the sharpest criticisms of Obama’s presidency have focused on his apparently overly optimistic commitment to bipartisan cooperation. The narrative of “Obama as chump” snowballed as he preemptively eliminating a public option from the health-care negotiations, and then failed to leverage the pressure to guarantee the Bush tax cuts’ expiration with the debt ceiling debate. Psychologist Justin Frank just armchair-diagnosed his “obsessive bipartisan disorder,” wherein Republican cooperation is, time and again, the football to Obama’s Charlie Brown. Obama’s got bipartisan fever, many concluded, and the only prescription is more cowbell. For a wakeup call.

But the fever appears to be breaking. After rejecting the Republican proposal, which  involved a token $3 B revenue increase from closing a tax loophole for corporate jets and $640 B of cuts to domestic service agencies in lieu of the major cuts to defense spending, Super Committee co-chair, Senator Patty Murray, set up a strong ideological narrative: “The divide is right now is on taxes, whether or not the wealthiest Americans should share in the sacrifice.”  Obama continued to emphasize that contrast, with refreshingly hard truths from a spokesman who so often soft-pedals fundamental conflicts: “The equation, no matter how you do it, is going to be the same…prudent cuts have to be matched up with revenue.”

Republicans are backed into a hole based on their rigid resistance to raising any taxes. Twenty years of absolute anti-tax lobbying have left them with an unpalatable choice: betray their commitment to national security, with cuts mandated by sequestration, or their commitment to ever-lower taxes. Where the President might have once provided cover for stark philosophical differences in the name of bipartisanship, Obama is now happy to give Republicans enough Grover Norquist-issued rope to hang themselves with.

This can only help embolden Obama to make a case for himself, one based not on compromise and partnership but on representing the true values and interests of the American people. Already, Obama has proposed a jobs plan and a strategy for long-term debt reduction, both of which got shot down by a party that believes wealth concentration is good for everyone. The debate over who bears responsibility for our country’s costs (the 1% or the 99%) can only result favorably for Democrats, provided they present that ever-elusive case for redistribution of wealth, increased revenue from taxes, and investment in job creation, education, and social safety nets. An opportunity to doubling down on progressive principles is exactly the momentum Obama needs as he heads into a competitive race.

The best case scenario is for the Super Committee’s failure to energize Obama as a candidate, one who realizes that pragmatism and cooperation have to be rooted in principles, not in spite of them.

The Mormon Mitt Romney will be the GOP candidate to meet Protestant Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election. Period. But amidst this inevitable revelation and his persistently high poll numbers, we still seem to be stuck in a realm of high profile Mormon-bashing and religious poll wars pitting Mormons against a panoply of other “better” Christian-based religions. Sure, Mormonism may very well be a cult founded by some guy in the 19^th century who had a penchant for make-believe storytelling, but continuing to let this factor plague the candidacy of Mitt Romney is simply ridiculous.

Lest we forget that nowhere in the Constitution does it state that the president needs to have an affiliation with a specific religion. Instead, the Constitution allows for freedom of religion and outlines a clear separation between church and state. It is us as Americans who have arbitrarily instituted an unwritten universal doctrine requiring any public office holder to believe in God and have an affiliation with a Christian-based religion. Mormonism is the fourth largest religion in the US with over 5.5 million followers, making it the “best” religion according to many. By his affiliation with Mormonism, Romney is fulfilling these arbitrary requirements set upon him by the American public, so what’s the issue here?

Moreover, there hasn’t been any point throughout the GOP primary where Romney has given the general public a reason to believe his religion would get in the way of policymaking (While it has been argued that Romney shouldn’t be elected because the Mormons stand staunchly against things like gay marriage and abortion rights, remember, the religions of every other GOP candidate touts this same message). Romney himself even summed up his rational, secular version of public office holding very well at the October 18^th CNN GOP debate, “The founders of this country went to great length to make sure and even put in the Constitution, that we would not choose people who represent us in government based on their religion…that there’s a plurality of faiths, where there was tolerance of other faiths. That’s bedrock principle…”

As a further point to outline the absurdity of this Mormon-bashing madness, Americans need to look no further than the US Congress to see that Mormonism holds no imagined “threat” over non-believers. Currently, 15 Mormons hold congressional seats – including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. There is no bill making its way through Congress that will legalize polygamy or enforce Mormonism as a national religion. It’s difficult to articulate a plausible reason why these types of things would occur with a possible Mormon president.

So enough with this Mormon-bashing-my-religion-is-better-than-yours nonsense. With Romney as the sure GOP Presidential candidate it’s now time to move forward and judge him by more relevant and important standards, like his competency and ability to govern.

Like thousands of digital New Yorkers, I opened the New York Times homepage this morning to the story of the final eviction of Occupy Wall Street from Zucotti Park. It happened early this morning, around 1:30am. Certainly it will be in the print edition tomorrow, but today it’s all online, each newspaper report a pallid reflection of the dozens of frantic emails, texts and calls that have been spreading the news and rallying support since the announcement was first made late last night. Watching the livestream footage of the eviction is surprisingly visceral. I winced at the swaths of cops looming in riot gear, and the announcement that they’d deployed tear gas in the kitchen. Most of all, I was hit by the later footage of dozens more officers breaking down the encampment. While I slept soundly, my revolution was being carelessly dismantled. Tables, beds, personal items, all getting tossed into one of several debris piles. What had once been pieces of home for some and symbols of rebellion for many others, were transformed mid-throw into mounds of rubble and refuse.

I can’t help but wonder if Michelle Bachmann or Newt Gingrich read the online paper, if they’ll read it in print tomorrow, or if the news will be delivered to them by someone else who will share in their undoubted complacency. Maybe they’ll share a joke about sweeping away the layabouts or power washing hippies.  Surely though, they’ll think it’s over. They’ll be satisfied that the movement’s lost. I wonder how many New Yorkers share this opinion. I wonder if they’ll be wrong.

Of course, a lot of people’s attitudes toward OWS come from the way that the occupations are being presented by mainstream media. Publications like the New York Times have spent the last two months reporting on the occupations as, well, occupations, and not much else. It’s true; much of what’s been accomplished is reflected in the physical presence of protesters across America and around the globe. From this angle, it’s hard to imagine a movement existing without a visible material infrastructure.

But for the spirit of OWS, there is still much that can be done outside of Zucotti Park. Even in the aftermath of this morning, there is still hope. The Occupy Wall Street Library—over 5,000 donated books—has not been destroyed, as some had feared. There is huge promise for the gatherings being held this evening. Dozens of events have been planned for tomorrow, November 17^th, the International Day of Action, and many more around the country (some of this is being reported in the media, most of it not). As for the future, who knows. In my more optimistic moments today, I’ve entertained the thought that by losing this base, we will actually be forced to take the occupations elsewhere. Not just to another park or plaza, but into our homes, our schools, our workplaces, occupying everywhere with a spirit and working knowledge of organized rebellion. This kind of occupation may indeed be harder to report on, so the days of the Times front page may be over, but if it happens, then surely the movement will have won.

Anyone attempting to prognosticate about the 2012 elections should be watching a vote that combines the pre-election season’s holy trinity: Ohio, Occupy Wall Street and big corporate money. On Tuesday, the voters of our most heart-stopping heart-shaped state will vote on repealing Ohio’s Senate Bill 5, a signature piece of Koch-funded public-union-busting legislation.  One standout item of the bill is removing minimum staffing requirements for fire departments, exactly the kind of institution you want to find itself suddenly shorthanded.

A landslide defeat will surely help the morale for Ohio’s electoral prospects in 2012;  more importantly, the timing of this bill provides a laboratory for the emerging fusion of labor movements and Occupy Wall Street. As OWS protesters navigate the degree of legislative pragmatism they want to incorporate into the movement, it’s worth noting that traditional election tactics of raising money, to pay for staff and media that take the message directly to voters, are actually working in ways that advance a lot of the same goals that Occupiers would support: boosting pay and rights for working people, and refuting the influence of massive corporate money in politics.

Starting back in March (well before the September launch of Occupy), labor groups raised  more than $30 million, amassed a wide network of volunteers, and formed a network of field offices and operations to conduct huge amounts of direct voter contact. The traditional ground game is paying off: Quinnipiac’s latest poll has Issue 2 down by 25 points. The same poll the previous month had Issue 2 down by just 13 points.

I’m reminded of Goldilocks: the heated milieu of protest movements may be too unfocused, while a sterile, technical focus on incremental reforms is too cold to inspire anyone. But a landslide, grass-roots-fueled vote to defeat a bill like SB5 may be just right: a cathartic rush that retains activists throughout every cycle and milestone of a decades-long movement.

What will prove most illuminating about ab SB 5 repeal is a precedent for electoral dividends that we can expect from Occupy Wall Street, which has heretofore been a rhetorical movement. Bonus points for this taking place in the most hotly contested swing state on the map! Those of us playing Theories of Social Change Bingo at home are having a grand time.

“The Manhattan district attorney’s office fully supports the tradition of civil disobedience and that all individuals have the right to protest, if they do so in a law-abiding way,” assistant DA Michele Bayer said in court Thursday.

Ms. Bayer disrespects more than just basic etymology—as it is prima facie ridiculous to be for legally not obeying the law when your job is enforcing that law—in her statement, however. This “tradition” that her office is supposedly venerating argues that adherents should be uninterested in her support; rather they should seek her scorn. When protesting injustice using civil disobedience, the goal is, expressly, to break the law to highlight its injustice through the punishment you are forced to face. One suspects the DA’s office is simply trying to pressure future protesters to keep their disobedience obedient, or face similar prosecutions.

“Unjust laws exist,” says Thoreau, the godfather of modern civil disobedience, and he then asks, “shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once?” His answer is that we break those laws and accept the punishment as part of exploiting their inherent injustices: “…break the law. Let your life be a counter-friction to stop the machine.” Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., two twentieth century icons, were enamored with this theoretical argument of Thoreau’s. The latter’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” was written while he was illustrating his solidarity with Thoreau’s point that in an unjust country, sometimes one must “cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence” by going to jail for disobeying an unjust law.

Sadly, some of the protesters seem almost as ignorant of the follow-through part of this tradition. If you are arrested and argue to a judge that what you did was really legal, you are not acting in civil disobedience—rather that argument seems to imply you thought you were being civilly obedient but were just too dumb to look up the appropriate laws. Where are the protesters whose answer to a judge’s “guilty” or “innocent” is “innocent in the eyes of justice, guilty in the eyes of the state,” and who then accept their punishment?

I don’t see them. What I do see are a lot of people trying to get out of the consequences instead of accepting the final piece of the act—perhaps the most important part—of civil disobedience. Protesters de-radicalize the concept when they are too frightened to deal with the fact that disobedience means open conflict with the powers that be, and in doing so, they make it easier for state officials to try and define the idea by its contrary. If you’ve legitimized yourself to the DA, you’ve likely de-legitimized yourself to the civil disobedience tradition.

Both the protesters and the DA may want to revisit their volume of The Portable Thoreau. I have a copy they can borrow.

Do you think anybody out there takes Herman Cain seriously? Exactly! But why is he still here?

Every four years, we bring to life a candidate that provides us great entertainment and amusement, similar to a national piñata. The media gravitates towards him, he becomes the talk of the town, and manages to become the most memorable one in televised debates. Remember Ross Perot, Alan Keyes, Sarah Palin, and George W. Bush? Well, somehow the last one got loose and made it to the White House. Twice.

This presidential campaign is no different. We need a cartoon character. A nut. Perhaps a “Black Walnut,” which he proudly calls himself.  Herman Cain fits the bill and wears the costume well.

First off, his overly regressive 9-9-9 flat tax plan is completely ludicrous. It would put the economy on a tailspin by introducing a new federal sales tax in addition to your state tax [New Yorkers, think about dishing out close to 20% on your purchases], overtaxing the middle class, and undertaxing big business. I can’t see any respectable economist endorsing it.

Second, his campaign trail resembles more of a national book tour. Perhaps his next debate should be televised at a Barnes and Nobles. Sharpie? …  anyone?

Third, are we thirsty for more sex scandals? Hasn’t Wu, Weiner, Lee, Souder, Massa, and Ganley – and this is just for the current year I’m talking about – quenched our thirst and sexual curiosity?

Just like the fairy tale wedding of Kim Kardashian and that football player, Cain’s popularity will come to an end. In the course of our grieving, we may experience fond memories the next time we hear “Amazing Grace,” or when biting into a slice of pizza. We may recall our “Black Walnut” when watching one of the “Godfathers,” or even chuckle when suffering from a peanut allergy. But in a few months, he will quickly fade into our short-term memories.

But before he does, let us now reflect on some Cain wisdom: “When they ask me who is the president of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan I’m going to say you know, I don’t know. Do you know?”

Well, I hope you WOULD, Mr. President.

But like most visitors to D.C., Herman Cain’s journey will end up at the gates of the White House. Locked.

Once upon a time there was a US presidential candidate that could not name three out of four heads of state. The significance of this lies in that he was not asked whether he knew who was running the Federated States of Micronesia. He was asked about four states
making headlines.

This candidate- yes, George W. Bush- went on to become president, where his ignorance and lack of interest in the fields of economics and foreign affairs facilitated his manipulation by ideologues. During his presidency a deep knowledge of history, politics and even military doctrines was replaced by prayer and the conviction that “ideas matter.”

That ideas matter is an insight on which his ally Tony Blair elaborated after leaving office. Thank you for that, Tony.

By the end of the W. Bush presidency, American forces were engaged in two foreign wars that, at the time, could be described as stalemates. This is what ignorance does. It facilitates messes.

On top of that, a free market hawk like the Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, was running around Washington DC trying to convince members of Congress to socialize the financial system. Thank you for that, Hank.

Not that I disagree with Hank on this. On the contrary, when a free market hawk and a self-described free market White House see the necessity of government intervention in the economy, then the argument over whether government has a role in the economy is settled.

But today’s headlines feature Herman Cain, who, among other things, actually referred
generically to Central Asian states as “Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan.” He could have named a real state in the region to make his point. But sadly, that is the point. He does not know any.

Cain also declared that he considers China a military threat since “they’ve indicated that they’re trying to develop a nuclear capability.”

It should trouble Republicans that this man is actually ahead in the polls.

Has the Republican base ever heard of Jon Huntsman? The Republican establishment (psst, these are the people who believe in knowing things) has, and Huntsman is aware of things like China having nuclear weapons since 1964.  Considering how Romney is perceived by the base, why is Cain the viable alternative and not Huntsman?

Maybe it’s because Huntsman knows things- the more people know, the less naïve they are, and the harder it is to manipulate them. OK, so Huntsman has no chance of winning the nomination. And Romney? Well, being governor of one of the most progressive states in the Union seems to be hurting his chances with the base.

Since ignorance is fashionable again, I wonder if we should be getting ready for more economic and military disasters.

Just because the delegation of budget cutting has been relegated to a “Super Committee” doesn’t mean it has any more ability then the previous 4 committees to make the necessary moves towards shrinking the nation’s debt. If anything the term Super Committee reflects the absurdly unrealistic aspirations that a bipartisan group can agree on a plan to cut at least $1.5 trillion in spending over ten years and rewrite the nations tax code in less than three months. Not even the Super Friends would be expected to accomplish such a feat.

The president did not have the power to push through his budget. Or a jobs plan the majority of economists deemed well structured. Romney and Perry both pledge to cut taxes further, regardless of the now common knowledge that the “1%” now control 23.5% of all income and assets. Both parties have been unable to agree on a debt reduction plan. Clearly we are the posterchild of effective governance.

If you’re in a sinking ship and a breached compartment has to be sealed, you don’t stand around arguing why the lever should be pulled, you just do it.

Democrats refuse to cut entitlement spending without tax increases on the highest income bracket, Republicans refuse to raise taxes under any circumstance and want to cut entitlement spending. They say stalemate, I say checkmate. The Democrats are willing to compromise, why aren’t the Republicans?

Don’t worry, the Super Committee will save the day. Oh, did I mention they are at a standstill and no longer seem to be meeting? Did I mention they have until November 23rd to solve all the countries problems? Or did anyone take into consideration that no matter what the Super Committee does, both houses still have to pass their recommendations? Who could expect anything less. The Super Committee is just a miniature Congress with all the same caveats.

Lets look closely at the goals. The budget deficit for 2011 is $1.3 trillion. So let me get this straight, the debt problem will be solved if they agree to $1.5 trillion in cuts over a decade, while in just one year we added $1.3 trillion? Even if they fail and the $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts go through we can still call it a failure. Estimates put the necessary amount needed to stabilize the debt need to be around 4 to 5 trillion dollars in cuts or additional revenue over the next decade. Now rumors are going around that even the $1.2 in auto cuts are no longer sacred, nor is the budget ceiling…again.

Congress looks a lot like Occupy Wall Street: no one wants to be in charge, no one can agree on anything, and nothing substantial is being accomplished. I ask the future Mr. President if he is ready to face a Europe like crisis and what does he plan on doing about it? All we can do is hope Europe keeps the bond markets distracted long enough for us to put our own debt crisis, the US government’s Legion of Doom, out of its misery.