Obama executive order a sensible first step

Earlier this week, when President Barack Obama announced his executive order requiring more background checks on gun purchases, the responses were pretty typical. Democrats loved it. Republicans hated it.

We ran a pair of stories here on ENP stating just that. U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and Gov. Andrew Cuomo came out in support of the initiative. Congressman Chris Collins and Sen. Rob Ortt released statements of their own opposing the plan.

Interestingly, most of the Facebook comments on the Gillibrand/Cuomo story came from people who disagreed with the Democrats' take, calling them "idiots." One person added, "Common sense tells us that the underlying cause of these mass shootings is 'gun free zones.'" Likewise, most of the comments on the story about Collins and Ortt, disagreed with them, calling them "out of touch." Maybe it's easier to be contrarian. I'm not sure.

Away from ENP, but still on Facebook, the topic is a hot-button issue, no doubt. I don't usually engage in political debate on Facebook but did so twice in the past few days on this very issue. Because, frankly, it's one I feel strongly about.

Thursday night, the president had a televised town hall on the topic, explaining his point of view and taking questions from the audience. The National Rifle Association was invited to discuss the topic at the event, but turned it down, instead choosing to tweet rebuttals to the president's statements with no fear of being asked difficult questions from President Obama or CNN moderator Anderson Cooper.

If you've read my column before or heard me in my radio days, you'll know I'm a huge proponent of the Second Amendment. In fact, I'm a "gun nut," according to most. Or rather, a "firearms nut," as I don't believe that the Second Amendment has anything to do with guns, really. It has to do with weapons in general. I believe that the intent of the founders was to allow the American people access to the same level of weaponry that the government has -- to keep that government in check. This includes bazookas, flamethrowers, tanks and atom bombs. The very same argument for the U.S. having atom bombs is the argument one could use for John Q. Public having one. "It's a deterrent." If our atomic bombs deter Russia from being stupid, "the people's" atomic bombs would deter Washington from the same.

But back to guns specifically. One of the things that the NRA tweeted during the townhall Thursday night was that "none of the president's orders would have stopped any of the recent mass shootings." That may or may not be true. But it's also true that none of the president's orders would have stopped a "law-abiding citizen" from buying a gun, which seems to be the NRA's whole point -- that Obama's executive order is an affront on the Second Amendment in that it would prevent "law-abiding citizens" from buying guns.

In fact, the main crux of the executive order is that felons are capable of buying guns, taking advantage of a loophole which allows basically anyone to buy a gun online or at gun shows. The majority of U.S. states do not require sellers at gun shows or online to be licensed. Since only licensed dealers must perform background checks, people who buy at gun shows and online can get one without a background check.

While it may be true that none of the mass shootings of the past seven years would have been prevented with this executive order in place, I don't know that as fact. I only know that the NRA says so. And then everyone who blindly follows the NRA parrots that statement.

The NRA said it turned down the town hall invitation because ".@POTUS doesn’t want an intellectually honest policy discussion. He wanted #NRA to be an audience member at his PR stunt. No thanks."

What a crock.

As I pointed out in a previous column, it's the NRA who doesn't want an honest policy discussion on the matter. And their adherents in the Republican Party make sure there isn't one. Rather than agreeing to even try to solve the issue of mass murder, they offer "thoughts and prayers" and move on.

Keep in mind, the executive order doesn't ban a single weapon. It doesn't take away anyone's guns. All it does is help to ensure that people who shouldn't have access to them, don't.

If the NRA, Chris Collins, Rob Ortt or anyone else can explain to me why felons, murders, rapists and domestic abusers "right to bear arms" trumps the safety of their past -- and future -- victims, I'll offer my apology. Otherwise, they should stand up and announce that they have no clue what they're talking about and have more respect for guns than for human life.

+Scott Leffler is pretty annoyed at the disingenuousness of the NRA and their cohorts. Feel free to disagree with him on Twitter @scottleffler or by email at scott.leffler@gmail.com.

This column was originally published on East Niagara Post.

Politics can ruin even a soldier’s return home

One of the primary functions of our constitutional republic is that we elect people to make decisions on our behalf. We don’t always like the decisions they make. Some people, it would seem never like the decisions they make.

Personally, I’m not thrilled with the prisoner exchange orchestrated and executed by President Barack Obama that traded five Taliban prisoners for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. It has nothing to do with Bergdahl’s alleged desertion. It also has nothing to do with the claims by some that the five men we traded for him are the “terrorist dream team” or whatever. I just like the theoretical policy of not negotiating with terrorists.

All that said, we elected President Obama to make these decisions for us. Sometimes we’re not going to like them. When that happens, we should grumble … complain … maybe write our congressmen. Those are all patriotic expressions. Instead, what I’ve seen is a bunch of “adults” acting not very adult.

Barack Obama can’t brush his teeth these days without someone demanding an investigation and claiming it’s an impeachable offense. He can’t walk down Pennsylvania Avenue without someone making it into a political football — as they have with the Bergdahl exchange.

Maybe Sgt. Bergdahl isn’t an example of the best and brightest our military has to offer. In fact, maybe he’s a deserter — and by some accounts a traitor. But right or wrong, he’s an American.
He languished in a Taliban run Afghani prison for five years. We had an opportunity to get him back. And we did. Now that he’s returning home, we can address his alleged wrongdoings.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, members of congress are deleting tweets and recalling press releases that express any measure of happiness that an American soldier is returning home. The same congressmen who a few days ago said that they agreed with the exchange are now retreating from their statements and distancing themselves … primarily because the deal was orchestrated and executed by the president.

As generally apathetic as I am towards President Obama, the neverending zeal by the radical right to paint him as a Satanic Muslim terrorist who eats small children makes me root for the guy. I joke at times that if President Obama solved world hunger, the right would issue press releases lambasting him for contributing to overpopulation. If he cured cancer, they would chide him for killing jobs in the medical field. If he successfully negotiated to have an American soldier returned from a Taliban prison, they would call him unpatriotic and demand congressional hearings — oh, wait. That one happened.

We don’t have to agree with everything our government does. We have a God-given and Constitutionally recognized right to voice our opposition, even. As well we should. But opposing every single thing the president does because you want him to fail isn’t patriotic. Rooting against American prosperity because you don’t like the guy in the White House isn’t something to be commended.

Frankly, it’s treasonous.

The radical right has deserted our country. I demand hearings.

Scott Leffler is generally likable in person — until you get to know him. Best to just follow him on Twitter @scottleffler.

On fake blizzards, disappearing airplanes and ruining the Internet

When I was young, I walked to school. Uphill. We only had 20 channels and none of them were MTV. Wikipedia was called “the library.” And we had winter.

I still walk a lot, but something happened to winter. Or something happened to us. Wednesday we got a “blizzard” throughout Western New York. It snowed a little. And there was some wind. But a blizzard? Okay, to be fair, it snowed a lot. But still … as blizzards go, it was pretty lame.

Maybe my memory of childhood is wrong. But I remember it snowing all day every day from Thanksgiving until Easter. Now we get a few flakes and it’s a blizzard. They close down government offices and schools, advise you against driving. Heck, I couldn’t even go bowling.

I don’t mean for a second that the street crews around town didn’t do a great job, at least in my neck of the proverbial woods. Maybe the clear streets and my not walking uphill to school are why I feel like winter’s diminished. I don’t know.

Another thing I don’t know: How did a plane just disappear? It’s 2014, right? But nearly a week after Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 made its last transmission, they don’t know where the plane is. Or where it was. Or when it went missing. How is that possible? There’s radar and doppler weather and the NSA.

One thing officials have somehow concluded is that no matter how or when the plane went missing, its disappearance wasn’t the act of terrorism. Although the CIA hasn’t ruled it out, Malaysian authorities have called it unlikely. Why? Of course, the CIA thinks anything can be terrorism. Even Wednesday’s blizzard.

In addition to the snowblizzardpocalypse we we had on Wednesday, it was the 25th anniversary of what we have come to know as the Internet — the World Wide Web. And Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg celebrated by telling President Barack Obama that he’s ruining it.

“When our engineers work tirelessly to improve security, we imagine we're protecting you against criminals, not our own government,” Zuckerberg said on his public Facebook page. “The US government should be the champion for the internet, not a threat. They need to be much more transparent about what they're doing, or otherwise people will believe the worst.”

If the government really wants to improve the Internet, they can start a website to follow airplanes and predict blizzards … or something.

Scott Leffler remembers winter and life before the Internet. He’s been on airplanes. But never disappearing ones. Follow him on Twitter @scottleffler.

Perception is everything in politics, life

I’ve said before that if President Barack Obama cured cancer there are some people who would find fault with it. It’s not just Obama, mind you. We all have our detractors.

If your worst enemy were crossing the street with a handful of packages and you offered to help, they’d probably turn you down. They’d later tell all their friends that you tried to rob them.

Now, I’m not saying that the president has a cure for cancer. Nor am I saying that you tried to rob your worst enemy. But Tuesday night, President Obama took to the podium to lay out some plans to move this country forward — at least that’s how Democrats saw it. Republicans heard a completely different speech.

“Unfortunately, President Obama did not talk about plans for economic growth, like fundamental tax reform, energy independence, or significant changes to ObamaCare,” said U.S. Congressman Chris Collins, R-Clarence. “We could immediately bolster our nation’s economy by changing ObamaCare’s definition of a full-time work week from 30 hours back to the traditional 40.  And we could repeal the medical device tax, which is hurting American manufactures. But we didn’t hear any of these solutions from the President. Instead, we heard more ‘big government knows best’ solutions that are paid for by borrowing more money from China.”

Compare that with U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s press release: “President Obama presented a compelling plan of how to achieve real opportunity for all hard working Americans. There is no doubt, the state of our union will grow stronger when every middle class American has a fair shot to earn their way ahead in our economy, and the next generation is equipped with the skills they need to reach their full economic potential.”

So … were they at different speeches?

I have a feeling that, as is often the case, both press releases were written before the commencement of Tuesday’s State of the Union address and the send button was hit just as the president was saying “and God Bless the United States of America.”

I also have a feeling that Collins’ press release would have remained unchanged even if the president announced the cure for cancer. And Gillibrand’s would be the same even if President Obama revealed that he truly is the closet terrorist many on the far right seem to believe him to be.

Perception is everything in politics. And life. We are defined not by our own actions but by how others see those actions, sadly. In other words, you just can’t please all the people all the time. So when you’re doing whatever it is you do, building your legacy, do what you think is right, not what you want other people to think is right.

Scott Leffler didn’t watch the State of the Union. He was busy watching the Sabres get beaten by Alexander Ovechkin. He tweeted about it @scottleffler. 

Some things just don’t add up

Math isn’t my thing. I’m more of a words guy. But I’m pretty good at simple arithmetic. I can add 2 and 2 just as well as the next guy. But some things just don’t add up.

Who does Rob Ford think he is, anyway? The mayor of Toronto admitted to smoking crack. He also admitting to buying drugs in the last two years. But does he resign in disgrace? Of course not. While many in Canada have suggested he go to rehab, he said “no, no, no.” Instead he’s going to run for re-election.

The vast majority of Torontonians — 72 per cent, in fact — call Ford's insistence on remaining in office after he admitted to smoking crack cocaine "not acceptable," according to a new Ipsos poll. Of course the only poll that counts is the one on election day. But still.

Does Ford think he’s the mayor of an American city? Say, Washington D.C.? It’s been said that only Nixon could go to China and only Marion Barry could smoke crack and get re-elected. Of course, Barry had a valid excuse. B**** set him up. It’s worth noting that America’s most famous crack-smoking mayor still serves on the D.C. city council.

Does Ford think he’s Charlie Sheen? The movie and TV star admitted in 2011 to smoking crack. While his crazy antics lost him his “men card,” he didn’t lose a step career-wise and actually picked up a lot of new followers through the ordeal. I rather imagine that Rob Ford hopes to be “winning” in the near future. Oddly, I note that Sheen tweeted something of a love note to Ford on Thursday (http://tinyurl.com/n93w95j) apologizing for the media portrayal of the mayor.

Really, I have no idea what’s going on up in Canada but it sure is fun to watch. Honestly it’s just fun to watch another country look stupid for a change.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that the U.S. of A. has gotten out of its own way. In fact, Obamacare is a number crunches dream — or nightmare, depending on whether you crunch your numbers from the right or the left.

According to an Avalere Health report released Thursday, a whopping 3 percent of those expected to have signed up for the Affordable Care Act exchanges have done so. In New York, it’s a mere 2 percent.

For all the effort the Republicans have put into thwarting Obamacare, they could have simply let it self destruct on its own. It reminds me of H.G. Wells’ “War of the Worlds.” The world’s armies have no effect whatsoever on the invading aliens and their superior technology. But a simple cold? Humanity-1, aliens-0.

As I’ve stated before, I admire the theory behind Obamacare. I believe that we have every right to be healthy. But the implementation by this president has been horrific. And his “out-of-touch-ness” seems to radiate from everything he’s “involved in” lately. His motto should be “I didn’t know that” as he seems to be out of every loop in the beltway and beyond.

But hey, we only have three more years to deal with Obama and then we’ll have a new president who might actually make some headway on health care — like she tried to do 20 years ago. Unless she’s attacked by aliens before that. Or becomes friends with Rob Ford. But that wouldn’t add up, now would it?

Scott Leffler occasionally name drops in his columns for search engine optimization. Play Station 4, Iran, Andy Kaufman. Follow him on Twitter @scottleffler.

Budget deal nothing to get excited about

As much as I want to herald the dawn of a new spirit of cooperation in the budget/debt limit deal that Congress approved Wednesday night, I can’t help but feel like we’ve all been doubly duped.

The deal that was reached was pretty much what the Democrats had been offering all along. It was not a real compromise by any stretch of the imagination and it should have happened before Oct. 1. The 16 days of government shutdown were essentially for nothing.

That would all be bad enough on its own. But making matters worse, all the budget deal does is ensure that we’ll be back in the same place in three months since it only funds government through Jan. 15. As I heard many TV pundits say, it just “kicks the can down the road.”

The biggest problem with that, of course, is that it’s our can that’s getting kicked. Congress has pretty much just thumbed their collective nose at the American people. They have no real desire to lead. No desire to govern, either. Truth be told, I’m not sure what it is they desire to do.

So as a matter of fact, we’re just on a three month reprieve from the shenanigans that is the United States Congress. And when they bring the topic back up, there’s nothing to prevent them from shutting down the government again.

Rarely will I say that President Barack Obama said something brilliant, but on Wednesday, he really did, saying we can’t keep “governing by crisis.”

That’s exactly what our “leaders” have been doing. I’m not sure if they think that they work better under pressure. Or if they think that the crisis will force the other side to cave. Or if they just have bad time management skills. But something isn’t right down there in Washington.

The only thing worse than a late budget and government shutdown and nearing the brink on the debt ceiling is that some people in Congress wanted it to last longer.

In fact, my own congressman, Chris Collins voted no on the budget deal and released a statement explaining his vote.

“Tonight, the House voted to increase our national debt by over $300 billion without achieving a single spending cut. I could not, in good faith, vote in favor of this legislation which only adds billions to the credit card bill our children will be left to pay,” he said. “America has a significant and dangerous spending problem that most of Washington is content to ignore. On behalf of my constituents, I will not ignore this fact. Kicking the can down the road is what caused this problem and Washington has to muster the political courage to deal with it for the future of our country.”

I don’t disagree with Rep. Collins about the spending problem. I agree wholeheartedly, in fact. We spend way too much money. But I fail to see any leadership voting against paying bills we already have. And I can’t help but wonder if his vote was really “on behalf of his constituents.” Or more to the point, which constituents?

But hey, we elected him — and the rest of them, too. Maybe we should kick all their cans down the road.

Scott Leffler thinks that “congress” and “progress” are antonyms. Tune in next week when he finds a word that rhymes with “orange.” Also, follow him on Twitter @scottleffler.

Looney GOP keeps playing same Tunes

Shouldn’t there have been a point at which Wyle E. Coyote — super genius — realized that maybe he wasn’t actually that bright and was never going to catch and eat the Road Runner?

Over the course of about 50 cartoons, that stupid coyote devised more and more elaborate plans to catch his nemesis — or on a few occasions, Bugs Bunny. On a few occasions, the coyote was actually able to catch the Road Runner briefly, but he always got away.

The coyote was always his own biggest enemy, oftentimes falling prey to his own traps and looking foolish in the end.

In his book “Chuck Amuck: The Life and Times of an Animated Cartoonist,” Chuck Jones said that there were certain rules to the Road Runner/Wyle E. Coyote cartoons which he and the writers strictly adhered to. One of those rules was that “The Coyote could stop anytime — if he were not a fanatic.” According to the book, "A fanatic is one who redoubles his effort when he has forgotten his aim."

Jones also said that the coyote should be a sympathetic character. He wanted us to want him to catch that Road Runner. He wanted us to feel bad when he fell off cliffs. Or dropped a boulder on his own head.

I guess I should have read the rules when I was a kid because I didn’t feel bad for the coyote. I never wanted him to eat the Road Runner. Just like I never wanted Sylvester to eat Tweety. Or Tom to eat Jerry. Or the dog to get the best of Foghorn Leghorn. Or … well, you get my point.

I just got increasingly angry with the coyote for being such a numbskull. I mean, how many times do you have to make yourself look stupid before you realise that you look stupid? Can we agree that 50 times is enough? What about 40?

Allow me to introduce you to House Republicans — super genuis.

Since the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly called Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act was signed into law three and a half years ago — and more importantly since the GOP took the House in 2011 — there have been 40 separate votes to essentially kill Obamacare.

In fact, a story in The New York Times stated that the House has spent as much as 15 percent of all of its time on the floor focused on repeal. Fifteen percent of Republican congressmen’s salaries over that time cost us about $17 million, based on numbers from the Congressional Research Service.

But they’re hoping that the 41st time will be the charm. They feel that they’ve devised a newer, bigger, better, faster, Rube Goldberg machine that will drop everything they need into place and allow them to finally get their way with that stupid Road Runner … er, Obama.

This time they’re offering up the entire economy in exchange for Obamacare, threatening to allow the U.S. to default on its loans unless the Democrats willingly give up their prized healthcare reform.

We’ve been here before. The GOP has threatened to shut down government on a number of occasions. They’ve even succeeded a couple times. But just like the Road Runner, the government always seems to get away in the end. Just as it will this time.

Is there going to come a point where House Republicans realize they look stupid spending all their time focusing on one bill that’s now been law for three and a half years while refusing to do anything to actually fix the healthcare system, help the economy, or the long forgotten middle class?

"A fanatic is one who redoubles his effort when he has forgotten his aim."

Maybe not.

Scott Leffler loved Looney Tunes growing up. And as an adult. He also thinks that most cartoons are smarter than House Republicans. Follow him on Twitter @scottleffler. Beep. Beep.

Obama’s politics opened up can of worms

President Barack Obama pulled a bit of political genius out of his magic hat when he sought Congressional approval to use military action in Syria, putting the onus on Congress to decide whether we should go all “America” on their … posteriors.

In doing so, he climbed up on his stump and used the bully pulpit to tell Congressional leaders that if they didn’t go along with his plan to use force in the Middle Eastern country, we’d look weak. Congress never likes looking weak and as such will likely approve the measure overwhelmingly.

Right?

Well just hold on a minute there. There’s a large contingent of Congress that is opposed to military action in Syria, mostly for legitimate reason — but some for political purposes of their own.

As of the writing of this column, no less than 14 members of the House of Representatives have said that if Congress disapproves of military action and the president goes through with it anyway — which he has said he may — that they’d consider that to be an impeachable offense.

So would I.

At first I was impressed with the president’s decision to ask Congress for permission to use force. It is, after all, what he’s supposed to do according to the Constitution. I thought, “Wow. How refreshing to see a commander in chief who follows the law.”

Then the politics occurred to me and I realized that he wasn’t so interested strict Constitutionalism as he was in spreading the blame for a military action that we just plain shouldn’t be involved in in the first place. If Congress says yes, then no matter how poorly it goes, he can say, “But you told me to!” If he acted without asking then the blame is completely on the White House.

Congressman Brian Higgins, D-Buffalo, put out a press release Tuesday night stating “It is not the time for Americans to be subjected to the potential of yet another unwinnable overseas war.”

I agree, but would add that it is never the time for such an action. Especially if we’re not being threatened. And we’re not.

Some would say that if we allow Syria to get away with mistreating their own people, we could have another Hitler on our hands. It seems to me that that line of thinking has embroiled us in countless “wars” and “peacekeeping efforts” over the last seven decades, stretching our resources thin and diminishing our resolve.

If Higgins — a liberal Democrat in a very safe district — isn’t going to support intervention on behalf of his Democratic president, then who will? Maybe the GOP. Maybe no one. The vote is yet to come.

One other note on President Obama’s use of the bully pulpit: It kind of makes him look like a bully. If he succeeds in convincing Congress to go along with him, we’ll all look like bullies. And if that happens, our latest military intervention will do nothing more than create more enemies.

Scott Leffler is a peacenik. He lives in Lockport with his hedgehog, who also opposes war. Follow him on Twitter @scottleffler.

Another encampment in the trenches

Thursday I went to the University at Buffalo to cover President Barack Obama’s speech about the rising cost of college education and his plan to fix it.

I have no intention of discussing the policy initiative as presented. You can hear all about it elsewhere and come to your own conclusion.

Instead what I’m going to do is give you my take of Thursday’s event and provide some details you may not hear elsewhere.

My day started at 6:45 a.m. — at least two hours earlier than I usually roll out of bed — hoping to get to the University at Buffalo well ahead of the 9 a.m. media check in time. I nuked a cup of coffee and sent a message to Heather letting her know I successfully landed my feet on the floor. I turned the water on in the shower and set the temperature at the right level. And I stared at the mechanism of my shower. “How do I get the water to come out of the shower head,” I thought to myself. It took me awhile but I figured it out. I’m so not a morning person. Keep in mind that I get out of work between 1 and 2 a.m.

Heather picked me up around 8:15 and we headed to Amherst — via Tim Horton’s, of course. We got to UB just shortly before 9 and found the media check in. Without asking for our ID’s, they handed us our official White House Pool press passes and sent us to the security checkpoint. Equipment to the left, pocket items to the right, and bodies through the scanner. They checked over Heather’s camera gear to make sure it was really camera gear. They checked over my cell phone to make sure it was really a cell phone. I had placed my extra large triple triple on the table. They didn’t check to make sure it was coffee. It didn’t occur to me until later how odd that was. Security is tighter at Buffalo-Niagara International Airport than at a speech by the standing president (or former president, if you check my column from Oct. 23.)

Inside there was much wandering. And kabitzing. The media is a funny bunch. We all want to be first. We all want to be best. And we all want the other outlets to fail miserably. But when we’re together we’re like dysfunctional cousins at a family reunion.

At my end of the media riser, we watched each other take selfies. We talked shop. We mocked whoever wasn’t in earshot. A reporter from the Olean Times Herald photobombed a selfie Channel 2’s Mary Alice Demler was taking. This lead to much discussion and group photos. It was a party atmosphere.

At the other end of the media riser it was all work and no play, Heather tells me. That’s where all the camera people were. Camera people apparently don’t kabitz. Or take selfies. Although I know better.

So we’re waiting. And waiting. And UB President Satish K. Tripathi speaks. Followed by Education Secretary Arne Duncan. Then UB student Silvana C. D’Ettorre. And finally — although only a few minutes later than originally projected — President Obama.

The crowd went wild. It was my third time seeing President Obama so I was all cool and professional. But really, it’s cool to see the sitting president. If you get the chance, go do it. It’s like the difference between watching a Sabres game on TV or at HSBC. There’s just something about the experience.

In three words, the president inadvertently dissed Congressman Brian Higgins and Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown. Those three words were “Mayor Brian Higgins.” Oops. After some jeering from the crowd, he fixed his error and make a joke at his own expense.

About two-thirds of the way through his speech, some idiot stood up in the back and yelled “Traitor!” followed by something unintelligible and then a second “Traitor!” He was hauled off.

I’d say it’s hard to believe that someone could be so openly uncivilised. But again, I know better. I have Facebook.

Following the speech, the president wandered out into the crowd, much to the chagrin of about a dozen Secret Service agents who all “whooshed” to POTUS’ side — apparently out of thin air. He shook hands. He held a baby. He posed for photos. He swaggered. And he left.

The media said our goodbyes to one another until the next big event, went on our merry way and reverted our trains of thought to being first and best.

Scott Leffler has seen every sitting president in person since Ronald Reagan. He’s always respectful. And he thinks you should be, too. Follow him on Twitter @scottleffler.

Is President Obama reviving the Cold War?

Like anyone over the age of 30, I grew up under an imminent threat of a nuclear holocaust brought upon by the big bad Russians.

I learned that the Russians hated us for our capitalism. And that their primary goal in life was to convert us all into communist socialist Bolshevik Leninst Marxists … or something. If they couldn’t do that, then they’d resort to the nuclear thing. I learned that if hid under my desk with my head between my knees, I could survive the bombs that were undoubtedly about to be dropped on my elementary school without warning.

Fast forward about 30 years and the Cold War has been replaced by the War on Terrorism. Russians have been replaced by religious extremists. They still hate us for our capitalism — or freedom, depending on who you ask. And duck and cover has been replaced by duct tape and plastic sheeting … in case of a Sarin gas attack.

So maybe it’s no wonder President Barack Obama seems hellbent on restarting the Cold War. It was much less stressful than the War on Terror.

I’m being somewhat facetious about the president bringing back the old Red Scare … but I have been shaking my head at some of his sabre rattling and posturing in his dealings with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Just Wednesday, the White House announced that the president has canceled his Moscow visit with Putin next month. This is in response to a litany of issues the U.S. has had with Russia over the past few months, culminating in Russia offering asylum to Eric Snowden, who has become Public Enemy No. 1.

Obviously the most logical thing to do when you’re upset with someone is to refuse to discuss the things you’re upset about. Ask anyone who’s ever gotten divorced.

The president said earlier this week that the Putin administration occasionally slips into a “Cold War mentality.”

I think canceling scheduled meetings in order to emasculate the other party — which many political strategists have said is Obama’s strategy — is a return to a Cold War style of thinking.

What’s worse is that the political strategists I’ve read have been in lock-step agreement that Obama’s strategy is a good one. Apparently they miss the Cold War.

I, for one, would prefer that we show some leadership and learn to deal with people we disagree with instead of taking our ball and going home, which is pretty much the equivalent of what we’re doing here.

Scott Leffler is a Cold War kid with fond recollections of duck and cover drills. Follow him on Twitter @scottleffler. 

We need to work on our narrow minds

Another week has come and gone and once again the crazies on the right have decided it was national “Use Barack Obama as a Pinata Week.”

This week’s highlights of lunacy involved, among other things, whether the president was wrong to allow a marine to shield him with an umbrella and whether the president used HAARP to create the EF 5 Tornado that wiped out Moore, Okla. in order to distract the nation from Benghazi-gate, IRS-gate and Phone Records-gate.

But today I’m going to focus on something that truly set me off the other day. An email. I try not to pay attention to forwarded emails. They tend to be stupid. And usually divorced from reality. But I made the mistake of paying attention to one the other day calling into question President Obama’s congratulations of NBA player Jason Collins.

The president took the time to call the basketball player in late April, shortly after Collins publicly announced he was gay. President Obama wanted to "express his support" and tell Collins that "he was impressed by his courage," according to a White House official.

This angered some on the right, allegedly because the president doesn’t personally call the families of those who have died in war — in addition to the fact that there’s nothing brave about being gay … so they say. The use of the term “bravery” should be “reserved for heroes in combat (and such) who have made much bolder decisions under the risk of injury and/or death in the service of others.”

I would certainly occur that being gay — in and of itself — requires no more bravery than my being white. Or male.

But being publicly gay does require a certain degree of courage, as made evident by the comments made by ESPN’s Chris Broussard who quickly pointed out that Collins is — in his opinion — a sinner. While Broussard’s comments weren’t vitriolic or mean, they do illustrate a certain attitude that is still prevalent among many people: Gay = bad.

Some take it much much further, going so far as to say that the evils of homosexuality are responsible for the degradation of society. One particular loon said that the Tornado in Oklahoma was indirectly due to Collins.

Fred Phelps Jr., son of Westboro Baptist Church minister Fred Phelps, tweeted the following using the moniker @wbcfredjr: “OK Thunder's Durant flips God by praising fag Collins. God smashes OK. You do the math. #GodH8sFags #FagsDoomNations #FearGod #GodH8sU”

So in his estimation God took dozens of lives in Oklahoma because someone didn’t hate homosexuality enough. This is the “God” they believe in.

I’m not sure which theory sounds more insane: That President Obama decimated Oklahoma to distract us from the non-controversies that the GOP is trying to stir (as discussed in last week’s column) or that God decimated Oklahoma because he was mad that someone’s gay.

My point — albeit rather roundabout — is that homosexuality still carries a stigma with many people in society. And as such, “coming out” certainly does require a degree of bravery — especially in a high profile job like professional basketball player.

You don't have to carry a gun or run into a burning building to brave. Anyone can be a hero. Even a gay basketball player.

Until we learn that the most simple among us hold the same importance in the world as “the few” — until we abolish the idea of some live being more valuable than others, how can we call ourselves enlightened?

After all, it is the meek who are destined to inherit the earth.

Scott Leffler hates tornadoes, hypocrisy and stupidity. But has only love for the meek. Follow him on twitter @scottleffler.

Rooting against America is un-American

Politicians annoy me. Democrats. Republicans. Even my fellow Libertarians. People’s motives never seem to be for the betterment of humanity and always for the betterment of their kind.

This is illustrated perfectly in the current round of scandalgates that are circling the halls of Congress. Between Benghazi, the Associated Press phone records seizure and the IRS overwhelming interest in tea party activists, Republicans are having a field day at Democrats’ — and particularly President Barack Obama’s — expense.

From what I’ve seen from these scandals so far, there isn’t much to any one of them. But piled on as a perfect trifecta in Thursday’s news, it sure seems as though the president will have a hard time surviving it. If Republicans weren’t already trumping up the word “impeachment” before, they’re surely testing it out now.

The worst part of this is that Republicans — by and large — couldn’t actually care less about what happened in Libya (that’s where Benghazi is, although I saw a statistic the other day that says that while 41 percent of registered Republicans believe that saga to be the biggest scandal in American history, 39 percent of those who believed so didn’t know where Benghazi is).

I also can’t imagine they feel bad for the Associated Press reporters who had their phone records snagged by the Department of Justice. I tend to view the GOP as skipping over the 1st Amendment because it gets in the way of their favorite one.

Now the IRS thing, I’ll give them credit for that. That story is just ridiculous. We all know that Republicans hate the IRS already anyway. And that bit of absurdity went after their people. So I’m sure they are genuinely upset about it.

But aside from the IRS shenanigans, I can’t help but feel that the GOP’s primary interest in these tawdry affairs is the amount of damage that it could potentially do to the president. Basically I believe that they’re much less interested in either correcting or preventing wrongdoings than they are in pinning any wrongdoings on President Obama.

What I want to know is: Why do Republicans hate America?

This is the same question that Republicans asked whenever Democrats questioned anything George W. Bush did. It was a stupid question then and I realize that it’s a stupid question now. I ask it facetiously.

Except …

It does genuinely seem un-American to me to root against President Obama, his policies, prosperity and even peace — all in hopes of bringing down his presidency. Some people are actually rooting for chaos because they think it will make Obama look bad.

Yes. It was equally un-American for Democrats to root against President Bush. But we’re dealing with the here and now. And here and now the GOP is willing to sacrifice anything just to get at Obama.

So I guess my real question is: If you’re willing to root against America — in the name of America — how can America possibly win?

Scott Leffler is a real American. He fights for the rights of every man. He also used to watch wrestling as a child. Follow him on twitter @scottleffler.

Only Dennis Rodman could go to N. Korea?

It seems like people are a bit upset with Dennis Rodman.

The retired NBA player/reality TV show in the making became the first American to publicly meet with dictator Kim Jong Un last week. And upon returning the U.S, lobbied on behalf of the North Korean dictator.

Rodman said Kim wants to normalize relations with the White House and begged him to pass that message along to President Obama.

“He wants Obama to do one thing: Call him. He said, ‘If you can, Dennis, I don’t want [to] do war. I don’t want to do war.’ He said that to me,” Rodman said in an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on Sunday.

Rodman was in North Korea with the Harlem Globetrotters.

For their part, the White House says Kim should focus on the well-being of his people instead of “celebrity sporting events” and Rodman should focus on basketball.

Radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh joked that Rodman is taking over as the new secretary of state. Surely that didn’t help with the White House’s ego.

And it seems like they weren’t fond of being shown up by a two-bit punk. By which, I mean Rodman, of course.

Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Col. Steve Ganyard said, “There is nobody at the CIA who can tell you more personally about Kim Jong Un than Dennis Rodman, and that in itself is scary."

Scary, indeed.

What’s scarier still is that the White House has no announced plan to change that fact. Maybe the president is gunshy for what could be portrayed as “the apology tour, part II.” Mind you, I don’t think that’s accurate. I think we just like to keep some nations at an arms’ length.

But in this frightening time of arms deals and arms races, maybe we need less arms’ lengths.

I’ve never made any bones about the fact that my biggest issues with the federal government is on foreign policy. It’s always seemed arbitrary for me. We give China “most-favored nation” status but we can’t travel to Cuba or buy a quality Cuban cigar?

It seems like maybe we hold grudges. And most elected officials can’t really tell you why.

Personally, I think anyone we could employ to work as an ambassador to spread our message of peace and freedom should be free to do so. Even if it’s Dennis Rodman.

Scott Leffler has never been to Cuba. Nor has he even smoked a “quality Cuban cigar.” But if he ever does, he’ll probably tweet about it @scottleffler.

Republican circus has big (crazy) tent

I’ve long mocked the birther movement — you know, that group of people who claim that President Barack Obama is a Muslim communist born in Kenya and then smuggled into Hawaii just days later so his parents could get a birth announcement in the local newspaper, thereby allowing that nearly 50 years later Obama could be elected the nation’s first African American president. Yeah. Those people.

The entire premise of the birther movement is based on some pretty huge leaps in faith. But it’s also based on incredibly huge doses of distrust and disbelief in anything that’s not proven to them. It’s this sort of scenario by which people ask others to prove that God doesn’t exist. And when they can’t, use that as proof of God himself.

By the birthers’ accounts, Obama is guilty (of being a foreign-born commie Muslim set out to destroy the U.S. from the inside by becoming president while personally going door-to-door confiscating firearms from law-abiding citizens) until proven innocent (of all those crazy things).

Funny thing is, once Obama released his “long-form” birth certificate, the crazies attacked it, saying it was fake and part of the liberal conspiracy to promote abortion and forced bi-racial gay weddings — or whatever. I’ve learned to tune them out. No amount of proof in the world is good enough for people who want to believe something else.

Stephen Colbert defined this phenomenon as “truthiness” — the act of believing in something based not on the facts you’re presented, but rather what your gut tells you.

Well move over, birthers, now there’s something crazier.

At the end of December, the president — in an interview with the New Republic — mentioned that he routinely shoots skeet at Camp David. This came in response to whether he’s ever fired a gun — no doubt in response to his ongoing efforts at gun control.

You wouldn’t think that a simple answer to a simple question would cause such a ruckus, but it did. Immediately, the whacko machine went into overdrive, asserting that there’s no way a commie like Obammie has ever fired a gun.

The White House did what any rational spin control group would do. They ignored the crazies — including Tennessee Rep. Marsha Blackburn — who had challenged the president to a shooting contest.

But the din of the “skeeters” (or “skeet birthers” as Obama senior advisor David Plouffe referred to them on Twitter) continued to grow. And grow.

Finally, the White House decided that the only way to make the skeeters go away was to placate them with a photo of the president firing a gun. Which they provided on Saturday.

In typical tinfoil hat reaction, the photo was denounced as a fake, Photoshopped to make it look like the president was firing a gun when he was really … um … that part’s not clear. But obviously, they claimed, it’s fake. And if it’s real, it proves that he doesn’t know how to fire a gun. Or something.

Then they got into their spaceship with Elvis and went to planet Crazyville.

Scott Leffler an equal opportunity offender who likes hats — just not tinfoil ones. Follow him on Twitter @scottleffler.

Here we go again - again

We are now officially into the second term of the 44th president of the United States. Despite all odds, Barack Obama was reelected in November and sworn into office on Sunday, hoping to fix what ails the world in his second four-year stint as president.

I was lucky enough to attend Obama’s first inauguration in 2009 and had hoped to attend his second one — the public version, at least — on Monday, but as happens, life got in the way.

I didn’t vote for Obama. Not the first time around. And not the second. And while I don’t think he has the answers to everything, I certainly hope he does well.

This country needs help on a variety of matters and we’ll need to pull together to do so. We’ll need to remember that there is no Democratic States of America. Nor is there a Republican States of America. Red states and blue states all end up with the same president. And for the next four years, that president is Obama.

We may have fundamental disagreements as Americans. Everyone has their own interpretation of what this country is, what it was founded on and what it should be in the future. There is plenty of room for disagreement. In fact, it’s quite heartening to see that we can disagree and still all stand for the same flag.

Of course, during his inauguration address, the president laid out a basic framework of what he wants this country to be. Just as predictably, his opponents on the right came forward with why they disapproved of his vision. Again, these disagreements are to be expected and are very healthy.

What’s not healthy is the amount of hatred and vitriol that each side continues to lob at the other. From the right’s point of view, anyone who supports Obama is anti-American and must hate freedom. From the left’s point of view, anyone who doesn’t support Obama is anti-American and must hate freedom.

I wish we could have taken the day off to just be American. There are very few days when we simply get to celebrate what it means to live in the best country of the world. Even the days that should be set aside to do that — Independence Day, for example — have been tainted with partisan rancor.

Four years ago, standing on the Mall with my then-11-year-old daughter, I was awestruck by how awesome it was to be an American. I was overwhelmed with patriotism as we installed Obama — despite my having not voted for him. And I was hopeful that the bitterness of the Bush and Clinton years may end.

The past four years proved that the bitterness and division remained. But this Sunday we began anew — again. And I hope we can unite. Before we fall apart.

Scott Leffler is incredibly naive, but in a cute, childlike way. Follow him on Twitter @scottleffler.

GOP will have to pick a side and go with it

It doesn’t seem to matter what you do in life, you’ll always second guess yourself. Maybe you should have stuck with something longer. Or quit something earlier. Maybe you should have taken that job at that place. Or gone to graduate school.

Looking back on life, it’s usually easy to see how you got where you are. It has been a straight line, after all. Even if it didn’t seem it at the time. But when you reached those forks in the road, you had to pick a direction. And you wonder if you picked correctly.

The Republican Party now finds itself at just such a fork.

The “conservative” or “tea party” wing of the party believes that they lost the presidential election because their candidate, Mitt Romney, wasn’t conservative enough. This, they feel, caused “the base” to be reluctant to turn out to vote, which, in turn hurt other Republican candidates and causes.

The more moderate (or liberal, if you will) side of the Republican Party believes that it’s actually those uber-conservative ideals which hurt them in this election cycle. Many have said that they feel they have been painted with a very wide brush that makes them look as though they're uncompromising and hard to get along with.

So you have two sides of a political coin, if you will. And it’s currently in the air waiting to come down heads or tails.

My personal belief is that the tea party wing of the party overplayed their hand and got hurt because of it. When you give ultimatums as they have made a habit of doing, you have only two options: everything goes your way or nothing does. They had gotten used to getting what they wanted and have no idea how to handle the current situation where they may very well get nothing.

That would be all well and good if they learned that lesson. But they seem to feel — as evident from Grover Norquist’s appearance on “Meet the Press” this past weekend — that the problem wasn’t their unwillingness to budge. The problem was that they weren’t strong enough.

Norquist predicted that there will be a huge resurgence of the tea party in 2014 if the president takes us over “the fiscal cliff.” He’s calling for the GOP to stand firm and refuse to cave to the White House’s demands for tax increases as part of a budget compromise.

I’m not sure if Norquist is bluffing or if he really believes that, but I think the GOP has painted itself into a corner and missed the memo that the nation as a whole took a left turn at the last election.

Of course, only time will tell. And when we look back on it, it will all make sense. Hindsight is 20-20, of course.

Scott Leffler can not see the future. This column is intended as entertainment only. All rights reserved. And other legal mumbo jumbo. Call your doctor if you feel more columns are right for you. And be sure to follow Scott on Twitter @scottleffler — as long as your doctor says it’s OK.

Let the pundit battle rage on

Like many of the pundits that you see on TV spouting off about politics, I went to school for journalism and political science. Unlike (seemingly) many of them, I was not in the least bit surprised by last week’s election results.

There is a battle brewing between words and numbers and right now, numbers are winning.

See, many of the political analysts thought they understood how polls worked and many of them tried to read them themselves as though they were soothsayers reading tea leaves or something. Then they mixed in a healthy dose of “gut instinct” and came up with their conclusion that the election was going to be a nailbiter and Gov. Mitt Romney had a good chance of winning because unemployment was high — among other reasons.

I’m not an analyst. I don’t pretend to read polls. I don’t pretend to understand polls. In fact, I don’t like dealing with numbers at all. Math is so not my strong suit. But I’m smart enough to know that, acknowledge it and use a lifeline to “phone a friend.”

For the past three elections, that “friend” has been Nate Silver*. He’s been spot on in reading the poll numbers, giving them weight, and figuring out what they all mean. Taking his cue from his ability to analyze baseball statistics, Silver created a website devoted to analyze polling statistics for elections. And a brand was made.

For some reason, Silver’s polling numbers got under some people’s skin this year — primarily because they didn’t like the results, I think. It was a classic case of attacking the messenger.

But now that the election has come and gone and Silver was overwhelmingly correct in his “predictions,” there will be a new fight - between Silver’s new (and old) fans and those who still believe that gut instincts and intuition plays a role.

I suppose it is possible that Silver’s dead-on predictions in the 2008, 2010 and 2012 election cycles are all a matter of happenstance. It’s theoretically plausible that he’s just gotten lucky for the past three elections. But the odds are that he’s just smart.

Sadly, people are already talking about who will run for what office in two years and four years. Personally, I’m not ready for that. I think we should finalize the results of this election first.

Apart from the battle for the House, Senate and White House, though, many political pundits — analysts, whatever — face an uphill battle for mere relevancy. And just as people hoped and prayed that Obama would be a one-term wonder, there are many secretly (and some openly) praying for the downfall of Nate Silver and his ability to do math.

That’s a battle I’m excited to watch. Granted, it’s inside baseball, but for a political geek like me it’ll be fun.

* Scott Leffler isn’t actually friends with Nate Silver. He just has an overactive imagination and a horrible penchant for mixing metaphors. Follow him on Twitter @scottleffler.

Something scary is in the air

It’s the scariest time of the year. And no, I’m not talking about Halloween. I’m talking about election time.

This is my last column prior to election day and I could tell you who to vote for but I have no intention of ever doing that. Ever.

I just hope that people will vote based on knowledge and fact instead of voting for the person they share a skin color with or the person their spouse or favorite media mogul told them to.

The real scary thing going on right now is that people DO vote based on those things. And with an election as close as some are projecting it to be, I hate to see the whole thing decided by people who don’t know what they heck they’re doing.

Whether it’s the presidential election or the race for your local congressional seat or even your state assemblyman or senator, informed decisions are crucial.

Like you, I’ve been inundated with political mailers and commercials and even water cooler talk from people who want me to vote for their candidate. Facebook has been almost unbearable with all the political banter — as if anyone’s Facebook post has ever swayed someone else’s mind. Actually, I’m sure it has and that just leads to me thinking that my being scared is warranted.

The scariest thing for me, though, is the fear. The number of people who seem to think that these United States are so fragile that any one man — be it Barack Obama or Mitt Romney — could bring about its demise in four short years is truly frightening.

There are a system of checks and balances in place to prevent that from happening. Some of those checks in balances are the electoral system itself. Others are those we elect.

While my friend and fellow columnist Bob Confer expressed some concern in his most recent writing that we are headed towards a monarchy, I have no such fear. I believe that the system put in place by our founders remains intact and completely capable of protecting us from the potential that any one man (or woman for that matter) could destroy our freedoms.

That’s not to say that everything is hunky-dory. No, I think that America is sick and in need of a healing. I think we’ve become far too obsessed with what government can do for us and much less interested in what we can do for ourselves … or for our country.

When we look upon government to save us, ask yourself what we need saving from. The all-too-obvious answer is ourselves. So cut out the middleman and do it yourself. Vote not for the person who’s going to help you the best but who’s going to help America the best. Maybe it’s the same person. Maybe it’s not. But this systemic greed doesn’t flow from the top down. It flows from the bottom up. And only we can change it.

As you get ready to vote next Tuesday, I ask only that you base your vote on knowledge instead of fear.

Scott Leffler is a raving lunatic whose weekly rantings are available each week in this paper and online. Shorter daily-ish rantings are available on Twitter @scottleffler. 

Clinton brings his best for rally

Sitting in Nick Tahou’s on West Main Street in Rochester Friday night, I looked up at Heather and said, “If Bill Clinton had asked those people to jump off a cliff, a lot of them would have.”

She and I had just covered a rally at the Main Street Armory where the former president had stumped for Congresswoman Kathy Hochul and Congresswoman Louise Slaughter.

Congresswoman Slaughter referred to Clinton as a “national treasure.” Hochul, meanwhile, alluded to Clinton’s widely regarded stature as a “rock star.”

Whether he’s a national treasure, a rock star or just a former president, people love Bill Clinton. And really, what’s not to love? He comes across as both intelligent and compassionate. He is incredibly energetic. And somehow he manages to transfer that energy to anyone he’s talking to.

Almost everyone has seen or heard Clinton speak on television. And some of that charm comes across through the boob tube. But being there in person, I imagine, is similar to the difference between watching an NFL/NHL/NBA game on TV and watching it in the flesh. There’s something about the experience of “being there.”

For his part, Clinton mostly served in the role of an Obama surrogate. He spent the largest portion of his nearly one-hour speech talking about why people need to vote for President Obama’s re-election, trotting out facts and figures as well as personal stories and accounts.

Bill Clinton knows he’s popular. Not just in liberal Democrat circles either. Many independents look back on the 42nd president in a way that some guys look back on their high school sweetheart. There’s a feeling of longing for a bygone era and a disbelief that we ever let that era slip away.

“I hope I have some credibility with you on what’s good for the economy,” the former president said to the crowd, breaking into the portion of the speech where he derided what he referred to as Mitt Romney’s “hide-and-seek” budget.

“Nobody who ever served as president … could have brought this economy back in four year,” he said, solidifying any doubt of those in the crowd that they had to not only vote for Obama but convince others to do the same.

On Hochul, Clinton said she “has proved that she will vote with Republicans to cut spending,” — an odd thing to say to a crowd of Democrat partisans. But not so odd when you consider that Hochul’s district is overwhelmingly Republican. And for a second everyone in the crowd loved Republicans and even the concept of cutting spending. It was amazing to watch.

I was only half joking when I told Heather that people would jump off a cliff if he asked them to.
Although we had a good time covering the event, it was not all sunshine and lollipops. The disorganization was readily apparent.

I had gotten an email from the Hochul campaign about the event on Tuesday, three days ahead of the rally. I put in for press passes on Wednesday. I called the same day to no avail.

Thursday I got an email from the Slaughter campaign that they would be handling press credentials. And that they would only issue one credential per newspaper. So I re-applied, altering our credentials so that Heather would represent the Lockport Union-Sun & Journal and I would be there on behalf of the Medina Journal-Register.

I knew that this was gaming the system to a degree but I figured with a newsgroup of four papers, all of whom would run the story and photos, I was well within my rights. Plus I do work for both the Lockport and Medina papers. And the Tonawanda News. And the Niagara Gazette, too. So really, I wasn’t lying.

And to top it all off, I said if it was still possible to get only one press credential I wanted to photo credit for Heather. I have been to enough political rallies that I could cover it from the crowd with my eyes closed.

Thursday evening I had still not had a response. So I started calling people. I finally got a call from someone with the Hochul campaign saying that they got our application for credentials and that Heather’s was approved but they’d be making a decision on mine later.

Friday afternoon we show up at the rally. We have one credential. But they don’t want to allow Heather to bring her camera in. “All photos are coming from the pool,” they tell us. We wouldn’t have even gone if we had known that. The photos were the point of the trip and I had specifically stated (numerous times, in fact) that if only one credit was possible, I needed it to be Heather’s.

After much complaining and wrangling (and with some help from the AP photographer) we both got in. Thank God.

We were astonished, however, that they didn’t check our IDs. They didn’t search Heather’s camera bags. And they didn’t pat us down. Security was - in a word - lacking, especially considering President Clinton was in the house.

Once inside there were more issues of organization: No power for people with laptops; No wi-fi; and there were big honkin’ speakers where WBEN’s Dave Debo was supposed to be set up. That wouldn’t possibly affect his audio, could it?

I realize that hosting the president is a daunting task. But if these two congresswomen have any hope of doing it again in two years, they better hope their campaigns are better organized than Friday’s rally was.

Scott Leffler mostly abhors politicians but is an unapologetic Bill Clinton fan. Follow his fawning and fanning on Twitter @scottleffler.