(Image via MoreMonmouthMusings.net)

Originally published in the TriCityNews the week of August 13th, 2012

If you see something unusual in the skies above Monmouth County on August 14th, don’t worry it’s just failed Delaware Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell flying by. In one of the strangest events of the year, the witchcraft-dabbler (retired) is here to give her dubious support to Congressional candidate Anna Little. For just $250 for the “Patriot Ticket” or $2,500 to “Co-Host,” you can witness the magic first-hand. 

So far, there has been no indication that Little’s camp has an earthly clue what they are doing. From failing to register with the FEC on time, to keeping www.AnnaLittleForSenate.com up and running long after she decided to run for the House instead, to still advertising that Little’s opponent, Congressman Frank Pallone, has been in office for 22 years when it’s really 24 years, they don’t even appear to know when they’ve made a mistake. Now they don’t know they’ve made a new one. 

O’Donnell is a recidivist failure. In the span of five years, she attempted to gain office three times. First in 2006, where she ran in the Republican primary for Senate and finished third, and then ran in the general election as a write-in, seizing a whole 4 percent of the vote. Then in 2008, where as the Republican nominee, she lost by a 65% to 35% margin to incumbent and BFD Joe Biden. Then in 2010, where she again ran for Senate as the Republican nominee, this time losing to Democrat Chris Coons by a margin of 57% to 40%. 

O’Donnell also succeeded in becoming a national punchline. Thanks to footage supplied by Bill Maher, we learned that she “dabbled in witchcraft,” even dating believers, “one of my first dates with a witch was on a satanic altar,” but she “never joined a coven”… Right, because that would’ve been crazy. 

Christine attempted to calm the storm by releasing a campaign ad wherein she declared “I’m not a witch; I’m nothing you’ve heard. I’m you.” Apparently “you” consists of 40% of the voters in Delaware. 

And lest we forget, Ms. O’Donnell is also an advocate of abstinence who is vehemently anti-masturbation. Because if there’s one thing that’s sure to make kids keep their hands to themselves, it’s forbidding them to put their hands on themselves. 

All of this considered, Anna Little has sought to attach herself to Christine O’Donnell. Of course she has. 

Little’s campaign is so haphazardly run that one can only come to two conclusions: Ms. Little just doesn’t give a damn, or Ms. Little’s intentions are not what she claims.

Now more than ever, the Republican party is about forging celebrity. The fact that Donald Trump was taken seriously as a presidential candidate does not alone confirm this, but Mitt Romney standing with him to publicly accept his endorsement in Las Vegas sure as hell does. 

So when Anna Little says she’s a “Chris Christie Conservative” we can only assume that she means she’s more interested in her own brand than she is with the well-being of her party or the people she hopes to govern. 

Governor Christie has advertised himself as New Jersey’s leading man, strutting in to save the day with his “Jersey Comeback.” This narrative is, duh, completely devoid of facts. 

In the Garden State, taxes are up and everything else is down. Our unemployment is now 9.6%, 1.4% above the national average. We place 47th out of 50th in job growth. Our business climate ranks 41st in the nation. 55% of our highways are in poor or mediocre condition and 35% of our bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. With Governor Christie leading the way, New Jersey is falling apart in every way imaginable.

But Christie is a star! Just look at all those hits he has on Youtube that he talks about all the time! He’s on TMZ and everything! Reality doesn’t matter. His approval rating is still 55%. 

Just as Christie’s been a bogus Governor, Little was an increasingly bogus mayor. Under her watch, taxes in Highlands went up through increased fees and fines. This is likely because Little was  “constantly focused on how people should treat her and spent the majority of the time scolding people, rather than working with them,” says a GOP source. Not to mention, when Mayor Little first ran against Rep. Pallone in 2010, she “just stopped showing up to meetings.” 

Really though, who needs small town meetings when you have “Anna’s Army”? “Anna’s Army” is Ms. Little’s group of supporters - her “Little Monsters,” if you will. Comprised of Tea Partiers and, I’m guessing, a few fillers from Central Casting.

The party that loathes “Hollywood liberals” - yet has the distinction of being the only party to elect a movie star as president - measures success not by electoral performance, but by public face time. 

That’s why, four years after she cost John McCain the presidency, Sarah Palin is still trotted out by the GOP to campaign for candidates around the country. What matters is Palin’s still a star, even if the light she emits waxes and wanes. 

Anna Little is sticking to Christine O’Donnell for the same reason she stuck to Sharron “Doesn’t-Know-The-Difference-Between-Hispanic-And-Asian” Angle. O’Donnell, just like Palin and Christie and Trump (oh my!), is not just about the proverbial sizzle instead of the stake; she and they deliberately throw out the stake because it detracts from the sizzle: they’re all characters on SNL. Each one of them has a book deal. Trump even has his own line of ties and Palin is the subject of an entire sub genre of porn. 

The possibility that people will begin to question whether or not Little is a witch isn’t enough to stop Little from wanting to become Mini-O’Donnell. And if the “Anna Little is against masturbation” claims gain any traction, the next thing you’ll hear from her Congressional race is “I’m Frank Pallone and I approve this massage.” 

By Olivia Nuzzi

Originally posted on Thursday, April 12, 2012 on SayWhatNJ

The truth will set you free - and if your name is Jon Gruber and you’re an MIT economist who advised both then-Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and President Obama on their health care reform laws, it may well get you strapped to the roof of Romney’s car for a long drive up North. “It’s the same fucking bill,” Gruber declared…and I hope he has a warm coat.

Since health care reform was signed into law two years ago by President Obama, the Republican party has perpetuated the notion that “Obamacare,” as it’s derided, and its individual mandate, are an un-Constitutional threat to American freedom. 

Mitt Romney, the inevitable GOP nominee, has called the Affordable Care Act “flawed” - going as far as to declare “on day one of my administration, I will grant a waiver from ‘Obamacare’ to all 50 states.” 

Six years ago today, Romney signed Massachusetts’ health care reform - individual mandate and all - into law. Romney has been consistent in his defense of “Romneycare,” contending on “Meet the Press” in 2007 that the law would be a blueprint for other states, predicting that “we’ll end up with a nation that’s taken a mandate approach.” 

I was reminded that Tim Pawlenty is alive yesterday, when he spoke out to say that it was “premature” to exclude Rick Santorum as a possible VP pick for Romney. Being reminded of Pawlenty’s alive-ness made me recall his greatest contribution to our political debate: the genius phrase “Obamneycare.”

“Obamneycare,” first uttered by Pawlenty while he was campaigning against Romney in June of last year - he’s since dropped out of the race and endorsed ol’ Willard - was then revived by Santorum in February. Romney, according to Santorum, was the “proud defender and author of ‘Obamneycare.” 

Indeed, by all accounts - except Mr. Romney’s - “Obamneycare” is a fairly accurate description for the Affordable care Act. White House Records show that in 2009, senior officials in the Obama Administration held a dozen meetings with three health care advisors who helped then-Governor Romney shape Massachusetts’ health care reform in 2006. 

One of those advisers, Gruber - who without freedom of speech might be in the swamp - himself attended five meetings with Obama Administration officials at the White House in 2009, including a meeting with the president, further baited Romney when he revealed “the White House wanted to lean a lot on what we’d done in Massachusetts. They really wanted to know how we can take that same approach we used in Massachusetts and turn that into a national model.” 

It seems the White House reached their goal, because to see the differences between “Obamacare” and “Romneycare,” you need to squint your eyes and turn your head sideways. 

BOTH PLANS: create healthcare exchanges, wherein private insurance companies compete; contain an individual mandate; mandate that employers provide insurance; let children stay on their parents’ insurance until they’re 26; provide subsidies for citizens who can’t afford to purchase insurance; require insurers to cover so-called “pre-existing conditions.” 

The nuanced distinctions between the plans are technical. “Romneycare” charges people who don’t buy insurance $1,200, while “Obamacare” charges them $695. Romney subsidizes anyone earning up to 300 percent of the poverty level, Obama subsidizes anyone earning up to 400 percent of the poverty level. The Massachusetts law mandates that companies with 11 or more employees provide health insurance, while the Affordable Care Act mandates that companies with 50 or more employees offer insurance. Under “Romneycare,” an insurer can limit coverage of specific “pre-existing conditions” to six months, under “Obamacare” there is no such limit. 

Romney contends that he took a federalist approach to healthcare, and that difference is what makes his individual mandate good and President Obama’s individual mandate a socialist threat to the very American air that we breathe.

Yet, as recently as 2009, Romney was calling for Washington to look at Massachusetts as a model for healthcare. If slightly reforming the Massachusetts plan so that it could extend to the entire country was notwhat Romney meant when he said “the lessons we learned in Massachusetts could help Washington,” what did he mean?

Seeing as “Romneycare” has been a roaring success in Massachusetts, it’s not difficult to understand why Mitt’s reluctant to denounce it. In the six short years since the bill was signed into law, the number of uninsured citizens in the state has almost disappeared. 99% of Massachusetts residents now have health insurance, and only 8% of low income adults don’t receive coverage. The plan has been called “one of the biggest policy achievements” in the last 25 years in the state.

Unfortunately for But-I’m-a-Real-Boy Romney, the fact remains that standing by the Massachusetts plan is standing by its copycat bill, the Affordable Care Act…and Republicans are paid good money to hate the ACA. 

Karl Rove has claimed that Americans are finding out “to our horror” how “harmful this measure is,” continuing, “‘Obamacare’ will sink America in a sea of red ink.” Donald Trump, who endorsed Mitt Romney in Las Vegas earlier this year, has labeled “Obamacare” a disaster.” South Carolina Governor - and Romney supporter - Nikki Haley, has indicated that her state will opt-out of the Affordable Care Act, in addition to encouraging her fellow-governors to form a coalition to “fight ‘Obamacare.’” Ann Coulter has called certain provisions in the Affordable Care Act steps “toward Communism.” 

Through gritted teeth, the Right Wing is going to have to play nice with Mitt through November, and luckily for him he’s never been accused of being a man of principle. Perhaps establishment Republicans should be saying “the fault, dear Romney, is not in our czars, but in ourselves.”