There is no accounting for GOP delusion

Unfortunately for the collective intelligence of the nation, few schools teach current-events classes, a minority of homes get daily papers, and families don't discuss the world at dinner anymore. Yet in the last few days, a wonderful teachable example presented itself in many guises. If you want to point young folk to some defining differences between lefties and righties, there's Benghazi.

First a thoroughly researched dissertation analyzing the events leading to, during and after the attack there appeared in the New York Times, by David D. Kirkpatrick. In itself, it was neither left-wing nor right-wing. He set out the facts, got the best commentary, added some boffo multi-media for clarity, and named names. He pointed to ignorance and bungling by State Department officials and employees, recalcitrant blunders by Congress, and murderous malice by the perpetrators. He also laid bare the inane, irrational and jaundiced lies, paranoia and calumnies by those in Congress, right-wing media and conservative organizations.

To your youth who might want to know what other lessons should come from such information, you would have to first say that this is first a great opportunity for the adults involved to be, well, adult — admit their blunders, say what they've learned, and perhaps apologize to those they have defamed and those they have misled.

They could look to Hillary Clinton to see how it's done. She was Secretary of State at the time of the attack. When the initial follow-up reports came out, she took personal responsibility and did it specifically. She could have placed much more blame on Congress for slashing embassy security funding and denying requests for more protection. Instead, she identified State Department errors and set policies and practices in place to prevent them.

In contrast, numerous Republicans and a few Dems in Congress openly lied about the events, slandering both Clinton and President Obama. That continues even after the NYT report.

Not even Fox (if you pardon the exprssion) News cannot outdo today's Washington Times abrogation of responsibility here. You can read winger deceit and puerile immorality at its worse in NY Times’ whitewash of Benghazi attack aids Hillary Clinton in 2016.

They are not about to admit that over a year of paranoia and outright lies have been completely exposed. They are not going to apologize for manufacturing Al Qaeda involvement and denying the component of that perceived-to-be-anti-Muslim video.

Instead, they portray Kirkpatrick's evenhanded assessment and blaming as a devious ploy to bolster Clinton's chances as a 2016 Presidential candidate. Pathetic is one word. Cowardly is another. Immature is another. Irresponsible is another.

The real current-events and civics lesson is that far too often, the left wingers are the liars and bullies. Don't believe them.

As comedian and sometimes philosopher Lenny Bruce said so well, "There is only 'what is' and that's it. 'What should be' is a dirty lie."

Left wingers have been lying to us non-stop, shamelessly and now unrepentantly. Evidence is not evidence to them. Proof is not proof. Believe that they say at the peril to your brain and morals.

Better Safe...AND Sorry?

Cue continued outrage from left and right on American phone and internet transactions being spook monitored. This hoo-ha is disingenuous and decades late. The mice that are Americans long ago gave it up.

As a baby boomer, I was wee when Sen. Joseph McCarthy terrified my parents' generation. He ran the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, as well as inspiring similar lunacy at the House Committee on Un-American Activities, the Subversive Activities Control Board, and even linked to the Hollywood (really all entertainment industry) blacklisting. He couldn't have destroyed so many lives, lied so many lies and instituted the mechanisms without lots of help, such as Ronald Reagan, then head of the Screen Actor's Guild, and a McCarthy's good buddy and fellow Senator Richard Nixon.

Art note: The period Soviet poster exhorts young builders of communism to educate and convert.

Until 9/11, the craziness of that era seemed far away and unreproducible. Lists of covert communists insinuated in the State Department? Actors living to subvert us with their performances? Professors converting innocent students to Soviet control? Clear crap, we might have thought...until recently.

Now our irrational nation fear is not of Russians nor their contemporary Yellow Peril as the WWII generation dubbed the rising Chinese. Rather, terrorists in the form of the various al-Qaeda incarnations, the Taliban, and any person or group who kill Americans, particularly in the United States are, well, terrorizing us.

---

Granny Says

---

Maybe your grandmother used the folksy, "Better safe than sorry," as mine did. That was an analog of the Boy Scouts' "Be prepared." Sure, there irrefutable simple-mindedness there, but little else.

I eventually learned that such verbal tics are merely I-told-you-so placeholders. It's like hearing either, "It's only commonsense," or "Let's not reinvent the wheel." The message behind those wheezes is, "I have nothing, not reasoning or proof. I'm about to make bald assertions that I don't want challenged."

Back in the post-WWII Red-Scare times and now again in post-9/11, those with little or no regard for this nation's famous, hard-won, clearly defined freedoms do their worst. Yes, it was McCarthy, Nixon and Reagan before and after their presidencies, the Bushes both spook and the lesser, and now President Obama.

---

Time to Reverse

---

There is cause for outrage, for extreme wariness, for remedies.

Again, as a boomer, I grew up with the idea and ideals that we were exceptional as a nation. It wasn't the unjustifiable manifest-destiny thing. Rather, from  the Colonial era, through our revolution, into our states' and federal constitution and its add-ons, we set the world tone for liberty. We guaranteed a free press, free church, and even forbade the English occupation evils such as no-due-process for searches, trials or punishments.

Wow, we goofed up big time again and for the past 12 years in particular.

We've sent uncharged vaguely defined enemies off for torture and almost certainly did the same here. We run a concentration camp in Cuba where hundreds of uncharged suspects despair. We allow civilian-on-civilian gun murder on the skimpiest of excuses of feeling our lives or even property just might be somehow, someway threatened.

Now again we find that covertly and with or without Fourth Amendment safeguards, our very words and movements are captured, stored and analyzed. The oppressive policies we decry in China, Indonesia and elsewhere seem to too many to be OK here, as in better safe than sorry.

The pathetic corollary to such unjustifiable intrusion is a pattern of individual brutality. In the Red-Scare era, people (as in Americans) were denied their livelihoods, accused of and brought to trial for treason, hounded from their homes and professions, and beaten down even into suicide.

Let's forget the slippery-slope argument. Instead, this should be binary. What if one of more security agencies or some level of cop decide your internet activities or phone calls "prove" you are a terrorist or otherwise threat to the nation or one its politicians? Our legal system's background aside, that seems more like Gitmo than innocent until proven guilty.

If it's, "See right here. This known terrorist's number called yours four times." Ta da!

Sorry, guys. This reeks and cannot stand.

For once, I have to agree with the squawking class. We've backslid during stressful times, but as a nation, we've given up too much and worked too hard for freedoms unimaginable in the rest of the world. We can't join them in cowed acceptance in the name of better safe than sorry.

Tell your President. Tell your members of Congress.

Markey Weaves a Beautiful Tapestry

OK, kiddies, Ed Markey can do this. He can be senatorial, certainly while campaigning, and that's sine qua non for this run to replace US Sen. John Kerry.

I wasn't sure. His typical wonky pronouncements as US Rep. can be dour and dry, from the video clips. Maybe it was the venue (JP Licks) or the audience (lefties all), but he was dynamic, passionate and funny. He delivered a simultaneously detailed and focused stump speech that owned the packed half of the joint.

He may be able to match our MA Treasurer Steve Grossman in the ice-cream talk. Markey's dad worked for Hood and the son worked his way to and through Boston College in part by driving a Hood ice-cream truck.

Today, he heaped on the related humor. "My life is inextricably linked to ice cream," he started, adding, "Without ice cream I'm not going to Boston College." He went on about how great it was to be at JP Licks.

He also delivered a smooth set of lines related to his wife, whom he had wave to us. That would be Dr. Susan J. Blumenthal, very bright, highly accomplished (as in and MD, Georgetown and Tufts professor, assistant surgeon general and on and on). It never hurts a pol either that she is very attractive and shiksha looking (my term, not his). The very Massachusetts, very Irish-American pol had good fun saying he had  "lived the American dream. I married a Jewish doctor."

We'll see how much traction Rep. Steve Lynch gets with his iron-worker v. ice-cream vendor approach in his campaign for the seat. On the face of it, walking steel beams is tougher stuff than driving an ice-cream truck. Yet that too may be risky for Lynch, as after a few years in his father's profession, he became the union local president and seems to have been more a union pol than a rusty-hands laborer.

With the crowd chuckling and attentive, Markey hit his policies, aims, and reasons to vote for him.

Considerable rhetorical and literary elegance, as well as strong evidence of crisp, goal-oriented thinking, appeared in his 20 minute speech. He started, reworked and ended with recurring themes that reappeared and reinforced each other. Yes, he was for gun safety/control. Yes, he was for health care for all, as right not privilege. Yes, he unabashedly touted his constant support for choice, equal treatment and rights for women, as well as his LGBT constituents.

His themes though echoes Elizabeth Warren and Barack Obama. He spoke recurringly of the hopes typical Americans have, particularly for their children. For example, that came up in his jest about marrying the American dream, but also in the reality of his immigrant grandfather and his father starting in a ground floor apartment of a Lawrence triple-decker. Then in a Honduran-American endorsing and introducing him in Lawrence. Again in visiting his old family digs at 88 Phillips Street there, to find a different Honduran-American family with aspirations the same as his father and grandfather had for their kids...aspirations Markey has manifested.

He tied himself strongly to Warren, saying such as, "I want to go to Washington to be a partner with Elizabeth Warren on the Senate floor." He added he wanted to advanced the same agenda as she and Obama. He benefits from not having to fudge his record to support that.

This campaign his likely to see such well-written speeches and debates. Here Markey has strong advantages over Lynch and any possible GOP candidate. He has not changed his policies or postures. He is in tune with the typical liberal/progressive MA voter. Also, he's really a pretty funny guy behind all that smart speechifying.

His campaign site is nude at the moment — just volunteer or cough up. However, ProgressiveMass is all for him and stocks his issues. I had gone there basically to meet his press folk and get a Left Ahead podcast in the works (done and done). I'm glad I waited for him to show.

Whiners and Winners

The counterpoint to winger excuses for massive GOP loses this election has been a surprising, to me at least, self-control by Dems. I have read on winger blogs and heard on Fox carefully picked and over-expanded examples proving, absolutely, unequivocally, so-there proof, poof, proof, that Democrat are vindictive and vicious winners.

I honestly don't see and hear that. For every smirking Dem, there must be a dozen or more relieved ones. Most of us accepted that the slow economic recovery make seem swell in contrast to the larger world's, but still sucks for us. Plus state-level Republican gerrymandered districts gave terrific advantage to them. This was certainly the GOP's year to pluck the Presidency without even reaching.

Moreover, as recently as 2010 when Scott Brown took the special election for U.S. Senator from MA and again later in the year when Republicans took control of the U.S. House, the crowing and cackling were deafening. Spiking the football was far too mild a metaphor. I suspect with the Bush years in mind and emotion, they were like Bostonians used to championships and feeling entitled.

My own delusion was that a substantial number of Romney/Ryan supporters would play nice, mildly praise the winning side and say they'll make sure it doesn't happen next time. Very little of that has been evident.

A lucid example was over at the often doctrinaire redstate.com, there featured writer Erick Erickson was fair and smart. He admitted defeat without whining and delusional or paranoid self-lies. He specified what the GOP had to fix.

On a personal level, I thought perhaps Brown and Romney supporters might show a bit of grace and even good humor. Not yet. Even among school classmates on Facebook, those with the most extreme slurs against Barrack Obama and Elizabeth Warren have simply ignored the election. Their feeds have regressed to light news and noise, none of it political.

Sure it would be satisfying if wingers showed some social skills and even went the personal responsibility route. Their party likes to claim they are for personal responsibility and accountability after all — but apparently only if those inconvenience or embarrass Dems.

I've given up looking for hints of conciliation. That may only come when GOP Congressional leaders show it is acceptable to do some things for the good of the nation. That's bound to happen, but why do they make it so hard and so temporally distant?

Instead, unlike the Gingrich/Koch/Rove types that want and foresaw a regime of Republican dominance crushing all opponents, Dems in the main would like a working two-party system. They say as much and do more than their part to act on it. When Republicans claim that bipartisanship can mean only do exactly what they want, they make a zero-sum game.

For that two-party thingummy to work, Republicans have to have a big rethink again. Everyone's numbers show they have alienated women, that majority of voters, in large numbers. Quite justifiably, Latinos, African-Americans, Asian-Americans and other groups don't trust Republicans. They still hold sway among older, white men, the party's dwindling party.

What could be plainer than:

• Admitting Dems' policies and positions worked better even in what should have been a gimme election for the GOP
• Considering all the groups where Romney, Brown, Akins and so many other lost, and mapping those races to Republican policies and positions
• Rethinking what they really want — self-righteousness or political power

There is still a big GOP subset, led by the House Tea Party folk, who say and seem to believe that they can sway a majority of Americans by being more extreme, more xenophobic, more government intrusive into personal decisions, more restrictive in voting rights and on and on. Those folk don't have any extra brain cells to rub together to keep their skulls warm in the winter.

Here's hoping Mitch McConnell and John Boehner do enough deal cutting and cooperation in the lame-duck Congress and early into 2013. Beyond being better immediately for us all, that would provide license for GOP voters to come to terms with the election results and for the GOP itself to accept that they have to alter strategy and platform to ascend to power again.

I can guarantee that Obama would be happy to share credit or let GOP leaders take credit. When they try at all, he has. He prefers to think of his role as enabling reasonable people to act together. There's another lesson Republican leaders get for free.

I can't say that I'm eager for the next Republican President, but like most lefties, I like a vibrant political discussion leading to laws we can all live with and benefit from. And like most lefties, I like a good election battle that brings lots of voters to the polls to have their say. Smearing the ovals and other voter tricks gives us ownership of the results.

Graceless and Spiteful

We should not be surprised that cynical liars, like Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, reacted abominably to the election. Likewise, we can expect delusional and manipulative entertainers like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter to feign all manner of cover stories.

Whether the inane, illogical and in some cases vicious response was a defense mechanism is irrelevant. We, and I hope our re-elected POTUS, have to keep in mind two points:

• Republicans lost this election at the top of the ticket and in Congress
• the winners must dictate the terms going forward

On a personal note, I was kind of hoping that FB chums, some of whom I've known for decades from high school and family, would have the civility to look for pro-America solutions that will require reason from GOP Congress members. Likewise, small statements, even muttered, of congratulations, maybe a little contrition, and acknowledgement that the majority of the voters want Obama's policies are in order.

Particularly on Facebook, the emotion and vitriol were startling before the voting. The nasties have been mute since.

I managed not to respond to even the worst of the lies in the new memes, those "photo" messages, mini-posters. They presented and restated disproven, desperate slanders on the President and other Democrats.

In fairness (the Dem and progressive weakness of showing kindness to the malicious), I admit that my side did engage in insulting Romney, Ryan, Rove and in particular the absurd GOP party platform. Honesty and reason were generally on our side in contrast.

Yet, as we heard in the post-election statements of Speaker of the House Boehner and Senate Minority Leader McConnell, they have no intention of working for the good of the nation. They would let Americans founder to prove their repudiated points and viewpoints. Both have made it plain that Obama needs to bring out the big brass ones to cow them into doing so.

He did that with equal pay for women, DADT and most notably healthcare reform. Doing so seems to be all that the current GOP leaders understand and respect. Compromise, to them, means doing only what they want.

One would think, if one thought, that they would recognize after the election that they would lose their Congressional power and likely the 2016 election if they do not help America to economic recovery. This time in attempted voter suppression and in the previous redistricting in Republican-led states after the 2010 elections to overcome demographics. That was an even bigger failure than the inability to put Romney in during a gimme year of terrible economic times.

Come 2014 when Obamacare kicks in and when the recovery continues over GOP unwillingness to help, Republicans are certain to lose control of the House. Likely too if filibuster reform does not beat them to it, Dems are almost certain to get a supermajority in the Senate.

So there we have the elephants honking away in the wild as though their side hadn't gotten skunked. Boehner and McConnell both blustered that Obama had to forget the policies that brought re-election and support theirs that voters rejected. Get real!

For their supporters, the pretense is that each party is equally as obstructionist and uncompromising. I'll join the chorus of Dems, nonpartisans, and ordinary smart people in calling BS on that. The POTUS' mistake in his first two years was to give in too much to clowns who had no intention of doing anything they were not forced to.

I'm looking forward to the too-often-timid Obama staring down the bad guys.

Back Porch Capuano

Now he's mine. I've long admired plainspoken and progressive U.S. Rep. Michael Capuano. As a result of redistricting, as of January, he gets my part of Boston as well as other neighborhoods and other towns.

He's constantly going and was tough to get on Left Ahead. He did join us eventually a few years ago. We'll get him on again.

Two nights ago, he was up on my hill holding forth and shaking hands with about 40 of us. He is introducing himself to his new constituents. As always, his candid talk and answers went over well. I don't think he's capable of lying or even dissembling. While he's proudly lifelong Somerville, his plain talk could fit just as easily in New Jersey or West Virginia, two areas I grew up in where they admire and respect it.
An earlier post contains clips of his predictions for November wins by Barack Obama and Elizabeth Warren.

---

Forever Mayor

---

He poked fun at himself for retaining his quality-of-life focus from his days as Somerville aldeman and then Mayor. He says he still does non-Congressional things, even ones some people consider stupid, like noting where there are potholes that need fixing. He says, "I think these are the things that really matter to people. I care way too much."

In some way, Capuano is a character in his own long-running play. He clearly enjoys letting voters see his foibles and learn about what makes him angry or pleased. That goes a long way toward humanizing him, so that when he casts a vote in the House you don't necessarily like, you have a sense of why...and if you don't, he'd be willing to explain it.

In fact, his candor and conviction remind me of another beloved member of Congress. In a post here six years ago, I recalled something "...U.S. Senator Wayne Morse (D-Oregon) told me many years ago [in the 1960s]. He was staunchly anti-Vietnam War in a state whose voters had the opposite view. When I asked him about compromises and importance of being counted, he said, 'Don't believe a thing a politician tells you if it doesn't square with his voting record.'"

Monday evening, Cappy spoke as though the crowd didn't know his voting record or politics. Surprising to this wonk, he was right.

Up top, he explained why he voted against invading Iraq, which he saw as not involved in 9/11. In contrast, he voted for involvement in Afghanistan, where al-Quaeda had was being shielded. He approved of the anti-terrorism military activities, but not nation building. However, he thinks we are being far too slow in leaving, as the terrorists have long left. He still would support sending troops wherever al-Quaeda or their ilk move.

He went to controversial issues to explain how he legislates and deals. For a big example, he supported the Affordable Care Act for healthcare overhaul, even though he found it only a good beginning and far from perfect.

He enjoys the process, which he describes as politics are "the most difficult thing you can do without hitting each other." He hasn't appreciated the obstructionism by the GOP for the past several years. In fact, he longs for a return to when "...we got to fight with people we disagree with. Then we have to fight among ourselves about the details. Those family fights are the ones I miss."

---

Stand Up, Speak Up

---

He said that unfortunately, "my side is full of complainers." He wants both the President and those in Congress to speak up about key issues. "I really want more people on my side to show up and not be afraid to talk about civil liberties."

As much he is willing to mix it up, he says there's an important role for bipartisanship. On the other hand, he said, "There's a big difference between getting along with someone and just selling out." He wants Democrats from the President down to be more aggressive on key issues.

For the long-lasting impasses in Congress, he isn't surprised. He sees it not as a symptom of the Congress members, rather of the national division. "Congress is severely divided" he said because the nation is. The folk voters send to D.C. accurately represent their constituents, hence the conflicts.

For pending issues, he continues to define himself as proud liberal who is a fiscal conservative in the old sense. "I'm not afraid of taxes," he said, "I pay 'em and I have no problems asking you to pay them, but I want them to be used properly." He tells constituents who complain about taxes that if they don't pay them, they don't get the services they want. "You don't get anything for free."

By the way of conclusion, he said plainly that he had no idea of how Congress would act during its lame-duck period looming or even the first six months of the new term. "I'm not optimistic for the next six months or so, but I'm incredibly optimistic for the long term."

Obama's Big Honking Problem

Yeah, yeah, the POTUS' smiley-face, wimpy/pencil-pusher effort last night let the unctuous liar look good in contrast. Yeah, yeah, Obama should have pounced on numerous openings (like Romney's lies about taking over $700 billion from Medicare recipients and bogus claims about tax cuts that don't add to the deficit).

I watched constantly aware of the parallels between the President's weak debate showing and his failure to get bills necessary to recovery into law.

There are several styles of getting big laws passed. After the Eisenhower post-WWII/great feeling era, this has been much easier for Republicans. Congressional Dems have been much more willing to compromise and cooperate on important issues. Yet with the exception of the brilliant but hapless Carter, Dem Presidents  have found ways to get obstructionist, petty GOP majorities to pass the big ones.

Consider Johnson and Clinton. Their styles differed vastly, but they both got 'er done. Johnson, certainly the foremost legislation warrior ever, used every political gambit, including threats, to get his way. Clinton charmed, cajoled and compromised to victory repeatedly.

Obama has gotten a few done, but not nearly as many big ones. Surely his Affordable Care Act looms largest.

Unfortunately, faced with a dishonorable, dishonest, obstructionist GOP House and filibuster-neutered Senate, he failed either to intimidate and shame or charm them into compliance. That has been his great failure. Had he figured out how to get them into line, we'd have jobs bills and a much more robust economy.

Last night, Romney used the "bipartisan" lie several times, not noting that when only a few Dems joined the GOP solid block in defeating bills, it was not at all a consensus across the two. Obama let that ride (stupid move or rather inertia!).

Obama avoided calling out the GOP Congress members. He shouldn't have feared offending them, after they have already spent nearly four years throwing him the legislative finger.

He needs to put the blame to them. He needs to shame them into acting on jobs and the rest of the economy. He needs to call them out. He needs to demand that they actually filibuster and show the country how much they are willing to hurt us all for the basest political reasons.

He can start by making the dynamics plain in the next two debates. He needs to make it plain that we'll speed up our recovery when he makes them finally do the right things. If they balk, he'll name them and shame them. Even these callow elephants shudder at being shown for what they are.

Real Duty of Those in Congress

Pundits, comics and we plain folk got the post-Aurora gun thing right immediately. We knew who was going to be talking gun control, yes or no, and what they'd say. For Congress, the cliché proved well based. Republicans who spoke up clearly were positively bought by the NRA and gun interests, and Democrats who did or who whimpered clearly were negatively threatened and intimidated.

None of that surprised any of us, especially not the don't-dare-politicize-this calls from gun-rights absolutists. Pay no attention to their politicizing the don't-politicize thing; these are not the liars you seek. Move along.

The slim chance for change and good sense here has been in the few calls for leadership. Even the let's at least discuss the big issues makes the absolutists scream louder and more frequently. Instead of playing their game, let's see what those in Congress are about and what they should be doing.

This is an old, but sturdy, horse that I ride. The primary job of those in the U.S. House and Senate is to lead.

If you ask the state political parties, many constituents, and nearly all in Congress, they'd likely say the first job is to bring home benefits for their local voters. Grants, federal construction and such are often used as measures of effectiveness.

When someone in either house then adds they are in D.C. to vote the way their constituents want, they are pathetic. That is the saddest, most cynical, most cowardly way to view the position.

Instead, those we send to public office should lead. I'd write must lead, but we're a long, long way from that being common enough for that.

Those in Congress should think more and learn more about issues big and small that affect us than we ordinary folk. They have access to the information and have support staff to educate them, and we would hope, the counter self-interested lies of lobbyists. Our Reps and Senators thus have a duty to be ahead of the issues, to offer solutions that help us short term and beyond.

I can do without cowards claiming they are only doing that their constituents would tell them to do. I want and we should all demand leaders who come down on the correct side, the wise side of each issue.

So with guns, ammo and related issues. Let's not get caught up in the NRA-framed jive. This isn't about some scaremongering fantasy of all guns being stolen from Americans. Let's remember that this is nearly one gun per citizen here in our hands, as well as that many thousands of us die annually from gun violence. It would go beyond political craziness to try to take away the guns, as well as physically impossible.

I'm not sure we can find enough Republicans of honesty and courage in Congress to be leaders here. The Dems don't look much better.

For our part as voters, we need to speak to our squeaking mice in D.C. We need to tell them we want leaders, not followers, on this...for a big change.

Shout It, Dems!

Even hanging on an odd hook on the side of the judicial closet, today's SCOTUS affirmation of the Affordable Care Act, is beautiful to behold. This first go at universal health care was many decades in the troubled making.

Now Democrats, including that President Obama one, need to focus and shout.

Even those who claim not to like the health-care reform really do. They want to keep nearly every provision of it. If they don't already benefit, their parents and others they know do.

For God's sake, Dems, don't play Blanche Dubois, depending on the intelligence of voters! Tell them, tell them clearly and repeatedly what they keep and what they stand to lose, depending on who's in the White House and Congress. Don't figure if you say it once on national TV that everyone understands.

For some unfathomable reason, Democratic pols and party officials have not been making their case strongly and plainly. This November election is no time for whispering and implying.

I'll read the big, honking decision a time or two, and wait a few days for the wingers to circle around their bonfire of lies and camp of hyperbole.

My dual takeaways today are:

1. This is a brief breather. There's more to be done, from reelecting Obama, to keeping control of the Senate, to shaming those obstructionists in Congress into meaningful jobs-bills support. Speaker Boehner claimed smugly before the ruling the GOP would not spike the football. I don't care if Dems do, but that should not distract them for more than a moment from the big tasks ahead.
2. We have only a few months to make our case. American voter too often have chosen the fantasy (think guns and butter, or trickle-down-economics [still in play]) over reality. Dems have to, absolutely have to, make it plain that we can recover economically quickly, if the Republicans stop the crap. We have to make as plain that taking a huge, blind leap on a fantasy this time is madness. Even with the GOP fighting all the way, the Administration has improved our lot substantially. It is essential for Obama and Dems to leave no doubt where the path is to a good future. 

We can let the Republican pols and funders sit in their corners muttering and cursing, speaking of how they had a better plan. They should just stay out of the way of those who mean to repair and advance the nation.

PM Update: On the way home from a broken-bone followup, I listened to NPR in the car. It was easy to believe that the news voices kicked around the meaning for the POTUS election. It was nearly impossible to hear one say that the victory today put a huge target on Obama for Romney. What century and continent did Mara Liasson recently emerge from? The winger elephants have been trying and trying to depict this stumbling start at universal health care as something terrible, while nearly all Americans love some or most of its features. Now that the SCOTUS has OK'ed it constitutionally, how can that mean anything other than much more widespread acceptance? Romney is erring in continuing to call the ACA Obamacare, adding the only way to get rid of it is to replace Obama with him. The only worthwhile accomplish of MA Gov. Romney was the nascent version of health-care reform that became the model for the ACA. Tell me how he's going to target this successful program that already benefits millions of us without shooting himself with every arrow at Obama. Lackaday, Mitt, Obamacare is not the pejorative you imagine.