From the Old News Department: I’m still shaking my head over the Supreme Court ruling regarding Obamacare. Why? Because I still don’t understand John Roberts’ rationale for upholding the mandate of the Affordable Care Act.

I’m in favor of universal healthcare, but the reasoning doesn’t compute for me. All this hairsplitting about tax and penalty, with Obama insisting it’s a penalty when it needs to be a tax for Roberts to uphold it, but if it’s a tax, then….we’ve got an infinite loop.

Now, most people, according to an informal poll, contend that John Roberts is smarter than I am. Close, but he has the edge. True, I possess a prestigious degree from Huntington University in the rigorous discipline of Communications. Nevertheless, the pedestrian Law degree Roberts obtained from Harvard is considered to be superior. Go figure.

Nevertheless, intellectual peon that I allegedly am, I continue to be a bit baffled. I’m glad, at least, that the ruling makes sense to Justice Roberts.

I just got around to reading, from the July 16 edition of Time magazine, reactions from four previous solicitors general. The first one, by Ted Olson, was brilliant and funny. He has fun with all the mental twists and turns, and I just had to admire the creativity of his writing. Read it here.

(Actually, I’ve read quite a bit about the ruling. While Roberts’ rationale eludes me to an extent, I’m fascinated by what he was trying to prevent from happening, and the role he sees for the Supreme Court. But I’m not going to go into that.)

The Obama page (left) and the Romney page (click to enlarge)

I wonder where the idea for the Paul Ryan banner came from?

On September 2, Zac Moffatt is digital director for Miss Romney’s presidential campaign. On September 2, he bragged on Mashable.com,

I think our online ad team is superior to theirs. It’s where we pride ourselves as a campaign to be cutting edge…. We think it’s one of our greatest strengths…I always feel that hubris of the Obama campaign is they look down on Republicans because they think we don’t understand how digital works.”

Which is interesting. Because they’ve been copying the Obama campaign.

In March, the Obama campaign put up a “quick donate” page. The Romney campaign put up its own such page in late August–and it’s almost identical to the Obama page. They even used some of the same text, including a punctuation error (a comma outside a quote mark).

Obama wording:
After you’ve saved your credit card and phone number in your BarackObama.com account, you can use your cell phone to make a donation. All you need to do is text the amount you want to give. If you text us “10″, we’ll charge your saved credit card $10. It’s never been easier to donate.

Romney wording:
After you’ve saved your credit card and phone number in your MyMitt account, you can use your cell phone to make a donation. All you need to do is text the amount you want to give. If you text us “10″, we’ll charge your saved credit card $10. It’s never been easier to donate.

The Obama site’s “Terms of Use” states that the website “including, without limitation, OFA’s logo, and all designs, text…are the proprietary property of OFA or its licensors or users and are protected by U.S. and international copyright laws.”

Another example of the Romney campaign stealing from the Obama campaign involves banners created for the separate campaigns.

So yes, they built it. Kind of like the Chinese build it–by copying someone else.

Okay, here are some miscellaneous thoughts from Wednesday night of the DNC convention. I was at a Tin Caps baseball playoff game (our local Fort Wayne minor league team), and we didn’t get home until near the end of Elizabeth Warren’s speech. So I missed most of the night, and the rest of my life will be diminished and incomplete because of it. Yet, I will plunge ahead with some musings, knowing that the masses are hungry for ever more political fluff. So hereby be ye edified.

(For the sarcasm challenged: most everything that follows is written with my tongue firmly embedded in my cheek. Don’t, as some folks tend to do, take me for a Democrat apologist.)

Bill Clinton, clearly, is a rock star. Clinton made the case for Obama and his record far better than Obama has ever done (while cleverly, in pure Clinton style, further polishing his own legacy). I’m not agreeing with everything he said, by any means. He threw around all kinds of data. I figure half is verifiable, a quarter is fuzzy, and a quarter is just wrong or misleading (call it Ryanesque). But he’s a masterful speaker, with no comparison in the Republican party (who they gonna call, GW Bush?). He clearly energized the crowd. Whether it ultimately matters–beats me.

Clinton had a lot of good lines, including, “No president — not me, not any of my predecessors — no one could have fully repaired all the damage [President Obama] found in just four years.”

The speech was a case of information overload. Very wonky, getting into complicated policy details. People won’t remember the details, but they will know that there are answers to the Republican talking points against Obama (like Medicare and Welfare). And most people won’t check to see if Clinton’s answers were accurate (as they won’t check to see if the Republican accusations are accurate).

At one point the crowd was chanting “Four More Years.” I think they were actually wanting another four years for Clinton.

Another good line: “Though I often disagree with Republicans, I never learned to hate them the way the far right that now controls their party seems to hate our president.” This resonated with me, because I mostly live my life around Republicans (though I might soften “hate” to merely “despising” the President).

The platform fiasco…don’t know what to say about that, except: stupid stupid STUPID. I couldn’t care less about using “God-given” in the platform. Does that refer to Jehovah God, to Allah, or to Eloihim, the god Mitt Romney worships? I’d just as soon leave it out, since we’re a pluralistic country that, theoretically (many conservative Christians disagree), doesn’t put one religion over another. But politically, the platform committee (and platform committees tend to represent the extreme edges of their party) seriously blundered. An unforced error, as somebody put it.

Regarding the Jerusalem thing, I’ll quote Joe Kelin: “Whoever took the usual language about Jerusalem being the capital of Israel out of the Democratic platform is an idiot.”

Conservatives also blundered in making a big stink about these omissions while the Democrats still had a chance to fix them. If they had just held their tongues for a couple days, they could have pummeled Obama with this “removing God from the platform” charge for the rest of the campaign, and Jews and evangelicals would have been hopping mad about the Jerusalem sleight. So I guess Obama should send Brett Baier and the other folks at Fox News a “Thank You” note for alerting them to these serious omissions while they could still fix them. Not only that, but they gave Obama the chance to personally intervene and thereby display his support for these platform issues (at least, that’s the storyline). But still, damage was done, and it was totally a case of the Dems shooting themselves in the foot.

The voice vote, obviously, was a joke. In declaring that the vote had passed by a two-thirds majority, Antonio Villaraigosa looked at the crowd and told them something he absolutely did NOT believe. As we all know, Republicans would never ever play games like that.

I also have to ask: is Obama running against Mitt Romney, or against Paul Ryan? Since Romney won’t commit himself to specifics, it’s hard to target him sometimes. Thus, Ryan commands the spotlight.

I’m a believer in the need for austerity. I’m not finding that in anything being proposed by either party, so I don’t have much hope of the debt and deficit being slashed anytime soon. The Democrats won’t cut programs, and any savings from cuts made by Republicans will be offset by diminished income because of huge tax cuts. As Clinton said, it’s about arithmetic.

President Obama speaks tonight. As a leader, as an explainer, and as a charismatic presence, I wonder if he will look small compared to Bill Clinton.

That’s enough. Go ahead and rip me to shreds.

Dear Wise and Benevolent Job Creators:

I don’t want to rush you into anything you’re not comfortable with. But I’d like to make a simple request.

As you know, the amount of total US income going to you, the exalted top 1% of earners, increased from 9% in 1970 to 23% in 2007. You also hold over 30% of all wealth. The next highest country is Germany, where the top 1% earn just 11% of the country’s total income. Not that it matters in the least, because Europe sucks.

Now, I’m not criticizing you. It’s fine and dandy for the rich to get richer. That’s capitalism. You earned every penny by the sweat of your brow, with no help from anybody anywhere.

However, we’ve been told that when the Job Creators have enough money, they’ll spend it, and the economy will magically flourish and the middle class will prosper once again. Flowers will bloom, birds will sing. The rising tide will float our proletarian boats alongside your yachts, though we promise to not get too close. It will be a wonderful thing–what we’ve been awaiting, expectantly, for over 30 years.

This is what trickle-down economics is about, which Ronald Reagan championed back in the 1980s. And we, of course, love Ronnie. Give the wealthy more money, and it’ll sprinkle back down over the peons–and we will be grateful for whatever drops we get.

But I’m wondering. We’ve been doing the trickle-UP thing for over 30 years, and with enormous success, through both Democratic and Republican administrations. In fact, it has accelerated under Obama; under George Bush, you nabbed a mere 65% of all US income growth; but in 2009-2010, a whopping 93% of income growth went into your pockets. So we’re trying real hard to help you out, knowing we’ll ultimately be helping ourselves.

While most of America stagnates, you Job Creators have grown enormously wealthy. We know, since you are not greedy or selfish persons, that it’s all in preparation for the day when you transfer your money back to America, and open the floodgates to benefit the dry and thirsty populace.

I’m just wondering, dearest Job Creators, when exactly the trickle-DOWN part starts. That’s what Ronnie promised us back in the 1980s, but I didn’t think it would take this long. And I must say, it’s getting brutal out here. You may not have noticed, but the middle class ain’t doing so well. I’m not sure how much longer people can hold on while you get your act together.

Like I said, I don’t want to rush you, oh cautious and merciful Job Creators. I realize you’re waiting for the right time, and perhaps want to first finish remodeling your newest vacation home.

My simple request is–give us a number. Are you, perhaps, shooting to first achieve 30% of total US income? Maybe 40%? Would you like to control, say, 50% of all wealth before taking the risk of investing it for the sake of the American economy?

You, Job Creators, are our long-expected Messiah. But if you could give us a number you want to reach first, then we could plan ahead. That would be much appreciated. In the meantime, we will continue to patiently await the blessings of trickle-down promised long, long ago.