I was working on Capitol Hill the day Marion Barry was re-elected. A colleague of mine was reading The Washington Post’s account and let out a whoop.

“I love this country, I love this country,” he kept saying. “Go to jail. Get out. Become a star!”

We value second chances, and a part of me feels good that Sanford and Weiner are not banned for life because of their serious personal behavior problems.

Yet, I find myself worrying what will happen if there’s no effective penalty for wrong, but not criminal, behavior while in public life. These people are leaders, the community looks to them for guidance, respects and admires them; we have a right to require a higher standard of morality.

Sanford was elected because he successfully reminded voters of their partisan differences. In the end, no matter how egregious his behavior — lying, misusing public funds, dumping his wife, and generally being immature — most voters in his district just couldn’t bring themselves to elect a Democrat.

As for Weiner, his actions have found less favor with the public, which wonders how normal he is. I’m not certain he can get elected again. But this is in the hands of voters, who have sent candidates in a jail cell to congress.

Bottom line: With genuine repentance, the past can be discarded as a factor in deciding who to vote for.

Inside the beltway, the fingers point and the media tuts and struts in glee, and we, the American public, respond by becoming more rigid and divided ourselves. No more “truth springing from argument amongst friends,” as David Hume said. A recent nonpartisan Pew Research Poll finds our knee-jerk partisanship has increased dramatically.

This road we’re on will lead us step-by-step to an extreme: either an autocratic government that functions, or a dysfunctional anarchy. The petty squabbles, bilge in the name of party or principle, will dissolve our self-government.

Abraham Lincoln felt no foreign power could ever defeat the United States. He said, “From whence shall we expect the approach of danger? Shall some trans-Atlantic military giant step the earth and crush us at a blow? Never…No, if destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men we will live forever or die by suicide.”

We’re pointing a pistol at our heads. A government of, by, and for the people requires that people talk to people, that we can agree to disagree but do so in civility. If we let the politicians and those who report dictate our discourse, then our course will be dictated.

Why am I alarmed? Because two “scandals” — the IRS tax-exempt inquiries and the Department of Justice’s tapping of reporters’ phones — have become lynch parties. And the congressional investigation of Benghazi may become a scandal in itself.

The IRS scandal has sparked bipartisan outrage that should require a bipartisan solution. The director who oversaw this was a Bush appointee who was confirmed by a Democratic Congress. Even Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein says he doubts very much that Obama was involved

We, the people, need to stay focused on facts, causes and solutions. Let’s begin with the findings of the Treasury’s inspector general who uncovered it: That it was bureaucratic mismanagement, but that there was no evidence of any political motivation or influence from outside the IRS.

And that, according to acting Commissioner Steven Miller, who just resigned, the problem started because the Supreme Court’s Citizens’ United decision created a surge of requests by political groups for tax-exempt status.

Democrats and Republicans agree there’s a problem. Maybe they should focus on solutions.

Let’s demand an end to partisan sideshows or media witch hunts: It turns out that the leaked White House Benghazi e-mails which allegedly show a coverup of a terrorist attack were themselves altered. Those e-mails are, in a word, bogus

Next up on the playbill: The Department of Justice secretly obtained dozens of reporters’ phone records because of a serious security leak. The double contradictory shell game we’re supposed to believe: Obama is not in charge and he has his finger in every pot.

This bamboozling of the American people obscures the main point: How do we safeguard American lives and respect our freedoms at the same time? Maybe working together — Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals — the Media Shield Law, a solution to the problem, can be passed.

Both the Democrats and Republicans have run roughshod over our separation of powers. Both parties have misused and abused their constitutional powers. Democrats blocked, again and again, President Bush’s nominees for federal judges. Today, Republicans aren’t just blocking Obama’s judicial nominees, they’re blocking the Senate from considering laws and blocking Cabinet appointees necessary for the federal government to run.

Why should we allow any political party or personality to render our government unable to govern?

On 9/11 terrorists attacked the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and tried to attack the U.S. Capitol building in order to destroy our institutions, our economic strength, our military and our democratic Congress where “the people rule.”

But in our partisan self-righteousness, we’re destroying our foundations of government more effectively than al Qaeda ever could. Whether it’s the media or the politicians, the churning of partisan passion into anger, indeed hate, has an ulterior purpose: If Obama’s administration is constantly engaged in fighting for its existence, the governing comes to a halt, and his agenda will go nowhere.

Aiming for that and little if nothing else weakens and harms our democratic institutions, both Congress and the presidency. Remember, Obama was elected by a bigger margin than George W. Bush. He deserves to have his appointees, and he deserves to have votes on the issues, to have the government function, and to fight for the policies on which he was elected. By allowing problems to become scandals and scandals to become demagoguery, we’re shooting ourselves in the foot.

If it keeps up, we will all be complicit in weakening our democracy.

Some of us believe, with good reasons, that the Republicans are “mad-dogging” Hillary Clinton with the Benghazi hearing to damage not only her presidential prospects, but also to damage President Obama’s credibility.

Polls show Obama is trusted more than his Washington opponents, especially on the economy. So, to defeat his economic agenda and substitute their own, which has already lost on logic, they’ve decided to undermine Obama’s credibility and authority.

The Benghazi hearing, which House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, orchestrated and planned for months, is a classic “killing two birds with one stone” scenario for Republicans. Or maybe three: They see an opportunity to smear Obama, sabotage Clinton and fundraise like giddy televangelists.

Benghazi hearing chairman Darrell Issa, R-California, said Clinton is not a target of his committee. That doesn’t seem to jibe with statements by GOP Sens. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, among others. And further contradicting Issa’s protestation, the National Republican Congressional Committee was boasting that its Clinton/Benghazi fundraising page was the most successful in its history.

Benghazi is a rather unseemly subject to turn into a political weapon. It’s one thing to try to drag the former secretary of state through the mud. But the Republicans are trying to drag her through blood — blood that’s tainted with partisan politics. The Republicans cut the funding for embassy security by $128 million in 2011 and $331 million in 2012. Clinton warned that doing so would be “detrimental to national security.” Republicans scoffed then, scream now.

Obama called the Benghazi hearing a circus. He’s right. It’s not a transparent, due process hearing. Democrats have complained they were excluded from much of the investigations, weren’t allowed to call witnesses or to look at documents.

As Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Maryland and ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said Wednesday after the White House’s release of approximately 100 pages of e-mails relating to the attacks in Benghazi: “These documents undercut the reckless accusations by Republicans that the White House scrubbed the Benghazi talking points for political reasons and in fact show just the opposite—that the primary goal was to protect the FBI’s ongoing criminal investigation and our nation’s intelligence operations.”

A transparent, due-process hearing would call the witnesses who would testify that the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli mistakenly believed Katibat Ansar al-Sharia in Benghazi had claimed credit for the attack. The group didn’t make the claim and later denied any role. But that was an on-the-ground, in-the-moment embassy mistake. (While no friend of the United States, the Benghazi al-Sharia organization has not, so far, been implicated in terrorist activity.)

It came from mistaken identity: There were two distinct and unrelated Ansar al-Sharia militant groups in Libya. Even Fox News interviewed an expert, J. Peter Pham of the Atlantic Council, who said these groups have no formal affiliation with each other. They are grass-roots up organizations, whereas al Qaeda organizes from the top down.

It is suspected that the Ansar al-Sharia in Derna was involved in the attack in Benghazi that killed four Americans. Its leader is a former prisoner at Guantanamo who was released under the Bush administration and deported to Libya for jail. Gadhafi later released him.

In a transparent hearing we would learn that the Republicans’ chief witness, Deputy Chief of Mission Gregory Hicks, was likely, even today, in error about which Ansar al-Sharia was involved. It is the difference between a local militant militia group and professional terrorists.

Hicks clearly was referring to the Benghazi al Sharia when he testified about his concern that Ambassador Chris Stevens was taken to the hospital that the Benghazi group then guarded. But, this week the same hospital was bombed; the rival al-Shaira group in Derna, with al Qaeda links, is a reasonable suspect.

Getting the facts right matters. Getting the truth matters. Posturing for propaganda points not only misleads us, it endangers us. For whatever the Benghazi hearings are about, they’re not about learning the lessons from this tragedy and improving securities at American embassies and other facilities overseas.

They are, in fact, a partisan campaign fundraiser for the Republican Party, and not a fact-finding inquiry to help the State Department and military correct their mistakes.

Karl Rove’s American Crossroads super PAC has already taken on Hillary Clinton, spending megabucks on a 2016 attack ad that savages her judgments. Some Republicans, to their credit, can’t stomach any more from their fellow Republicans.

Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, a Republican, appeared on CBS’ “Face the Nation” and said he would have handled Benghazi just as Obama handled it. He added a flat, “No” that he did not think Hillary Clinton would be involved in any kind of a cover-up.

Bill Kristol, conservative editor and commentator, told Fox News Sunday, “I wish the Republicans would just be quiet for a while and that the partisan Republican groups that are fundraising off this would be quiet … for a while … and let’s find out what really happened.”

Amen.

It’s true. International cooperation is nearly absent. Meanwhile, 70,000 Syrian citizens have been killed, many in the most brutal ways. Syrian President Bashar Assad’s air force has bombed citizens waiting for bread outside bakeries. His army’s snipers have picked off children.

And Syria may be a portend of things to come: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres recently told a Washington, D.C., audience: “We are unprepared for what is to come. … The international community has lost its ability to stop conflict. … The very nature of human conflict is changing.” He estimated that 10 million Syrians, half the nation’s pre-war population, will need humanitarian aid.

In dealing with the Syrian civil war, Obama faces a problem he deals with at home: A general unwillingness to cooperate — even for the common good. China and Russia used their absolute veto in the U.N. to stop U.S.- and Western-led initiatives to place international sanctions on Assad’s regime.

Russia supplies Syria with weapons and jets, and in January sent warships just off Syria’s coast. And no nation wants to intervene militarily in Syria, including our ally Great Britain, even though the Arab world is fearful the conflict might spread.

Of course, some see the Syrian chaos as an opportunity. The Iranian regime, no friend of the Arab Spring, has troops in Syria and also equips Assad’s army.

After Obama spoke, the leader of Lebanon-based Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, said that he will not let Syria fall into Israel’s or Islamic radical’s hands. Any land action — other than by people of Nasrallah’s Shia faith — will be met with resistance. London’s Guardian newspaper reports that, together, Iran and Hezbollah have about 50,000 troops in Syria.

Complicating matters further are the rebels themselves. They are but tenuously united, and they’re not all good guys — al-Qaida is active and well organized among them. Nor do the rebels have overwhelming support — in fact, a sizable percentage of Syrians support Assad. A new Pew Research poll found that, except for Jordan, Arabs oppose sending military aid to the rebels. And, perhaps understandably, our ally Israel does not want the rebels armed at all.

To his credit, Obama has done his “due diligence” on the rebels. The CIA has been vetting the rebels to separate the good guys from the bad. It has advised nations funneling weapons to the rebels about whom they shouldn’t arm.

And the president is being pro-active. During his press conference Obama listed a few of his actions taken on Syria. He is organizing the international community; he has made the U.S. the biggest supplier of non-lethal aid to the rebels; he ordered our ambassador to defy a travel ban and visit the rebels early on; he has applied U.S. sanctions on Syria.

He has also defined the “red line” — chemical and biological weapons — and what defines crossing it. Although the U.S. intelligence community has some confidence that chemical weapons were used inside Syria, we still don’t know who used them, in what quantity or when they were used. To mobilize the international community (as well as the American public), Obama knows we cannot have a repeat of Iraq’s missing WMDs.

The red line has become a “red flag” for President Obama’s opponents. Misreading the term (and ignoring the president’s other actions), Sen. John McCain said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that “The president drew a red line on chemical weapons, thereby giving a green light to Bashar Assad to do anything short of that.”

Foreign Policy magazine ran an article titled, “The Angst in Foggy Bottom.” It quoted three anonymous State Department officials who want Obama to arm the rebels. Yet at the article’s end, one admits, “This is a tricky one. And I have a feeling that, like a lot of these things, there is no good answer.” Yes, it’s tricky, because it’s crucial to distinguish between evidence of use of chemical weapons and ironclad proof of who used them.

President Obama says we need definitive proof that Assad has crossed the red line. For one thing, if there’s any wiggle room, Russia will likely claim the rebels used them, making it more difficult — and dangerous — to stop the conflict or provide humanitarian aid.

Obama must maneuver between the Scylla of precipitous engagement and the Charybdis of ineffective intervention. Getting control of the chemical weapons requires boots on the ground. Stratfor, a private intelligence company, says there are no air strikes that could do the job without ground troops.

Obama is considering arming the rebels. He is also sending Secretary of State John Kerry to Moscow to persuade Russian President Vladimir Putin to side with the rebels in a peaceful transition. Instead of marching to war, Obama is working to build an international coalition that will compel Assad to leave. Russia can play a crucial role, just like China in regard to North Korea.

The diplomacy is critical. The administration deserves support, not carping.

He was a man’s man — a hard drinking, foul-mouthed veteran of the Korean War who came on to every voluptuous nurse who crossed his path. He passed away about this time last year.

I think about him often, and more during March Madness. I thought about him yesterday as I read about Jason Collins coming out as the first openly gay player in NBA history. I wondered, “If my dad were reading this, what would he say?”

And, clear as day, I heard his voice. “Yeah, but can the dude play?”

It made me laugh because isn’t it just that simple? Can he play? Can he do his job?

At the same time that Jason Collins’ announcement has caused a stir, there also has been noteworthy non-reaction among many. “Is this really still news?” we ask. The answer is yes. It is news because it’s never happened before.

Pro sports, especially the ones where athletes get paid millions upon millions of dollars, are bastion of masculinity. Manhood, athleticism and heterosexuality are all woven together in our cultural paradigm. It’s still news because the stereotype of gay men as being effete, weak, uncoordinated (except where it comes to Lady Gaga impersonations) and otherwise “girly” is still so strong.

In NBA, Collins’ defense matters more than sexual orientation

It shouldn’t be. Gay comes in all shapes, sizes, strengths and personalities. Just like straight does. It shouldn’t be news that— guess what — some gay people don’t fit your stereotype. But it is.

It shouldn’t be news for that reason, but I’m grateful that it is news for an entirely different reason. Jason’s coming out is a very, very public “it gets better” message to all the LGBTQ youth coming up, and out, right now. According to the Trevor Project, an organization providing crisis intervention and suicide prevention services to LGBTQ youth, suicide is the third leading cause of death for 10- to 24-year-olds, and its the second leading cause of death on college campuses. Lesbian, gay and bisexual youth are four times more likely to attempt suicide than their straight peers.

This is why an openly gay NBA player should be news, because it busts stereotypes, normalizes homosexuality and gives kids of all orientations a positive role model of self-love and professional excellence.

Until there are no more hate crimes, no more vicious bullying and ugly slurs, whenever a person comes out — whether that person is a celebrity or a “nobody” — it should be celebrated like the triumph of courage it is. That is why it should be news. Jason Collins is tremendously brave and deserves to be celebrated as such.

All that said, we aback to the question my dad would have asked. “Yeah, but can the dude play?” Yes, he can play. He’s an aggressive, big man who holds his space on the court. At 34, he’s probably aging out of the sport, but he’s played consistently and well over the years and deserves to be remembered for what he has done on the court, not what he did while off.

I applaud his career and his bravery, and I look forward to the day that sexual orientation is a non-issue. We are all so much more than our sexuality. It is vital to the situations in which it’s important — namely, in looking for a mate — but it has nothing to do with job performance, whether your job is as a secretary or a professional basketball player. Our sexuality is just one of a thousand pieces of our identity, not the sole determining factor.

Jason Collins is gay. That’s not all he is, and it would be nice if we could keep this one piece of identity in context with the whole.

Finally, it’s nice to see institutionalized homophobia crumbling. First it was the military, with the repeal of don’t ask, don’t tell. For decades, the argument had been that having openly gay people in the military would impair unit cohesion. Setting aside all the flawed assumptions that undergird those fears, you know what has happened to unit cohesion since the fall of don’t ask, don’t tell? It’s stayed the same or gotten slightly better. This is probably because it’s easier for people to bond when they’re not forbidden from being themselves.

First, it was the military, now it’s pro sports being forced to realize that there is no “us” and “them” when it comes to sexuality. We are all on the same team. I’ll bet that Jason Collins will be the first in a string of professional athletes to openly acknowledge their homosexuality. You can also think of him as the next in a chain of civil rights pioneers. And I’ll bet you’ll start seeing them play a bit better. We’re all at our best when we don’t have to hide who we are, when we can bring it all to the court.

I’m proud to see Jason come out and encouraged to see the overwhelmingly positive reaction he’s received. And yet, I can’t wait for the day we greet it with “so what?” and a yawn. I think my dad would agree.

But rather than rehash all that went wrong, I want to share what I believe to have been President Bush’s determination to follow up on commitments, and the intense, personal, dedicated efforts he made to revive and restore people’s futures. I know what I’m talking about.

Kathleen Blanco, Louisiana’s governor in 2005, asked me to serve on the state’s commission overseeing the long-term recovery from the damage caused by Hurricane Katrina. I’ve kept a close watch over the last eight years.

Hurricane Katrina wasn’t one natural disaster: It was a triple whammy of water, winds and lawlessness. An Army Corps engineer on CBS talked this week about Midwest flooding: “Water is the perfect instrument of destruction,” he said. He is so right: Katrina’s waters laid waste to an area the size of Great Britain. Its winds reached 174 mph and, together, they took 1,833 lives.

Every member of my family was displaced by Katrina. Last year, I lost both my father and sister. But I had them with me that much longer because they were rescued from the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. My father, Lionel, left New Orleans only two times in his life. The first was to serve his country in Korea. The second was when FEMA evacuated him to San Antonio, Texas.

My older sister, Sheila — people sometimes thought we were twins, we looked so much alike — was in an assisted care home. Sheila developed a brain tumor in childhood. Brain surgery left her needing help, although she still managed to finish high school and college. When FEMA officials told me it might be weeks before we found Sheila, I was furious.

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer made a public plea for nearby citizens to see if the residents had survived. Eddie Rodriguez of the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, and our cousin, Keith, a cop, rescued her from the building’s rooftop. Most other residents had left before her. Sheila wouldn’t leave until she saw someone she knew. Like so many others, she was relocated to Baton Rouge.

My 92-year-old great uncle Henry, a WWII vet, was plucked from another rooftop and transported to Roswell, Georgia, only to suffer a heart attack. All seven of my remaining siblings, my father, uncle, aunts, and other relatives, lost everything in Katrina. I was upset — mad as hell — and disappointed But, I made a decision not to act out — act against Bush — but rather to turn to his administration for help, and to offer my help.

“Mr. President,” I said, “how can I help you?”

“Civility,” he said.
Opinion: Jury is still out on Bush

Bitterness can corrode the soul. A grudge is like the chains on Marley’s ghost. We can carry these chains in life and they weigh us down. President Obama and former President Bush have been working for eight years to change the atmosphere in Washington, to get Congress to move beyond pride and party.

So far, not even disasters or tragedies that have united the American people — Hurricane Sandy, Sandy Hook, and Boston — have moved the politicians. Not enough, anyway.

Bush understood the need for civility. I joined him despite my frustration because the need was too great for finger-pointing and blame-making. He flew to New Orleans and addressed the nation: “Tonight I also offer this pledge to the American people: Throughout the area hit by the hurricane, we will do what it takes. We will stay as long as it takes to help citizens rebuild their communities and their lives.”

George W. Bush was good as his word. He visited the Gulf states 17 times; went 13 times to New Orleans. Laura Bush made 24 trips. Bush saw that $126 billion in aid was sent to the Gulf’s residents, as some members of his own party in Congress balked.

Bush put a special emphasis on rebuilding schools and universities. He didn’t forget African-Americans: Bush provided $400 million to the historically black colleges, now integrated, that remain a pride, and magnet for African-American students. Laura Bush, a librarian, saw to it that thousands of books ruined by the floods were replaced. To this day, there are many local libraries with tributes devoted to her efforts.

It was a team effort. I’m glad to report the commission I served on went out-of-business in 2010. I’m also grateful and proud to report that President Bush was one of the leaders, and a very important member, of that team. Our recovery can be credited to the civility and tireless efforts of President Bush and other Americans, who united and worked together to help rebuild the Gulf and the place of my birth, New Orleans.

This is Martin Richard’s lesson:

“No more hurting people.”

Martin Richard was one of three innocent bystanders to die on Patriot’s Day. As we debate issues of life and death in our state legislatures and Congress, we need to keep the picture of this boy and his sign not in our memories or Facebook walls, but on display.

The worldwide response to that picture — which his teacher, Rachel Moo, said was made as part of a school lesson on the shooting of Trayvon Martin — has been both heart-stirring and heartbreaking. People are striving to remember and to honor, yes; even more, though, they are trying to make his words real.

Everyone killed in the Boston bombing, and during the events that flowed from it, was under 30. Martin Richard was 8 years old; how will his classmates handle their grief?

Krystle Campbell, age 29, had moved to live with and help care for her ailing grandmother. Doctors had told Krystle’s mother she had survived the blast, but they had mistaken Krystle’s friend for Krystle. What must her mother and grandmother feel?

Lingzi Lu was a 23-year-old graduate student, the only child of her parents in China, who said learning of her death was “a dagger in our hearts.” Sean Collier, 26, was shot multiple times while in his cruiser without drawing his gun. He had been a campus policeman with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for only a little over a year, and volunteered at the gym where one suspect trained as a boxer.

Lingzi Lu was a 23-year-old graduate student, the only child of her parents in China, who said learning of her death was “a dagger in our hearts.” Sean Collier, 26, was shot multiple times while in his cruiser without drawing his gun. He had been a campus policeman with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for only a little over a year, and volunteered at the gym where one suspect trained as a boxer.

Every pundit and every politician feels every bit of bombast is justified.

And the children? Pictures and comments, memorials on Facebook. That’s all.

“No more hurting people. Peace.”

The injured: Martin’s father and older brother, Henry, escaped injury. His 6-year-old sister, Jane, lost a leg. Martin’s mother, Denise Richard, 43, had brain surgery for a serious injury. The father, Bill Richard, 42, returned home briefly from the hospital to get clothing, and a neighbor said he was pale, almost dazed, and too grief-stricken to talk.

The sidewalk in front of their house is still covered with colored chalk drawings of butterflies, flowers, and stars that Richard and his sister had drawn before leaving for the marathon.

Jack Hart, a former state senator, told the Boston Globe that the Richards are “pillars of the community … a model family, who somehow always found the time to give something back.”

“Any tragedy of this sort is extraordinarily difficult, but when you know people, when it’s people in your life, in your school, that’s when it really hits home,”

The Boston Globe quoted a classmate of Martin’s, Colin Baker, 9, who said about Martin: “If somebody was left out, he would come say, ‘Want to join my group?’ He sticks up for kids.”

“It should not have happened to him,” Colin said to the Globe.

“It should not have happened to nobody.”

As I read and hear these responses, I keep thinking, what are we — the adults — what are we telling the children? Do we think they don’t see the hollowness behind our hallowed words? Do we think they don’t know the difference between courage and cowardice?

There’s a cliché: “Perfect is the enemy of the good.” Apparently, legislation must be perfect, because even after this horror, we are still finding ways to divide people. Should suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev be treated as an enemy combatant? Did the intelligence community pay little heed to the warning it received? Questions. Questions.

But let us pause to bury our dead and stand by the wounded as their struggle with the new reality of their lives. Some will have to learn how to simply stand up again — wounded forever.

We should hold Martin’s sign in our hearts and resolve to do better. Because, with President Barack Obama, “I’m assuming our expressions of grief and our commitment to do something different to prevent these things from happening are not empty words.”

I, too, believe that, “sooner or later, we are going to get this right. The memories of those who died and many who are still suffering demand it.”

“No more hurting people. Peace.”

Of course, the “bipartisan” attacks on President Barack Obama’s new budget, which contained elements both Democrats and Republicans demanded, aren’t signs of cooperation. They’re just amusing, or, as “Late Night” comedian Jimmy Fallon faux-quoted Obama as saying, “That’s how you know it’s good.”

But on gun safety reform, real bipartisanship seems to be emerging from the cold, hard ground of rigid ideology. Several Republicans expected to filibuster to oblivion any legislation on the issue instead announced that they would vote to end the obstruction. Sen. James E. Risch of Idaho among those still prepared to filibuster, told CBS’s Nora O’Donnell, “Well, of course, it’s disappointing when you want to stop a piece of legislation but can’t.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid felt confident enough he could end a filibuster against considering gun violence legislation that he announced a vote to bring the legislation to the Senate floor. On Thursday, Republicans joined with Democrats to permit the “the most august (legislative) body in the world,” as Vice President Joe Biden called it, to actually debate.

When a seedling breaks through, a mighty oak may grow. Republican Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia announced they had forged a compromise on background checks for buying guns at gun shows. It’s an almost historic example of bipartisanship with near universal support — 90 percent of Americans want expanded background checks.

However, an icy blast can kill a tender shoot. House Speaker John Boehner reacted to the senators’ bipartisan agreement with scorn: “It’s one thing for two members to come to some agreement,” Boehner said. “That doesn’t substitute the will of the other 98 members.”

But Republican Toomey countered Republican Boehner, telling reporters that not only did he think his bipartisan proposal could pass the Senate, but “There are definitely Republicans in the House that support this.” (Does that worry the speaker?)
Of course, Obama’s own proposal on background checks is more thorough. But the NRA doesn’t want background checks in any form — even though over 70 percent of its own membership approves of background checks.

Nevertheless, the NRA tried to pressure Sens. Toomey and Manchin, who admitted that they were on the phone with the NRA as they forged their compromise. Actually, the NRA did more than pressure the senators. The Republican-leaning Washington Examiner says the NRA threatened them.

NRA chief lobbyist, Chris Cox, sent a letter to a number of senators telling them, in effect, that they would have a lot of explaining to do if they ended the filibuster. Cox warned that the NRA was going to “score” the vote. Toomey and Manchin, who previously had “A” ratings, felt doing the right thing was more important than an NRA grade, and compromised.

But that compromise itself required a compromise. Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York and Republican Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois worked as a team with Toomey and Manchin. But, Toomey felt Schumer to be so toxic to gun advocates that he refused to appear at the press conference endorsing their work if Schumer were there. The gentleman from New York agreed to step aside, and Kirk, out of deference to Schumer, joined him on the sidelines, leaving only Toomey and Manchin to announce the work of all four.

So it required three compromises to get a bipartisan agreement on legislation that 90 percent of America wants. And yet, I still find that hopeful.

The Christian Science Monitor finds that compromises are no longer the work of moderates, who are becoming harder and harder to find in Congress, but of individuals coming together for common interests and the common good.

Toomey and Manchin broke from the NRA not only because the public is behind them, but also, I like to think, because they are men of conscience, and that’s more important to them than party leaders or the fearsome NRA. Manchin, in particular, was clearly moved after meeting with family members of children who were killed at Sandy Hook.

President Obama hopes to nurture bipartisanship by appealing to the conscience of Congress. He provided Air Force One to bring several parents from Sandy Hook to Washington so their voices could be heard.

In Chicago, first lady Michelle Obama had to choke back tears while talking about Hadiya Pendleton, the Chicago girl who attended Obama’s inauguration as a school majorette and was killed a week later as an innocent bystander of Chicago street gun violence.

“This isn’t some war zone half a world away,” the first lady said. “This is our home. This kind of violence is what young people here face every single day.” Obama said she identified with Hadiya, having grown up in Chicago as well. “Only, I’m still here,” she said.

Perhaps the lasting legacy of Sandy Hook — the good brought from unspeakable evil — will be a resurgence of bipartisan agreement in Washington.

Thanks for speaking with us, Donna – we noticed you’re a big Zite user. Why do you use Zite?

For online news stories, breaking news and original features. I use it for research, writing and background information on particular topics of interest. Zite helps me sort out topics for future columns. I have a voracious appetite for news, gardening tips, philosophy, humor, sports and philanthropy.

That’s a lot of subjects!

Even though I tend to share political news, polling, civil rights, healthy living and women’s issues, given my profession, the three sections I look at daily are culture, gardening and healthy living.

What is the greatest lesson you’ve learned throughout your career?

The most spiritual thing we can do is help another on some level, materially or emotionally or even intellectually. We do that by increasing each day, even a little, in our acts of goodness and kindness.

What is Bill Clinton like?

He has a magnetic personality, good southern charm and a sense of humor. Most of all, he is one of the smartest men I have ever encountered.

You also supported President Obama’s re-election. What was the most impressive moment of his first term?

Either when he announced that Bin Laden was dead or his speech proposing what is now called Obamacare. Every president since Harry Truman had tried to move the country toward universal healthcare, but he did it. The first unalienable right listed in the Declaration is “life,” and “heal the sick” is a universal spiritual commandment. Obamacare’s not perfect, but it took courage to push that through during a financial crisis. Also, I admire his handling of Hurricane Sandy and how he worked with Gov. Christie, who had disparaged him only a few weeks earlier.

What are you looking forward to in his second term?

Action on climate change and our energy policy. An end to the playground tantrums in Congress, leading to a mature approach to the economy. Fixing the cost of health care, long term. Infrastructure repair – badly needed. Continued economic growth – the latest figures are very encouraging – and tax code reform; investment in and a serious discussion about education; immigration reform. Overturning of Citizens United, so we take back the electoral process from the special interests and return civility to our public discourse. To accomplish any of this, the President will need the cooperation of Congress, which means the legislators will have to grow up and put the country first.

What are the five things you’ve learned about President Obama that other people wouldn’t know?

1) I am impressed with how deliberate a thinker he is, how he’s not afraid of debate. 2) He seems genuinely moved by what I’d call the small interactions. Remember that hug with the restaurant owner, who picked him up? President Obama seems to treasure the in-the-moment exchanges that connect heart-to-heart. (Watch his smile when a child reaches out.) 3) His sense of humor and playfulness. The self-deprecating wit is genuine. He enjoys his inner child. 4) His competitiveness. 5) He really respects people. He listens. He’s truly family and child-centered. Obama is someone I’d like to have a beer with, or a glass of red wine to discuss philosophy with and debate the writings of Frederick Douglas or WEB Dubois.

Who has been your favorite person to interview and why?

Nancy Pelosi for Capitol File Magazine. She is one of the most inspirational figures of our time.

When you’re not working, what activities do you enjoy?

Gardening, playing fetch outdoors with my dog, cooking, reading books or magazines or watching movies or sports.

If only the Princeton alum’s advice had come out 30 years earlier when I was in college, perhaps I could have avoided the costly mistake of focusing on what makes me come alive and then pursuing it for a living. Perhaps if I’d focused instead on nailing down a man by the time I was 22, I could be going to cocktail parties and co-opting my husband and children’s successes, bragging about them as if they were my own, rather than being forced to talk about the current state of politics or what we can do as a society to engage the next generation in the struggles of today.

Perhaps, if I’d had Ms. Patton’s wisdom and foresight about what really matters in college, I wouldn’t have taken so many pesky classes, and instead concentrated on designing my hair, makeup, attire and personality to create the perfect man-catching machine.

Perhaps it would have all worked out exactly as Ms. Patton implies — the perfect house, kids, husband and future. And yet I’m skeptical. I made a lot of stupid decisions in college; I’m really glad the choice of life partner wasn’t one of them. How many people, do you think, could choose a tattoo at 22 years old and still be happy with it by the time they are 50? Let’s be generous here: maybe a quarter of all people? And tattoos don’t even talk.

Choosing a life partner requires a maturity and self-awareness that I can’t imagine more than a small fraction of college students have. I know I didn’t. Not only that, but people change. Who you are at 22 is not who you will be at 35, and in my experience, the decade following college is the interval where the rate of change is the greatest.

So while it may be tempting to imagine the white picket fence and 2.5 children I could have had with my hastily chosen college boyfriend, I can’t help but think a divorce at 28 or 32 would have been more likely, had I chosen that route. What then, Ms. Patton?

I find it refreshing that as the same-sex marriage debate swirls through society, Ms. Patton remains untouched in her heteronormativity. Does it even occur to her to question the premise that “the cornerstone” of a woman’s future is finding a husband? No! Of course not! It simply must be. I haven’t heard regressive rhetoric like this since I mistakenly tuned in Dr. Laura on the radio.

I have to ask, what are lesbians supposed to do? Must they also find mates while in college, or are lesbians the only privileged group of women allowed to search for self-fulfillment before partnership?

That said, Ms. Patton really must be commended for what has to be her grasp of satire. She knows the stereotype of Princeton is that it’s filled with self-satisfied, conceited, bloviating jerks, and she captures that tone perfectly to make her point. Without such bold elitism — an op-ed that took the perfectly defensible position that college is a target-rich environment free from the awkwardness of bars, set-ups or online dating — there would have been no stir.

Certainly it wouldn’t have crashed the servers, and the women of Princeton might have spent another day thinking the future is filled with untold adventure and opportunity, rather than simply another day closer to their expiration date as a desirable partner.

I applaud Ms. Patton for her bravery. There aren’t a lot of well-educated women who would be courageous enough to completely sell out the feminist movement responsible for securing women’s equal social, political and economic rights (to the degree that we have them) in favor of the 1950s’ mentality that a woman’s worth is determined by her marital status. Also, to come out with it while her youngest son remains unmarried? Brave. Though the “universe of women he can marry is limitless,” the universe of women who would be willing to be her daughter-in-law is finite.

In all this advice to “the daughters (she) never had,” there is one point on which I cannot disagree with Ms. Patton: “It’s amazing how forgiving men can be about a woman’s lack of erudition, if she is exceptionally pretty.” Perhaps Princeton should forgo academic requirements for its female students and instead teach “How to Be Exceptionally Pretty.”