“I live for a tree,” I told the baby.

He, of course, disagreed. “No, you live for macadamias. You get grumpy about our tree at Solstice time, when everyone on campus moves in. But you get grumpy about macadamias almost every day.”

Clearly he misunderstood me. I meant, “I live in a tree.”

Because what do prepositions matter anyway?

After all, Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) told a local chamber of commerce meeting last week that he would vote “for” the House GOP budget that would privatize Medicare. He even thanked God for that budget. Back in April he thanked Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) for that budget. Maybe he thought Rep. Ryan would be deified after the rapture.

Regardless, the House GOP budget is very unpopular. In a Quinnipiac poll earlier this month, 60% of Americans wanted to leave Medicare as it is, a single-payer insurance plan for seniors. What’s more, 72% oppose limiting Social Security or Medicare access, while 60% support cuts to defense spending and 69% support support raising taxes on households earning more than $250,000 per year. So Americans recognize the budget deficit is a problem, but most think the solution is to raise revenue rather than cut non-defense spending. Exactly what House Republicans refuse to do.

How strong is the voter backlash? A Sienna Research poll reports Democrat Kathy Hochul leading Republican Jane Corwin by 42-38 going into Tuesday’s special election for New York’s 26th District. An April 29 poll showed Corwin with a 36-31 lead in the three-way race. That’s an 11-point surge for Hochul in less than five weeks, and the number one issue on voters’ minds was … Medicare.

Senator Brown apparently read the handwriting on that wall. Now he says he never meant to imply he would vote “for” the House GOP budget when it comes to the Senate floor.

He meant he’ll vote “on” the House GOP budget. I guess this means he has no plans to be elsewhere when the bill comes up for a vote. But he hasn’t yet decided how he’ll vote yet. Just that he will vote.

So when he said this …

The leaders will bring forward [the House GOP] budget, and I will vote for it, and it will fail. Then, the president will bring forward his budget, and it will fail. It will be great fodder for the commercials.

… he really meant this:

He was making the point that political games are being played in Washington, but was not saying how he would vote on the bill, which, as you know, has not come up for a vote in the Senate and is not scheduled to anytime soon.

At least that’s what his spokesman said Wednesday, to “clarify” his remarks. You can find “clarify” and “obfuscate” on the same page at Synonym.com … if you Google {obfuscate antonym}. That is, those words mean the same thing, in an exact-opposites kind of way. Kinda like Newt Gingrich’s positions on, well, pretty much anything.

Or like I live “in” a tree rather than “for” a tree.

Because what do prepositions matter anyway? “For,” “on,” “against” … who can keep track of such trivial details.

The baby can. And so can voters.

Good day and good nuts.