December 3, 2018--Cozying Up

He wouldn't agree to fly the flag at the Capital at half mast and it took two days after he died for him to squeeze out a few words of condolence. 

So, after treating John McCain's death shabbily I've been wondering why Trump so quickly had appropriate words to offer about his passing and generously ordered Air Force One to fly to Houston to bring George H. W. Bush's body back to Washington. 

When thinking about Trump's true feelings about Bush and his sons "generous" and "appropriate" aren't words that come quickly to mind. 

This from a man who during the campaign mocked Jeb for having "low energy" and who said, "We need another Bush in office about as much as we need Obama to have a 3rd term." In Trump's political cosmology that's about as nasty as it gets--including Bush and Obama in the same sentence.

But there you are.

Could it be, then, that behaving with uncharacteristic moderation is Trump's way of thanking our 41st president for dying at just the right time to distract the nation and the media from the bad news for Trump emerging daily from the Mueller investigation?

Since for Trump it's always about himself, now that we know him as intimately as we do, this helps explain his unexpectedly thoughtful behavior. 

Though Trump resents and hates his betters (a very long list that includes all former presidents except Jackson, about whom he in fact knows nothing), he has an instinct for spotting his betters and for our outer-borough president that includes the Kennedys, Obamas, and Bushes. With each he has a complicated hate-love relationship. 

Trump so craves positive attention that by thrusting himself into the events that are following H. W.'s death he likely hopes that by cozying up some of the personal characteristics that made 43 respected might rub off on him. 

This is a case of legitimization by association.

The tributes flowing in about Bush do not fit Trump's character but since he is not someone to be shy about pushing his way into all available spotlights, during the services expect Trump to be on camera more than anyone other than Bush family members.

In any list of Bush qualities, Trump palls by comparison. 

Among the many things being said about George H. W. Bush, he was thought to be temperate, inclusive, generous, bipartisan, thoughtful, informed, collaborative, modest, ethical, graceful, gracious, moderate, self-effacing, playful, and deferential. 

He was far from perfect and he should not be over-adulated now that he is gone, but even without the inclination to forget limitations and faults after one's passing, this still sounds like the real George H. W. Bush. 

Inverting this list, where generous becomes greedy and modest become narcissistic, would produce an accurate picture of the man who now occupies the former president's chair in the Oval Office.

Then, by this week's end Mueller will be back on the case and places for Trump to hide from culpability will be even more limited. Also, Bush's example won't be able to help protect Trump from himself. In fact, attempting to claim he is worthy of sharing in our former presidents' example Trump will find that the spotlight not only illuminates but can also scorch.

August 3, 2016--If Trump Withdraws?

President Obama yesterday all but called for Donald Trump to withdraw from the race. Politically, this wasn't wise, or maybe it was slyer than what one might at first think.

If this was unwise it was because it is none of someone from another party's business to be meddling in his opponents' political affairs. Thus, Obama's implying that Trump withdraw will likely have a reverse effect--the president, universally despised by most Republicans, could inadvertently contribute to an outcome opposite to what he ostensibly desires because whatever he proposes would be automatically rejected. So his hints that Trump consider dropping out will assure his staying in the race.

This is a vivid example of the political physics of equal-and-oppositeness.

But then there could be the sly part--as Trump's campaign implodes it is making it more and more likely that an almost-equally-disliked Hillary Clinton will win in a landslide. So Obama's jujitsu could be a brilliant play. A strategy to assure that Trump stays in the race and is trounced.

On the other hand, though it may be wishful thinking, I am seeing it more and more possible that Trump will withdraw, concocting some lame explanation--I made my point, now it's time for someone else to take over. My family needs me. My business needs me. My golf courses need me. NBC needs me--they want to revive The Apprentice. My . . .

In all of history, this has never happened so what would be the outcome?

If he were president the 25th Amendment would take effect and his vice president, help us, Mike Pence would automatically become POTUS. Just as Gerald Ford did when Richard Nixon resigned.

But Trump is not the president, just the GOP's nominee. With emphasis on his being the Republican Party's nominee. Not America's nominee, but the party's. This is all extra-constitutional.

That means that the party would select his replacement. Not the delegates. There would not be a second rump convention. The new nominee would be elected by the Republican National Committee's National Committee. Basically a group of establishment party officials.

What they would do is anyone's guess.

The Trump people would make a ruckus, but if Trump was really out of the way, it is unlikely that they would coalesce around any previous candidate. Ben Carson? Carly Fiorina? (I'm beginning with the non-politicains.) I doubt it.

What about runner up Ted Cruz? The party elders hate him even more than Trump and would never turn to him.

Jeb Bush? Mitt Romney? Marco Rubio? Of this sorry "establishment" lot, Rubio would have the best chance. But his fade out in the spring doesn't offer much encouragement that he's ready for primetime.

But my prediction, one I made here months ago, is that waiting "reluctantly" in the wings is the vestal Paul Ryan. The coy non-candidate hovering in pretend-denial but longing for the designation. Recall how he swore up and down that he didn't want to be Speaker of the House? And what is his current job? His current title?

From a GOP perspective I see him to be the ideal choice since he wouldn't disrupt current prerogatives and could actually be elected.

If Trump is only seven points behind Hillary, and among other unhinged things is expressing regret that he didn't win a Purple Heart (Rona says--"Doesn't he know he needed to be in the army to be in the line of fire?), if someone this unraveled is almost within the margin of error, anything can happen.

Lesson--be careful, very careful what you wish for.

March 24, 2016--Jeb! for President

Jeb Bush tiptoed through the Florida primary, not saying a word much less endorsing anyone.

Most thought--no surprise.

He was sitting on the presidential sidelines while his erstwhile ingrate mentee, Marco Rubio, though on political life support, was at that time the only one left in the GOP field who had a chance to cut into "low energy" Jeb!-tormentor Donald Trump's overwhelming lead in the Florida polls.

This made psychological as much as political sense--it was asking too much to expect Jeb! to forget and forgive Little Marco. With Rubio all but certain to go down in flames in their home state, did Jeb! want to be associated with more loss. His own political demise was enough for him to bear--the only adult male Bush not to become president.

Think again.

I say that because we shouldn't be fooled by the meaning of Jeb!'s endorsement the other day of Ted Cruz.

This is not about helping Lying Ted win the nomination but about Jeb! Bush's resumed campaign for the presidency. Ambition and political fantasies run deep in the Bush family.

Here's the plan--

Though patrician Bush cannot see Cruz as anything but an interloper in his family's party, right now he is a useful stalking horse.

With Bush and other tattered establishment types coalescing around support for Cruz, it is surely not to help him become the nominee much less president. In truth he is hated more than Donald Trump. Trump is opposed because he's not playing ball in all the old and corrupt ways: he's too much of a loose cannon. He might actually want to do something about "people dying in the street." Thus current support for Cruz is tactical, situational.

The Jeb! plan is to help him get enough delegates to deny Trump a majority and thereby force a brokered convention. And at that point, for the moment, dump him. Thus, the outcome of that brokering will not be a Cruz nomination. It will not be a Kasich nomination. It will not be a Trump nomination. It may though be a Trump riot.

After a few inconclusive ballots, deadlocked and frustrated delegates will turn to someone other than Cruz, Kasich, or Trump.

Who might that be?

We already know Romney is interested (he too has a daddy problem when it comes to presidential ambition) but has had his two chances. We know Paul Ryan is interested--though he demurred that he didn't want to become Speaker and pretend-reluctantly "gave in" only when the distraught party turned to him to save them from themselves--and thus his current coyness fits the pattern of his particular kind of under-the-radar ambition. But he was a flop last time around as Mitt's running mate. Usually one gets to be just one savior in a lifetime.

And now we know Jeb! is interested.

Though Jeb! was a disastrous candidate through South Carolina, he actually could be the best one for the GOP to turn to. Among other things, if he could show some spunk, the big money boys might find their way back to him. And against Hillary, he could win maybe a dozen states and perhaps help Republicans retain control of the Senate.

At the GOP convention, by the fourth ballot the still-contending candidates will be feeling desperate. Some of them, realizing they have no shot at the presidency, begin to shop around to see who might make the best deal. The best deal to satisfy their ambitions.

Rubio has 166 delegates but no future in politics. He is leaving the Senate in January and is an unlikely candidate to become the Florida governor in 2018. We see how much his constituents like him--they voted for Trump in the Florida primary by almost two-to-one.

"How does US attorney general sound to you?" a Jeb! operative will ask a Rubio operative. Sounds good to Rubio. Done deal.

Kasich will have 200-300 delegates and for them he gets Treasure. Secretary of the Treasury.

Then, as Jeb's looks around there is the candidate he endorsed sitting with at least 600 delegates.

He's from Texas, is a Latino, and has all those delegates.

"How does VEEP sound . . .?" That's an easy one.

So at the end of the day, after enough Trump delegates do their ugly thing, we will have Jeb!-Rubio versus Hillary-Julian Castro.

If Mother campaigns with him maybe he could win 15 states. But still not the winning combination.

I think he wouldn't even carry Florida. My mother's old friends, the Ladies of Forest Trace, some of whom were Suffragettes, can't wait to see a woman in the White House. But not as First lady.

February 26, 2016--Politico-Babble

Thus far my tally is 22 and 37. Twenty-two "lanes" and 37 "paths."

Last election cycle everyone was talking about "brands" and "narratives."

Were Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, and Herman Cain running for president or teasing that they might do so because they seriously thought they had a chance to be nominated--forget elected--or were they running to enhance their brands, their ability to command top-dollar speaker fees and secure seven-figure book deals?

And then what about poor Mitt Romney's ability to explain and represent himself to voters? it was said that a coherent and attractive narrative was missing. In fact, running up to his eventual nomination, all his rivals were criticized for the same thing--the lack of a convincing narrative about how their life stories and experiences wove together into a plausible and engaging picture that plain folks could understand and within which find at least a semblance of authenticity.

Four years ago, this politico-babble was purloined from the world of marketing and advertising. It was thought--still is--that unless a product or service has a strong brand identity (read essence) it would not stand out, would languish. This was especially true if that product or service didn't include a compelling narrative that people could relate to and thereby eventually consider purchasing.

This time around, if you listen carefully, as I have been attempting to do, on the cable news networks and in publications commenting on the primaries and caucuses, you'll hear all about paths and lanes.

Once I tuned into this I've been keeping a tally of how often these are used to explain the state of the Republican and Democratic campaigns. Particulalry, how individual candidates are faring.

At this point is is being noted that as Hillary Clinton and Donald TRUMP widen their leads, it is difficult to chart a path to the nomination for _____ .

Fill in the blank with, say John Kasich, who continues to claim he is a legitimate candidate, not just in it to polish his brand (he does at least have a credible narrative) or increasingly Bernie Sanders whose now unlikely path to the Democratic nomination requires him to get about 55 percent of the votes through the mega-primaries of March. A long and winding path for sure.

And, to make matters worse, what lane or lanes are open for Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio? Cruz's big-picture strategy from the beginning was the Evangelical Lane. With a charismatic preacher for a father (a Cuban Canadian citizen no less), a well-worn bible, and a copy of the Constitution close at hand, this was his lane and should have stood him in good stead in Iowa (it did with a few dirty tricks thrown in to help) and was supposed to then be wide open for him in South Carolina.

But TRUMP riled these plans, blocking Cruz's lane much like the way Chris Crispy blocked those leading to the George Washington Bridge.

And Rubio's lane was supposed to be the one leading to establishment support. Jeb Bush and John Kasich made a bit of a mess of that--if not blocking it, minimally trying to wedge their way into it, which is why there is so much pressure from Rubio supporters, especially after last night's effective debate for Rubio, for Kasich to drop out this week, if possible today, so with Jeb also out of the way that lane would be wide open for Marco.

Maybe Rubio will try to make a deal, promising to name Kasich his vice presidential running mate. On the other hand, TRUMP may have already made that deal with the Ohio governor--to stay in the race, blocking Rubio's until the convention and then . . .

Rubio should live so long. Kasich is going nowhere. He can live on, campaigning on fumes and to whom do you think Kasich would prefer to be second banana?  Rubio? TRUMP?

I have no idea how these politico-babble terms leach their way into the tsunamic vocabulary of political chatter, but there you are.

22-37.

January 17, 2016--My Republican Friends

She sounded so angry.

"I hate them!" It was a lifelong friend calling from New York.

"Is everything all right?"

"No! Everything's all wrong!"

"With?"

"I just told you. With everything"

"Everything?"

"Well, not everything." She was beginning to calm down. "But pretty much everything. We're finished."

"We're? Who's the we? And again what's the everything? Or the pretty much everything? That sounds serious." I was looking for some way to lighten the mood.

"The country. Everything's getting worse. Look at the election. I mean, at the Republicans."

"We can argue about all of this because I don't think everything or pretty much everything is getting worse. I agree that some things are worse; but I'm old enough, and to tell the truth, so are you, to remember when down here in Florida there was legal segregation, women couldn't easily get into medical or law school, pretty much all gay people were closeted, there was a lot of overt antisemitism, there was World War II and the Cold War, and . . ."

"You're right about much of this but still. Maybe it's an aging thing, I hate what's going on and I hate them."

"Again the them. You have to help me out here. Clearly I'm not following you. If, as you say . . ."

"Republicans."

"That's who you hate?"

"I despise them. Is that better than hate?" I could sense her quivering.

"To me, not that much better. And . . ."

"And I know what you're going to say. I've told you this before, you spend too much time with them. With Republicans. I read your stuff and a lot of it sounds as if you're apologizing for them. How many positive things have you written about that horror show Donald Trump? Whose last name you keep insisting on capitalizing."

"About this we can really disagree. Both in Florida and in Maine I do have quite a few Republican friends and, though I differ with them about most of their political views, I really like them and beyond that learn a lot from them. Partly by having some of my insufficiently examined beliefs and views challenged but also because I find myself agreeing with some of what they have to say."

"There. You said it--you agree with them."

"Not about everything. Far from that. But . . ."

"But about what?"

"Like we need to revisit the cost structure and effectiveness of our social programs. Especially Social Security, Medicare, and the Veteran's Administration."

"You'd cut them back? Obamacare too?"

"No. But make them work better and make sure that people who need them get more assistance than at present. Making the system more pay-as-you-go. Remember that concept? Shouldn't we liberals or, if you prefer progressives, who believe in a significant role for government, be the first ones clamoring to clean up the inefficiencies and abuses and stop making excuses for them?"

"Sounds dangerous to me. If we join the conservatives in critiquing these safety-net programs that people pay for, we'll only contribute to pulling the rug out from under them."

"But doesn't our reflexive, unquestioning support for these programs do more harm than good? Doesn't that call our credibility and the justification for these programs into question? I'm trying to say that though I come to very different bottom lines than most of my Republican friends I share their criticism that all these programs should have to face scrutiny and be forced to clean up their act. So they can run more efficiently, be less vulnerable, become more cost-effective, and do more good. I don't hear too many progressives saying this."

"And what about your Donald Trump? You seem unduly attracted to him."

"He's not mine but I'll admit to that."

"You'd consider voting for him?"

"Maybe but when it comes time to pull the lever I doubt I would. In any case, I'm not ready just yet to do any declaring."

"What's the attraction?" I was happy to hear that my friend had stopped sounding so agitated.

"For me he's a wonderfully disruptive force. Even a radical one. More than Bernie Sanders. Which is why both establishments are so afraid of him. He could turn out to be a traitor to his class. I'm not saying he's potentially dangerous because the GOP feel he'd lose to Hillary. Or because the Democrats are afraid he'd win in November. But because they both fear that if he wins he will expose and then change the nature of the game both parties have been playing for years and getting away with."

"I still hate them all."

I chose to ignore that.

"Take just two recent examples--how he responded to getting booed during the debates in New Hampshire and South Carolina. How TRUMP turned on the audience, saying that the auditoriums were packed with party hacks, donors, and lobbyists who were invited to attend by the Republican National Committee. He was right about that. Ditto, by the way, for the Democrats. And, here's the radical part--he didn't care that they were booing him. He responded with a dismissive wave, indicating he doesn't need them. That in fact they are at the heart of our political and governmental problems. Not part of the solution."

"I admit I did like that," my best friend said.

"And my other example, an even more potent one, was how he insisted on picking at the 9/11 scab, saying, correctly I'm sure you would agree, that George W. Bush didn't 'keep us safe.' Quite the opposite. He reminded Republicans that George W was president on 9/11, not Bill Clinton, and had been for eight months. Then after that he had us invade Iraq, lying--that was his word--about their having weapons of mass destruction. And how as a result that region is now in almost total chaos. What did you think about that?"

My friend muttered something into the phone which I didn't understand.

"Remarkable, right, that the GOP front runner would say this, and double down on it, while in South Carolina on the very same day ex-president Bush emerged from his political cocoon to campaign for little brother Jeb. And when someone from the press suggested that he'd pay a political price for saying this, especially in so-called 'Bush Country,' TRUMP said, he literally said, 'I don't care.'"

"I didn't hear that."

"Maybe that's because you don't have enough Republican friends."

At that at last we both laughed.

February 15, 2016--Anton Scalia "Originalist"

I know I should hold back from criticizing Associate Supreme Court Justice Anton Scalia. That I should pause to honor him and his service, but since so many are already speculating about his place in history and his successor--principally whether or not Barack Obama should nominate one or capitulate in advance to Republicans in Congress who want him to stand aside and let the next president do the appointing--it is hard to sit still and listen to Scalia's being overpraised, even canonized.

This of course is not unusual when a person of stature dies, but to picture him as a towering, even historic figure, to extoll his scholarship, is beyond anything that should go unchallenged, even during this period of mourning.

Yes, he was influential as a result of his ability to cow colleagues, most notably Clarence Thomas, and his assertion that he was the one true conservative "originalist" on the court. A judicial practice that seeks to apply how the Constitution's framers' original words should direct appellate court decisions.

In truth, since it is not possible to interrogate the Framers to see how we should deal with issues not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution--among others the use of the electric chair, women's and gay rights, automatic weapons, and abortion--Justice Scalia worked backwards in his search for logic and precedents to bolster his opinions and dissents. Backwards because he began with pre-determined conclusions and then searched for so-called originalist evidence (evidence that did not exist and thus often was made up by him) to justify those conclusions.

This is the way so much of our political discourse proceeds and in this Scalia acted more like an ideologue or political operative than a dispassionate judge seeking the truth. Most often with him the truth was what he arrogantly determined it to be. Not the Framers.

Two examples--

Bush v. Gore, the SCOTUS decision that gave the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush.

The Constitution could not be more explicit about how it is up to the states, via the Tenth Amendment, to manage and adjudicate local electoral disputes, including in federal elections. Rather than allow that process to culminate in Florida within the state's supreme court, the U.S. Supreme Court, under Scalia's leadership, shopped around for originalist rationalizations that permitted the nation's highest court to abrogate a state's right to complete it own constitutional judicial review of the legitimacy of the vote in Florida.

Scalia wanted Bush elected, that's where he and four of his Republican colleagues began their deliberations, then they shopped around for arguments to prop up their ultimate shaky decision.

There would not have been a President George W. Bush if there hadn't been a Justice Scalia and, lest we forget in this election cycle, brother Jeb!, then governor of Florida, and his corrupt Secretary of State. Remember Katherine Harris?

Also to illustrate, there is Anton Scalia's originalist interpretation of the Second Amendment, which states--"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Even a well taught high school student knows that this amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms only in order to participate in the formation of a well regulated militia. It does not confer the absolute right to bear arms even for self protection. It was written that way because our Founders and the Constitution's Framers were leery of the new nation, in contrast to countries such as England and France, having a potentially oppressive standing army that could be mobilized by unscrupulous rulers to abrogate citizens' freedoms.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, again with Scalia leading the way, the Court held that the government is essentially powerless to prohibit or restrict weapons in "common use." The majority wrote that this right to bear arms "is not defined by what the militia needs, but by what private citizens commonly possess."

This is a gross misreading of the Second Amendment.

This notion of common possession is nowhere to be found in the text, structure, or history of the amendment. This unprecedented, idiosyncratic notion of "possession," gives gun makers and individuals--not legislatures or even the courts--the power to determine public policy.

This finding feels about as far away from anything considered to be originalist as one can imagine. But once again, Justice Scalia, with tortured logic and an ideological distortion of constitutional history, more through bluster than dispassionate argument, held the day and Heller was decided in the affirmative.

Yes, Anton Scalia could be charming, loved opera, apparently and unpredictably befriended Ruth Bader Ginsberg, but a towering legal mind? An historic figure? A "lion of the court"? Mourn his death as we would anyone's who died a bit prematurely, but let's get a grip on all the unstinting praise.

In spite of the conservative criticism of "activist" judges "legislating from the bench," since 1986 when he was appointed to the Court by President Reagan, that well describes what Justice Scalia had been doing up until this weekend.

December 24, 2105--Schlonged

Donald TRUMP is right, Hillary Clinton in 2008 did get schlonged by Barack Obama.

When primary season commenced, she had a huge lead in the polls over not just Barack Obama but was besting all other contenders--among them, Joe Biden, John Edwards, and Chris Dodd.

Then out of seemingly nowhere, along came Barack Obama. He won the Iowa caucuses and over time beat her and won the nomination. The rest is history.

But now we're not talking about history but about TRUMP's use of a Yiddish epithet to characterize her defeat.

In my old Brooklyn neighborhood, on East 56th Street, where in many households Yiddish was either the first or second family language--a neighborhood geographically and culturally not too distant from the goyishe one where The Donald grew up--at the end of a punchball or stickball game, parents would ask how did it go? How did you do?

If we got killed, rather than putting it that way or more formally ("We lost by a large margin"), we would say, "We got schmaltzed" (idiomatically, chicken fat or as in schmaltz herring) or more commonly, when the defeat was most painful, we would mutter, "We got schlonged."

I would say this in front of my very proper mother. Not once did she correct or admonish me though she was not loath to do so when I committed other infractions of speech or etiquette.

So, perhaps naively, I grew up never knowing the first meaning of schlong. The noun schlong (penis) rather than its verb form--schlonged (to be overwhelmingly defeated.)

And, I suspect, neither did Donald TRUMP.

I get it--TRUMP should not have used schlonged even if he didn't realize is was one of dozens of Yiddish slang words for penis. (Just as there are dozens in English and pretty much every other language.) He should be more temperate, proper, presidential.

To underscore his offensive but potentially innocent use of schlonged, check out Tuesday's headline in the Huffington Post--"Donald Trump Goes Full Schmuck, Uses Yiddish Word for Penis to Mock Hillary Clinton."

Not apparently realizing that schmuck itself is another Jewish slang word for penis.

And then there was Dana Millbank's piece in Tuesday's Washington Post. When it first appeared in the earliest edition and on line the tittle was, "Oy Vey! Donald Trump is a Putz."

Later additions had it, "Oy Vey! Enough of Trump." Tacit acknowledgment that Millbank, though Jewish, didn't realize that putz is, yes, another way of referring to the penis.

TRUMP's stupid comment was quickly taken up by Hillary Clinton and her people as evidence that TRUMP is not fit to be president. As she put it, "He can't bully his way to the presidency." Sounding like poor Jeb! who, to show his alpha maleness, has been indignantly saying that TRUMP can't "insult his way to the presidency."

In regard to Hillary's bullying comment. at an event two days ago in Iowa, with her arms around a 16 year-old girl who, without emotion much less tears, asked what Clinton will do to stop bullying.

Clinton's response was that she too has been bullied and that we should take measures to overcome it. The feeling was more whiny than forceful. Not like a potential commander-in-chief who is able to shrug off these kinds of things.

TRUMP's stupidity was distracting enough--reporters stopped talking about her TRUMP and ISIS untruths and exaggerations during Saturday's Democratic debate--that she didn't need to cite sexism or embrace victimhood.

On the other hand, Jeb! did get one thing right--TRUMP is a "jerk."

That's a better way of dealing with this kind of adolescent behavior. If TRUMP wants to be president, he should know better. He doesn't any longer live on East 56th Street.

December 17, 2015--Debate Postpartum

The first hour of Tuesday's GOP debate was largely devoted to candidates speaking from their talking points and thus it was predictable and, in political theater terms, boring.

But then in the second hour things heated up and it became more entertaining. It also revealed who might turn out to be the final three and the strategies those three will likely use to claw their way into that elite group.

To forestall any suspense you might be feeling, the final three will be TRUMP, Rubio, and Jeb Bush. Yes, Jeb!.

In regard to the ultimate nominee, after the Republican convention deadlocks, expect that to be Paul Ryan. He is hovering not too far in the background, trying to act like the SPEAKER and presidential. He's even taken to delivering ex cathedra speeches in flag-bedecked settings. The beard helps. Makes him look like a Founder.

But back to the final official-candidate three. Here's how things well play out. The other night we got a sneak preview of their plans.

Attack, attack, attack.

TRUMP will continue to do what he has been doing, while hoping for at least one or two more instances of domestic terrorism to lock in his over-fearful base while attracting enough quivering semi-independents who want a strong man to make America Great Again. He will be attacking individual rivals but ramp up his attacks on Obama, Hillary, and political elites, none of whom, in his view, know how to swagger on the world stage or have the experience or competence to get anything done.

Rubio, who won the debate the other night largely by glibly showing off that he knows "stuff" while displaying that he also has cojones by attacking Ted Cruz, will continue on the same tack. Expect more and more of his campaign fire directed toward his fellow Latino, Cruz, whose paper-thin voice went up an octave when under fire. Voters will not select for president someone who sounds as if he's inhaled helium.

And then there is the formerly hapless Jeb Bush who will continue to show he has moxie (plus gravitas) by relentlessly and effectively attacking TRUMP. It worked on Tuesday (look for this to show up in a post-debate bump in the polls) so expect more of the same. If he can, as he did, get under the skin of someone as formidable as TRUMP think what he'll do when it comes to confronting really bad guys like Putin and Assad.

Forget the rest of the candidates. Carson is now fully cooked, Christie was taken down by Paul Ryan of all people--he is less than half Christie's size--who revealed him to be the Third World warrior he pretends to be.

Shoot down Russian planes over Syria? As Paul said about Christie, "If you're looking for someone to start WW III, you have your candidate." And he couldn't resist piling on by making a nasty reference to Christie's alleged involvement in closing down the GW Bridge.

No one else is even breathing much less threatening to push their way into the inner-inner circle of final-finalists.

You heard it here.

November 5, 2015--Democrats' Agita

Democrats and progressives can't be feeling very good about the array of results from Tuesday's elections.

Nor can they be feeling secure about the latest national poll numbers.

Nothing major occurred on Tuesday--it's a very off-year political year--but the vote in Houston to reject an anti-bias referendum that would have protected the rights of gay and transgender people can't be comforting to liberals.

It is felt that the initiative failed because Houstonians didn't want their women to go to the same bathrooms as transgender men who are now females. All this in spite of the fact that the mayor is a lesbian. Or, on reflection, perhaps because she is.

Nor can the statewide vote in Ohio not to decriminalize the use of marijuana, even for medicinal purposes please progressives.

Then in Virginia, the governor failed in his attempt to get more Democrats elected to the state legislature so that he can overturn his felonious Republican predecessor's refusal to fund an expansion of Medicaid so that more poor people can sign up for Obamacare.

While in Kentucky, Matt Bevin, the Republican Tea-Party-suppored candidate, was easily elected after running on a platform that featured the promise to end the Bluegrass State's participation in Obamacare, especially using Medicaid funds to pay for it. Funds, incidentally, that are paid for fully with federal dollars.

Even in nearby Portland, Maine, the local initiative to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour was voted down.

We are not living in generous times. Middle-class people feeling strapped in their own lives, with children saddled with student loan debt, and having to work three jobs just to stay even, are angry about anything that is targeted to help those in need or who feel discriminated against. And they are voting their anger.

Democrats are experiencing additional agita when they see what's happening on the larger, national stage. The just-released results of the latest presidential poll, the generally reliable Quinnipiac Poll, show Donald TRUMP holding a very narrow lead over Ben Carson, with Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz still just in low double digits, and poor Jeb Bush languishing in Chris Christie territory with only 4 percent support. Let's hope Jeb really does have some "cool things" to do once he drops out (he doesn't), which should be before the end of the year.

But most disturbing for liberals, the Quinnipiac Poll has Hillary Clinton running only slightly ahead of Donald TRUMP (46 to 43 percent) but trounced by Ben Carson by 10 full points--50 to 40.

We clearly live in complicated times.

October 30, 2015--Woman Enough

I managed to keep myself awake for the entire Republican debate. I even ignored the struggling New York Mets.

Though the CNBC moderators were as inept as has been widely reported (Carl Quintanilla, for example, mocked Carly Fiorina's three-page tax reform proposal, saying skeptically that it must be in "very small type"), they did a better job than in the first two debates of giving air time to the marginal likes of John Kasich and Rand Paul.

The reporters, though, missed opportunities to follow up forcefully. When super-slick Marco Rubio deflected Jeb Bush's well-rehearsed attack--"If you don't show up for your three-day French work week in the Senate, you should resign"--with an equally well-rehearsed response--"John McCain, Barack Obama, and John Kerry did the same thing"--an easy followup would have been to ask him if "three wrongs make a right."

Talk about situational ethics of the sort conservatives selectively hate; but in this perverse political climate, Rubio was enthusiastically applauded by the media-hating audience.

The morning after the debate I checked the cable talk shows to see what people were saying.

The consensus was pretty much that Rubio or Ted Cruz won (largely by attacking the "mainstream" press--Fox of course excluded), that Bush made things even worse for himself, and that languishing Chris Christie (who was the establishment's favorite and seemed invincible four years ago) helped himself. Maybe by next week at this time he'll be the first choice of  six or seven percent of GOP voters.

Fiorina and TRUMP appeared to at least hold their own, though The Donald didn't dominate or hold center stage as he did previously. But John Kasich was probably destroyed by TRUMP's put down--blaming him (falsely) for the downfall of Lehman Brothers, where he was employed, and the subsequent economic meltdown. Kasich could only mumble incoherently in response.

He will soon go away, joining Lindsay Graham and Bobby Jindal at the children's debate table in George Pataki Land. Yes, Jindal, in a manner of speaking, is still in the race.

Most interesting, perhaps, is the continuing popularity of Ben Carson, who, in effect, by saying very little and saying whatever he said so softly that he needed closed captioning, Carson managed to make it appear that he wasn't there or, minimally, was looming as the new frontrunner above the grungy fray.

This was strategically brilliant since he has very little of substance to say about policy issues. When challenged that his 10 percent flat tax proposal would blow the deficit even higher, he said, "OK then, let's make it 15 percent."

So his appeal is in not in the policy arena but rather in the affective or emotional realm.

On MSNBC, the reporter covering the Carson campaign interviewed a few of his supporters to discern why he appeals to them.

One said it's because he's "calm." Another that it's because he has been so "blessed by God," and the third that "America is sick and we need a doctor to heal us."

I was struck by how these views are so feminized. Calmness, godliness, comfort, and healing.

At a time when the two women running for the presidency--Carly Fiorina and Hillary Clinton--because they are striving to convince us that they are ballsy enough to be commander-in-chief and would not have a problem bombing the whatsis out of ISIS, Carson has chosen to put on display his softer, feminine side.

If Fiorina and Clinton  are "man enough," Carson is "woman enough."

It could work. At the moment it is.

October 29 2015--Marco, Jeb, and The Donald

We know poor Marco Rubio hates his Senate job and, though he can't stand being there, wants another Washington job. If he gets it, maybe he'll hate that one too. This is not a good way to talk about one's resumé and employment history.

So much for the rest of us though he claims wanting to be president is not about him but about us.

Poor Jeb Bush was expecting to be inaugurated even before being nominated or elected. The presidency is the family business, after all, and in these kinds of royal successions are more anointments than elections.

He's already talking about how he is likely to hate the job because of all the partisan bickering and gridlock in Washington.

So, he told us the other day, that if this is the way things are, he "has other cool things to do" and might just take a petulant hike.

Now we're hearing from poor Donald TRUMP, as the polls in Iowa show him slipping into second place behind Ben Carson (Ben Carson!), that he needs the voters' help.

Specifically, he pled with Iowans to "help [him] out." He whimpered, "Let me win." And promised that if they do he'll do so many "wonderful things" for them that will make them "very happy."

If they keep this up, the two whining Floridians will doom their chances. And good chances they have because if Carson and TRUMP fizzle (and they likely will) Rubio or Bush might become the front runner and nominee. And whomever that is would have a pretty good chance of being elected.

TRUMP in second place in Iowa has to do more than pop in for a few big rallies and entertaining speeches that are more standup comedy shtick than political barnburners. Folks in the Hawkeye State expect their candidates to show up in their living rooms and stay overnight in Motel 6.

This is not The Donald. He doesn't do living rooms and motels.

And he will quickly lose his appeal if he appears, as he just did, to be either wounded or reduced in stature.

Half of what he has going for him is his superhero image, descending from the sky like, forgive me, a god, and offering to take care of everyone and everything--the Chinese, Putin, immigrants, jobs, the failing infrastructure.

He has to be the opposite of needing to be taken care of. He's about enabling people to believe he will fix things, make everything work, and bring about universal happiness.

That has been his appeal. To be self-deprecating and vulnerable goes against this image and will make him appear to be more like Ben Carson than Superman.

September 24, 2015--Run, Joe, Run

Though the vast majority of Democrats think Hillary Clinton is untrustworthy, she is still the odds-on favorite to win the nomination.

Since an even greater percentage of Americans say they do not trust her, because of that it is unlikely she can be elected.

Trust is a very big deal when it comes to electing presidents.

On the other side, Republican leaders are beginning to conclude that Donald TRUMP has a very good chance of being nominated. The rest of the field is so weak, he is so well known (and in his idiosyncratic way liked), and enough of the GOP base (who dominate the nomination process) are so fed up with business-as-usual, that they are sticking with him even though he continues to say things almost daily that would knock a traditional candidate out of the race.

The reason why the Republican establishment, including the big-money boys are so upset is not because they disagree with TRUMP about immigration, the economy, and international affairs, is because they feel, probably correctly, that he can win the nomination but, also correctly, feel he would lose to Hillary.

So, if things proceed on their course, Hillary Clinton, deeply flawed as she is, is most probably our next president.

Bernie Sanders is an attractive fantasy alternative to progressive Democrats, and he may win the New Hampshire primary, he has no chance of being nominated and if there is anything more unlikely than "no chance," he has an even less chance of being elected. Even Donald TRUMP would defeat him.

Then, in regard to both parties, the political professionals have rigged their primary processes to make it easier for Jeb Bush and Clinton to win the nominations, feeling a year or so ago when the rules and calendar were determined, that they were their party's strongest potential candidates.

Both parties' nomination calendars were rigged and the small number of debates allowed were to benefit the two favorites. Fewer debates meant that lesser-known candidates had less chance to become known and compressing the primary season to just a few months would mean there would be less time for internecine party warfare.

But a funny thing is happening on the way to the two preordained nominations--Hillary Clinton has been exposed as less then trustworthy (emails and such), Jeb Bush is proving to be a dud, and then there is The Donald who barely needed any debates or all that much time to become better known since he is about as well-know as all his opponents combined.

Therefore, it's time for Joe Biden to jump in.

That is, from the perspective of progressives who do not want to see Hillary nominated or a Republican such as TRUMP, or Jeb for that matter, elected.

At the moment, Biden would have not much chance to defeat Hillary. There isn't that much time to get rolling and he has no money. Clinton has hundreds of millions either in the bank or pledged.

But the fact that he is surging in the polls suggests there is a pent-up interest in him or, minimally, Clinton fatigue, and thus much of the money pledged to her could quickly migrate to Joe.

Notice how that has already happened on the Republican side--former candidate and frontrunner Scott Walker was about to be anointed with hundreds of millions of support from the Koch Brothers. That money is now seeking a new candidate. Ditto for Sheldon Adelson's hundreds of millions.

Among Democrats the same thing could happen.

Biden is a credible candidate. He has the same progressive values as Clinton, is at least as well-prepared to assume the presidency (her resume is her biggest asset), and has been right about as much as she has been wrong when it comes to foreign affairs, especially regarding Iraq and the rest of the Middle East. As Secretary of State, she was largely a failure. All of this will be fully exposed if she becomes the nominee and it would weaken her further.

And then there are the authenticity and liability factors. Side-by-side Biden would stand out. He has no need to have a personality makeover as Hillary is currently attempting to pull off by going on the Ellen and Colbert shows.

Even Joe's propensity to say goofy things these days would not be much of a liability. At a time when our national elections are more-and-more about likability, he is as likable as Donald TRUMP.

So, run, Joe, run.

September 3, 2015--Jeb's Pique

Once front-runner Jeb Bush is unraveling.

We all knew that preppy Jeb for whom everything came easily as destined for people of his background and class was potentially touchy about a few subjects--his brother, his father, his mother.

But allowing Donald TRUMP to get under his skin, nouveau riche Donald? Classless, tasteless, parvenu Donald? (Why am I using so many French words?)

It was bad enough he had to deal with the likes of a Scott Walker and Rick Perry. Such, I suppose, is the life of anyone who wants to be anointed president.  Treat them like help, he must have thought, and it will soon be over.

But Donald TRUMP!

Well, yes.

The New York Times reported yesterday that The Donald's let-it-rip style of campaigning is making poor Jeb crazy.

This is not what he bargained for. TRUMP's slash-and-burn kind of politics is just what he loathes most about running for office. He's much more comfortable in polite conversations about policy, policy, policy.

But to have to get down in the mud with the likes of the bloated billionaire from Queens, of all places. If he has to do that, is the presidency, the family business, worth it?

Good question which for Jeb will be resolved in a few months after he gets trounced in Iowa and New Hampshire. Forget South Carolina. South Carolina! Not his kind of place at all. Tacky, tacky.

Jeb thought all he needed to do was lose the flab so he would appear lean-and-mean, produce a couple of hundred policy papers, trot out his Mexican wife to secure the Hispanic vote, and to top it off speak a little Spanish.

So what is he getting in return? Mainly mockery from TRUMP.

One thing that seems to gall him more than the rest of TRUMP's mockery is the assertion that Bush is "low energy."

"Hey, Donald, have you checked out my new waistline? And, by the way, you could use a little work on your own."

Bush is so rattled by the jibe that he lacks energy that he has taken to talking about it on the campaign trail. A fatal political mistake.

"I'll just give you a little taste of the 'low energy' candidate's life this week," he said, and then went on to tick off a list of places he had been during the past two day--McAllen, Texas; Salt Lake City; Denver; Birmingham; Greensboro; and Pensacola.

Pensacola, I'm sure he thought, The things one has to do. Can't we just skip to the Inauguration and get to the noblesse oblige part?

"The 'low energy' candidate," he continued, "this week has only been six days, 16 hours a day campaigning with joy in my heart."

Poor you.

What's worse, he's making it to easy for Saturday Night Live writers.

But here's the problem--TRUMP is right.

Bush lacks energy, which is another way of saying that he is too patrician for the rough-and-tumble of a gloves-off contest and is evidence that he really doesn't want to make the effort to win the job.

He wants it bequeathed to him like pretty much everything else has been in his life.

Maybe he should have listened to Mother--"We've had enough Bushes."

August 10, 2015--On the Rag

When I saw yesterday that Maureen Dowd's column in the New York Times was about Donald TRUMP, half to myself, I moaned, "Here we go again. Yes, he deserves to be eviscerated yet more for his misogynist comments. Not for what he said at the debate about Megyn Kelly (in effect that she was unfair to him because she was--as he and I would say where we both grew up in Brooklyn--"on the rag") but for all the despicable things he has had to say about, as he would put it, "the women" throughout his life in public."

I promised myself I would get to it after reading through less-predictable stories.

When I did, as she less and less has done in recent years, Dowd this time surprised me with her fresh and tell-it-like-it-is insights about TRUMP, the media, and the state of our political culture.

Read it all if you haven't, but here's a flavor from the very end. About TRUMP talking about how he contributes money to politicians so he can have access to them and get them to do favors for him--

His policy ideas are ripped from the gut instead of the head. Still, he can be a catalyst, challenging his rivals where they need to be challenged and smoking them out, ripping off the facades they're constructed with their larcenous image makers. Trump can pierce the tromp l'oeil illusions, starting with Jeb's defense of his brother's smashing the family station wagon into the globe. 

Consider how Trump yanked back the curtain Thursday night explaining how financial quid pro quos warp the political system. 

"Well, I'll tell you what, with Hillary Clinton, I said be at my wedding and she came to my wedding," he said. "You know why? She had no choice because I gave. I gave to a foundation that, frankly, that foundation is supposed to do good. I didn't know her money would be used on private jets going all over the world. 

Sometimes you need a showman in the show.

Go Maureen!

In the aftermath of the debate, the media was obsessed about one thing, the wrong thing--themselves.

Much of the commentary, on full display on Sunday's TV talk shows and on the Internet's political websites, was about TRUMP's on-going trashing of Fox News' Megyn Kelly. Did The Donald really say she was unfair to him with her tough questions because--did he imply--because she was menstruating?

With the exception of Maureen Dowd there was hardly a post-debate word about the most important issues. For example how the four governors among the GOP "Top-10" (is this about the presidency or American Idol?) exaggerated--OK, lied--about their records in Florida (Jeb Bush), Wisconsin (Scott Walker), Chis Christie (New Jersey), and John Kasich (Ohio). How they didn't tell the truth about jobs created during their terms in office, their states' budget deficits, and about how public education fared as a result of their leadership.

Here's a flavor--

Jeb Bush claimed that high school graduation rates increased dramatically during his eight years as Florida governor. They "improved by 50 percent," he boasted. In fact, most of the gains occurred after he left office. During his two terms graduation rates grew by 14 percent.

He also claimed that he cut taxes by $19 billion but failed to mention that most of those cuts were because of federally-mandated decreases in the estate tax.

John Kasich lied when he said that the state's Medicaid program "is growing at one of the lowest rates in the country." In fact, Ohio ranks 16th in enrollment growth among the 30 states that opted out of Obamacare.

Scott Walker claimed that because of his leadership, Wisconsin "more than made up" for the job losses that were the result of the recession. In truth Wisconsin gained 4,000 jobs since that time.

How did Maureen Dowd put it? This posturing and dissembling is the work of "larcenous image makers" and of course embraced by the candidates.

But enough about this. What did TRUMP really mean when he said Megyn Kelly was "bleeding from wherever"?

Megyn Kelly and her Fox News colleagues

August 5, 2015--GOP Debate

I've got a six-pack of cold beer ready for Thursday night's GOP debate. It should be a good one.

First, there's the matter of who will be invited to debate. By Fox News no less.

With at least 16 announced candidates, to make a good show of the 90 minutes, Fox decided to invite only 10--the top 10 based on the most recent polling data.

Thus, Donald TRUMP, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, and Ben Carson will participate but not Rick Perry (his smart glasses will soon be available on eBay), which is too bad since last time around he was dependably hilarious; or Rick Santorum, who last time around was the last man standing when Mitt Romney secured the nomination; or Carly Fiorina (the only woman running--oh, how I pine for Michele Bachmann); nor of course will we hear from George Pataki (who?) or Lindsey Graham (though thanks to TRUMP we have his cell phone number), the latter two polling at less than one percent. It's never a good thing when you're favorability rating begins with a 0, as in  0.15 percent. Their number.

Everyone's attention will be focused on the star of the show, Donald TRUMP--what he will blurt out and the zingers the others are desperately rehearsing to launch his way. The first debate and, who knows, maybe the entire lumbering nomination process, will be about TRUMP, unless he gets bored having to hang out with John Kasich and Ted Cruz. How tedious would that be.

Speaking of Senator Cruz, little is expected of him but he could turn out to be one of the unanticipated winners. Chris Christie as well and maybe Ben Carson. These three have at least some jizzum and come across as sort of spontaneous. Compared to the ever-boring Jeb Bush and the over-managed Scott Walker these three appear to be at least alive and breathing.

Then there is TRUMP. Yesterday I caught him on Morning Joe. They had him booked for a quick phone call interview that was set to last perhaps 10 minutes. He was so good that they skipped commercial breaks and kept him on air for what felt like half an hour.

And what a half hour it was. I didn't catch any gaffs (though his trashing of John McCain and his subsequent additional surge in the polls suggests he has a get-of-out jail gaff card--for example in South Carolina, McCain's pal Lindsey Graham's state, where TRUMP has at least a 20 point lead in the polls: 34% compared with 10-11% for Bush and Carson.

More than anything else, at least for the moment, in contrast with all the other GOP candidates, he sounds actually enthusiastic about the prospect of being President. Not winning the nomination and then the general election but being the President.

The others (Hillary included) feel interested only in the process of being elected. TRUMP already sees himself sitting in the Oval office telling people what to do, as he previewed on Morning Joe.

"I'll tell Carl Ichan, a friend of mine, 'Congratulations, Carl. I'm sending you to China. Handle China.' And I'll send someone like that to Japan to handle Japan. Can you believe Caroline Kennedy is our ambassador? She said she couldn't believe they gave her the job. Speaking of jobs, I'll create jobs. I've created tens of thousands of jobs including for Latinos and African Americans. Let me tell you something, I'll win the Hispanics and blacks. Mexicans love me. They buy my apartments."

As I said, Thursday evening will be fun.

June 22, 2015--TRUMP & Clinton

Not that Clinton but Bill. They have much in common--Bill and The Donald.

I continue to find it difficulty to stop making fun of Donald TRUMP. I can't resist referring to him as The Donald, his first wife Ivana's charming and prescient name for him, or capitalizing his last name since he insists on doing that when he affixes his name in faux-gold to TRUMP Tower, TRUMP Plaza, TRUMP City, TRUMP Casino, and his line of TRUMP menswear and perfume.

But ask any other Republican presidential candidate and they are no longer laughing at his outsized ego and birds-nest hairdo. The are not laughing since he has soared into the lead on all credible national polls. Leading Jeb Bush by at least two percentage points--16% to 14%--is typical.

And he has surged into the lead after what media savants thought was a fatal gaff--questioning, worse, mocking John McCain's service record.

McCain, though a mediocre presidential candidate, is a genuine hero, having been shot down over North Vietnam and held for six years in the hellacious Hanoi Hilton prisoner of war camp. He even elected to remain in captivity after the Vietcong offered early release a year before the Paris Peace Accords called for prisoner exchanges.

When confronted about his swipes at McCain and pressed to talk about his own war record he doubled down on criticizing McCain and then casually said he had a number of student deferments (five), then a medical condition (he couldn't remember just what), and he didn't support the war anyway.

This should have doomed his candidacy since it appears that a disproportionate percentage of his supporters are military hawks. But it didn't. His numbers actually rose. And thus his rivals consternation.

He even got in potential trouble last week in Iowa among evangelical Christians.

He is admittedly not a worshipful guy and was never born again. In fact, he has had three wives and many affairs. All on the record. He even said in Iowa, when discussing his romantic life (if I can call it that), that if his daughter Ivanka wasn't his daughter he would be dating her. Rather than getting booed off the stage, the huge audience of Iowans guffawed with guilty pleasure.

They appear to love him the more outrageous he gets. And thus far he hasn't spent very much of his own money on his galloping campaign.

What then am I suggesting about Bill Clinton?

He was another larger-than-life personality and supplied the public with daily doses of salacious gossip from canoodling Gennifer Flowers to Paula Jones to Monica Lewinsky.

Like TRUMP, the more he got tangled in his own lies and the more scandalous the news that oozed out, the more popular he became. When he left the White House, impeached and nearly convicted and thrown out of office by the Senate, his approval ratings rose to an astonishing 73 percent.

The public likes cartoon-like figures and is as interested in being entertained by its leaders as well led. Perhaps more so. People have given up on political and government effectiveness. They see most of our problems to be too big to solve. Poll after poll shows this.

Who better then than a TRUMP or a Clinton to keep us titillated and amused? Jeb Bush? Hillary? Scott Walker? That's an easy one--the Teflon Kids.

July 16, 2015--TRUMP

Is Donald (all caps) TRUMP just a joke? In the front seat in the Republican clown car?

Pretty much all Democrats agree that he is someone to make fun of (even David Letterman came out of retirement to make fun of him) and most of the other Republican pretenders to the 2016 nomination hope he is just an egotistic entertainer who can't live without the spotlight and will soon move on.

He may be cartoon like, but in other important ways he is resoundingly not. If he stays in the race for the GOP nomination after the current blast of publicity fades (as it most likely will) and spends a few hundred million of his own money (not likely--he is a tightwad and exaggerates his wealth) not only will he help define the future Republican Party but also give the other front runners fits since he actually has a chance to become the nominee.

He has a chance because his brand of anger and racial hatred appeals to at least a third of the GOP primary-voter base. This is different than the general-election Republicans who are a bit more nuanced and tolerant. But it may be enough to get him very close to or all the way to the nomination since his people tend to come from the activist wing of the party.

People are frustrated and angry about their own prospects and what they rightly see to be the decline of America's standing in the world. This began during the inconclusive Korean War and was brought home to American's consciousness when we lost in Vietnam, the first war in our history in which we were defeated. And more recently we are perceived to be ineffectual in the Middle East and, as many feel, are losing to ISIS.

But TRUMP's appeal, though based on this feeling of national decline, is more the result of stagnant income for most Americans and the haunting belief that the American Dream is over for the middle class, whose children, for the first time in history, are not doing as well as their parents.

Rather than blaming structural causes for these frustrating circumstances (an unfair tax system, a weak regulatory environment, the decline of unions, and the resulting rising rate of inequality), TRUMP's people blame government (especially Obama and liberal Democrats), social welfare programs that they feel encourage and underwrite dependency on the government, and above all else, for these angry folks, the millions of illegal immigrants already in the country and the alleged continuing flow of Latin Americans--Mexicans--across our porous boarders.

And then how lucky can The Donald get--escaped Mexican drug lord, El Chapo's son two days ago threatened his life, tweeting--

"Keep fucking around, and I'll make you eat all of your goddamn words."

This gave TRUMP the opportunity to act the selfless tough guy--

He tweeted, "I'm fighting for much more than myself. I'm fighting for the future of our country which is being overrun by criminals. You can't be intimidated. It's too important."

In addition, most Americans are frustrated that we as a people, our governments, cannot accomplish big things.

The country that built the interstate highway system in the 1950s and 60s can't fix our rusting bridges and crumbling roads. Many may ask, Who do you think is more likely to fix our roads--Scott Walker or Donald TRUMP? Who more likely to rebuild our bridges--Jeb Bush or Donald TRUMP? And what about Hillary Clinton? Do you think she could do a better job than TRUMP in making sure our weapon systems work?

So TRUMP may be a joke, but a potent one at that. And, ultimately, perhaps not a joke at all.

May 19, 2015--The Rodham Boys

Well, John Bolton has decided not to run for president. Remember him? George W. Bush's choice for UN ambassador? Knowing he wasn't confirmable because of his hyper-hawkish ways (Bolton was ready to bomb Iran even before John McCain was), he received an interim appointment and was a favorite on the Sunday talk show circuit and at other times was always on Fox. As much for his tell-it-like-it-is style as his flamboyant walrus mustache

In a field of otherwise bland candidates, I would have loved to have seen him squeeze himself and that mustache into the Republican clown car. Oh well.

But for those of us who can't wait for the GOP candidates' debates to begin--especially now that our favorite TV shows are shutting down for the season or, like Mad Men, the duration--the GOP Show has the potential to help us get through the summer doldrums and then much of next year.

But just when I thought the comedic potential of the 2016 lineup would not equal the fun provided last time around by Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann among others, that I'd have to settle for Rick Perry, Ben Carson, and hopefully Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, who was supposed to be the adult in group, has gone off the tracks and may, it turns out, be good for a few laughs.

The last few days were not good for him politically, but for entertainment he won the week.

It took him four or five attempts to tell interviewers if he would have invaded Iraq if he knew then what he knows now. That the intelligence data was phony, "sexed up" by Dick Cheney.

First he said yes, then no, and seemingly yes again before asserting, though he loves his brother, no. I came away as confused as he. But amused.

Among other things, since he's been thinking about running for president for at least 20 years, one would have expected that for that inevitable question he would have precooked an answer. If Ted Cruz has managed to do so, why not the supposedly-competent Jeb Bush whose brother after all made that mess.

On the other side, Hillary also didn't have much of a week. In fact, a few more like the last one and Bernie Sanders will start to look good to more than the talk show hosts on MSNBC. But, as always, the Clintons can be counted on to be an ongoing soap opera.

This time it's not about Benghazi, Emailgate, or Clinton Cash, though the news at the end of last week about how Bill and Hillary pocketed $30 million in lecture fees over the past 16 months, makes one wonder what wisdom they must impart to justify more than $200,000 a pop for a speaking engagement, but about Hillary's two less-than accomplished brothers--the Rodham Boys. Boys who remind me of Jimmy Carter's extended family of hucksters and hustlers.

We know that corporate folks will pay-to-play with the Clintons, but Hillary's siblings?

In familiar behavior for people related to relatives in power, they used their family connections to open doors and get them into deals that they would have been excluded from if they were, say, my brothers.

For example, according to a recent report in the New York Times, after the earthquake in Haiti, brother Tony Rodham tried to get Bill Clinton--who, through the Clinton Foundation was supporting relief and rebuilding efforts-- to help him and his partners secure a $22 million deal to rebuild homes. In a subsequent law suit, Rodham explained how "a guy in Haiti" had "donated" 10,000 acres of land to him and testified how he pressured his brother-in-law to get the project funded.

"A deal through the Clinton Foundation. That gets me in touch with Haitian officials. I hound my brother-in-law, because it's his fund that we're going to get our money from. And he can't do it until the Haitian government does it."

Not deterred when things didn't quite work out, Tony worked on Bill Clinton to get permission for investors he was representing to mine for gold, again in Haiti.

When he presents himself to corporate groups seeking speakers, he refers to himself as a "facilitator," an honest appellation that could cover the entire extended family.

BREAKING NEWS--South Carolina senator Lindsay Graham just announced he'll be running for president. This is great news. He's hilarious.

April 24, 2016--Someone Other than Hillary

The about-to-be-published Clinton Cash, Peter Schweizer's critical examination of the nexus between the cash pouring into the Clinton Foundation; their out-of-sight speakers fees; and, the politically most damaging allegation--that by contributing to the foundation big donors could not only "buy" access to Bill and Hillary but could also influence her official behavior when secretary of state, what is revealed in the book may wind up destroying her campaign for the presidency.

As my grandmother used to say, with yesterday's detailed disclosure in the New York Times that major Canadian donors to the foundation were able, with Hillary's support, to sell their uranium company to Russia even though that gave them control of 20 percent of America's access to enriched uranium, as she would say, "Something about this stinks to the high heavens."

Hillary may still manage to win the nomination (more about this in a moment) but with detractors such as the Koch Brothers willing to spend many hundreds of millions to tear her down and support their current favorite, Scott Walker, she may be seriously vulnerable.

Vulnerable because many of the allegations may be true, vulnerable because even if only half-true they support the narrative that the Clintons play by their own rules, are secretive about things that the public has a right to know, and that they have only self-interest at heart while posing as public servants and concerned citizens of the world.

Recall, when leaving the White House after eight years, they were "caught" loading moving vans with furniture that belonged to the American people. It was a metaphor at the time about what they at essence were. And perhaps continue to be.

Clinton Cash is no Whitewater (an insignificant though phony Arkansas real estate deal) or cattle-futures scandal (where Hillary netted $100,000 with a $1,000 "investment"). It's not Travelgate (where the Clintons purged the White House travel office staff so they could install cronies in the vacant jobs). It is not even Benghazi or e-mail-gate. It may turn out to be much more serious than any or all of these small tempests. What is apparently about to be revealed in the Schweizer book goes to the heart of the Clinton problem and may have enough smoking guns to bring her down.

So rather than Democrats waiting around to see where all this may lead, isn't it time for someone to step forward to challenge her for the nomination? Someone like a Eugene McCarthy who challenged Lyndon Johnson for the 1968 nomination. And ultimately drew Bobby Kennedy into the race. For Democrats then, they offered an alternative to LBJ who otherwise would have secured the nomination without a struggle, without any opposition, and then would have gone on to be defeated because of the public's disenchantment and lack of support for his Vietnam policies.

Democrats not ready for Hillary need a place to register their dissent from yet another Clinton, especially a Clinton who could realistically be defeated by Scott Walker or Jeb Bush.

Those disaffiliated Democrats include me. My problem, our problem is as always the who. Joe Biden? A certain loser. Elizabeth Warren? Plausible but timid. Jim Webb? Who's he? Andrew Cuomo? No chance. Bernie Sanders? Dream on.

Get the point? That's why, help us, I continue to predict Walker in 2016.

April 20, 2015--Minimum Wage

Republican candidates for the presidency are being asked about the minimum wage--whether they are in favor of raising it. This in the context of concern about inequality.

Even GOPers are taking note of widening disparities in income and saying we have to do something to help the middle class close the income gap. Basically what they recommend is cutting corporate taxes and taxes on job-creating high earners and getting government off the backs of small businesses so they can grow and then hire more people. In other words, 2015-style trickle-down economics.

Hillary Clinton and other Democrats for the most part see raising the minimum wage as one part of a strategy to reduce inequality.

There is a lot of demagoguery and made-up economic theory and data being flung around--mainly by conservatives--that are going substantially unchallenged by the press covering the various campaigns.

Jeb Bush, for example, campaigning in New Hampshire late last week, was clearly uncomfortable when asked by Kasie Hunt of MSNBC if he favored raising the minimum wage. In addition to claiming it's a issue for the states, not the federal government, he added that he personally is against it since it will cost jobs. Rather than being required to pay a few more dollars an hour companies will take their businesses overseas. Just how a McDonald's in Tulsa might do that he both wasn't pressed about.

Also unchallenged by Ms. Hunt was his claim that raising the minimum wage costs jobs and leads to more unemployment. There are challenging questions to ask about that, challenging questions derived from a myriad of studies that show doing so does not lead to loss of jobs. In many instances, the opposite. More motivated workers are generally more motivated and productive than those who feel underpaid and taken advantage of.

Before glancing at some of these studies, what is at issue in regard to the current situation?

The federal minimum wage as of July will be $7.25 an hour. (A number of states such as California and Massachusetts  pay more--$9.00.) This means that if someone works a 40-hour week, 50 weeks a year, her or his pretax income in July will be $290 a week or $14,500 a year. Far from enough to live with even a modicum of security or comfort.

The poverty rate, as a point of comparison, for a family of four is an annual income of $23,283. So working full-time at the July minimum wage will mean living considerably below the poverty line. Not impressive in a country with the strongest national economy in history.

The best study published in the Review of Economics and Statistics of the effects of raising the minimum wage is by a team of researchers from the University of Massachusetts Amherst, the University of North Carolina, and UC Berkeley, "Minimum Wage Effects Across State Borders: Estimates Using Contiguous Counties." It closely analyzed 16 years of employment trends among various categories of low-wage workers in the retail and food services industries, where most minimum-wage workers are concentrated.

Key to the study was to track data from geographically adjacent counties where the wages were different to see if there was a migration of employment opportunities to the higher-wage sides of the borders and as a result an increase in the unemployment rate.

The study shows conclusively that increasing the minimum wage had no negative effects on high-wage employment, significantly increased the income of workers, and had no impact on unemployment rates.

There are many other studies that reach similar conclusions. So when candidates such as Jeb Bush claim the opposite to be true they should be confronted by the findings of studies of this kind and pressed to move beyond their factless talking points.