February 22, 2018--Code-Red Kids: 3:00 am Raw Draft

In less than a week, it's become all about our children. Everyone's children, including those of us who do not have any of our own.

These are the children of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, the latest place in America where 14 children and three adults were gunned down on Valentine's Day.

These children have been ubiquitous every day since--on social media, on TV, in the press. Including last night at a town hall meeting in South Florida where calmly they skewered and dismantled their senator, Marco Rubio, as he tried to con and patronize them, attempting to wiggle out of taking responsibility for the fact that the National Rifle Association (NRA) have him on their payroll and thus own him lock, stock, and barrel (to use a weaponized idiom). 

He could only sputter when students asked him to explain and justify this. He couldn't except to say, with unintentional honesty, that they do so because they "buy his agenda." Do they ever. By bankrolling him they are assured he will do their bloody bidding. He had nothing to say when they pointed out that he received $3.3 million in campaign lucre last year, three times what any of the other hundreds in Congress who are on the NRA payroll pocketed. 

They are all of our children because they are as perfect as we imagine ours to be or would want them to be if we had any of our own. In them we see a reflection of ourselves at our imagined best, as we would like to be, hope that we are.

Self-confident, well-mannered, articulate, forceful, passionate, persistent, polite, knowledgeable, just, fair-minded, and eloquent, they invite us to grieve with them and now are calling us, if necessary shaming us, to action. 

Inviting us to support them in saving their lives since as code-red, children who every day of their school lives have lived with the real threat that today, this week, this year the code-red drills they routinely practice, where they learn to hide in the coat closet when there is an actual shooter present in their classroom, will be more than a drill but an imminent threat. 

With respect and without averting there eyes either to us, their parents, their neighbors, their teachers, their so-called leaders, including even the president in the White House, they point their fingers, while not literally doing so, asking, telling us, now that we have demonstrated we are incapable of protecting them, saving their lives and childhoods since we adults have failed at that, they are telling us that they are taking action to save their own lives, that they are taking the lead and invite us to join them. 

"Never again," they chant.

How to put this? To finesse this? 

Though it may be unflattering to acknowledge, their movement seems different because those this time calling us to action are not from working-class backgrounds or, as with Black Lives Matter, not from urban hot spots, but look and feel like they are our imagined best, especially so to the media covering their testimony and mobilization. 

As with most of the reporters and journalists covering them, they come from solidly middle-class backgrounds and, though as diverse as America is, are disproportionately white.

Sorry, in spite of our progress we are still tribal. That is still how it works, hardwired in our DNA. 

They are like the kids we have at home and send in trust to the schools. This is thus personal and as a result may be powerful enough not just to move us but perhaps even succeed in bringing about some long-needed change. 

They are a generation who have been waiting to find reasons to inspire them, to make their lives meaningful, authentic. They are bringing the lie to how they have been stereotyped--as self-indulgent Millennials.  They now have reasons to be inspired--what they have been looking for last week was brought right to their classroom door. 

And they are thus far proving up to the task.

Which in turn, in exactly a week, still bearing raw wounds, is why they wound up in the White House, invited there by President Trump, who actually, following notes written for him by others, actually found the capacity uncharacteristically to "listen." For 70 minutes at least. 

He mostly seemed to listen, and that was both appropriate and welcome, but when he spoke, after their riveting testimony, when he did turn to speak to them and us, all he could offer was to parrot NRA talking points from previous classroom massacres from Columbine, to Sandy Hook, and now to Parkland, Florida. 

What we need to do, he mouthed, is arm classroom teachers so when someone shows up bearing military weapons of mass destruction they will be able to shoot back with their handguns and thereby take control of the situation. They will be armed and prepared how to pause while teaching their current students to shoot back and kill one or more of their former classmates. All this on a teacher's salary.

The students at the White House meeting did not let him get away with this absurdity, respectfully asking if he expected a semi-trained teacher would be able to defend them from fully automatic military-style weapons with, by comparison, a pathetic handgun?

Trump had no answer but to repeat what the NRA has paid him to say. Thirty million dollars in campaign contributions for the 2016 election. 

It of course remains to be seen if these children, which some reminded us they still are, can sustain their effort. They know, as one in effect put it during last night's town hall on CNN, they are just at the beginning of a "5K" race. Though, it made me feel a wave of both emotion and optimism to see another correct him, saying, "No, some of this is a 'sprint,' so let's make it work because our lives are literally at stake."

December 29, 2017--Predictions for 2018

As the new year looms, the news media have been looking back over the past year. Much of that review is political, some elegiac. They list those who died, mainly from the entertainment world; and this year they are devoting a lot of air time to reviewing Donald Trump's first year as president.

Yesterday on CNN and Morning Joe, while reviewing the year, in addition to talking endlessly about the Mueller probe, the tightening of the noose around Trump's inner circle, and the passage of the new tax bill, unable to control themselves, they even made lists of his top-ten tweets. It's come to that.

Since I've had it up to here with most things Trump I will resist doing that.

I used to enjoy watching the McLaughlin Group, a weekend TV talkshow hosted by the curmudgeony John McLaughlin. Each show ended with him asking his panelists for predictions. As his guests made them he would tell them which ones were right and which, his favorite, were wrong. Then, ex-priest that he was, he would make predictions of his own, declaring all of them, of course, "ontologically certain."

I'm not that good at the predictions business and so will acknowledge in advance that most of the ones below would not please McLaughlin. In spite of this, to make them feels like fun and I could use some fun.

So here are my predictions for 2018--

Before the end of his first term, President Trump will not have an opportunity to appoint anyone else to the Supreme Court. He might have his eye on 110 year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but I know these Jewish ladies and she is going nowhere fast.

Speaking about terms in office, don't get you're hopes up. Trump also is staying put and Mueller, whose report will be issued a month before the midterm elections, in September, will not find enough evidence to indict Trump. He will, though, cite him to be an "unindicted co-conspirator."

Son-in-law Jared will be indicted for lying to the FBI and Trump promptly will pardon him. This will precipitate a "constitutional crisis." Minimally, we'll finally find out what a constitutional crisis means.

It, though, will mean that the Trump stock market bubble will burst. Expect the Dow to lose 25 percent of its value. So hold onto to your cash and be prepared to buy in next fall when this happens.

These events will contribute to a Democratic landslide in November. Expect to see them regain control of both houses, unless another dozen Democratic congressmen are forced to resign because of not being able to keep their hands or tongues to themselves. 

Like Lyndon Johnson, Trump will decline to run for a second term, citing evidence that he has successfully reversed every single one of Barak Obama's initiatives and that means he has erased Obama from the history books and thus America is great again and there is nothing more for him to accomplish. 

Senator Rubio will defeat Steve Bannon for the Republican nomination and will begin to appear in cowboy boots so no one ever again will call him "Little Marco."

At least half the newly elected Dems plus Anthony Weiner will immediately begin to seek the nomination for the presidency. They will join the 17 already reviving up their campaigns. 

Longer term prediction--neither Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, nor Elizabeth Warren will win the nomination. The twin Castro brothers will. Both of them will be nominated. Voters will get two for the price of one and taxpayers will save all sorts of money as there all be no need to hire a body double to protect whichever one is the actual president. We also won't need a Vice President. More taxpayer money saved.

And, no, Hillary Clinton will not run. It's more likely that she'll be locked up than Trump.

Omarosa will get a $10 million advance for her tell-all book, and it will be number one on the NY Times best seller list until 2019, followed by Sean Spicer's tell-all book, followed by Anthony Scaramucci's tell-all memoir, followed by Kellyanne Conway's. She will have resigned in May to get in on the lucrative tell-all action.

Alabama, the Crimson Tide, will not win the college football championship in 2018. Clemson will. There's a limit to what one can expect to happen in one year in Alabama. Almost electing a pedophile to the Senate is for them accomplishment enough.

And forget the New England Patriots. The won't get to the Super Bowl much less win.

But the Yankees will make it to the World Series which will suggest that the moon is again in the seventh house.

And, in case I forget to mention, Ruth Bader Ginsburg will still be sitting on the Supreme Court. She may no longer be living, but there she'll be. For a preview, look carefully at the picture below.

She's Not Praying

December 15, 2017--John McCain's Thumbs Up

Many admired John McCain, recently diagnosed with incurable brain cancer, when he appeared on the Senate floor past midnight in late September to vote thumbs down, literally thumbs down, on the Republican bill to repeal Obamacare.

Many were looking forward to a repeat performance next week when the Senate appears set to vote on one of the most regressive budget-busting tax-cut bills in modern legislative history.

Alas, McCain has indicated he will vote for it. Actually, try physically to vote for it if the wicked side effects of radiation and chemo therapy will allow him to do so. 

If he cannot make it to the Senate, the Republicans will have an even smaller margin to pass it. Thus, if Susan Collins of my beloved Maine comes to her senses and changes her mind and votes against the bill, it has a chance of being defeated. 

I have been wondering, why McCain, at times a legitimate maverick, was or is set to vote for it, considering how much he despises Donald Trump. I came to the one obvious conclusion--he and his family would be enormous beneficiaries of the GOP bill.

It would be kind to him and especially his heiress wife who own no fewer that eight homes (remember how that was revealed during the 2008 presidential election?) since this bill is quite friendly to people with large real estate holdings.

More than that, with his and his wife's net worth topping $100 million (she inherited a fortune in beer distributorships) by doubling the current $11million one can pass along tax free--John and Cindy McCain's heirs will net at least $11 million more than they would at present

Not the kind of political legacy I would imagine he seeks. But I guess when it gets right down to it, money is money. 

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 23, 2016--Oy Vey Another Debate

I just realized that there's another Republican debate scheduled for Thursday evening. At the same time as American Idol.

This presents problems--

I am addicted to both. The GOP campaign and Idol. Thankfully there is On Demand so I'll watch the debate live and then stream Idol.

After getting trounced in South Carolina, Rubio and Cruz have declared that it is now a three-man race. Ignoring the continuing existence of John Kasich and, yes, still in it, Ben Carson.

Kasich still thinks he can win the nomination, especially after Super Tuesday (a week from today) when the campaigns turn more to the Midwest. Kasich Country he believes. Carson will continue until the last votes are counted since his campaign has never been about the presidency but about promoting his brand and selling books.

So what to look forward to on Thursday? I mean in the debate.

Pundets are saying it's really a two-man race. Not between Cruz and TRUMP or Rubio and TRUMP, but between Cruz and Rubio. For second place. Whoever loses is then supposed to follow Jeb and drop out, making it a two-man race, again forgetting Kasich and Carson both of whom will trundle on since it costs them nothing to do so. A few airline tickets and a freshly pressed suit to wear to the debate.

So the fireworks, one would think, would be between Rubio and Cruz.

I suspect in fact the fireworks will be between Cruz and TRUMP and Rubio and TRUMP. One will hope to emerge as the better potential giant killer and thereby become TRUMP's chief rival.

This prediction is for whatever it's worth.

But lest you are taken in by this, you should know I predicted Amelia Eisnehauer on American Idol would make it to the top 14.

She was sent home last week. I had assumed enough people would think she's the granddaughter of President Dwight Eisenhower and that would get her some votes.

So much for what I know.

Amelia Eisenhauer

February 19, 2016--His Holiness

If there is anything that might motivate me to vote for Donald TRUMP it is what Pope Francis said about him.

To quote CNN--

Thrusting himself into the combative 2016 presidential campaign, Pope Francis said Thursday that GOP front-runner Donald Trump "Is not a Christian" if he calls for the deportation of undocumented immigrants and pledges to build a wall between the United Staes and Mexico.

TRUMP called this "disgraceful," and that is an understatement.

What is additionally disgraceful is what TRUMP's Republicans and Democratic opponents have said.

Do I hear silence?

They are so afraid of upsetting Catholic voters. That comes before everything.

Does anyone have a problem that the Pope, while inserting himself into our presidential election, where church and state are constitutionally separate, that his so-called holiness didn't also note that Bible-thumping Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio have a Golden Rule problem?

Among other anti-Christian policies, how golden is their pledge to take life-sustaining health care away from innocents?

And what does this Pope, who still has not spoken full-throatedly about pedophile priests, bishops, and cardinals, think about the possibility of a Jew being elected president?

If Donald TRUMP is not Christian enough for him, certainly Bernie Sanders isn't.

First they come for them. Then they come for you.

February 9, 2016--The "Establishment"

During last Thursday's debate, Bernie Sanders accused Hillary Clinton of being part of the Establishment.

He said--

"Secretary Clinton does represent the Establishment. I represent, I hope, ordinary Americans, and by the way--who are not all that enamored with the Establishment."

In response, Hillary Clinton said--

"Well look, I've got to jump in here because, honestly, Senator Sanders is the only person who I think would characterize me, a woman running to be the first woman president, as exemplifying the Establishment. And I've got to tell you that it is really quite amusing to me."

It may be amusing to her, but if Hillary Clinton isn't a part of the Establishment, I don't know who is.

Let me count the ways--

Wife of the former governor of Arkansas, former First Lady of the United States, former U.S. senator from New York, presidential candidate finalist in 2008, Secretary of State and then as a former Secretary able to command $250,000-a-pop speaker fees from the likes of Goldman Sachs, someone who with her husband has accumulated assets of more than $200 million after being "broke" when they left the White House, someone who received advances for books in excess of $5.0 million each, a principal in the Clinton Global Initiative, mother of a daughter-of-little-accomplishment who is able to garner highly-paid no-show jobs at McKinsey and Company and NBC ($600,000 a year!), and mother of a daughter who on her own commands speaker fees of $65,000.

(As and aside, someone needs to explain Chelsea's career to me, including that $65K.)

Hillary Clinton is not a member of the Establishment?

Not a member, she claimed the other night, ignoring all of this, because by definition she is not part of the Establishment because she is a woman. A woman running, audaciously I assume she would say, to become the first "woman president."

It appears this is working less and less well.

A female college student interviewed by MSNBC right after the debate visibly cringed when asked if Clinton's claim resonated with her.

She said, "That's irrelevant to me. What I care about is if she or anyone else would make a good president. In that regard, her being a woman doesn't mean much to me." She paused, took a visible deep breath and added, "Her feminism doesn't represent my feminism."

Nor apparently did it mean much to young voters in Iowa where Sanders led Clinton by 85 to 15 percent among people between the ages of 17 and 24. Fully half of them young women. We'll see what happens later today in NH.

Hillary Clinton's default position whenever challenged or feeling threatened is to blame, as she did in the past, the "right-wing conspiracy" or, more commonly now, that this is because she is a woman.

Not to be outdone, husband, white knight Bill has been all over New Hampshire this week coming to his wife's rescue, including to claim that Sanders' alleged attacks on Hillary are sexist. Talk about chutzpa. Bill Clinton in the Oval Office wrote the book on that.

In addition, Bernie Sanders himself is a comfortable member of the Establishment.

He is almost as much a career politician as Marco Rubio. By the numbers more so. His political career stretches back 35 years when in 1981, at age 39, he was elected mayor of Burlington. After being reelected three times, in 1990, he ran successfully for the House of Representatives, and then, in 2006, was elected to the U.S. Senate.

Sanders has been comfortably ensconced in Congress for 26 years. Including, during the past year, when he has been as much a no-show at his day job as Rubio and Ted Cruz.

That to me feels very Establishment.

Though I am more and more liking what he has to say about the "rigged" economy and am inclining to vote for him, let's not forget who he really is and how he has, at taxpayer expense, made his way in the world.

February 2, 2016--A Win Is A Win

After last night's results, I should drop out of the prognostication business.

Though I got Hillary right--she squeaked by by about a half a percent--I totally missed what was happening among Republicans.

Ted Cruz came in first?

Marco Rubio a very close third, almost leaving Trump in his dust?

What does this say about Iowa voters who had half-a-year to think about what to do?

How did Cruz sell himself as an alternative to the "system" when he and his wife are embedded parts of it? Princeton, Harvard, Goldman Sachs, the U.S. Senate? Bankrolled by billionaires?

Was it all about religion in a state that is made up of 60 percent evangelicals?

Maybe Iowa, as it has been in the past, is a niche electorate and that things will become more predictable and understandable in New Hampshire and beyond.

I have to do a lot of recalibrating.

It's hard to think that Cruz will win in NH or many places beyond.

And I am consoling myself by remembering that the last two GOP Iowa caucuses were won by Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum.

A couple of things may be clear--

Trump will not win the nomination. Half of what he's about is his self-proclaimed winning. These results undermine that.

Cruz also will not win the nomination. I am certain the phones were ringing all last night from the Koch Brothers and Sheldon from Las Vegas, coalescing at last around a so-called "establishment candidate. One they can support and own--

Marco Rubio will be offered that deal as he has shown in the past that he is comfortable being supported by billionaires (car-dealer Norman Braham in his case) and has no problem answering his phone when they call and doing their bidding.

For Hillary, though messy, a win is a win and she should go on fairly easily to secure the nomination after losing to Sanders in NH.

By next week at this time, in addition to Huckabee and Santorum, it will be the end of the road for Carson and Carly and Christie and poor Jeb! And . . .

Here I go again, still prognosticating. I have to get over this addiction.

January 25, 2016--Governor Who?

Governor Chris Christie has virtually moved to New Hampshire.

It's all-in for him up there. Unless he comes in third in the February 9th primary, he'll be forced to return to New Jersey, tail between his legs, where, it is alleged, he is still the governor.

Actually, he got a preview of life in NJ this past weekend when winter storm Jonas was set to pummel the Jersey Shore. In a deja-vu hallucination that Jonas might pack the wallop of Hurricane Sandy, though he didn't want to leave the cozy town-hallers he was getting nachas from in the Granite State, he had no choice but to return kicking and screaming to Jersey and pretend he cared about his anxious constituents.

His one caveat--no replays of his former post-Sandy bromance with Barack Obama. That was the beginning of the end for him. Closing the GW Bridge also didn't help. But some New Hampshireites were actually beginning to like him--though he is still showing up in NH polls in low single-digits--and for Christie, whose approval rating in the Garden State is almost as low as his standing in the presidential race, he had no choice. Put in an appearance in Jersey--no matter how reluctantly--and live with it.

Though maybe, just maybe, he was hoping, he would get politically lucky and the storm would reach Sandy proportions (fortunately it didn't) and he could get a lot of snow-swept, flooded-out face-time on TV, stomping around as a pretend commander in chief.

And show up in NJ he did. For just 24 hours before racing back to the comforts of New Hampshire, leaving thousands still stranded along the flooded Jersey coast.

On Saturday, the New York Times ran a story about how frequently he's been out of the state the past year--during 2015, Crispy spent 191 days in anyplace but New Jersey, most of it downing free snacks and campaigning.

But, the Times decided not to ask why, if he's at best a part-time governor, he still pulls down a full-time $175,000-a-year salary.

Actually, they could have raised the same question about many of the other candidates.

Just as the Florida Sun Sentinel called for no-show Marco Rubio to resign from the Senate. In addition to being personally underwritten by a fanatical Israel-supporter, South Florida car-dealer billionaire Norman Braham, Rubio, who has the worst attendance record in Congress, shamelessly continues to pocket the $174,000-a-year salary.

Only politicians can get away with this kind of stuff. Though maybe soon they'll be inhibited from doing so as the public continues to sour on their performance and are turning to Bernie Sanders and Donald TRUMP types in the hope that they will be able to do something to fix our festering problems, very much changing the way parasitical public "servants" behave.

I know, dream on.

Christie and Rubio among the contenders are not the only ones feeding at the government trough.

Ted Cruz, who is making quite a living as a federal employee though also not showing up for work, spends his days trashing the very system of which he and his Goldman-Sachs-employed wife are comfortable fixtures.

Then there is Rand Paul who not only ignores his day job but also finagled the Kentucky legislature to pass a special bill to allow him to double-dip--to run in November for both the Senate and the presidency. Though he won't need to worry about the latter since by March he'll no longer be at even the children's debate table but will have to slink back to KY to try to convince folks there that they should send him back to the Senate. He'll need to get on this case post haste as his reelection bid is currently imperiled.

Not to worry--one way or the other, I expect to see son-of-Ron with his own show on Fox News or back to operating on cataracts.

And while I'm at it, among the candidates who are running while on the federal payroll, the candidate who has been chowing down at public expense for the most years, for 34 to be precise, is Bernie the socialist.

I suppose his form of taxpayer-financed socialism doesn't take his decades-long ineffectiveness as a senator into consideration when the Treasury Department sends along to him each year a cool $174K.

And talk about part-time jobs, Rona wondered out loud that Hillary Clinton must be an amazing public speaker to justify her $225,000-a-pop speeches at Goldman Sachs. Too bad they were never broadcast on C-SPAN.

But here's my question--where do I sign up for one of these jobs?

June 18, 2016--Presidential Hair

Commenting about candidates for the presidency as we entered the age of campaigning on TV, my father used to say, as John Kennedy was moving to succeed Dwight Eisenhower, "Without a full head of hair like his, you don't have a chance to be elected. Ike, with just that wisp on top, would not have fared well if he had to run on television."

With that my Dad would stroke his bald pate and look, ruefully and disappointedly over at me, noting my own rapidly receding hairline, realizing he would have to settle for my becoming a surgeon (which I failed to do) and not president. His real American dream.

So what to make of our current crop of candidates' hair?

Scott Walker (remember him, the governor of Wisconsin and Koch Brothers' favorite), the establishment GOP's great white hope, faded fast and dropped out first because of hair problems. His bald spot--much like a monk's tonsure--was made more visible on HD TV by the fact that his remaining hair was dyed extra black with what could only have been shoe polish.

It didn't help his candidacy when a letter surfaced that he wrote to a Jewish constituent in which he said, "Thank you again and Molotov," when he meant Mazel tov.

Marco Rubio, already suffering from the problem that he's youthful-looking and short (sorry, vertically challenged, and thus those 2-inch lift boots he was spotted wearing last week), both of which make it hard for voters to imagine him as commander-in-chief ensconced at the head of the Situation Room table, also has a hair problem. Though artfully disguised, at only 44, he is already sporting a comb-over, which becomes apparent when on the stump in windy Iowa where he has to pay more attention to beating it back in place than repeating his over-rehersed Mr. Robot talking points.

Raphael Cruz is also working on a comb-over. Look carefully and you will spot the beginnings of serious thinning along the seam of his part.

But the three candidates who have by far the most politically interesting hair are Donald TRUMP (an easy call), Hillary Clinton, and even Bernie Sanders.

In reverse order--

Bernie's hair looks as if it's cut by his wife. No $1,250 haircuts for socialist Bernie like the one that undid poor Two-Americas John Edwards. And no hair dye either to make him look more youthful (not that he needs that--he's pretty much got all the Millennials voting for him). And certainly no hair gook. The windblown, absentminded professor look do appear to be working for him. But from time to time I've been noticing evidence of a comb-forward. A modified Chuck Todd. This alone suggests that he's thinking of himself as a viable candidate, not just Crazy Bernie.

What to make of Hillary?

During her years as First Lady she struggled almost as much with what name to adopt--Hillary Clinton, Hillary Rodham, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Eva Peron, Golda Meir--as she did with her hair.

Beyond her name shifting (really struggles about her identity) even more on her mind was her hair.

On the Internet there are people keeping track of everything going on in the world, including how many hairstyles Hillary sported while First lady. From their and my research I have counted at least 32. Thirty-two!

With even more on display during the past few months in Iowa and New Hampshire. Neither place good-hair-day territory.

Then, beyond imagining, irresistible to make fun of, is the now iconically famous whatever-it-is that The Donald does with his hair.

If there is anyone on the political circuit paying more attention to his or her hair than Hillary, it is TRUMP.

The style never varies and the color is consistently applicated. Couple that with all the sculpting, fixing, and the pumpkin-colored spray-job on his face and the chauk-white mask around his eyes and you have  a living, breathing cartoon superhero.

Counter-intuitively, all this attention to his hair and looks is stereotypically . . . feminine.

So we have big-bully Donald TRUMP coming off at least as girly as Hillary Clinton.

How this campaign continues to fascinate with its surprises.

Hillary Clinton a mass of contradictions, calling on her husband to pull her out of tough spots (as now in Iowa) while at the same time showing off her cajones as a potential commander-in-chief, while blustery tough-guy Donald Trump spends hours each day fussing with his hair.

Though, he said, if he's elected he'll be so busy in the White House that he won't have time for his hair and will get a buzz cut.

That prospect is almost enough to get me to vote for him.

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.

October 27, 2015--Poor Marco

Poor Marco Rubio.

Like so many Americans, he hates his job.

He literally told that to a friend.

That he hates his day job as senator.

On Sunday he said that he's seen enough and thus won't run for reelection. He failed to note he would not be able to run concurrently for the Senate and the White House--it's against Florida law.

But he apparently doesn't hate it enough to quit. He must like pulling down that $174K a year Senate salary.

And it's unlikely he'll get fired even though for at least the past two years he pretty much stopped showing up for work. Apparently senators get paid by the taxpayers even if the are AWOL. No one clocks them in or out. No one supervises them as they would be if they had a real job.

It not that he hates being in DC. Quite the contrary.

He hasn't been seen in the Senate because the job he wants, also in Washington, is the presidency and he has spent all his waking and dreaming hours campaigning for it. Not at his own expense, mind you, but supported by campaign contributions and as a result of the largesse of his principal backer, Norman Braman, a south Florida car dealer and billionaire.

Norman's been slipping cash to Marco and his wife for years and in return, as he had said publicly, when he telephones his protégée, he gets his calls returned pronto.

You bet.

When pressed last week by Matt Lauer about his no-show job on Capital Hill, Rubio, with moral indignation and a straight face, said, "I'm not missing votes because I'm on vacation. I'm running for president so that the votes they take in the Senate are actually meaningful again."

Clever boy.

Still with a straight face, he went on to say, "My ambitions are for the country and Florida. [If I'm elected] we can begin to fix some of these issues that I've been so frustrated we've been unable to address during my time in the Senate."

He isn't frustrated enough about life in the Senate to motivate him to say--

"Enough. I've been in Washington now for four and a half years years and from the inside I know how things work. I am so disgusted [are you listening Tea Partiers?], and so I quit.  You might wonder," he could add, "why I am running for the presidency, the most Washington-establishment job there is. Good question. I am doing it to shake up and change everything. To scale back the government we all hate."

And, he might add, he's not doing it just for the money. Though the president gets paid $400K a year, pockets another $175 more for expenses, and has that wonderful big jet to fly around in.

This is a lot more than Rubio's been getting from Godfather Braman.

But that would require more integrity than he has thus far displayed.

In the meantime, he's planning to keep depositing his Senate salary checks and not showing up very often.

Norman Braman and His "Boy" Marco Rubio 

May 14, 2014--Marco Rubio in 2016

According to a string of recent reports in the New York Times about climate change--

A large section of the mighty West Antarctica ice sheet has begun to fall apart and its continued melting now appears to be unstoppable, two groups of scientists reported. . . . If the findings hold up, they suggest that the melting could destabilize neighboring parts of the ice sheet and a rise in sea level of 10 feet or more may be unavoidable in coming centuries. 

These latest findings by NASA and other earth scientists appeared in Science magazine and Geophysical Research Letters.

When confronted with this evidence, Senator Marco Rubio, an almost-announced candidate for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, said he does not "believe" this to be true, that he disagrees with the science, and most important to his political aspirations, does not "believe" that humans are responsible for climate change. To him and most other conservatives, climate is always changing. Thus, there is nothing new happening or to be concerned about.

This from a senator who represents Florida, half of which will disappear under water in coming decades.

I put "believe" in quotes not only because that is the word Rubio used repeatedly during a series of TV interviews on Sunday, but because it represents the heart of the political part of the problem--progressives cite scientific evidence when they argue that humans are in fact contributing to global warming while conservatives base their case on belief.

Rubio over and over again claimed that the science is either flawed or ideologically based. And just as often said he didn't "believe" it.

In his words--

I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it. And I do not believe that the laws that they propose will do anything about it.

He did not cite any evidence that what we are seeing is a totally natural phenomenon and, irresponsibly, was not challenged by any of his interviewers to do so. He was simply allowed to get away with critiquing the scientific evidence without citing any contrary scientific evidence.

He did not cite even one study when making his case. I suppose if he knew enough to do so his anti-science Tea Party supporters would feel he had somehow gone over to the other side by citing even flawed science. Any science at all. They don't believe in science.

Nor was he asked, "What if you're wrong? How will you be able to look your grandchildren in the eye when later in the century their houses in south Florida will be literally underwater? When they ask you what you were doing when there was still time to do something?"

I suppose Senator Rubio, or Vice President Rubio, will say he still doesn't believe its happening.

April 10, 2103--The Z's In Habana

To celebrate their 5th anniversary, Jay-Z and Beyoncé spent a few days in Cuba. No big deal, right? Wrong. In fact it was.

To at least Republicans in Congress who are demanding an investigation, especially Cuban-American congressmen and also Senator Mitch McConnell, who, in his tough reelection campaign, is trying to pass himself off as a Hispanic; and who, incidentally, also announced this week that he will join the filibuster to make sure gun safety legislation never comes up for a vote.

To tell you the truth, I'm getting a little tired of Jay-Z and Mrs. Z. From Beyoncé lip-sinking the National Anthem at President Obama's inauguration (and behaving as if it were their inauguration or coronation) to Jay-Z becoming a sports agent; from her self-indulgent HBO autobiographical sort-of-documentary, to his designing the Brooklyn Nets' uniforms.

Enough of that, but to get crazy about their spending a long weekend in Habana is going too far.

It's time to get over the Cold War with Cuba. Fidel is a defanged physical wreck and his brother is a bland, no-threat commandante who, if we slipped him a few million, would let the United Fruit Company reoccupy the island or, minimally, send us a few cases of Montecristo cigars.

But cynical politicians can't help themselves from seizing on anything that enables them to pander to any sliver of a constituency. Senator (Who-Never-Will-Be-President) Marco Rubio (who got caught lying a few years ago about his own Cuban heritage), insinuated--

According to recent news reports, Jay-Z and Beyoncé’s Cuba trip, which the regime seized on for propaganda purposes, was fully licensed by the Treasury Department. If true [and he's sure it is], the Obama administration should explain exactly how trips like these comply with U.S. law and regulations governing travel to Cuba and it should disclose how many more of these trips they have licensed.

Ironically, Rubio is pitching his parents' generation of Cuban exiles who still dominate the street scene in Miami's Little Havana, but are rapidly dying out. The born-in-America generation is for the most part calling for normalization. Just like immigrant groups who preceded them, they think of themselves as Americans first and of Cuban heritage second. To them all the exhortations and prohibitions against Cuba make little sense. In November they voted for Obama by over 70 percent, through older Cubans remain traditionally Republican.

Thus, even from a political perspective, it makes sense for Obama to do what needs to be done to get on with it--to recognize Cuba and again exchange ambassadors. He should also make it easy for Jay-Z and the rest of us to travel to Cuba and even spend American dollars while there. We can do so with Russia, which 51 years ago threatened to wipe us from the face of the earth with the nuclear missiles they had installed in Cuba. The Russians, who did the installing, not Fidel.

If I were Obama, I'd wait until halfway through my second term so as not to enflame things even more than they are with the demagogic-right in Congress.

And while I'll advising Barack Obama what to do, I'd clean up our other mess in Cuba--the Guantanamo Base prison where we are still holding 166 so-called "detainees."

Those who should be tried should be shipped to appropriate courts in the United States; those who are not longer a threat should be sent back to wherever their homes are; and the handful who for whatever reasons can't be released or tried in public (maybe a total of a half dozen) should be kept in a high security prison like the Supermax in Florence, Colorado, which is eager to have them.

It is again a mix of fear and demagoguery that has thwarted Obama from carrying out his campaign promise to close Gitmo. But as I write this, right now in New York City, Osama bin Laden's son-in-law, Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, is being tried in public. He was Al Qaeda's official spokesman and thus deemed to have engaged in terrorist activities. No one is saying he is too dangerous to be in New York, walking distance from the site of the World Trade Center. In fact, there have been dozens of equivalent trials in New York and elsewhere in the U.S., and in every instance the defendants have been convicted.

So again, in the last years of his presidency, President Obama should clean this up. That would be some change we could believe in.