November 10, 2015--Angry Black Man

I have been struggling to understand Ben Carson's appeal to Republicans.

He is so boring, so unable to express himself, so passive and weak feeling, so unlike the kind of militant commanders-in-chief conservatives traditionally admire.

And so what is it that for the moment has him as the leader of the GOP pack?

Is it because of his calm exterior, his obvious God-given blessings, or the feeling that as a physician he will heal a deeply wounded America?

Or is his popularity a matter of a physician who has healed himself?

I suspect largely the latter.

I have been particularly perplexed by his defense of his claim that he had a violent past. As he put it in his autobiography, it was the result of a "pathological disease" A pathology he was able to cure, not so much because of his medical skills but because he turned to God. To Jesus.

This is a not an unfamiliar political redemption story that appeals to religious conservatives. Like George W. Bush who when he first ran for president subtly let it be known that he had a drinking problem as a young man but was able to overcome it when he was "born again." Or, to be bipartisan, Jimmy Carter's story about lust.

Redemption is essential to Carson's representation of his own personal narrative. He is after all not running a campaign rich in policy pronouncements and promises. His appeal is his life story itself and outsider status.

But his insistence that he was uncontrollably violent when a young man is unique in political history. Drinking is one thing, lust another, but violence?

If anything, if this were true, one would expect he would minimize, not inflate that aspect of his character. Admitting to having had a violence problem when, as president, he would have access to the nuclear codes with the red button always close at hand one would think would be more a political liability than an asset.

But then in his case there is also the powerful matter of race.

As a black man raised on the mean streets of Detroit, it would be understandable, sociologically and psychologically, that he would be a violent and angry man.  The very kind of African-American that looms in the fearful imaginations of many white people. Especially those conservatives who are dog whistle racists and thus for whom people of color haunt their feverous dreams.

For them, if a black man such as Carson can be "cured" of his blackness, if he can be so neutered and emerge so seemingly self-controlled there is less to be feared about the world and its threats.

For his cure to be fully believable and comforting it is essential that voters believe he began as that archetypical angry black man he repeatedly represents himself to have been. If he could heal himself of that perhaps he can be trusted to "treat" all the others with similar "pathologies" who make so many people feel threatened.

I is thus essential to this hopeful personal narrative that Carson was as violent as he has repeatedly represented himself to have been. That he stabbed his friends and once threatened to strike his mother in the head with a hammer must be believable if his campaign is to have this unique appeal and traction.

If he somehow grew up a sweet little boy who then managed to get to Yale and medical school--an urban Horatio Alger story--the meaning of his life story would be merely a remarkable exception, not literally miraculous.

And here is the political point and the key to his appeal--unless his representations are true, he could not represent himself as able to bring about similar cures for others equally afflicted. 

He represents the promise that blackness itself can be overcome. That it is curable. He is living proof of that.

Just as other Republican conservatives hold views about other pathological Americans who can be cured by prayer--homosexuals who, if they want to chose another "life style," can pray away the gay, Carson tells us that Blackness too can be prayed away.

From Ben Carson's House 

September 18, 2015--TRUMP Is Cooked

The Donald's long free ride is almost over.

Reflecting on Wednesday's debate, most observers agree that Carly Fiorina "raised her profile," largely by the forceful and classy way she took on TRUMP. Especially calling him out about the way he speaks about women, very much including Fiorina where most of his smears have been about her appearance and, more significantly, her failed time as CEO of Hewlett-Packard.

When she took him on, from attendees she received the only sustained applause of the night.

His repost, with a shrug, a pathetic, "She's really got a beautiful face."

To have any chance at all of recapturing the presidency, the Republican candidate will have to connect with women. Fiorina, as TRUMP also an "outsider," may turn out to be that ideal candidate.

I suspect TRUMP's numbers will remain high but stalled while Fiorina's will rise considerable, propelling her into third place, with Ben Carson, who did not do himself all that much good on Wednesday, remaining for the moment in second place.

The danger for The Donald is that unless, shark like, he keeps moving forward, he will reveal how vulnerable his support is. It depends entirely on promoting the image that he is all about winning--for himself and for the American people. He promises to make everyone rich. Not just with a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage. But rich.

If he begins to look like a loser, or not that special, the air will begin to come out of his balloon. You can't these days (thankfully) run down women the way he has without it eventually catching up with you.

That began to happen at the Reagan Library debate Wednesday evening.

Regarding Carly Fiorina--in spite of what she contends, she was a failed CEO at HP. All the growth she proudly points to as evidence that she was successful, claiming at the same time that she was pushed out because of internal board politics, though some of the latter is true, all the revenue growth she spotlights was because of the purchase of Compaq computers, her biggest strategic move, which quickly turned out to be a fiscal disaster for the company and a personal one for her.

She deserved to be fired and that will haunt her and make her as vulnerable as TRUMP as she rises in the polls and undergoes the resulting scrutiny.

Which in turn will bring us back to Jeb Bush. Languishing in the polls and thus far unable to speak coherently for more than two minutes, the other night, after two hours of hesitation and inarticulateness, perhaps after TRUMP was defanged by Fiorina, Jeb began to find his way. He emerged for the first time as the political pro he is supposed to be. If he can manage to keep that up he could be this cycle's comeback kid.

The problem--by the time he finally woke up viewers were already asleep or had tuned back to ESPN. No one any more was watching the debate and I suspect as a result it will take some time before GOP voters gives Jeb a second or third look.

Bottom line--they will and it will come down to Bush (who wants to put British Margaret Thatcher on our $10 bill), TRUMP (who would choose Rosa Parks), Carson (who would select his mother) and Fiorina, who had the best answer--make no changes, "Women are not a special interest group."

The rest can begin to pack up.

May 19, 2015--Shark Tank Losers

Thus far there are seven officially declared candidates for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, including Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, and Ted Cruz. Another three or four have expressed interest--former Texas governor Rick Perry, former New York governor George Pataki, former senator Rick Santorum. Five or six more are formally exploring the nomination--Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Chris Christie. Among the latter two groups all will soon become declared candidates.

Another three have expressed interest, including Congressman Peter King of Long Island and Maryland governor Bob Ehrlich. Hovering is a group of 30 or more who at one time or another ran or thought about running and may surprise by jumping into the race. Among them are my favorites Michele Bachmann, Ted Nugent, Sarah Palin, and Herman Cain.

Realistically of these 50 or so candidates and potentials only four or five have a real chance of winning the nomination--Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and perhaps Rand Paul. They are the only ones with big bucks behind them.

Perhaps another two or three could emerge from the pack because they appeal to the Republican base which ultimately can nominate even someone unelectable in the general election--a Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz, or Rick Santorum.

Why then are former congressman Allen West, neurosurgeon Ben Carson, Indiana governor Mike Pence, and Ohio governor John Kasich either running like Carly Fiorina or posturing and thus signaling that they might like Bobby Jindal?

I call them the Shark Tank candidates--they are in the race knowing they will lose, but in losing wind up winning.

You know Shark Tank? One of my favorite TV programs, it is a reality show where small business owners present their products or services to a panel of very wealthy investors that includes Mark Cuban, among other things the owner of the Dallas Mavericks basketball team; Barbara Corcoran, real estate mogul; and software billionaire Kevin (Mr. Wonderful) O'Leary. Usually for a few hundred thousand dollars that the aspiring entrepreneurs seek to grow their businesses, they give up 10 to 50 percent ownership in their companies. The sharks who make the deal--investing their own money--then serve as mentors for their new partners.

In almost every instance the deals work out to be very profitable with sales typically doubling, tripling, or quadrupling over a year or two.

AirBedz was a winner. The owner received $250,000 for a share of ownership in a small company that makes air beds that inflate quickly because of their internal pumps. Kisstixx, a sexy lip balm was offered $200,000 and saw its sales skyrocket. AVA the Elephant, a plastic elephant that helps kids take their meds, secured a $50,000 investment and in turn saw its sales soar.

But the losers also tend to do very well. Scan, a mobile smartphone app that enables users to read bar codes, did not receive backing but as the result of being showcased on Shark Tank began to gross millions. As did Chef Big Shake, a seafood operation that calls itself the "home of the original shrimp burger."

Studies show that it is more the very fact of appearing on ABC TV and than being repeatedly rerun on CNBC than the money that supplies the lifting power. It is calculated that appearing on Shark Tank is worth $4-5 million in free advertising.

So, in this context, how much will it be worth, personally worth to, losers all, Newt Gingrich (yes, him) or Ben Carson or Rick Santorum to appear in televised presidential debates? Millions, some calculate in speaking fees, book contracts, and the biggest prize of all (chime in Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee), a show of their own on Fox News.

March 31, 2014--The Republican Clown Car

As the 2016 presidential election season begins to boil, with Republican pretenders genuflecting before $40-billionaire Sheldon Adelson this past weekend in Las Vegas, how is this cycle's version of the GOP candidate Clown Car shaping up?

Literally and figuratively, thus far the biggest clown of all is Chris (Sergeant Schultz) Christie. As the most moderate hopeful (for example, he is less ferociously opposed to same-sex marriage than the competition), he showed up in Las Vegas to kiss Adelson's ring. But as a moderate he is the least favorite among the Tea Party wing of the party.

The other moderate, Jeb Bush, slightly more acceptable, met with Adelson but out of sight of the media, slipping into one of Sheldon's casinos through a back door. There is, after all, a limit to how much public groveling a son of Barbara Bush is willing to do.

But, sadly for late night comedians, and me, there do not as yet appear to be any Donald (you're fired) Trumps, Herman (Pokemon) Cains or Michele (my husband's a great dancer) Bachmanns on the horizon to liven things up. Maybe Newt (and Callista) will give it one more try. He at least can be amusing. And Rand (named for Ayn) Paul, who appears routinely to wear clown makeup and has funny hair will at least liven things up when he will inevitably be asked why he as a physician and a self-declared Libertarian opposes abortions even in the case of rape or incest.

But if it's going to be Jeb versus Scott Walker and Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio, I'll be sticking with Dancing With the Stars and The Colbert Report for my entertainment.

There is, though, hope that Ted Cruz will get in the race. He does a mean imitation of Winston Churchill ("We will never surrender") and is a dead ringer for Joe McCarthy. So he should be good for a few gaffs and laughs. And, I almost forgot, there's Rick (high executioner) Perry. He can be a hoot, especially if he's high on pain medication.

But if you're wondering why so many run for the presidency even though they know in their hearts they have no chance, think money.

There's a fortune to be made out there by speaking for cash at all sorts of untra-conservative political, religious, and corporate events. Being on the record opposing everything about Obama is all that's needed. And celebrity. That's where to Clown Car comes in. It makes you a household name and as your Q Scores go up, so does your speaker's fee.

Remember during the last campaign how Mitt Romney's fees for talks of this kind in 2012 yielded a neat $375K, which he famously shrugged off as "not very much"?

Before running, Rick Santorum made literally nothing. He struggled to put food on the table for his wife and dozens of children. But then after being in the lead for the nomination for a week or two he saw his average fee soar to $100,000 an appearance. This is not a typo.

How much do you think Herman Cain made before also being ahead of the pack for a week? As we would say in my old neighborhood, that would be bupkiss. He now gets $25K for 40 minutes of standup and singing.

And as soon as Michele Bachmann's congressional term is over in December, she is expected to be paid at least $25,000 a pop.

Even old Ron Paul whose shirts and suits look like they were bought off the rack at Kmart is paid a whopping $50K per appearance. No need to practice medicine anymore or live in Galveston.

Sarah Plain, who has made tens of millions since running with John McCain in 2008, pockets more than $100,000 to show up and entertain. I don't know what Tina Fey commands.

Then there are the right-wing media celebrities who live off this circus. If you think that Dick (Romney-in-a-landslide) Morris is working at the checkout counter in Publix, think again. He "earns" $15-$20,000 a rant by spreading paranoia that Barack Obama is about to launch black helicopters to round us up and take away our guns and other "freedoms."

Endnote--In fairness, I should mention that Hillary gets an obscene $200,000 to talk about everything except Benghazi.

And, on a recent Bill O'Reilly Show, Herman Cain hinted he is giving serious consideration to running again in 2016. Please God.

February 10, 2014--Hillary? Mitt? Bill? (Not that Bill)

We know Hillary's running.

There's a book just published, HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton, that provides behind-the-scenes glimpses of her tenure as Secretary of State, a book that could almost be considered a neo-version of the classic "campaign biography." And then there is Hillary's forthcoming book, also largely about her days in the Obama administration.

This will have the HRC authors, Jonathan Allen and Amie Rarnes, making the rounds of the talk shows--coming to Morning Joe I am sure this week--and Hillary herself at the end of the year, taking time off from $200,000-a-pop appearances, also appearing everywhere. All just in time to launch the unofficial stage of her campaign for the presidency. The official announcement will occur during the spring/summer of 2015.

So that's settled. Hillary is a go and, maybe, as reported over the weekend, so is Joe Biden. But he trails Clinton by about 65 points in the latest polls--65 points!--and so, unless there is a looming Clinton scandal (which with them can never be fully ruled out), this plan of Biden's sounds masochistic.

Then, what about the other side? What's happening with the Republicans?

Most dramatic and politically meaningful is the decline and soon-to-be-seen fall of Chris Christie. He was universally acknowledged to be Hillary's most potent opponent because of his ability to attract independent and undecided voters.

But with Christie ostensibly out of the race (no senior Republicans wants to be seen in the same room with him), who has a chance to secure the nomination and can plausibly beat Hillary in 2016?

Rand Paul has a chance to be nominated by the Tea Party and Libertarian GOP base, but in a general election against Hillary would fare as badly as Goldwater did against LBJ in 1964. Mike Huckabee also looks like a base-pandering contender but also would have general election problems--women, for example, will not forget his recent dumb comments about their "out-of-control libidos."

Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio still look like boy scouts. The half-dozen Republican governors talked about as possible candidates are all excruciatingly borrrring. Think Scott Walker and  Bobby Jindal. Jeb Bush has the Bush problem--he's the brother of George (and that's a problem) and Mama Bush has been saying enough already with the Bushes. (And, to be fair and balanced, enough already with the Clintons--more about that in a moment.) Newt, Michele, Rick and Rick, and--my personal favorite from last time around, Herman Cain--have all been there and done that.

In the face of this undistinguished field, the Harold Stassen of the 21st century (young folks google him to find out who he was), Mitt Romney, it is reported, is again beginning to crank things up.

He apparently will be talking very soon with wife Ann to see if she's OK with another campaign. Mitt's 10 or 12 or 15 sons are apparently all on board. The Romneys are finished renovating their California house, with its twin car elevators, and all Mrs. R's dressage horses and Cadillacs are in good shape, so, what the heck, the money's there, life is short, why not.

So with the prospect of Hillary versus Romney I'm having a back-to-the-past moment.

I think Barbara Bush is right--enough with the Bushes, Clintons, and, I'll add, Romneys. We need some outside-the-box candidates to help us think in new ways about how to solve our problems, grow our economy, and restore our place in the world.

Thus, I'm thinking about Bill. Not that Bill. He's inside the box and thankfully the Constitution will not allow him to run again. Not to mention Hillary who would have a few objections. In there cosmology, it's her turn. And then Chelsea's and then . . .

Get Barbara's and my point?

The Bill I'm thinking about is Bill Gates.

Beginning in a college dorm room (OK, it was at Harvard) he built one of the largest and most successful companies ever. Talk about being a job-creator. With all of Microsoft's limitations, its products changed the world for all time. And now as the operational head of the world's largest foundation, he has been intimately involved in education reform, health care, resource conservation, renewable energy, and many other things we as a country, as a society need to pay attention to.

I'm also interested in a president who has real experience running things, not just a Senate staff of five, and is not timid about holding people accountable. Ask Microsoft senior staff about Gate's leadership and fierce efforts to hold them accountable for their work. If people were to screw up in a Gate's administration they wouldn't be retained for months after messing up and then allowed to resign so they can claim to want to spend more time with their families. Enough of that.

We need more than change we can believe in.