September 19, 2020--What Was She Thinking?

What was she thinking? 

I think I know. Though one is not supposed to speak ill of the departed, what was Ruth Bader Ginsberg thinking? 

That Hillary Clinton would become president and Justice Ginsberg would then resign to allow the first female president to select her successor. 

Just as historically the Supreme Court had a "Jewish seat," this would create a "women 's seat."

How's that strategy working out?

Since Mitch McConnell will ram though an appointment before January 1st to assure he'll still have 51 votes even if the Dems flip three to four Senate seats, by the new year we could have Ted Cuz plopped in a lifetime seat on the highest court in the land.

I'm not making this up. About Cruz. He is already on a very short list of possible replacements for RBG.

So Ginsberg's legacy may include that her selfishness will mean Roe v Wade will be overturned.

November 8, 2018--A Note To Some of My Liberal Friends

I have been hearing from a number of friends that they are disappointed with the results of the midterm election.

That though Democrats regained control of the House and all that that will allow, Stacey Abrams lost the governor's race in Georgia and in Florida not only did Andrew Gillum not win the governorship but also incumbent Democrat senator Bill Nelson failed to be reelected  But to many of my friends, equally disappointing, Beto O'Rourke in Texas failed to unseat Ted Cruz.

Certainly it would have been wonderful if they had come through and thus I share their disappointment. But it concerns me that as a result some friends are disappointed with the overall results.

"I'm spoiled," one friend said, "I'm greedy and want to win everything."

I get it but is the best way to think about the results? 

It would have been exhilarating if they had won, but electoral politics is not about generating exhilaration. It is about electing people who share our values, have the ability to set needed agendas, win, and then (the hard part) are skillful enough to carry them out.

When I heard about this unhappiness I attempted to push back, saying we have to keep our eyes on the prize. In this case the prize is not only diminishing Trump (this week's election has already begun to do that) but to thwart the worst of his plans and (even more important) reduce his 2020 reelection chances.

And now with Jeff Sessions fired and who knows what else Trump will do in a panic to save himself, Democrats controlling the House is even more of an imperative and very good news.

I argue to my friends that politics is the art of the possible, not the perfect, and to be effective one needs to be able to compromise, set longterm goals, be strategic-minded, persist, and accept the reality that almost everything we contribute to accomplishing not only takes too much time to achieve but, even when we do, will never be fully satisfying. It is often frustrating. It's the grinding nature of the process.

My late friend Flash put it this way. He used to say when we saw this tendency among the people with whom we were working (most were progressives), "Though understandable and based on good intentions, when seeking to bring about change it is imperative to avoid the tendency to be satisfied only with the perfect solution. Unfortunately, since we never can achieve that we run the risk of winding up frustrated and ultimately powerless. Feeling pure may make us feel good about ourselves," he would add, "but if we are seeking to make as much a positive difference as possible, being satisfied only with the ideal we run the danger of rendering ourselves ineffectual."

In some circumstances this could feel as if he was calling for compromising in advance (it can have elements of that) but I continue to think at its heart it is true.

Thus, with all the disappointments, Tuesday's election may turn out to be historic. 

Trump had us on the road to an American version of autocracy. If he (yes he) had maintained control of the House, one more essential check built into our constitutional system would have been blunted and an even more emboldened Trump would have felt empowered to chip away at an accelerated pace at the protections thankfully hardwired into our constitutional system.

That we voted successfully to resist this is the headline from Tuesday, not that Beto and the others lost. In fact, looked at it another way he and they might be thought of as actually having won. 

Frequently, in a process that takes years to culminate, blazing trails and coming close is not only essential--it is often the most difficult part--but also can include elements of exhilaration.

The implications and complexity of this are worth more thought. 

November 9, 2017--GOP In Full Panic Mode

After the Democrats' showing in Virginia, where they did much better than projected and where many saw the outcome as a negative response to the Trump presidency, Republicans, less than 24 hours after the results were known, were in full panic.

As they should be.

Most alarming to them is the huge turnout, especially among suburban women who a year ago formed an important part of the Trump constituency. Without them, the GOP may see their majority ended in the Senate and challenged in the House.

All of a sudden, everything to them seems bleak and even hopeless.

Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz must already be thinking about 2020.

Lindsay Graham and Jeb Bush too?

Can we please get Herman Cain stirring?

Most Republican members of Congress can't stand Trump and see him mainly as a political meal ticket. A ticket to ride. A signing pen if they ever manage to get anything passed by both houses of Congress. 

After Tuesday, don't expect to see too many signing ceremonies in the Rose Garden.

If these weasels conclude that Trump can't deliver the goods, they will dump him in a heartbeat. Many, gleefully. 

Someone else who until 48 hours ago seemed invincible was equally a loser. 2017's version of Karl Rove--Steve Bannon. 

Bannon who has been swaggering around for the past few months, masterminding the demise of the traditional Republican Party suddenly feels diminished. He's the one who convinced poor Ed Gillespie to pander to the Trump base during the last couple of weeks of the Virginia campaign. Under Bannon's tutelage, Gillespie made a big thing about the sanctity of Confederate statues and how we need to deport all immigrants.

How did that work out? With a week to go the race was supposed to be a dead heat. A few days later Gillespie lost by 9 points.

Expect Trump to try to cozy up again to Chuck and Nancy. Expect them to say, "No thanks."

They are expert at smelling blood in the water and they now have no interest in doing anything to help resurrect him. They're thinking Speaker of the House, Senate Majority Leader.

It's a crazy business but what a difference a day or two makes.

Governor Elect Northam

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.

May 4, 2016--Trump's "Winning" Strategy

Why, I've been thinking, did Donald Trump defame Ted Cruz's father on the morning of the day in which he was about to trounce Cruz in the Indiana primary and for all intents and proposes position himself to become the all-but-certain GOP nominee?

To cite the trash-loid National Enquirer, which more than hinted that Rafael Cruz was somehow in cahoots with Lee Harvey Oswald, made no apparent sense.

All it did was call into further question Trump's temperament and suitability to occupy the Oval Office and, as commander in chief, have his finger on the nuclear button.

Also, I thought, by making Ted Cruz crazy wouldn't this only encourage him to continue a now futile campaign? Isn't it in Trump's best interest to squeeze Cruz (and Kasich) out of the race so he can turn his full attention to Hillary Clinton?

One would think so. That is, if Trump is to be believed, he has wanted to have a clear field so he could concentrate all of his fire power on the ultimate Democratic Party candidate.

But the more I thought about why Trump, on the cusp of victory, would intentionally enflame Ted Cruz, assuring he would stay in the race, was in fact what he wanted--he wanted Cruz and Kasich to stay in the race until the last primaries on June 7th.

This way, every week between now and then, he will win at least one primary. He is, he says daily, all about "winning"--

On May 10th he will win in West Virginia; a week later, he will be victorious in Oregon; then on May 24th, Trump will carry Washington State; and finally on June 7th there will be five primaries and Trump will win as many as three of them--Montana, New Mexico, and the big enchilada, California.

But this smart political plan--to keep Trump in the headlines as a weekly winner--is being undermined as I write this by Cruz who at this very moment is suspending his campaign.

I suppose Trump will now have to come up with new shtick, some new dirt to throw around. About one thing we can be certain, he will manage to do so.

Wait. I almost forgot--John Kasich. Maybe he'll hang around. Perhaps the Stop Trump movement will coalesce around him. This political season, anything is possible. The more improbable the more likely.

May 3, 2016--Presumptive Nominee

Yesterday, the day before Donald Trump will defeat Ted Cruz (and poor John Kasich) in Indiana and thereby become the presumptive nominee, I rummaged around among my dozens of postings about the GOP race and, in particular, Donald Trump.

The first of these posting was on July 16, 2015, exactly a month after he and Melania descended the escalator in Trump Tower to announce to the waiting press that he was officially running.

Rather than the event being reported as a political story, it was treated as entertainment news.

In fact, for some months thereafter the Huffington Post officially classified it as such.

They and hardly anyone else are laughing any more. Not only does Trump have the nomination virtually locked up (he likely won't even need any California delegates), but some polls are beginning to show him defeating Hillary Clinton in November.

So, I thought to reprint my July 16, 2015 posting. Taking a bit of a self-congratulatory lap. Not because I support his candidacy (I will either vote for Hillary in November or not at all) but because while almost everyone else thought he was doing this for free publicity--to enhance his brand--I sensed that something bigger, much more profound was at work--

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 do so) 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 borders.

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

April 26, 2016--The Colluders

Almost as quickly as it was hammered out, the agreement between Ted Cruz and John Kasich to coordinate their opposition to Donald Trump--that the absentee governor of Ohio would not contest in Indiana and the absentee senator from Texas would leave New Mexico and Oregon to Kasich--that quickly, as reported in the New York Times Monday afternoon, the agreement began to "fray."

Largely because the signals being received from the political class was that it was a non-starter. Not that there was anything wrong with the odd couple carving up the territory this way, but because it wasn't working. And in the politics of self-interest all that counts is that something's working.

My take--

The agreement began to unravel as soon as it was announced when Trump tweeted his response.

The Donald said in a tweet, and subsequently, that they were "colluding" and that in every other aspect of life but politics, in business and banking collusion is a crime.

He called it like it is--"pathetic."

That took the air out of the balloon.

Kasich supporters (and there are some) said their votes were not to be traded away even by the person they were supporting and Cruz's supporters in Indiana (and for some reason they exist) said they actually wanted to vote for him.

So, so much for their pathetic deal.

Bottom line--

Trump's uncanny ability (bordering on political genius) to establish and control the narrative even when he is in trouble. Perhaps primarily when he is trouble.

Prediction--

This botched "alliance" guarantees that Trump will carry Indiana a week from today and with that begin to lock up the nomination.

My fear--

Donald continuing to be Donald has a really good chance of beating Hillary, assuming the FBI doesn't get her first.

April 4, 2016--Trump Is Post-Peak

A friend wondered if Donald Trump has peaked. 

What with his various stumbles last week--

His campaign manager being charged with assault and battery;

His reckless comments about encouraging Japan, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia to take up their own defense, including developing nuclear weapons;

And his being lured into acknowledging that if abortion becomes illegal, becomes a felony such as manslaughter or even infanticide, which he now supports, of course doctors who perform them would have the be "punished" (Trump's word) but so would women who take the first step in initiating this "crime" when they schedule an appointment and then undergo the procedure.

This latter thought--that women would also need to be "punished"--unleashed such a storm of criticism about Trump's misogyny and outrageous views that he felt the need to "walk it back" as well as change his position at least four times since Friday after stepping in it during a brilliant, badgering interview conducted by Chris Matthews where this "punishment" kerfuffle began.

One would have assumed that this outrage directed at Trump would have come exclusively from those on the political left who believe fervently in a woman's right to choose.

And though the chorus of criticism came mainly from that source, a great deal of it was from those on the right--anti-abortion conservatives, including Ted Cruz, who gleefully joined in the vilification of Trump.

Cruz, in his usual weasely way, said: "Of course we shouldn't be talking about punishing women. We should affirm their dignity and the incredible gift they have to bring life into the world."

Cruz and his ilk were delighted to see Trump blunder into further trouble with female voters though, like Trump, they too want to criminalize abortion but claim that only the doctors should be punished. Calling for the prosecution of women seems to them too Scarlet-Lettery. Or, closer to the truth, too politically risky.

In an email back to my fellow progressive friend, here's what I said about Trump's peaking--

Trump is post-peak. 

Among other things the Trump phenomenon is a classic media tale--build him up then delight in tearing him down. The usual mix of entertainment, distraction, ratings, money, and blood sport. Bread and circuses. Everything about this is just so hypocritical and cynical.  

My favorite thing at the moment is how Trump stumbled into revealing the ugly truth about abortion. A truth GOPers don't in general want to hear or acknowledge-- 

Trump really favors abortion but to pander to the base and have a chance to win the nomination he flip-flopped and became pro-life.  

But what are the implications--to ban it, to make it illegal, not only must the doctors be "punished" (T's word--interesting choice) but also the women. Anti-abortion people have focused on punishing the doctors (including winking at murdering them) but see women opting for abortions to be victims.  

This is more sexist regression--women again perceived to be victims. But, of course, it is women who choose and thus to be consistent in a lunatic, anti-abortion environment, they too must be punished. 

Which is what Trump said.  

And as a result got massacred by the Republican establishment who are afraid to state the full implications of their heinous policy (to ban all abortions with no exceptions) because that would drive even more women than at present away from supporting GOP candidates.  

They've been hiding from this truth for years but Trump ripped off the scab. Or, if you prefer, revealed what's under the rock. 

He may be crazy but in his unpredictability and version of "truth"-telling he's dangerous to Republicans. That's the real reason they hate and want to get rid of him. Not that he's a loser and would bring the party and its current candidates down. 

But because of what Jack Nicholson said, "They can't handle the truth." 

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 25, 2016--Jose the Fanatic

Of the many startling things about Donald TRUMP's decisive victory in Wednesday's Nevada caucuses, beyond the fact that there was an historic turnout and he garnered more votes that Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio combined, was the fact that he also won easily among Latinos.

So much of both parties' campaigns is challenging conventional wisdom--that to win one needs a powerful, big-data-directed ground game (TRUMP has won three of four primaries and caucuses with hardly any ground game at all); that it's all about who can raise the most money (Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz did and look what happened to them--TRUMP raised hardly any, spent even less, and look who's leading); that Americans won't vote for a socialist (Bernie Sanders take note); and Latino voters overwhelmingly vote for Latino candidates (ask Rubio and Cruz about that) the same way blacks tend to vote for blacks, Jews for Jews, and so on.

In Nevada, TRUMP ran away with 45 percent of the Hispanic vote. Note, in 2000, George W. Bush was elected largely as the result of appealing successfully to Latino voters--he got an historic 40 percent nationally.

So TRUMP, who pretty much everyone having access to a microphone said would be lucky to get 10 percent of the Hispanic-American vote considering how he castigated illegal immigrants (mainly, to him, Mexicans) defaming them by labeling them "murderers" and "rapists" and promising that he would deport 12 million, that Donald TRUMP thus far, especially with the Latino-rich voters of Nevada, has run the table. How it might translate to the general election is for the moment another matter.

But his "appeal" to Hispanic voters is worth some thought. Why would any vote for him?

For insight I am reminded of one of my favorite Philip Roth stories--"Eli the Fanatic."

It is also one of his most overlooked, perhaps because of the direct way in which it deals with and excoriates secularized, seemingly-assimilated Jews.

Set in suburban America, it concerns a non-observant Jew, lawyer Eli Peck, who is hired by his Jewish neighbors to convince a recently-arirved group of orthodox Jews to close the yeshiva they established in their midst. The other Jews in town are embarrassed by the visible presence of these Hasids, fearing they will call attention to them and thereby interfere with their desire to blend in among the largely gentile residents of Woodenton.

To make a short story short, Eli fails in his attempts to get the ultra-orthodox to back off, including abandoning their traditional ways of dressing, and, after an epiphany of his own, gives up his normal wardrobe and appears before his stunned and outraged Jewish neighbors in Hasid garb, thereby exposing the ethnic roots of all of them.

Could it be that TRUMP's appeal to a large and growing percentage of Latino voters is because increasing numbers counter-intuitively support his views about illegal immigrants--that many favor building the wall and deporting those here without proper documents?

As in Roth's Woodenton, those Hispanics in the United States for decades and for others in the Southwest for many centuries, from even before Europeans landed at Plymouth Rock, for Latino citizens, for Hispanics who are comfortably "Americanized," having so many other Hispanics here illegally threatens their sense of relatively unobtrusive assimilation.

For Roth's secularized, well-educated, and affluent Jews, having Hasids in their midst, they feared, exposed them to their Christian neighbors who would not distinguish between them and the ultra-orthodox. Seeing them both in the same light and thus out of step with American culture, still rooted in Eastern European beliefs and superstitions, and wanting to live and cling together in self-imposed ghettos.

Perhaps the United States' most successful and assimilated Latinos, who are not self-hating, have some of the same kinds of feelings and support TRUMP as one way of declaring loyalty to the great American immigrant narrative, not wanting their place in society to be confused and conflated with those who came here illegally and live insufficiently in the shadows.

Philip Roth

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 27, 2016--John Adams' New York Values

Ted Cruz is not the first presidential aspirant to smirk about New York values.

From this entry in John Adams' Diary on August 23, 1774, quoted in John Sedgwick's rather good dual biography, War of Two: Alexander Hamiliton, Aaron Burr, and the Duel That Stunned the Nation, it is clear that Adams was no fan of the early New York City.

And though this is from Adams at his fussiest (he could be very fussy), some of it rings true. Undoubtedly for then, but also for now. But to me, more of this is positive than disdainful.

The up-tight Adams was appalled by New Yorkers and their manners. He wrote--

With all the opulence and splendor of this city, there is very little good breeding to be found. We have been treated with an assiduous respect but I have not seen one real gentleman, one well-bred man, since I came to town. At their entertainments there is no conversation that is agreeable; there is no modesty, no attention to one another. They talk very loud, very fast and all together. If they ask you a question, before you can utter three words of your answer they will break out upon you again and talk away.

Sound like dinner with the Zwerlings.

John Adam's Diary

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?

January 22, 2016--Blizzard Warning

The weather bureau has issued a blizzard warning for winter storm Jonas. It is predicted that by the time it ends on Saturday there will be a record accumulation of ice and snow in our nation's capital.

On the other hand, the storm might have been more aptly named Donald, for Donald you-know-who.

I say this because the most recent tracking polls, especially CNN's from last night, have him with a large, expanding lead in Iowa.

TRUMP 37%
Cruz 26%

Rubio 14%
Carson 6%

Even leftwing pundits are saying if TRUMP wins in Iowa, and then more certainly a week later in New Hampshire where he retains a 20 point lead, the nomination battle will in effect be over.

Or perhaps the storm should be named Bernie because the same poll shows him with big leads over Hillary in Iowa (51% to 43%) and New Hampshire (60% to 33%).

Talk about climate change.

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.

January 15, 2016--TRUMP's "New York Values"

Ted Cruz doesn't handle criticism very well.

Donald TRUMP's public ruminating about Cruz's eligibility for the presidency--he was born in Canada to an American mother and held joint citizenship until a few months ago--is clearly getting under the very junior senator's skin.

Interviewed the other day on the Howie Carr Radio Show, he snapped that TRUMP should stop playing "Born in the USA" at his rallies, a clear swipe at Cruz, and suggested he should "shift in his new rallies to playing 'New York, New York' because Donald comes from New York and he embodies New York values."

TRUMP responded immediately, counter-intuitively embracing rather than denying those values. When has it ever been good for a Republican to say anything good about the Big Satan, a favorite conservative slur about the Big Apple?

Passionately, with his New York accent dialed up, TRUMP said that he does in fact embrace those values and feels proud to do so. Also to Carr, in his words, he said--

One thing it means is energy. You know, when the World Trade Center got hit, we rebuilt that World Trade Center and we got through and very few places in this world could have gotten through what we went through. I mean, I was so proud of New York, the World Trade Center, these two massive, 110 story buildings came down. Thousands of people killed. I've never seen anything like it in my life.

He added--"Anyone who attacks New York City will have to go through me."

If TRUMP and others, including some constitutional scholars such as Lawrence Tribe, are discombobulating Cruz by questioning if he is a "natural born citizen," how will he explain away yesterday's reports in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal that he failed to report more than a million dollars in very-low-interest loans to his 2012 senatorial campaign, loans from Citibank and Goldman Sachs where his wife, Heidi, at the latter is a managing director after serving on the National Security Council under Condi Rice?

Failure to report loans of this kind, not incidentally, are not just careless mistakes, as Cruz claims, but violate federal law.

And it will not be so easy for the Princeton and Harvard-educated Supreme Court clerk Ted Cruz to point fingers at the establishment of which he and his wife have been such comfortable members.

It will also not be easy to counter his former Harvard Law School professor, Laurence Tribe, who in an op ed piece in The Boston Globe, "Under Ted Cruz's Own Logic, He's Ineligible for the White House," wrote that maybe, in spite of Cruz's assertion that his eligibility is "settled law," that it may not be after all.

Nor will it be easy for Cruz to explain why he jettisoned his Latino name, Raphael, for the more waspy Ted.

Above all, will it be hypocrisy for Cruz to continue to slip into New York City as frequently as in the past unless he learns the words to "New York, New York"?

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.