A Totally Biased Evaluation of the GOP Field

The following is an attempt at summarizing where the GOP candidates fit into being more qualified/less qualified for the job of President of the United States. They are in order of qualification:

1. John Kasich

By far the most qualified and in an ironic twist, probably not going to get the nomination. Reminds me of Jon Huntsman, the most qualified Republican and able to beat Barack Obama the last time around but totally dismissed by the Republican base which wanted someone more sanguine at the time and ended up with the squishy Romney. Kasich has it all - years of experience in serious leadership positions in the Congress, expertise on military affairs and foreign policy, about as good as it gets. And governing experience as the current governor of Ohio, a critical swing state. One of the very few who could hold his own in a debate with Hillary and also with the best chance of defeating her. But the GOP base is off chasing mirages so he probably won't be considered.

2. Jeb Bush

In spite of all the negatives, starting with his last name, Jeb is a formidable candidate for the job. He has the bad luck of having the wrong last name, but also, the GOP doesn't seem to be interested in someone who actually has the requisite talent to govern. He is admittedly a bit rusty, but just like riding a bicycle, he would get in the swing of it pretty quick. He also has access to a formidable team that served his father well.

3. Marco Rubio

Marco is the GOP's version of Barack Obama. Very promising but inexperienced. He has the chops to do the job and may indeed go all the way. Of course, this time, Hillary is better prepared so she will have him for lunch, but this is very good experience for Marco the next time around, Marco is indeed a rising star in the GOP. If he keeps out of trouble he will go far.

4. Rand Paul

The most knowledgeable statement of the night was when Paul correctly stated that a "no-fly" zone in Syria, favored by so  many of the candidates trying to sound hawkish, would result in our threatening to shoot down Russian war planes. The people moderating the debate obviously had no knowledge of the world beyond a spreadsheet so they didn't even notice that most of them, in their zeal to sound tough, were proposing WWIII. (The knowledge base of the questioners is so important to these debates.) Paul has a lot of negatives, but he is basically a pretty knowledgeable guy and would make a decent candidate. I doubt the GOP base sees that.

5. Carly Fiorina

The only non-politico who has a smattering of a chance of beating Hillary. At the very least, Hillary could not use her uniqueness as a woman against her. But Fiorina has too many negatives. Her stint at Hewlett Packard will come around and bite her if she gets the nod. Of the three non-politicos she has a better understanding about how politics actually works, though.

6. Ted Cruz

Cruz is the embodiment of a too-slick lawyer. He is articulate, knows how to present, but what he has to say are vacuous clichés. It is no surprise that he is disliked by his Republican colleagues in the Senate. He is the reincarnation of Senator Joseph McCarthy. I am waiting for the day where an intrepid journalist will tell him to his face, "Have you no shame, sir?" Cruz has 0% chance of defeating any Democrat for the Presidency so we can all calm down now.

7. Donald Trump

I can't for the life of me figure out why this asterisk of a man is polling so well. Could it be that he bribed all the pollsters? I'm afraid not, as I have seen the manifestations of his fans, Fans because where other candidates have supporters Trump has fans - lots of them. Trump is the poster child for New York loudmouths. The kind of person  the whole country hates, but somehow, in fly-over country, they love him, or at least significant numbers do. Trump is so petty that he engages in public feuds with people like Rosie O'Donnell. Trump is a monument to our reality TV, celebrity-obsessed age. That he has lasted this long when the man is as ignorant as a broken tuba is mind-boggling.

8. Ben Carson

I recently read an article written by a neurosurgeon explaining why it is possible for a prominent neurosurgeon to be stupid and ignorant. The doctor explained that brain surgery is best done by people who have very skilled dexterity technique and have lots of experience cutting into the brain. He equates it with similar skills such as welding, delicate wiring and other skilled manual labor tasks. No need to be smart or even that knowledgeable about science or biology. Think of a skilled race car mechanic. He can do wonders around a high powered race engine, but you wouldn't want him to be the leader of the free world. It was indeed shocking to me how ignorant Carson is of simple biology, not to mention his ignorance of government, foreign affairs, military strategy, and all the knowledge that goes into being commander-in-chief. Carson is clearly out of his depth and described himself best when he said that people who know him think he is an honest person. Very low bar, indeed.

Ted Cruz Scores for his Side

During last night's GOP debate the highlight was unquestionably Ted Cruz's take down of the moderators. In fact, the moderators were indeed needling the candidates, but that's what they all do. Fox (hardly a liberal bastion) needled Trump to the point that he felt the need to insult Megyn Kelly who is not known for her flaming progressive views. Anderson Cooper of CNN started the democratic debate with a frontal attack on Hillary Clinton accusing her of being flip flopper, disingenuous, and practically a liar.

So Ted Cruz blasting of the CNBC's questioners (also hardly flaming liberals) may sound great for the GOP base and score points with the primary crowd, to the rest of us it sounds like circumventing a question he didn't want to answer, and unnecessary whining. The big difference between Cruz and Clinton is that he tried to wiggle out of answering by questioning the questioners. and Hillary took the question on the chin and answered it completely and forcefully. That is what the non-partisan public is looking for in a President. Someone who is willing and able to tackle the issues head on.

The following is a transcript of the beginning of the debate where Anderson Cooper sailed into Hillary Clinton:

COOPER: Are you all ready?

(APPLAUSE)

All right. Let's begin. We're going to be discussing a lot of the issues, many of the issues, important issues that you have brought up. But I want to begin with concerns that voters have about each of the candidates here on this stage that they have about each of you.

Secretary Clinton, I want to start with you. Plenty of politicians evolve on issues, but even some Democrats believe you change your positions based on political expediency.

You were against same-sex marriage. Now you're for it. You defended President Obama's immigration policies. Now you say they're too harsh. You supported his trade deal dozen of times. You even called it the "gold standard". Now, suddenly, last week, you're against it.

Will you say anything to get elected?

CLINTON: Well, actually, I have been very consistent. Over the course of my entire life, I have always fought for the same values and principles, but, like most human beings -- including those of us who run for office -- I do absorb new information. I do look at what's happening in the world.

Hillary at the Debate

You know, take the trade deal. I did say, when I was secretary of state, three years ago, that I hoped it would be the gold standard. It was just finally negotiated last week, and in looking at it, it didn't meet my standards. My standards for more new, good jobs for Americans, for raising wages for Americans.

And I want to make sure that I can look into the eyes of any middle-class American and say, "this will help raise your wages." And I concluded I could not.

COOPER: Secretary Clinton, though, with all due respect, the question is really about political expediency. Just in July, New Hampshire, you told the crowd you'd, quote, "take a back seat to no one when it comes to progressive values."

Last month in Ohio, you said you plead guilty to, quote, "being kind of moderate and center." Do you change your political identity based on who you're talking to?

CLINTON: No. I think that, like most people that I know, I have a range of views, but they are rooted in my values and my experience. And I don't take a back seat to anyone when it comes to progressive experience and progressive commitment.

You know, when I left law school, my first job was with the Children's Defense Fund, and for all the years since, I have been focused on how we're going to un-stack the deck, and how we're gonna make it possible for more people to have the experience I had.

You know, to be able to come from a grandfather who was a factory worker, a father who was a small business person, and now asking the people of America to elect me president.

COOPER: Just for the record, are you a progressive, or are you a moderate?

CLINTON: I'm a progressive. But I'm a progressive who likes to get things done. And I know...

(APPLAUSE)

...how to find common ground, and I know how to stand my ground, and I have proved that in every position that I've had, even dealing with Republicans who never had a good word to say about me, honestly. But we found ways to work together on everything from...

COOPER: Secretary...

CLINTON: ...reforming foster care and adoption to the Children's Health Insurance Program, which insures...

COOPER: ...thank you...

CLINTON: ...8 million kids. So I have a long history of getting things done, rooted in the same values...

COOPER: ...Senator...

CLINTON: ...I've always had.

This belies the assertion that the Main Stream Media is easy on Hillary. The question asked Cruz was about raising the debt ceiling which he did not want to answer so he whined about Republicans being picked on by the MSM. Not going to go over real well with the voting public, but the partisan crowd ate it up.

The Limbaugh Mythology

Rush Limbaugh is the undisputed hero of the willfully ignorant. By willfully ignorant I don't mean moronic. There are many willfully ignorant who are very smart. The willfully ignorant are those who ignore facts they do not like. These form the basis of Limbaugh's appeal because he consistently gives his fans facts (or fiction) they like and agree with.

There is a kind of mythology surrounding Limbaugh in that somehow he is the de facto leader of the GOP, that his opinion counts and more importantly, he is in a position to make or break Presidential candidates. There are multiple examples of his ineptness but suffice it to mention a few. He was powerless to prevent John McCain to be the GOP candidate for President, powerless to prevent Mitt Romney to be the same, and of course, powerless to prevent Barack Obama from winning the presidency. Twice.

Besides, Limbaugh is not about being effective or consequential. He is all about money. His shtick makes him millions because there are millions of willfully ignorant in radio-land and he gives them their daily fix of their special brand of narcotic.

This is why it was astonishing to find out that there are professional pundits who credit Limbaugh for Scott Walker's exit from the presidential race. They preposterously posit that Walker was doomed the instant he "lost" Limbaugh. When the great wizard Rush veered his support to his fellow blowhard Trump, Walker dropped like a lead balloon.

Scott Walker

The truth is more likely the opposite. When the ever opportunistic Limbaugh found out that Mexican bashing was evidently more popular than union bashing, he switched to Trump as Walker was sinking. You can never go wrong with unabashed racism flavored with xenophobia. There are people who are indeed angry with the status quo. Angry with the black man in the White House, angry with the Democrats who support him, and especially angry at the Republicans who can't seem to do anything about it.

Where is the promised impeachment?

Why wasn't Obamacare repealed?

Why do we have an agreement with the dastardly Iranians?

Why does Obama keep winning?

So there is nothing like a convenient scapegoat to vent their anger at. Unions won't do so well because they teach our kids, protect us from criminals and put out our fires when needed. But Mexicans, those guys are fair game, and the Donald knows it and plays it for all it's worth.

That is why Limbaugh is on board with Trump. Not because he has any personal animus towards Mexicans, but his fans do, and it's always about pandering, it's always about posturing, and most importantly, it's always about the money.

Santorum Revisited

On the eve of the second GOP debate it might be instructive to review the actions of Rick Santorum on the occasion of the shootings in South Carolina. Time may have passed but we do not forget. His actions at the time were reprehensible at best and he has a lot to answer for. He has put all that behind him and blended into the woodwork but those of us who were shocked at the time remain aghast that he is still a viable – barely so – candidate  for the Presidency of the the United States.

The reaction from Presidential candidate Rick Santorum to the tragic events in Charleston, South Carolina was to call the murders part of a broader attack on "religious liberty." He went further on to say "It’s obviously a crime of hate. Again, we don’t know the rationale, but what other rationale could there be?"

Really?

Rick Santorum

Dylann Roof said he was hoping to start a "race war." He told the survivor of his massacre:“I have to do it. You’re raping our women and taking over the country. You have to go.” Last time I checked, Christians don't typically advocate rape.

How obtuse is Rick Santorum? I suspect this graduate of Dickinson Law School at Penn State University is not as naive as he pretends to be. It doesn't take a Sherlock Holmes mind to divine that this is a man who is either a racist or is deliberately catering to bigots.

Dylann Roof

How does a bigot like Santorum even being seriously considered as a Presidential candidate? Have we as a nation have no scruples? Have we no backbone? Santorum when asked the straightforward question on whether they should take down the Confederate flag at the South Carolina statehouse he waffled and said since he was not a South Carolinian how could he take a position on this issue? Jeb Bush when he was governor of Florida rid his state of the Confederate flag and I'm sure it was not a popular move among certain elements in that state.

Rick Santorum has disqualified himself from the Presidential race and the sooner he leaves the better. Americans of all races and of all political persuasion need to call out the racists without equivocation. We need to fulfill the promise Thomas Jefferson made in the Declaration of Independence. that "All men are created equal." 

Huckabee and the Power of Hate

There is a new star in the right-wing Christian universe. Kim Davis, who refuses to issue marriage licences to gay couples because that's what the Lord wants her to do. Forget that the Supreme Court struck down all the laws prohibiting same sex marriage, declaring these laws unconstitutional. The folks who rave about following the Constitution see fit to ignore the Constitution when it contradicts their prejudices. Lets be clear about Kim Davis and her supporters - they hate gays. That's pretty much it.

Because there are many instances where marriage laws conflict with Biblical teaching. Granting licenses to adulterers, or marrying divorced people to name just two. But these good Christian folk have no problems with granting marriage licences to these sinners. Just gays.

A few years back it was interracial couples. Same arguments. It was an abomination. It was against God, etc. etc. Today, interracial marriage is OK, and clerks all over the land grant licenses, possibly begrudgingly by some, but they still do it. Was there any question that bans against interracial marriage were motivated by hate, and not love of God? So too is the resistance to gay marriage. It's hate all over again.

That ordinary citizens lower themselves to hating others is bad enough, but for Presidential candidates to join the lynch mobs is inexcusable. Is there any doubt that the rise of Trump in the GOP primary race is primarily due to hate of Mexicans? Because it ain't about his tax policies or his great health care plan. So since Trump has the hate Mexicans market pretty well cornered, Reverend Mike has to content himself with the hate gays crowd.

Mike Huckabee and Kim Davis

And he played it to the hilt. Presenting Davis as a triumphant warrior for God it was as if they had won something. Even Ted Cruz tried to glom in on the Huckabee show but the Huckabee thugs were out in full force, literally preventing the hapless Cruz from being on stage. As far as a display of thuggery, Huckabee taught Cruz a valuable lesson. It's a dog eat dog world out there and even among the smiling Christian crowd, the candidate with the better goons gets the limelight. It was a bit gratifying to see the bully Cruz get manhandled and shown how old school politics works, however.

Huckabee, although playing to the Kentucky crowd was actually working the Iowa ultra crowd. Iowa has a sizable block of evangelical right-wingers that participate in the caucuses and the only way for Huckabee to come close to Trump and his Mexican hating crowd is to bring in a solid gay hating crowd.

This spectacle is obviously self defeating. It is indeed possible to round up a large number of haters in Iowa in order to score a few delegates at the GOP convention, but in a general election when the whole country is engaged, these hate tactics won't be very helpful, because as a whole, the American people are not a hating people.

Bigotry, under the guise of religion will only take you so far.

Reagan and Trump

Donald Trump likes to compare himself to Ronald Reagan. And why not? Reagan is still the patron saint of the GOP, the model of successful conservative policies and above all, winning elections.

The problem with this analysis is that it is wrong on so many levels. Trump likes to point out that he, like Reagan "evolved" from a Democrat to a Republican. That Reagan was an outsider in the GOP establishment much the same way he is. That there are millions of disaffected voters out there who worship both Reagan and Trump. All this may be true, but that's where the similarity ends.

As with everything Trump, these similarities are superficial and basically meaningless. Cocktail party talk as is most of Trump's campaign so far.

The differences are most telling, however.

First, unlike Trump, Reagan had real governing experience. After all, he was governor of California, no mean feat in one of the bluest of blue states.

Second, he had been knocking about the GOP leadership for quite a while. He delivered a barn-burning speech on behalf of Barry Goldwater in 1964 just before the election that introduced him to the nation much like the speech given by Barack Obama at the Democratic National Convention introduced the young Senator. He also challenged Gerald Ford for the Presidency in 1976, and was very narrowly defeated. Reagan, therefore, was no newcomer to politics at the highest level.

Third, and most importantly, was Reagan's personality. That was his weapon for winning elections. He had a sunny disposition and hardly ever uttered a word in anger. Even his famous line, "Mr, Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" was more advice than admonition. And then there was the long forgotten Reagan 11th commandment which was: "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican." Modern day Reagan supporters who berate Jeb Bush for trying to bring civility to political discourse conveniently forget that it was Ronald Reagan himself who ushered civility into our politics. Reagan was just a likable guy. The irony being that whereas most Americans did not agree with his policies (contrary to what the far right in this country would have you believe) they loved the man. He stood tall, oozed of self-confidence and made many Americans proud to be American whether they supported his politics or not.

In sharp contrast, Trump has a losing personality. He expresses contempt for anyone who contradicts him or even questions him. He is devoid of warmth or compassion, choosing to mock Jeb's "act of love" comments about illegal immigrants. And there are some Americans who are so worked up about illegals that they fall for his obvious mean streak. Even his efforts to redeem himself by repeating, "I love Mexicans," "I love China," ring hollow. This is a man who his fans are convinced is sincere. He indeed has been able to delude lots of people, but there are many more he has not been able to delude. Sooner or later, his personality, his contempt for humanity, will come through.

Americans are basically tolerant people. They have proven it again and again. The election of a black man and his subsequent re-election is ample proof of that. Obama has a winning personality as did Reagan. It is fair to compare Reagan and Obama even though their politics were as far apart as can be. Trump is indeed a small man, trying to convince himself and the rest of us that he is big. No, huge. Americans, even pissed off Americans, will see through his act eventually.

Trump can rightly point out his business success, but he is no Ronald Reagan.

Investing in Trump

In the beginning. the main reason to support the Trump campaign was that he was truly independent. That his billionaire status meant he would not have to grovel for donations like the other mere mortals in the race. He was above all that. He is rich, Filthy rich. Or maybe spotlessly rich. Whatever. The main point is that he would never have to lower himself to beg for money, thereby subject himself, like he accuses the others, to trading for favors. Because we all know the root of all evil in politics is rich people trying to game the system with their big money, kind of the way he so proudly admitted doing himself. But as a candidate, he was going to be different. No outside money was needed because he had all the money in the world, billions and billions and who needs to lower themselves to raise money when you have that kind of dough? Not Trump. No sirree.

Donald Trump

Except a funny thing happened on the way to the pedestal which he thinks he belongs on. He "evolved" on the subject of fundraising. The word "evolved" is a euphemism in politics to mean "flip-flop" or changing one's mind, doing a 180 degree turn, or in his case, lying. And of course, since we are talking about the Donald, he would never ask for assistance. Every dollar you give him is an "investment," a solid business concept. Except in Trumpspeak investing in his campaign comes with no return, a rather unique form of investment most of us would call charity. So he is now reduced to begging. No amount is too small, or too big. He seemed proud of the fact that he bilked a woman for $7.23, probably her lunch money. So the multi-billionaire has no compulsion about taking charity from poor people. What a guy! But he also said he had no problem taking big money as well as long as it was understood that the big money investments came with no strings attached. No sirree, don't expect any returns on your investment if you give Trump a big chunk of money because he is pure as the driven snow and would not be moved to give a break to any rich guy asking for favors. Not Trump. Trust him.

It is indeed rather plausible that the lady who gave her $7.23 would not expect any particular favor, but someone giving Trump $10 million might feel differently. I know if I would give that kind of money I would at least expect to be named Ambassador to a tropical island or something. Or even maybe Secretary of Agriculture. But that's me. Maybe I'm just greedy. People who will give Trump millions are probably the kind of people who expect very little if anything for their investment, only be thrilled that Trump will finally rid ourselves of all those pesky Mexicans.

Come to think of it, maybe Trump's appeal was not his declaration of independence from the well-to-do but rather his promise to wipe Mexico and China off the map. Oh yeah, and he will personally take care of Iran's nuclear bombs. I almost forgot. And he will cherish women. Yeah, right.

The Other Trump

People like to think that Donald Trump is a unique figure in American politics. Some people even allege that he would be the first President never to have held elective office. But alas, as much of what is being said about the Donald is manifestly not true, so is this canard.

There was once a President who was a very successful businessman. One who believed that government should be run like a business. That what government needed was more efficiency. Also, he was not much of a partisan. He flirted with Democrats as well as Republicans, but ultimately ran for the Presidency as a Republican because of his strong beliefs about the virtue of Capitalism.

His reputation as a savvy businessmen was so great that he was made Secretary of Commerce by that bastion of integrity, President Warren G. Harding.Those more astute of you have already guessed who I'm talking about:

Herbert C. Hoover

Herbert Hoover

Yes, that Hoover, not to be confused with the vacuum cleaner of the same name. Hoover famously said, "Given the chance to go forward with the policies of the last eight years, we shall soon with the help of God, be in sight of the day when poverty will be banished from this nation." Yes, those policies which lead to prosperity for everyone. Sound familiar? He also famously said, "We in America today are nearer to the final triumph over poverty than ever before in the history of any land."

A few months later the stock market crashed, ushering the greatest Depression the world had ever seen. The year was 1929.

Now, I am not suggesting if Donald Trump becomes President we will have another Great Depression, but I am suggesting that business acumen, no elected political experience, and a constant bragging posture about the future is no guarantee of success for our country.

Citizens of the World, please take notice.

The Duality Bind: Trump vs. Bernie

It seems like in most of journalism everything has to come in two flavors. I suspect it comes from the good and evil duality that many religions espouse. If there is a God, then there must be a devil. It must be nice to have everything reduced to black and white like that.

What happens in real life, though, is that journalists in their quest for duality in the world, create many false equivalents. For example, if some people believe in the science of evolution then there must be an alternative - one that comes from a book thousands of years old written by ignorant nomads who didn't know of the existence of the solar system or ever heard of (less saw) a dinosaur. Yes, journalists would have you believe that these two conflicting opinions should form the basis of political discourse to determine what to teach our youth. Ignorant nomads vs. hundreds of years of scientific research. That this may make sense to those with atrophied brains is bad enough, but why must the media, who collectively know better, go along?

The answer, of course, is ratings or circulation, in other words, money. Didn't someone once say that love of money is the root of all evil? But I digress.

The story today is Bernie Sanders, the Donald Trump of the left. Oh my, now I'm doing it too! How in the world has the press degenerated so much as to compare the Donald, the Elmer Gantry of our time, the ultimate flim flam man, to a serious public servant like Bernie Sanders?

Bernie Sanders

The press like these duality narratives because it entertains the public. If the right has an extremist wacko, then it stands to reason that the left must have one too. It's a kind of rule of journalism, apparently. Truth be damned, facts ignored, the story is king, and nothing should get in the way of a good story.

Except we are talking about people's lives, and the future of our country.

We all know that Trump is having a huge good time at our expense, but Bernie actually cares about regular Americans. Trump, like the con artist that was Gantry, is only pretending to care.

Trump's experience with politics has been with buying politicians to serve his purposes. We don't have to guess about that. He's proud of it. He even paid Hillary Clinton to come to his wedding. How pathetic is that? For Trump, politics is a game, like everything else he does.  Doesn't how he manages his real estate empire sound like Monopoly to you?

Now Bernie, on the other hand, (I'm doing it again!) has been fighting for the middle class for years and years, without making nary a profit on it. I need to pause here for a second and let folks know that Bernie, in spite of himself, is not a Socialist. I know Socialists, some of my friends are Socialists, and he ain't one. Unfortunately for Bernie, we don't have Social Democrats in America. We just have Democrats and Republicans. (there's that duality again!) In Europe, Social Democrats occupy a space on the left that is just to the left of our Democrats, but not as left as Socialists. So Bernie is without a real party since he is in reality a Social Democrat.

Trump, on the other hand, really needs no party. He is his own party. Kind of like Juan Peron, the ex-dictator of Argentina. He is a Trumpista. In English, he might be a Trumpeteer, but that sounds too crass, even for Trump, so he has contented himself to try and hijack the Republican Party. Whether he is successful or not is dependent on the strength of the Party leadership which at last look is close to nonexistent.

Most pundits believe that the Sanders campaign is doomed since Hillary does look like she finally has the upper hand this time around. But make no mistake, Bernie is a real candidate, with a real record of accomplishments in the political arena.Trump has no record to run on, just platitudes designed to channel some people's frustrations with the system. One can say that Bernie is also channeling people's frustrations but here is where the comparison ends. Bernie brings with him a lifetime of concern and solutions for average Americans whereas Trump is simply an opportunist with no meaningful experience with public policy and no solutions except empty slogans.

Members of the media, please pay attention.

GOP Race to the Bottom

No political observer thinks that either Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, or Carly Fiorina has any kind of shot to become the next president of the United States. But unbelievably, these are the candidates who sit atop the polls in the GOP primary race.

So what is going on here?

Predictably, the entry of Trump into the race has turned what should be a discussion of issues facing the country into a tawdry reality show. The cat fight between the Donald and Megyn Kelly is more reminiscent of trash TV than a political campaign. Ted Cruz, who should be in the cellar is sitting pretty in second place. This is the guy who wrapped bacon around  the barrel of semi automatic and called it machine gun bacon. He even used a fake machine gun to make who knows what point. Ben Carson is not even qualified to be a candidate (See Ben Carson Disqualifies Himself on this blog). And Carly Fiorina has never held any elective office and has the dubious distinction of having been fired from the only upper management job she ever held.

All the experienced candidates are at the bottom.

Politician has to be the only profession whereby the least qualified is the most popular. Imagine someone preferring to have cancer surgery by Joe the Plumber over a board certified surgeon. Or much less dramatic, getting your hair cut by a bartender. What is it about politicians that some people think that the less experience you have, the better you might be?

Come to think of it, this phenomenon is only occurring among Republicans. On the Democratic side, the race is between Hillary Clinton, a very experienced candidate and Bernie Sanders, also a politician with tons of experience and accomplishments. There is even talk of Joe Biden entering the race, another experienced politician.

The inescapable conclusion is that the Republican primary voter does not believe in government in the first place. Democrats seem to want to accomplish positive things for the people, and the few Republican candidates, like Bush, Walker, Kasich, Perry, Graham, Christie who also wish to take a stab at governing, and who actually have governed, are not doing so well with the GOP electorate at this time.

I get the anger. Right wing media has done its job, vilifying the President and all his accomplishments. They've done it so well that the GOP base is turned off at all politicians, including the ones in their own party. And Fox news, the leader of the slime machine, is getting its own desserts. The chickens are indeed coming home to roost. How else does one explain a buffoon like Trump getting away with trashing a professional broadcaster like Megyn Kelly? It would be so easy to smirk at the thought of Megyn getting a taste of her own medicine. Getting knocked down from her prissy perch by the wannabe bully-in chief.

Megyn Kelly

But no, we should not rejoice in Kelly's slap down by the obnoxious and odious Trump. He represents a serious disease in America. A disease that has been spread by the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Coulter, and the like. People who make a living trashing those who try to make our country and planet a better place. They trash anything that alleviates poverty or helps save the planet. They are a cynical bunch who make money off people's prejudices and fears and Megyn Kelly has participated -albeit to a minor degree - in these despicable acts.

But we should not rejoice in Megyn's take down by Trump for he is Frankenstein's monster come to life and his fellow non-politicians are his minions.

Yes, the ugly spawn of Reality TV and right-wing media has produced these monsters and the top monster is all too willing to devour his master, much to the delight of the clueless. Some of the professional pundits, who barely understand this phenomenon try to convince themselves that this is but a phase, a cruel hoax perpetuated by an angry public looking for blood. Trump is their hero, their bull in the china shop that is electoral politics, smashing everything in his way.

It is hard to tell how much of this damage is permanent or shall the GOP primary voters at some moment wake up from  their collective nightmare and and start thinking with their head instead of their intestines. Time will only tell.

Ben Carson Disqualifies Himself

The highlight of every Presidential inauguration is when the newly elected President swears that he (or she) will uphold the US Constitution. The exact words are : “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Dr. Ben Carson

There is no mention of God, Religion, Jesus. But when asked by Chuck Todd of Meet the Press, whether the Bible had authority over the Constitution, the Presidential candidate Dr. Carson, responded with, "That is not a simple question. I think probably what you have to do is ask a very specific question about a specific passage of the Bible and a specific portion of the Constitution," Carson said. "I don't think you can answer that question other than out of very specific context."

This answer disqualifies him for the office. You cannot swear an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution with your fingers crossed, thinking that at certain times the Bible may take precedence over the law of the land. I don't think for a minute that Dr. Carson is willing to allow parents to kill their children based on the Bible:

“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.” 

[Deuteronomy 21:18]

 There are many passages of the Bible that exhort people to do all sorts of things. But the good doctor was very reassuring in that he told Chuck Todd only in very specific cases. Trust me. And that is all the anti-gay, anti abortion folks have to hear. They hear that when it comes to their issues, Constitution be damned, we'll play the Bible card to deny civil rights to gays, and play the Bible card when attempting to end legal abortions.

Maybe these positions have merit, maybe they don't, but bringing the Bible into resolving Constitutional issues is not – if you pardon the expression – Constitutional.

Here is a candidate for President who is telling us in advance that he has a prerogative to invoke the Bible when it suits his purpose, essentially overriding the Constitution when he thinks it is necessary. That is not what the Framers had in mind and it excludes Ben Carson from seeking the Presidency.

It all started with the TV writers strike

Once upon a time there was a country with cool TV programs. OK, they weren't all good, but most of them were written by talented writers. Of course, TV producers had their hand in it, not allowing writers to write their best, but rather write what was perceived as marketable shows. After all, show business is business and the main goal of business is to make money.

But even though the main preoccupation of TV moguls was to make money, once in a while there were good, even great TV shows.

And then came the TV writers strike. I'm not going to get into the merits of the strike - maybe the writers were right about being able to share in some of the profits, but the topic of the day is the law of unintended consequences.

When the strike seemed like it was going to last for a long while, the TV execs were stuck with making difficult decisions about the future of their industry.

The response of the industry to the writers strike became Reality TV.

The new reality

And it became all the rage with the public. At first, there were innovative programs such as Survivor, American Idol, and Dancing with the Stars. Not exactly great cultural experiences but definitely a break from sitcoms and cop shows.

But, as usual, TV execs, even when the strike was over, and things went back to some semblance of normal, decided to double down and get trashier and trashier. Soon everyone was on the reality bandwagon, the despicable Kim Kardashian became a household name as well as Snooki and Honey Boo-Boo. It seemed like Americans could not get enough of trash TV. The Bachelor - a sleazy show for voyeurs - was followed by the Bachelorette, setting new records for sleaze. Everyone seemed to be in on the joke, from slutty housewives to fake moralists.

In this tawdry landscape, enters Donald Trump, the anything for a buck caricature of an American business tycoon. Why NBC shoveled millions at this self-aggrandizing cartoon of a man will always remain a mystery to me. I guess there really is no underestimating the taste of the American public.

But here it where it becomes downright bizarre. The Pinocchio clown actually wanted to become a real mensch. I suppose we should all have anticipated that Trump, the appropriately red coiffed descendant of Bozo took the leap of deciding to run for President - not of the the Reality Circus - but of the United States of America, which at last peek is still a major player on the world stage and engaged in some very serious business.

So we could say, "why the hell not?" After all, isn't it a sort of logical progression of America's infatuation with Reality TV stars that one of them would decide to aspire to the biggest job in the land? I suppose we should be grateful that Kim or Snooki didn't beat him to it. At least the Donald speaks in almost entire semi-coherent sentences. The beauty pageant entrepreneur can congratulate himself in being a tad smarter than the beauty queens he promotes and I guess that must be the yardstick he measures himself by.

All of this would be hilarious (it really is hard for me to watch Trump without bursting out laughing) if the consequences for all of us weren't so serious. The Chinese President must be frothing at the mouth thinking the "jackass" candidate could actually become President. I take back everything I said about Newt, Rick, Herman, Michele, Sarah, and all the people who I referred to as "clowns" before. My deep apologies for we have finally found a real clown in Trump. That many thousand people have fallen for his obvious shtick is not surprising. Look at all the people who watch The Bachelor, or the slutty wives.

I'm starting to believe the conservative mantra that our country is going to hell in a hand-basket. They were referring to our Harvard educated Nobel prize winning President, of course. But Trump is the real thing. No birth certificate necessary here. No need to verify anything. He is certainly a 100% American blowhard.

And we owe it all to the striking TV writers. Thanks guys.