Get out of the kitchen

We are less than one year away from the election that will determine the next occupant of the White House. We’re not quite to the point where the real action takes place -- that’s reserved for after voting starts with the Iowa caucuses -- but things are starting to heat up. We’ve already seen a handful of debates, and the first of the failed candidates have dropped out of their respective races. In this 24-hour news cycle that we live in, we are constantly bombarded with the slings and arrows from both sides of the battle. To be honest though, the candidates on both sides are waging relatively boring campaigns. Maybe they’re just saving the good stuff for later.

From what I’ve seen and heard so far, the arguments seem more like childish taunts than legitimate discussions on policy. If you could bottle the most prominent comments by presidential hopefuls these days, you’d have an impressive collection for your whine cellar.

Contenders from both parties have made quite a bit of noise about the style and staging of their debates. They don’t like the questions. They don’t like the moderators. They don’t like the private conference rooms provided to them. They don’t like the temperature settings in the auditoriums. They don’t like the information that appears on the TV screen. They don’t like it when other candidates ask them questions.

And they whine about not getting enough questions, often spending more time complaining about not getting enough attention when they could use that time to (gasp!) actually answer the question.

Essentially, they don’t like debates. But they love the large audiences and free airtime the debates provide.

Let’s be honest: the overwhelming majority of candidates in both parties aren’t seriously trying to become president. What they really want is to boost their chances at making huge sums of money on speaking tours… or hawking their latest books… or maybe landing an easy money job with a cable news organization. Some just like to be the center of attention.

Oh sure, many of the contenders sound like they’re in it to win it all. But before you get excited about any one of them, I encourage you to view this presidential election from the right perspective: treat it like a job opening with you as the employer.

The first thing you should do is consider the responsibilities of the position. Granted, the average person doesn’t know all of the daily goings-on in the Oval Office, but anyone who took a single civics class in high school should have a basic understanding of how our government is supposed to work and what is expected of the people we elect to run it.

It’s not much different than hiring someone to work on your car. You want to know that the person with the tools has a pretty good idea of what he’s doing. Like me, you wouldn’t want someone tinkering with your engine who doesn’t know the difference between a distributor and an alternator. In the same way, I don’t have much confidence in handing the reins of our federal government to an amateur. That’s not to say that someone with many years in politics will automatically do a better job, but at least he or she should have a pretty good idea of what’s involved.

Then again, we Americans elect 435 people to the House every two years plus a third of the Senate, and there are plenty of know-nothings in that bunch.

As the field narrows and the eventual nominees become clear, we should do whatever it takes to find out where they stand on the things we think are important. It’s a waste of time for candidates to talk about what they’re against. I want to hear them explain, in detail, what they are for. Yes, I know that they’ll say anything to get elected. Even lie.

Newsflash: they all lie.

But only the informed voter knows how to catch them in the lie… and to hold them accountable. The only way to be informed is to ask questions, especially questions that the candidates don’t want to answer. Which brings us back to the current debates.

Right now, many candidates are trying to mold future debates into something that makes them look better. They simply want to stand in front of the camera and give prepared remarks, the scripts they practice over and over. They definitely don’t want you to knock them off their stride.

You want to know how their tax plans work? Just trust them, they say, and don’t try to confuse them with math. You heard them say one thing last week and then the complete opposite this week? Don’t confront them with facts, they tell you.

Sorry, but if you want my vote… you’d better be ready to earn it. And that starts with being able to take the heat.

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald, November 5, 2015.)

False Prophets

If you’re a regular reader of this column, you’ve probably noticed that I have no use for people who substitute fiction for fact. I don’t mind if someone disagrees with me and wants to argue about it. However, if that argument is based on falsehoods, you’re wasting your time.

It’s one thing to share your opinion. For example, you might say that Johnny Unitas is the greatest quarterback in the history of the NFL. I’d probably be tempted to come back with Joe Montana’s career stats. We’d likely spar back and forth a bit and never reach a real consensus because we’re both offering opinions from our individual perspectives.

It would be different if you said Johnny Unitas had more passing touchdowns than Joe Montana. In that case, you would be able to go to the record books and show me the facts. [Note: Unitas is #9 in TD completions. Montana is #11.] See the difference? Instead of relying on your emotions which can skew your thinking, stating your case with solid evidence -- real facts that can be proven without a doubt -- is the way to win an argument.

It’s really that simple: if you stake your reputation on a specific matter, make sure you’ve got your facts straight. As it is with sports chatter, so it is with politics, religion, and any other topic of discussion.

I mentioned politics and religion because it’s clear that many people are willing to go to great lengths to use one to influence the other. Such is the case with many prominent entertainers in those two realms.

Take for example Dr. Ben Carson, a truly gifted neurosurgeon and political neophyte, who recently was a guest on the Sunday morning talk show circuit. He used the occasion of his Meet the Press interview to let it be known that he thinks people of certain faiths should not be elected President of the United States. Specifically, he said, “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.” Notice that Dr. Carson wasn’t talking about anyone specifically… giving reasons why the actions and attitudes of a named individual would disqualify that person from holding office. No, Carson is suggesting that you should withhold your vote solely based upon a candidate’s religion. Why? Because Carson thinks that, when it comes to a candidate’s faith, “...if it fits within the realm of America and consistent with the Constitution, no problem.”

Carson -- and anyone who agrees with him on this point -- is arguing that there needs to be a method of determining a person’s qualifications for elected office based upon religion. And while Carson is entitled to his opinion, the fact is clear: the Founders of this nation rejected that notion. Article VI, paragraph 3 of the Constitution includes this key phrase: no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. Essentially, no one’s faith is ever to be used to challenge his ability to serve. Equally important, no one’s faith is ever to be used to give a candidate an easier pathway to office. Try telling that to the television preachers who lead their followers in prayers calling for misfortune and death to fall upon their political opponents.

It is discouraging that people like Dr. Carson will declare their devotion to the Constitution while also being so horribly ignorant to what the document has to say. But then, it’s not that surprising, since we live in an age where it’s becoming commonplace to hear someone claim that their religious beliefs grant them authority over others.

The Constitution does grant a certain collection of rights to you and me, but it’s up to us to understand the limits to those rights. As free speech advocate Zechariah Chafee Jr wrote: “Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins.”   

Dr. Carson is not alone. The current presidential campaign has several hopefuls who are pandering to extremists. making promises to impose some form of legal framework that would regulate many aspects of both public and private life based upon religious tenets.

Gee, that sounds a lot like Sharia law, doesn’t it?

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald October 1, 2015.)

Carson would seek Trump's "wisdom"

This should tell you plenty about Dr. Carson, who is a very talented neurosurgeon but far from gifted in leadership skills.
If he thinks adding Trump as an advisor would bring in wisdom to his administration... that shows us:
1. Carson is a poor judge of Trump's "wisdom".
2. Carson's potential administration would have to be the opposite of wise if the addition of Trump would be an improvement.

Born in the USA?

My great-grandfather was born in Europe. He met and married my great-grandmother there and a few years later moved to the USA. Over time, they raised a family. They were poor by most standards, but they worked hard -- my great-grandfather was a cobbler and his bride was a seamstress -- and they were good members of their community.Their children were born here… in the United States… and were each given a priceless gift at birth: citizenship. Because she was born within the borders of this nation, my grandmother instantly became a citizen, something that could never be taken away.

Or could it?

There is a growing movement in certain political circles aimed at ending the practice of birthright citizenship. It’s a hot topic on the presidential campaign trail, and the opinions on both sides are strong, even if the arguments are a bit weak.

The Fourteenth Amendment officially became part of the Constitution in 1868 and since then its opening sentence became the standard for recognizing who is, actually, an American. The amendment’s Citizenship Clause states:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

There it is, plain and simple. If you were born here, you belong here. You’re one of us. (Of course, there are a few exceptions, such as children born to foreign diplomats.) But not everyone is happy about that.

Growing out of the long-running debate over immigration reform, the question of whether to continue the practice of birthright citizenship has taken its place as one of the key discussion topics in the current race for the White House. Candidates, commentators, and coffee klatchers are arguing, sometimes fiercely, about whether a baby should have such a right.

Naturally, those in favor of changing the status quo are quick to point to undocumented immigrants -- the so-called “illegal aliens” -- and calling for rejection of automatic citizenship for their children. Those who seek to preserve the 14th Amendment as is are just as forceful in arguing that its language was carefully selected to assure that all born here are given equal treatment despite the origins of their parents. After all, some of the first to benefit from the amendment were former slaves who previously had no legal claim to citizenship.

You can be sure that those on the side calling for change would claim that they are only concerned with the undocumented, that they would have no problem with granting citizenship to the children of immigrants who are here with legal documentation. But I have to wonder if it would stop there. Given the power to strip away birthright citizenship from one group, how could we stop the government from ruling that others are also not worthy? Couldn’t such authority lead to refusal of citizenship to people of a certain race or religion?

Couldn’t we see a government that would make such a change retroactive, thus revoking citizenship… and all of its privileges including the ability to vote… from existing citizens? It sure would be an effective means of shutting down your critics, wouldn’t it?

What makes me even more suspicious of the intentions of those pushing this movement is that we aren’t hearing anyone complaining about babies born of parents from places like, say, Norway or Italy or Canada. No, the argument is firmly centered on the children of immigrants who cross our southern border.

What’s further troubling is that the argument is coming from the political right, whose party is sorely lacking in support from the Latino community. Such an unbending stance against citizenship at birth… especially one that is clearly aimed at people who come to the USA from Mexico and other nations to our south… is certainly not helping the Republican Party in its efforts to include people of color under its tent.

That is, if the GOP is still making the effort.

I just read a report projecting the 2016 election turnout broken down by race and its results aren’t enthusiastic for a party that alienates non-white voters. In fact, a party that turns its back on people of color will find that it is virtually impossible to win on the national stage.

I'm not a political consultant, but if someone came to me and asked what I thought would be a good strategy, I'd suggest that being a party of ideas and goals makes more sense than building your platform on exclusion and turning back time.

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald September 3, 2015.)

Welcome back, my friends, to the show that never ends

The Republican Party’s effort to regain the White House kicks into high gear with its first debate. While it’s tempting to say that these events are lessons in futility, there are some valuable takeaways that can be expected from these encounters. You can learn about a candidate’s ability to string together a few talking points into what sounds like a coherent statement. You can get a feel for whether the candidate has a personality, generally displayed by a good sense of humor. And you will probably notice a few who clearly don’t do their homework.

Most everyone following these assemblies will tell you that the Republicans allowed themselves to get bogged down with too many debates in the 2012 campaign. Really, what were they thinking when they agreed to twenty such gatherings? Halfway through that schedule it was clear that the party was opening itself up to way too much self-inflicted damage, as candidates rose and fell in the opinion polls based on how they attacked each other.

In this campaign, the party has shown some wisdom by paring down the list to twelve scheduled debates, the last couple of which are tentative and could be dropped entirely. Still, is there much of an argument to make that a dozen debates are going to be effective in choosing the best candidate?

Essentially, these are not debates in the truest sense of the word. A debate follows a few relatively strict guidelines, keeping to a formal structure, and its moderator is expected to maintain order with an iron fist. These events are better described as multiperson press conferences where the participants seem to do their best to avoid answering the questions as presented, instead repeating as much of their prepared campaign speeches, slogans, and taglines. But certainly we all know this: if you want real answers to real questions, don’t ask a politician… especially one who is actively running for office.

In the last cycle there were ten candidates participating in the Republican debates, though never more than nine at any one event… and only two of those had perfect attendance in all twenty. This time? Seventeen candidates have formally announced, but you won’t get to see them all in action at once. Thanks to the GOP turning over decision making chores to Fox News, the first debate is limited to no more than ten participants, as determined by where they rank in the latest polls. By essentially slamming the door in the other candidates’ faces, Fox News has been granted enormous power to effectively kill some campaigns while giving others a higher profile.

Fox News will argue that its methodology is simply reflective of public opinion and that the news/talk channel isn’t responsible for making the selections. Rather, it would say, the people surveyed by those polls are making it clear who they are most interested in seeing on the stage. But public opinion polls are a flawed source for facts. No two polling firms use the same criteria, ask the same questions, or even seek out the same type of respondents. Each poll is subject to interpretation, and those who read the tea leaves might not understand the message. Remember, up until late on Election Night, Mitt Romney and his team were convinced that he was going to win the presidency… based on opinion polls.

At least this time Republican voters can hope for a more serious slate of candidates. At least there’s no Herman Cain, who based his campaign on his “Nine Nine Nine” mantra which sounded more like a pitch for a pizza place than a political foundation. At least there’s no Michele Bachmann, whose glazed-over eyes looked like someone who was about to announce the departure schedule for the approaching Mothership.

Nope, this time the candidates are a group to be taken seriously.

Except… this time you have people like former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a 2008 hopeful back for another crack at it… taking time away from his other job as spokesman for various quackery medications on the internet.

Except… you have Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard and considered by many to be the worse leader of an American technology company in history. Notably, the company’s stock jumped when her forced resignation was announced, the news bringing in nearly three billion dollars in gains in a single day.

Except… you have Donald Trump, the current Republican frontrunner. It seems to me that the people who are excited about a Trump candidacy are the same people who think Sarah Palin is worthy of holding a national office. That pretty much tells us all we need to know about Trump.

I will be watching, and I encourage you to do the same. It’s better to be informed than clueless.

Come and see the show!

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald on 8/6/15)

The truth is...

How can you tell when a politician is lying? His lips are moving. Yeah, it’s an old joke… but it’s accurate.

Here we are, seventeen months away from the next presidential election and I’m sick of it all. Maybe disgusted is a better word. Or frustrated.

I’m old enough to remember when these campaigns generally lasted about a year and a half. That was before the internet and 24-hour cable “news” and satellite radio. Now, with all these different sources offering political chatter, the campaigns never really end. You could see it in 2012 when, as soon as the Republicans nominated Mitt Romney, the rest of the crowd was jockeying for the best spots on the TV talk shows so they could keep their names circulating for 2016. You could see it in early 2011, when Secretary of State Clinton let it be known that she wasn’t interested in continuing in that post during a second Obama term, with the unspoken but very clear message that she would be making another run for the White House.

So, yes, I get weary sometimes with politics. And yet, here I am writing on that subject. One of these days, I’ll submit a column on a completely different topic… just to see if you’re paying attention.

But back to the campaign trail.

Since we’ve got no choice but to be flooded with political blather on a daily basis -- except for the occasional breaking news from the Kardashians -- I thought I’d offer a few thoughts on some of the most common themes and buzzwords we should expect to hear from the candidates and the commentators.

Let’s start with “small government”. Dedicated readers will recall that I touched on this phrase in a column last July. (You can find it and a host of others archived on my blog; follow this link to read it.) Feel free to ho-hum any candidate who trumpets that he wants to make the federal government smaller or slash regulatory agencies. They only say that until they get elected, then turn around and realize that they kinda like all the power.

How about “tax and spend”? That line is nearly always used to attack Democrats, but there hasn’t been a politician invented yet who didn’t enjoy taking some of the revenue stream from Americans’ pockets and throwing it at his own pet project. Of course, they try not to make it too obvious lest they be accused of being too much in love with pork… so they’ll call for massive increases in things like defense spending.  

There’s “government overreach”. That’s one from the “small government” category, where the politicians decry some particular regulation or agency and how it needs to be eliminated. Those same officials waste little time inventing other ways the government can be a thorn in your side, like making it harder to vote. Believe me, once a politician is sworn in, the last thing he wants is to make it easier for the public to vote him out.

A similar line is “legislating from the bench,” referring to court rulings in high profile cases. We’re hearing that a lot now, especially with the Supreme Court’s highly anticipated ruling on same-sex marriage. Of course, it depends on the subject. Those who attack a court decision on one matter will expend the same amount of energy applauding another. If you like the ruling, the judges are heroes. If you don’t, you want them impeached.

Here’s one I’d love not to hear: “So-and-so is coming to take your guns!” Let’s be honest: more Americans own more guns now than ever before. If any politician was really trying to disarm you, clearly they’ve been going about it all wrong.

That one dovetails nicely with the one you hear about how someone has a “secret plan”. While that one is often used by Second Amendment profiteers, we also hear about hidden schemes to build internment camps, force us to switch religions, and take away our retirement. One thing that bugs me: if the people spreading these claims know all about these “secret plans”, they’re not all that secret, are they?

(By the way… that one about the plan to take our retirement? That one is real… at least, for anyone who is counting on a pension for their golden years. But that’s a topic for a later column.)

I could go on… but you get the point. Honesty takes a back seat when it’s time to run for office.  

There I go again… acting all cynical. That’s a common theme in my writings on these pages and on my blog. Trust me, I’m not always a Downer. But when you’re a realist, it’s hard to see many silver linings in the political cloud cover.

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald on June 4, 2015.)

Republicans: prepare to hold your nose when you vote

Let's be clear: the GOP nominee for the 2016 presidential campaign will be

John Ellis Bush.

I know this because:

1. He's got the money.

2. He's got the establishment support.

3. He's got the connections.

And, most important...

4. He's (so far) not saying a lot of ridiculously crazy tin-foil hat stuff.

Sure, JEB has plenty of baggage... most of it because of the guy in the picture. BUT keep this in mind: Republicans chose his brother despite the poor performance of Poppy Bush, so why wouldn't they gloss over W's negatives and usher in yet another member of the family... along with the same group of inept advisors?

Republicans will throw their support behind JEB because the party has a habit of giving the nod to the next in line. That's why John McCain was given his chance in 2008 and Mitt Romney grabbed the Golden Ticket in 2012.

Of course, by that logic Rick Santorum should be next... since he came in second last time. But anyone with a pulse and a functioning frontal lobe knows that Santorum will come out of the general election on the losing end of a massive landslide... no matter the opponent. 

Nope, Bush is the guy... even though he wants to do things that hurt the non-rich on his own side.

Take this example from Face the Nation yesterday:

SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you about Social Security.

You recently said you favor raising the retirement age for Social Security. To what age?

BUSH: I think it needs to be phased in over an extended period of time. I have seen ideas that are 68, for example.

So people that already have the supplemental retirement system, which is a contract, I don't think we violate that. For people that are about ready to be beneficiaries of their supplemental retirement, I don't think we change that.

But we need to look over the horizon and begin to phase in over an extended period of time going from 65 to 68 or 70. And that by itself will help sustain the retirement system for anybody under the age of 40.

SCHIEFFER: What about means-testing?

BUSH: I think it ought to be considered, for sure.

SCHIEFFER: You do think so? 

BUSH: I do so, yes.

Got that? JEB wants to force you to postpone your Social Security benefits... the ones you paid into with every paycheck your entire life... rather than alienate his deep-pocketed friends who would feel a little pain from the obvious best solution... which is to eliminate the ceiling on earnings (currently $118.500.00) and make the tax applicable on every dollar earned.

Of course, the rich can easily get around that by not taking a paycheck and instead receiving dividend payments and stock options (see Steve Jobs).

But for the vast majority of potential JEB votes, his plan to "save" Social Security will be unwelcome news. 

Still, they'll hold their noses and fill in the oval beside his name anyway... because voting against their own best interests is what they've been trained to do.

Huckabee: kicking aside the law on Day One

You just can't take this guy seriously. As he was officially announcing his candidacy, presidential wannabe Mike Huckabee actually encouraged his fans to violate campaign contribution laws with million dollar donations.

Some will defend him, saying that he was only joking. But deciding who should be elected President of the United States is no laughing matter. If Huckabee is this naive to the law, perhaps he should quit politics for good and stick to promoting quack remedies.

(h/t The Washington Post)

The Birthers are back & their target is...

...Marco Rubio.

I can't decide if this is funny or sad... but it will certainly be entertaining.

Of all the things people hate about Hillary...

...criticizing her pantsuits is one of the most ridiculous.

I say... every male politician or pundit who negatively comments about Sec. Clinton's pantsuits should be required to wear a skirt and heels.

(h/t Redditor Bullduke for the photo)

So what's with the flame?

Looks like we have a theme in this brand-spanking-new 2016 campaign.

Senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul are the first two official candidates bidding to become the GOP's nominee... and they have something in common.

Neither will be elected president.

Besides that though, both campaigns have decided to go with a flame icon in their logo.

Could it stand for:

...lighting the path toward a brighter future?
...carrying a torch for the glory days of Reagan?
...America, I'm burnin', I'm burnin', I'm burnin' for you?

Who else will go with this trend? Marco Rubio? Jeb Bush? Scott Walker?

And... which campaign will be the first to redesign their logo?

Stay tuned...

Here's a look at the first Jeb Bush campaign ad...

It's right there in black and white...

An Inconvenient Idea

There are reports that Al Gore is considering tossing his hat into the 2016 ring. Some writers, including Ezra Klein over at Vox.com, are hoping it's true.

Let's hope it's just a joke.

'Charles' wants Walker in charge

I'm thrilled to hear that Scott Baio has given his endorsement to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker... 'cause nothing warms my heart more than knowing who Chachi wants as our president.

(h/t Politico)

Money for... nothing?

Make no mistake about it: you can't run for president unless you have a lot of money. I mean... a LOT of cash.

Actually, you don't need your own money... though it helps. What you need are a lot of people who have a lot of money and are willing to give you a lot of money in exchange for favors.

So what does it say about Jeb Bush when he's asking his rich friends to not give him a lot of money... right now?

It says that Bush is just like anyone else running for president. He has connections who are fairly eager to spend whatever it takes to get him elected. He just doesn't want to scare people off right now, and receiving a bunch of big gifts... er, bribes... er, contributions right now might send the wrong message.

Later, of course, when he thinks the message would be just fine... he'll gladly take as much cash as they want to dump in his lap.

BUT... for now, Bush wants his friends to only give him up to ONE MILLION DOLLARS.

That's right. Jeb Bush has decided that the top threshold... the amount up to which doesn't look like people are trying to buy influence... is ONE MILLION DOLLARS.

Do YOU have ONE MILLION DOLLARS just gathering dust in your checking account? Me either. But the people who do? They can -- and will -- cough up the cash without any worries or hardships.

You and me? If we give a candidate ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS we're doing so at the risk of not being able to pay the electric bill... or buy a few groceries... or fill up our gas tank. But the people Bush is courting don't have to worry about those things.

Which tells you a lot about the people Jeb plans on listening to IF America decides it wants another Bush in the White House.

I think America can do better.

We REALLY Don't Need No Edumacation

White House wannabe Jeb Bush, never a friend of public schools (see his record as Florida governor where he tried to slash teaching positions and drastically increase the number of students per classroom), recently had a few harsh things to say about America's schools... calling them "government-run, unionized monopolies."

Not surprising. As a way of doubling-down on his efforts in Florida, Bush is joining the ranks of the haters like Scott Walker and Rick Santorum in portraying America's schools in a bad light.

As Steve Benen writes:

We rarely hear this king of talk about other parts of the public sector. For example, Republicans don't usually run around chastising police departments or fire departments as "government-run, unionized monopolies." Conservatives do, however, direct this ire at public education.

Why would Bush and Company want to damage public schools and their teachers? Could it have anything to do with efforts to privatize education... turning over the instruction of our children to for-profit corporations?

That's my guess.

We Don't Need No Education... (updated)

Just a couple thoughts regarding the big stink some pundits are making about Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and the fact that he never graduated college...

...a degree by itself is no measurement nor guarantee that the person is capable of good job performance...

...eleven U.S. Presidents never earned a college degree, including George Washington and Abraham Lincoln...

...one of the least-capable presidents of all time holds an MBA from an Ivy League school...

...Sarah Palin has a college degree...

So let's just call a halt to all this foolishness. There are many good reasons to keep Walker from gaining the Oval Office.... but the lack of a college degree is not one of them.

UPDATE: Scott Walker is picking the wrong fight.

Not long after I wrote this column, Gov. Walker appeared in an interview with Fox News' Megyn Kelly... and decided to take the Santorum Approach to the idea of a college education.  Prompted by Kelly's remark that Sec. Hillary Clinton has a degree from Yale, Walker chimed:

"I think there's a lot of Americans who have looked at some of the leaders we've had over the last few years who've come out of those Ivy League schools and said, 'Maybe it's time we got people who are in touch with people all across the rest of America'."

Granted, one of those recent leaders was Pres. George W. Bush (BA, Yale and MBA, Harvard). Still, Walker's need to criticize those who were successful in earning a post-secondary degree is a bad strategy. No one who aspires to be the Commander in Chief should try to get there by ridiculing the education accomplishments of others.

Then again, this is the same Gov. Walker who wants to make massive cuts to his state's education system. Perhaps his lack of a degree has caused some personal bitterness...?

Another Example of John McCain's Poor Judgment

Pictured above is former Alaska governor Sarah Palin. The same Sarah Palin who continues to tell anyone who will listen that she is interested in running for president... who covers her Facebook page with all sorts of religious-themed posts... who wants you to believe that she is all about "family values"...

The same Sarah Palin who is praised by supposed Christian leaders like Franklin Graham...

That same Sarah Palin is shown here enthusiastically holding a sign with both a profane phrase AND a gun-flavored threat to filmmaker Michael Moore. (See the gunsight crosshairs?) And don't let anyone tell you she didn't notice what the sign says; that's her autograph in the lower left corner.

What a role model!

Yep, John McCain made a huge mistake in putting this fool on the ticket... giving this TV personality just enough exposure to get rich by saying and doing stupid stuff.

It's sad that Sen. McCain still refuses to admit that he was wrong to pick her as his running mate.

It's even sadder that there are a lot of people who faithfully follow her.

(H/T to Andrew Kirell, Editor of Mediaite, for finding this picture.)

The Absolute Hypocrisy of Mike Huckabee

Former Arkansas governor and perennial presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has been making a lot of noise recently in his criticism of Beyoncé. Huckabee has attacked Beyoncé's music as "vulgar" and denouncing President and Mrs. Obama for allowing their daughters to listen to the pop star's songs.

Yet Huckabee counts as one of his favorite performers one Mr. Ted Nugent who is known for songs like "Wang Dang Sweet Poontang", "Yank Me, Crank Me (But Don't Wake Up and Thank Me)", and his biggest hit, "Cat Scratch Fever", a song that Nugent recently performed on Huckabee's Fox News program... with Huckabee playing bass guitar.

The song has two clear meanings: promiscuous teenage (and pre-teen) sex and contracting a sexually-transmitted disease as a result. Though Nugent has denied the latter, the phrase "cat scratch fever" was a commonly-used slang term for syphilis in the Seventies. The lyrics suggest that Nugent's denials are not truthful:

Well, the first time that I got it I was just ten years old

I got it from some kitty next door

An' I went to see the doctor and he gave me the cure

I think I got it some more

On The Daily Show (January 19th, 2015), Huckabee told Jon Stewart: "That song is an adult song, geared for adults." Really? Tell that to the hormone-loaded teenagers -- myself included -- who bought Nugent's albums in the Seventies. Tell that to the parents of those Seventies teenagers who were shocked to hear their innocent children singing along with:

Well, I make the pussy purr with the stroke of my hand

They know they gettin' it from me

They know just where to go when they need their lovin' man

They know I'm doin' it for free

Of course, his criticism of Beyoncé's music is a small part of Huckabee's schtick... but it's part of his central theme of separating this nation into two parts: Bubble-ville and Bubba-ville. He is very condescending when talking about people from urban areas and those with advanced education while portraying the rest as more wholesome and practical. He attacks one in order to celebrate the other. It's the same tactic used by other political extremists like Sarah Palin who suggest that some parts of this nation are the "real America", as if they are the only ones worthy.

This is the type of behavior that causes rifts and makes the division between two sides grow much wider. Huckabee is exploiting domestic xenophobia, the fear and hatred some Americans have of other Americans simply because of their differences.

Huckabee condemns Beyoncé's music as "mental poison"... but he excuses the blatant pornography of Ted Nugent because:

1. Nugent's music fans are overwhelmingly rural
2. Nugent's political views are shared by many of Huckabee's followers
3. Nugent and Huckabee are in agreement on gun issues.

Huckabee may have moral standards... but his willingness to disapprove of some while glorifying others is pure hypocrisy.