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.

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)

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)

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...

And they told me Palin was the dumb one...

Hard to believe this woman once was a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Clearly the name does not indicate membership requirements.

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

'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.

A rare moment of clarity

Possibly the most commonsense thing said by a Republican member of Congress in a very long time:

"Hopefully we're gonna end the attaching of bullshit to essential items of the government" - Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL)

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.

A White Guy says Raising the Minimum Wage will hurt Minorities

I'm sure Congressman McClintock didn't mean to suggest that minorities only deserve a low wage... but unfortunately that's what he ends up saying here.

McClintock could have made a legitimate argument -- something like "a lower wage means more opportunities for more people", or a similar stance based on bad economic theories -- but instead he rambles about low wages are best for minorities because of a lack of skills.

I'm not an economist, but I could come up with a better argument -- in fact, arguments that make sense both for and against raising the minimum wage -- and I certainly wouldn't include anything that sounds bigoted.

Perhaps Congressman McClintock should think more and talk less.

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.

Chris Christie's Continuing Fall from Grace

Remember this awkward "bro-hug" from the Cowboys-Lions game on Jan 4, 2015? The moment when New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie -- a long-time Cowboys fan -- tried too hard to get in on the celebration with team owner Jerry Jones?

The hug itself is uncomfortable to see, but the story that leads up to it is worse.

You see, Jerry Jones presented Gov. Christie with a gift... a private jet flight from New Jersey to the game in Dallas, seats in the owner's suite, some meet-and-greet time with the players and coaches on the sideline, and (I would imagine) plenty of food and drinks... much more fancy than hot dogs and flat beer.

Now, Jones can afford to do whatever he wants... but Christie, who really wants to be president, should know better than to accept a gift that has a value of at least $125,000 (according to luxury gift company Goviva). Christie recently suggested to the New Jersey Port Authority that it grant a contract to a company co-owned by Jones... which would make the gift to Christie look a whole lot like a payoff.

(h/t Tom Moran)