The GOP Nomination: It's Still Jeb Bush

Back in April of 2014, when everyone was still riding the Chris Christie bandwagon (despite the BridgeGate and Sandygate scandals), I wrote why Jeb Bush will win the 2016 presidential nomination. Eight months later I wrote "Here Comes Bush v Clinton 2.0". Almost a year later it's still Jeb Bush.

Scott Walker and Rick Perry are already gone. For all intents and purposes, Ben Carson "Muslim-ed" his way out of the race last weekend. And it's just a matter of time before the hope and money dries up for Rick Santorum, John Kasich, Bobby Jindal, Mike Huckabee and the rest of the 2nd string clowns. That leaves Donald Trump, Carly Fiorina and Bush. Rest assured, the whorish, sycophantic lust affair that extremist troglodytes have with Trump will soon end, as will Fiorina's revisionist history campaign designed to botox away the deep scars of her dreadful corporate record (read Joe Nocera's excellent Tuesday NY Times op-ed on Trump and Fiorina's "Snake Oil Sales"). Stick a fork in Cinderella and Shrek.

Watching last week's second Republican debate made it clear that Bush was the only adult in the room (except when he seemed a little too sophomorically excited about receiving Trump's adulation with that awkward hand slap). And while the other candidates' poll numbers are gyrating all over the place like a cheap stripper, Bush is holding steady near 10%. As more candidates implode and drop out, his numbers will steadily rise. And with over $100-million raised to-date, he's got nothing but time in this war of attrition. Take it to the bank: Gen. Jeb Custer will be the right's last man standing.

And what about the Democrats? A new CNN poll shows Hillary Clinton dealing with her Bernie Sanders "problem" by taking a commanding 42%-24% lead. Joe Biden's a likable guy with a  stellar public service record, but if he enters the race his chances of beating Hil are about as good as mine. Martin O'Malley and Jim Webb? Yawn. Nationally, Clinton has the support of an overwhelming majority of Democrats, especially women. No one's beating her. Period. End of story.

So yes, it will be Bush v. Clinton, again. Just another dynastic retread, right? Wrong. Hillary Clinton stands to make history as the first woman president of the United States. That makes this next election not only different, but incredibly exciting, inspiring and a proud moment for all Americans, even Republicans, even if they don't understand and appreciate the monumental significance of it all.

Stick a Fork in Trump

Since the beginning of the campaign I've said the time will come when voters, even the narrow-minded hateful troglodytes who've heretofore propelled Donald Trump's Cinderella campaign to the top of the polls, will tire of his shallow speeches, empty promises and incendiary rhetoric. Simultaneously, Republican voters with brains will rise up off the couch and begin to take a serious interest in the election. And that's when Trump turns back into a pumpkin. That time is now. 

The second Republican debate is where history will point to the official end of Trumpalooza, a circus-like campaign that actually died the moment it began, with the candidate's controversial "Mexican rapists" speech. Wednesday's contest served as a real eye-opener to voters, in particular, the sane ones who've finally realized, 'Holy shit, if I don't get behind someone else right now this hateful racist misogynist could be nominated!'

Trump faced three solid hours of substantive challenges on everything from his lack of expertise on a range of domestic and foreign policy issues to his ad hominem attacks on everyone from Carly Fiorina to Jeb Bush's wife. When the discussion turned to Iran, Russia and Syria, Trump looked like a pathetic deer in the headlights. "I'd give Putin a call..." is all he could offer when asked about how'd he'd address the Russian president's support of Syria's Bashar al-Assad. That's his answer for everything: 'I'll give 'em a call, and because I'm the amazing Trump, they'll listen." Goodbye war, terrorism and world hunger!

And now The Donald is embroiled in yet another foot-in-mouth controversy, this time for failing, unlike John McCain in the 2008 campaign, to correct a supporter at a New Hampshire town hall rally Thursday who said: "We have a problem in this country. It's called Muslims. You know our current president is one. You know he's not even an American." Trump, instead of pulling a McCain--"No sir, he's not, he's a good Christian and an American"--turned to the crowd, chuckled and mocked, "We need this question? This is the first question!"

Glossing over the racist comment entirely, Trump responded with a typically superficial assurance: "We're going to be looking at a lot of different things. You know, a lot of people are saying that and a lot of people are saying that bad things are happening. We're going to be looking at that and many other things.

Stick a fork in Trump. He's about as done as piece of burnt coffee shop toast. His debate performance, or lack thereof, put on high-def display his myriad failings, from his persistent combativeness, race-baiting and misogyny to his utter lack of substance, policy positions and moral authority. 

Next week polls will surely indicate a reversal in momentum for Trump. From this point forward it's all downhill, and just a matter of time before he's out of the race.

The GOP's Real Problem With Trumpalooza

It was just a few short months ago that it seemed likely that Republicans would put forth mainstream presidential candidates for 2016 who, more than ever, mirrored the overall opinions of a majority of Americans on a range of social and domestic issues such as gay marriage, abortion, women's rights, religion and immigration.

It appeared that, finally, the GOP and its leading candidates would focus on the pressing issues of the day that matter greatly to voters: the economy, jobs, wages, education, healthcare, energy and the environment.

To most pundits and strategists on both sides of the aisle, the Republican Party's only hope to win the White House in '16 would be to focus on substantive policy while vastly broadening its tent to include gays, women, young people, blacks and Hispanics. And then came Donald Trump.

Welcome to Trumpalooza. Just when the party appeared headed towards the 21st century, Trump entered the race and sent the GOP clown car speeding back to Crazytown. Curiously, though his regressive behavior has been outrageous and offensive, his popularity and polling keep rising, as does his clear front-runner status. While pandering to the party's lowest common denominator, he's become the biggest political story in decades, just not the one the GOP wants.

The real Trump problem for Republicans is that, just as the party was seemingly on the precipice of meaningful evolution and change, he's single-handedly transporting it back to its ugly, dark, losing days of ignorance and intolerance. The Trumpnado that blasted ashore this Summer consists of fiery race-baiting, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic rhetoric and ad hominem attacks on anything and anyone that gets in his way. And his small, frothing-at-the-mouth radical fringe base is eatin' it up like blood-thirsty zombies on The Walking Dead.

To be sure, Trump's been dominating the liberal and conservative media, sucking all the energy out of the campaign and forcing the more "mainstream" candidates like Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and Scott Walker to swing far right in order to avoid irrelevance, or worse, extinction. It's been fascinating to watch them tripping over themselves to out-Trump The Donald. But at some point soon all that will end when Republican voters tire of the one they're fucking and start pursuing the one they'll marry.

Until then, rather than expanding its tent by appealing to a broad base of voters, the GOP's limply watching Trump shrink it to feed just the rapacious, red meat-starved extremists. And in the process, no other candidate has been able to break out and gain any traction, especially by discussing what's really important. Jobs? The economy? Education? Healthcare? The environment? Fat chance. It's all 'fat, ugly, disgusting bimbos' and 'Mexican rapists' until the "Orange Clown," as the rock band REM calls him, finally gets out of the GOP's way. But by that time it may be too late.

Where Do We Draw the Line with "Religious Freedom" in the Workplace?

Imagine you're approaching the counter at Walmart. The cashier looks in your wagon and politely informs you that as a Catholic she can't ring up your condoms. Another cashier, a Christian Scientist, says he's refusing to ring up your aspirin. An Orthodox Jew tells you she can't ring up your bacon. A Muslim says he won't touch the bikini you have in your wagon. And then there's other Kim Davis wannabes who, as strict bible-interpreting devout Christians, won't serve you because you're gay, or have been divorced.

These cashiers would claim to be acting under the "authority of God" in their pursuit of "religious freedom." Are these plausible scenarios? You betchya, especially if someone like Davis isn't forced to follow the rule of law and the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. You think shopping at Walmart is crazy now? Just wait till the God Squad's in charge.

It may be 2015, but in many ways when it comes to race, religion, gender and sex it feels like the '50's. To be sure, tremendous progress has been made in not just tolerating but accepting people of all shapes, sizes, colors, faiths and sexual orientation. But there remains a (thankfully) small and ignorant minority that wishes to turn the clock back to when white, christian, heterosexual males were in charge.  The good old days, according to these narrow-minded, backward oppressors. 

And yet here we are still, incredulous that we're actually debating whether the definition of an individual's religious rights and freedoms should be mangled in a heaping pile of dogma crap to mean the right to persecute others. I suppose discrimination is ok as long as it's done under the cloak of God, right? But what would Jesus actually do, I wonder? Well, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be telling his followers to persecute someone in his name because she was poor, sick, gay, a woman, an immigrant or of a different faith. And I'm also sure as shit that he wouldn't have race-baiting homophobes like Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz as his spokesmen.

So I have a suggestion to those whose lives are ruled by their religious beliefs: if gay marriage violates those beliefs, then don't marry someone gay. That's where your "rights" end. Period.

The Typical Trump Press Conference

Donald Trump continues to maintain his front runner status in the campaign for the Republican Party's presidential nomination. That simple fact in and of itself is fascinating, but is even more intriguing given how Trump has not offered voters one single comprehensive policy plan relating to the economy, taxes, jobs, the environment, education, foreign affairs, defense and, yes, even immigration.

To the contrary, Trump's interviews, press conferences and campaign speeches utterly lack substance, and instead are filled with empty promises built on bumper-sticker slogans and superlatives, unparalleled in their superficiality, grandiosity and bombast. 

The man who's captivated his party is a master at actually saying nothing of substance.  A typical Trump press conference goes like this:

Reporter 1: Mr. Trump, you keep talking about how bad the economy is doing. What facts can you provide to support that contention, and what specifically would you do to fix it?

Trump: First, Jack, let me say that's a nice suit you're wearing. And by the way, Trump makes great suits. You've seen my suits? They're incredible. Worn by very, very important people. Your suit is ok. Normally you look like a putz but today you look, well, ok. The economy? It's in horrible shape. Horrible. Just look at the numbers. The statistics. You're a smart guy. Do your homework. What...you want me to do your job for you? If I were president I'll put everyone to work who wants a job. I'll bring manufacturing, good jobs, back to America. The economy will explode. Next question....Ellen...

Reporter 2: What will you do to improve the nation's education system?

Trump: Thank you Ellen for asking that. Normally you ask stupid questions. But I like this one. I'm gonna make our educational system number one in the world. We're gonna hire the best teachers and pay them well. Test scores will go through the roof. Every kid who wants to go to college will under my plan.

Reporter 2: And what exactly is that plan?

Trump: Ok Ellen, now you're asking stupid questions again. If I wanted a bimbo in the room I'd have invited Megyn Kelly. Next question...Alejandro....

Reporter 3: You've been saying that you'll build a wall to keep Mexicans from illegally entering the U.S. This is estimated to cost tens of billions of dollars. How exactly will you pay for this?

Trump: Alejandro, did you get the "Let's be stupid" email that Ellen apparently got today?! Look, I'm a builder...and by the way, Trump's building are the biggest and best in the world. Some very rich, very important people live and work in my buildings. Hugely important people. I know how to build things. And I make deals. I'll go to President Prieto, Nato, Noriega, whatever his name is down there and tell him he's gotta pay for it.  He'll do what I say. Next question...Angela...

Reporter 4: What do you say to those who believe you have a huge uphill battle in the African American and Latino communities?

Trump: I don't have any problem with the Blacks. The Blacks love me. I cherish Blacks. They're good, decent, hard working people. I'm gonna do more for the Blacks than Lincoln. Than Martin Luther King Jr. They'll be rich and happy under Trump! And by the way, I have more Blacks working for me than anyone. In my hotels. They clean rooms really well...better than the Mexicans. Yeah, the Blacks love me. And do I really have to explain how much the Mexicans love me? Next question...Todd...

Reporter 5: What will you do to ensure a clean, healthy environment?

Trump: That's easy. Trump will make the air fresher than ever. The water cleaner and more delicious. And I'll end pollution. Who likes pollution, right!? It's gonna be amazing. Next question...Alex...

Reporter 6: Republicans want to outlaw abortion. They also seek to defund Planned Parenthood, which is a major source of contraception for women. They also would like to stop insurance companies from covering contraception. These are utterly convoluted, contradicting positions. The number one way to lower abortions is through greater contraception. What is your position on abortion and contraception?

Trump: Another easy one. I know how to influence people. I'm Trump. All day I get people to do things for me. I don't mess around. I'll say to the kids, to the sexually promiscuous..."Hey, stop having sex!" They'll listen. And we'll have no more abortions. And we won't need contraception. Next question...Drew...

Reporter 7: You say you'll lower taxes. Not a popular stand for a Republican. How do you propose to do that?

Trump: Hedge fund guys...many of whom are my friends...I love 'em. And by the way, they buy massive apartments in my incredible buildings. Have I told you that Trump's building's are the biggest and best in the world? These guys will do favors for me. So if I tell 'em to pay more taxes so I can give the little guy a break, they will. Trust me. It's a great, great plan. There'll be plenty of tax money for everything. Next question....Farouk...

Reporter 8: Your campaign slogan is "Make America Great Again." This implies America is not great right now? How do you plan to improve America's standing abroad? Particularly in the Middle East?

Trump: The Arabs love me too. I cherish Arabs. Just not when they're blowin' things ups. Look, some of my best friends are Arabs. They come to Trump's clubs to play golf. I golf with them. And by the way, I have the most gorgeous golf courses in the world. So I'll settle the whole damn Arab/Israeli problem by the time we get to the 15th hole. I'll get all these guys out there together and be like, "Bibi, Mahmoud, Bashar, Abdel, Abdulaziz...just get your shit together and stop all this fighting, ok?!" And ya know what? They'll listen to Trump. Because they love my hotels and want to keep playing at my clubs. Ok, one last question...Jan...

Reporter 9: I'd like to do a little word association with you. I'll name a few of your Republican opponents and you give me a few words to describe them. Jeb Bush...

Trump: Like watching paint dry...

Reporter 9: Marco Rubio...

Trump: Adolescent Mexican... Ok, I'm kidding. He's not that young....

Reporter 9: Ben Carson...

Trump: Pretty smart and articulate for a Black guy...

Reporter 9: Carly Fiorina...

Trump: Look, I could call her a miserable, job-killing corporate loser, but I won't...

Reporter 9: Chris Christie...

Trump: Hey, great segue...when's lunch...I'm starving!

An Open Letter to Kim Davis

Dear Ms. Davis:

As you occupy your jail cell, contemplating your next move, let's set the record straight: you are a public official, paid by taxpayers and therefore your personal religious beliefs are completely irrelevant and insignificant as relating to issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. America's Founding Fathers took great pains to ensure that America would be governed under the rule of law, not by the authority of God.

You have no inalienable rights here under the United States Constitution. In fact, the Constitution protects the very people you are discriminating against, not you. The Supreme Court has affirmed that fact, despite your ignorance, intolerance and ill-advised protestations.

We have laws in America which we all must abide by. We can't arbitrarily decide which laws to follow and which ones to ignore. That's called chaos. Let me ask you this, Kim: in a country founded on the principle of separation of church and state and religious pluralism, would any of the following situations be acceptable to you?:

-can an Orthodox Jew refuse to issue marriage licenses to reform and conservative Jews because, according to his religious belief, these are not "real Jews?"

-can a radical Mormon insist on issuing licenses to polygamists?

-can a devout Catholic county clerk refuse to issue you a marriage license after your next (4th) divorce because he believes that marriage is sacred and considers you a sinner? 

-can an Atheist refuse to issue licenses to Christians because her religious belief is that organized religion is the root of all evil?

These situations are as absurdly unconstitutional as your attempt to deny gays their legal right to marry because of your personal religious beliefs. The irony is, as a thrice divorced "traditional marriage" proponent, you have degraded this institution more than any gay couple likely ever will. No one's stood in the way of your choice to marry four times. How dare you prevent others from marrying?

To be sure, we will never allow people like you to ram your extremist dogma down our throats or deny us our inalienable rights. So if that's unacceptable to you...if you feel you can't perform your job because of your devout religious beliefs... then quit and find another job. Or, as U.S. District Court Judge David L. Bunning ordered Thursday, you can defiantly rot in jail in contempt.

Assessing the Trump Phenomenon

One thing's certain: Donald Trump is not going to be America's 45th president. It's a pretty safe bet that he won't even be the Republican Party's nominee. The conventional wisdom is that the Trump phenomenon will soon begin to wane, either organically or from some sort of implosion. Given his penchant for talking first and thinking later, it's not hard to fathom a verbal gaffe so offensive that even his most ardent, loyal supporters will finally throw in the Trump logo-embossed towel.

Oh sure, The Donald's polling continues to surge. And this week he's even polling surprisingly well in a head-to-head match-up against the Democrats' presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton. Furthermore, despite several controversial statements about women that make him sound like the party's biggest misogynist, he has a 60% favorable rating among Republican women, prompting CNN's Wolf Blitzer this week to ask, "What does this tell us?" Well, at the very least, Wolf, it tells us that Republican women are incredibly tolerant of their front runner repeatedly making outrageously sexist comments.

"I cherish women," Trump has said in his defense. Of course, by cherish he means calling women fat, ugly, stupid, angry, emotional, hormonal bimbos whenever they disagree with him.

So what does all this tell us? For one thing, firing up the radical fringe 15-20% of the base--while completely alienating moderates and independents, let alone women, blacks and Hispanics--won't get him very far. The lust affair with Trump will, likes those in the past with Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, "the Ricks" (Santorum/Perry), Mike Huckabee and others with sensational, albeit brief celebrity-like moments in the sun, will surely end. But there are some very valuable lessons to be learned here from the rise and ultimate fall of Donald Trump.

Trump's candidacy demonstrates a growing dissatisfaction among voters with politicians' business-as-usual approach. His noteworthy ascendancy is a testament to those who want something different and exciting; someone they deem honest, straightforward and independent. While Jeb Bush pleads "I'm my own man," no one really believes him. He's intravenously connected to the old, rich, white GOP machine (can you say "Paul Wolfowitz"  for craps' sake!?) and, well, there's that little thing like his last name.

But no one for a nanosecond doubts that Trump is his own man. He's got a Fort Knox-like treasure chest of fuck you money and freely speaks accordingly. And despite five deferments which kept him from serving in Vietnam, he's masterfully crafted an enviable tough-guy, take-no-shit-from-anyone personae full of bombast, braggadocio and balls. To his small but clearly outspoken minority of fervent fans, he's a modern day political John Wayne. The man that candidate Bush dreams of being.

But even more interesting is that Trump is the far, far right version of the brassy, truth-telling everyman that Chris Christie was supposed to be. Except that Christie, besides being embroiled in scandal which has tainted that reputation of honesty and integrity, is also an angry, obese bully from New Jersey...not qualities of a credible presidential nominee (his polling is pathetically low).

To be sure, if God is a Democrat, Trump's popularity among Republicans will continue to grow and he will, despite odds of a zillion-1 against it, win the nomination (can you say, "President Hillary Clinton?"). But just imagine if Bush was able to tap into the sentiment fueling Trump's historically loony campaign, and the qualities so beloved of the candidate himself, without all the fiery rhetoric and controversy. Imagine a Bush who can credibly convey that he truly is his own man, not indebted or beholden to anyone. Someone who says what he believes and sticks to it and who dares anyone to challenge him. Imagine that Bush going up against Clinton.  Now that's a match-up that would make the Democrat gods shudder.

The Secret Genius of Donald Trump, the Democrat?

What if everything Donald Trump was doing or saying in his "serious" bid for the presidency was just a ruse? What if's just a brilliant, cunning scheme, as a closeted Democrat, to ensure the election of Hillary Clinton in 2016?

What if, at his core, Trump really isn't the flame-throwing, racially-insensitive, sabre-rattling, xenophobic, anti-gay-marriage, narcissistic right-wing blowhard whose comments aimed at President Obama, Sen. John McCain, Sen. Lindsey Graham, Rick Perry, Mexicans and others have led many to believe he's become mentally unhinged?

What if his bizarre, combative, polarizing behavior is part of an ingenious plot; an act of pure political, public sacrifice and selfless patriotism?

Love him or hate him, Trump is the greatest showman in the world. The P.T Barnum of our time. He's a master manipulator of the media, with so muchfuck you money that he can do or say anything he wants even if it costs him heavily in lost business deals. So when Trump opens his mouth, people listen.

Curiously, Trump's no stranger to Democratic politics. Most of his contributions in the last 10 years have gone to Democrats and Democratic causes, including the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Hillary in 2002, 2005, 2006 and 2007. She was even front-row at his 2005 wedding to current wife Melania Knauss. So is it possible that all the inflammatory rhetoric is in fact a brilliant secret scheme to hand the election over to Clinton?

It used to be that the right-wing crazies simply attacked their lefty opponents. But with Trump, the party's now eating its own. His incessant attacks on fellow Republicans is sucking all the oxygen out of the campaign and has made it impossible for anyone else, including likely favorites such as Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and Scott Walker as well as fringe candidates including Carly Fiorina, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio, to gain any traction.

As a result, the only candidate with any momentum is Trump, who maintains an appreciable lead in the polls. (note: in 2012 several Republican candidates including Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum and Rick Perry enjoyed brief moments at the top). His name appears in national headlines 22 times a day, about three times that of a perceived favorite like Bush. The media loves him. And why not? He's the proverbial gift that keeps on giving. The embodiment of the old adage, there's no such thing as bad press. 

And now Trump's threatening a possible independent run which would split the party and all but guarantee a Clinton victory given that his support would come from staunchly conservative voters.
To be sure, with Trump in the race, the GOP's been reduced to a dysfunctional, chaotic, fragmented, cannibalistic mess. Which could be Trump's ultimate plan.

Donald Trump, the Democrat? Maybe he's no so dumb or crazy after all...

The Super-Quick Implosion of Donald Trump's Campaign

Ya gotta hand it to Donald Trump. Whenever he does something, he does it big. Huge...the biggest and the best!, as the self-aggrandizing Donald himself would say.

So it's no surprise that Trump wasted no time in creating a worldwide stir which imploded his 2016 presidential candidacy. Astonishingly, his ship actually sank during his announcement speech less than two weeks ago at NYC's Trump Tower. He hadn't even left the building and his nascent campaign was, for all intents and purposes, already over. 

So what actually happened at that podium ? Simple. Trump opened his mouth. That's it. Normally, when Trump opens his mouth, a cacophony of ignorant, narrow-minded incendiary rhetoric gets regurgitated. In this case, it was of the xenophobic variety:

"When do we beat Mexico at the border? They're laughing at us, at our stupidity. And now they are beating us economically. They are not our friend, believe me. ... When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They are bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

Trump simply can't help himself. His ego is so massive, so rapacious, so wildly out of control that, in needing to be fed, it leads him to say the darnedest things. Things that offend a massive amount of people across the political and racial spectrum. And one thing no candidate should do, especially a Republican looking to occupy the White House, is to summarily offend the entire Latino community.

Trump's shit storm took just 13 days to reach F5 status.  For a beat, polls seemed to indicate that the real estate mogul and television personality was gaining appreciable ground on the Republican Party's apparent front-runner Jeb Bush. But the controversy trailed him like a hunting dog, gaining negative steam every day. His offensive comments about Mexican immigrants were uniformly condemned on both sides of the aisle, and calls mounted for the cancellation of his television program Celebrity Apprentice and the Miss USA and Miss Universe beauty pageants.

And the networks listened. Last week Spanish-language television network Univision cancelled their scheduled broadcasts of the Trump-produced pageants, and on Monday NBC Universal did the same, cutting all ties with him, including stripping him of his role as host of Apprentice, which he claims to have already given up to run for president. 

But Trump doesn't seem to care that he appears to have lost both his television and political fortunes in one fell swoop. Because he loves his fuck-you money more. And even more than that he loves what it gives him: the unbridled freedom to do and say whatever the hell he wants, no matter who he offends in the process. Just as long as the cameras stay focused. An unprecedented media whore, he's the embodiment of the phrase, 'there's no such thing as bad press.' But he found out this week that, yes, there is indeed bad press. And thus his "candidacy" is over, before it even began.

On a side note, in the wake of the Supreme Court's historic ruling on gay marriage, it's been fascinating to watch Trump, a thrice-divorced philanderer, talk of his belief in "traditional marriage."

The Definition of "Thug"

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines thug as "a violent criminal." The word has been used for centuries in India, England, America and other cultures to describe really bad people who do really bad things. Its use is prevalent among law enforcement officials, mobsters, Hollywood, the press and politicians. It's also been used to describe terrorists and foreign enemies. During the War on Terror, President George W. Bush referred to insurgents in Iraq as "thugs and assassins."

Until the late rapper Tupac Shakur popularized the phrase "thug life" in 1994 with an album of the same name, the word's definition, and those who fit its profile, was crystal clear. But over the past twenty years "thug" has become part of the new Urban-American lexicon with, as many contend, an entirely new meaning.

Michael Jeffries writes in Thug Life: Race, Gender, and the Meaning of Hip-Hop that "the concept of the thug underwent a...transformation, from signifying disgust, rebellion, and nihilism to evoking coolness and power...The label was attached to black and brown people, impoverished people, living in urban communities, regardless of their behavior. They adopted the word for subversive and oppositional reasons, and it found its way into the music."

As such, in the past week, "thug" has been thrust squarely into the middle of one of the nation's most incendiary controversies following the death in Baltimore of Freddie Gray, 25, who, after receiving serious injuries while in police custody April 12th, immediately went into a coma and died a week later. His death has ignited cries of police brutality and spawned both peaceful protests and devastating riots.

Monday evening Baltimore erupted with vandalism, looting, raging fires and violence. In response, several elected officials, including Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake (black), the state's Governor Larry Hogan (white) as well as President Obama (black and white) described the rioters as "thugs."

By Tuesday, Rawlings-Blake dialed back her comments: "I wanted to say something that was on my heart ... We don't have thugs in Baltimore. Sometimes my little anger interpreter gets the best of me," she said, pointing to her head. "We have a lot of kids that are acting out, a lot of people in our community that are acting out."

Seriously? These are just "kids acting out?" There are no "thugs" in Baltimore? Those who threw garbage cans through storefronts, looted and then set these businesses on fire are not the very definition of "thug?" What about throwing rocks, bricks, bottles and other dangerous materials at cops and destroying police vehicles? Or destroying senior centers? Or attacking and terrifying innocent bystanders? Why can't we call these violent criminals thugs? Why does Baltimore's mayor have to back-peddle and declare that her city is thug-free? Her retraction seems to be taking racial/political correctness and pandering to embarrassing levels. 

To be sure, there are many people who reject the hypothesis that it's a racist, ad hominem attack to refer to someone breaking the law as a thug...or that it's code for the n-word. Just because the word was adopted and repackaged by the hip hop/rap community, does that mean the rest of society can't use that word in its truest and original form without being labeled a racist?

With all due respect to the late Tupac Shakur  (full disclosure: I'm a 55-year-old white guy with "California Love" blasting in my earbuds at least once a day), I've been using the word "thug" long before rappers have. And I'm not going to be shamed into not using it anymore. To the contrary, I think it's shameful for a mayor of a major American city to kowtow to violent criminals and their apologists. And I think it's a greater offense to be more concerned with what we call these rioters rather than the unconscionable destruction they're causing.

We can't solve society's problems by condoning and enabling violent criminal behavior simply because the underlying issue is just. It's ok for us to condemn police brutality and racial injustice at the same time we call violent criminals thugs. Why must the two be mutually exclusive? Black lives do indeed matter. But so do cops' lives. And police, personal and business property. And personal safety and security. To borrow from popular culture which has become so hashtag-driven, #allofitfuckingmatters.

It should be noted that much public praise (including the accolade #motheroftheyear on Twitter) has been heaped on Toya Graham, the Baltimore mother who was captured on video slapping her son and calling him "motherfucker" as she dragged him from the riots (probably not the first time she's take her hands and fists to him). Look what America is becoming: a place where a mother who beats and verbally abuses her child is a hero, and the criminals who rampage through our cities' streets violently attacking innocent people and destroying property aren't thugs. 

An Open Letter to Hillary Clinton

Dear Hillary...
You can count me as one of your biggest fans, and a huge supporter of your bid for the presidency. You've probably got some of the best, most highly paid political consultants planning your every move, but stop listening to them. I already don't like what I see. So I'm going to give you some valuable advice which I hope and strongly suggest you immediately follow.

For starters, knock off the folksy routine. You don't do folksy well. That's Bubba's territory. This includes talking in corny fake Southern drawls, laughing hysterically for no apparent reason, and stopping off at Chipotle as if a Burrito Bowl and you are best friends. And, for Pete's sake, you and Huma (Abedin) need to take the shades off indoors. You look like Thelma and Louise.

Just be yourself. You're smart, charming and highly accomplished. Besides being a brilliant lawyer, you've been a successful First Lady, U.S. Senator and Secretary of State. And (and please listen to this very closely), you're a woman. A woman. And it's time for a woman president. A president who will champion women's issues better than any man can. There's 161-million women in the United States, and 102-million of them voted in the last presidential election. See where I'm going here?

Listen to me, Hil. You can get a majority of these women to vote for you, and not just the libs. Oh sure, those red state ladies will appease their small-minded, misogynistic mates and pretend they'll be voting for Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio or some other 1950's-minded, red-blooded Republican male. But when that curtain closes, millions of them will jubilantly yank that lever for you. I promise you. But you have to follow my direction.

So here's the plan: talk about women's issues as much as Herman Cain mentioned "999." The right to choose. The right to top-paying jobs and equal pay. The right to marry another woman. The right to affordable health care. The right to better maternity and family leave. Protection from domestic violence and rape. Better education for children. Constitutional equality. Equality. Say it again: equality. The more you talk about women being equal, in every way, and the more the GOP Boys' Club pushes policies that continue to relegate women to second-class citizenry, the more of a cake-walk this will be for you.

I want you to hammer this theme home so hard that Rand Paul wishes he'd be locked in an NBC green room with Savannah Guthrie and Kelly Evans so he doesn't have to hear it anymore.

To be sure, you won't get the Michelle Bachmann-like crazies on your side. These Stepford Wives will still vote for whichever male candidate the party nominates. But one thing is certain: if given a choice between some rich old sexist white dude and a woman, many millions of moderate Republican and independent women will proudly and emotionally (and secretly) cast their votes for you.

You have a colossal advantage here. Don't try to be like everyone else. You're the only woman in the race. Pounce on that. Own it. It's time to make history again....

LaPierre's Hillary Rant: Since When is Being Cheated On a Character Flaw?

The National Rifle Association (NRA) held its annual leadership forum in Nashville Friday, giving executive vice president Wayne LaPierre an opportunity to feed his rapacious, gun-worshiping Hilary Clinton haters a tasty meal of venomous rhetoric aimed at the likely Democratic nominee for president. (Clinton officially announced her candidacy two days later on Sunday).

LaPierre warned that the former First Lady, U.S. Senator and Secretary of State "will not bring a new dawn of promise and new opportunity” but rather "a permanent darkness of deceit and despair, forced upon the American people to endure.”

And in what is sure to become the right-wing rallying cry, to be echoed relentlessly between now and the 2016 election, the nation's chief gunslinger went on to list a litany of "gates" in which the Clintons have been involved:

“Whitewater-gate,’ ‘Cattle-gate,’ ‘Jenifer Flowers-gate,’ ‘Nanny-gate,’ ‘Lincoln bedroom-gate,’ ‘Travel-gate,’ ‘Trooper-gate,’ ‘File-gate,’ ‘Paula Jones-gate,’ ‘Vince Foster-gate’, ‘Helicopter-gate,’ ‘White House Coffee-gate,’ ‘Web Hubbell Hush Money-gate,’ ‘Pardon-gate,’ ‘Illegal Gift-Gate,’ ‘Monica-gate,’ ‘Benghazi-gate,’ ‘Email-gate,’ ‘Wiped Server-gate," LaPierre smugly barked. “Hillary Clinton has more ‘gates’ than a South Texas cattle ranch, and Americans know it.”

What's most contemptible in LaPierre's vitriolic rant is that it lists several of Bill Clinton's mistresses--Jennifer Flowers, Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky--as if his marital indiscretions are a negative reflection on Hillary's character; reasons why she's ill-equipped to be president. But since when is being cheated on a character flaw? What does Bill's philandering have to do with Hillary's ability to serve?

Most offensive in LaPierre's insensitive, ignorant diatribe is that in these instances Hillary Clinton was the victim. Since when do we ridicule and punish victims for the actions of those who violate them?  In LaPierre's bizarre "guns don't kill people" alternate universe, Hillary's victimhood is no less a target of his bullets--real or symbolic--than a helpless deer or a school full of children.

Following the tragic Sandy Hook school killings in December 2012 LaPierre said: “If we truly cherish our kids more than our money or our celebrities, we must give them the greatest level of protection possible and the security that is only available with a properly trained – armed – good guy.” So why should we expect any more logic or rational, practical thinking from the guy who thinks the solution to our gun problem is to have Wild West-style shootouts in elementary schools?

To be sure, all's fair in politics, especially in what is sure to be a highly polarized, contentious race between Clinton and whatever ideologically backward candidate the Republican Party nominates. So if LaPierre wants to challenge Hillary Clinton's involvement in the Benghazi attack, her Senate record or her email decisions while during and after her term as Secretary of State, that's fair game. But attacking her for being the victim in a humiliatingly public marital crisis is incredibly misguided and an unconscionable disrespect not just to Hillary Clinton, but to women and victims everywhere.     

An Open Letter to Phil Jackson: PLAY ME!

Hey Phil, play me. Please. I'm dead serious. I want to play for the Knicks. Like right away. And I promise you the team will do no worse with me than with that miserable overpaid bunch of losers you call a team. That's because you've lost 12 games in a row, 22 of the last 23, and have dropped to 5-32 on the season. The worst you can do with me is win!

Think about it. What do you have to lose? I'm the X-factor you've been looking for to shake things up. I'm 5/8, but I don't jump or shoot like Mugsy Bogues or Nate Robinson. Though 55 and in reasonably good shape, I'll probably need to sit after every three or four minutes. But you'll still do better with me.

Think about it. A small middle-aged Manhattan Jew in orange and blue. The fans will love me, as will the press. We'll start racking up victories. Jewsanity, they'll call it. I'll be like "Rocky." New York loves an underdog, and I'll make the Garden rock like it did when Willis Reed limped out in Game 7 of the '70 Finals. I'll be on ELLEN and JIMMY FALLON. Everyone will be talking about us. And we'll win games. I promise. You've never seen my behind-the-back layup. Just have Calderon keep feeding me.

Think about it. You just gave away JR Smith and Iman Shumpert, two of the team's most colorful personalities. You need me now. I used to do stand-up. I'll be a f'ing hoot in the locker room. Who do you have now for laughs, Samuel Dalembert? I rest my case.

Seriously Jax, this is no joke. You're losing every single damn game, ok? Try me. I guarantee that you can't do any worse with me. I'll even learn that damned triangle offense... and we all know how much you like that...whatever the hell it is. Stop wasting your time on 'Melo. He'll never get it...and you know it.

Think about it, oh great Zenmaster.  I'll be on stand-by with my Payless specials laced and ready to go. 

Hey GOP, Please Keep Steve Scalise at the Top of Your Junk Pile

The Republican Party's strategy for reaching across the cultural and racial divide, in an effort to expand its tent for the next major national election, is to throw its full support behind embattled Louisiana Congressman Steve Scalise who, by his own admission, spoke in 2002 to The European-American Unity and Rights Organization (EURO), a white supremacist group founded by former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, Scalise claims he did not at the time know the origin of the group or Duke's involvement.

Scalise, who as Majority Whip is the GOP's 3rd highest ranking representative, told a reporter almost twenty years ago while running for office that he was like "David Duke without the baggage." Was this simple pandering to a key voting block or a much clearer window into the man's political and moral psyche? Either way, he knew exactly who he was targeting.

As House Republicans vote Tuesday to elect its leaders, many on the right have been all too quick to defend Scalise's utterly implausible story, even blaming Democrats for the controversy. Speaking on MSNBC's Hardball Monday evening, Republican strategist and former Dick Cheney advisor Ron Christie said: "I think the Democrats are being disgraceful in the way that they're playing the race card. The Democrats are dividing this country..." he said, while specifically naming DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and White House press secretary Josh Earnest.

In a statement released Monday Wasserman Schultz said: "As the new Congress begins, nothing discredits Republican claims of 'outreach' and bringing people together more than their decision to keep Steve Scalise at the top tier of the elected leadership of their caucus...Anyone living in this century should have known better than to attend and speak at a white supremacist event, particularly one founded and led by David Duke, and Scalise's explanation that he wasn't aware isn't credible by a long shot."

And Earnest, during Monday's White House press briefing, said: "There's no arguing that who Republicans decide to elevate into a leadership position says a lot about what the conference's priorities and values are."

So let's get this straight: what riles Republican officials is not that their party has racists, who do and say despicable things, but rather the Democrats who make public their words and actions. Welcome to 2015, where condemning a racist is playing the race card.

To the GOP I say, please keep Steve Scalise in his leadership post. Leave him up there as a glaring symbol of what your party stands for. Let Americans know who you support. Who you defend. Who you reward with power. Who you call a "man of character." 

Here Comes Bush v. Clinton 2.0

Earlier this year I wrote a piece titled "Forget Christie: Why Jeb Bush Will Win the 2016 GOP Nomination." Looks like he's made it semi-official with the announcement over the weekend that he will "actively explore" a presidential run, and will release approximately 250,000 emails early next year from his two terms as Florida governor from 1999-2006. As Yogi Berra famously said, It's deja vu all over again...

Despite the fact that he's not been to Iowa in two years, and that his political team consists of just four people, Bush has big Republican donors salivating on the sidelines. Folks who can't bear the thought of supporting bombastic New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, whose BridgeGate and Hurricane Sandy scandals, coupled with his anger management problem and obesity, vastly diminish his overall appeal outside the Garden State.

Bush is the anti-Christie.  He's got pedigree, class, is soft-spoken yet firm, smart, moderate (by today's wacko Tea Party standards) and married to a Mexican woman, making him quite an attractive candidate to many, as Hispanics are becoming a much bigger percentage of overall voters. And, mostly because of what he's not--a fringe loon like Ted Cruz, Rick Perry, Scott Walker, Rand Paul or Marco Rubio, or a 'loser' like Mitt Romney--big GOP donors and bundlers would euphorically hop aboard the BushTrain the nanosecond he declares.

But Bush also has serious liabilities that concern the party's ultra conservatives, such as his controversial positions on immigration, education and taxes, as well as his overseas investments. And then there's that pedigree thing. Though his mother Barbara has essentially flipped on her famous 2013 claim that "we've had enough Bushes," the million-dollar question remains, 'is the country ready for yet another Bush?'

In an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll earlier this year, 69% of Americans agreed with Ms. Bush that it's time to move on. And with the news full of terrorist beheadings by ISIS; the turmoil in Iraq and Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East; new reports of CIA torture tactics; Dick Cheney reprising his Darth Vadar routine; and a still-struggling economy, will the ghost of big brother George haunt baby bro and present insurmountable challenges to an eventual campaign?

To be sure, Bush is no centrist, despite his lofty reputation. He's for tax cuts to the wealthy, is against abortion and gay marriage, is in bed with gun owners (we can partially thank him for Florida's Stand Your Ground law), and his views on faith have put him squarely in the middle of controversy. In 2003 he intervened on the side of the family of Terri Schiavo, a Florida woman in a persistent vegetative state, whose feeding tube was removed and then ordered reinserted, against the wishes of her husband, her legal guardian.

All of which makes Hillary Clinton the most likely victor in this dynastic match-up. The country has matured and evolved, but the Republican Party hasn't. It is Clinton's views, not Bush's, that are shared by a majority of Americans. Voters want immigration reform; have overwhelmingly supported same-sex marriage; believe in a woman's right to choose; worry about climate change; want to close the income gap; seek government regulation of Wall Street and the banking industry; and support Obamacare and the need to insure all Americans.

Yes, America's next president will likely come from American political royalty, but she won't be a Bush.

The Real Dick Cheney "Meet the Press" Interview...

With the release of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on the CIA's detention and interrogation programs, which cites brutal acts of torture on detainees between 2001-2006, Chuck Todd, host of NBC's "Meet the Press," sat down this past Sunday with former vice president Dick Cheney.  Below is the original version of that interview before Cheney's people threatened Todd with a very cold, wet death if he didn't destroy it and re-interview him. Thankfully, Kim Jong-un's hackers were able to locate the original and make it public:

TODD: Mr. Vice President, this report is utterly shocking in its findings. The level of torture qualifies as criminal; a blatant violation of the Geneva Conventions as well as our own moral standards here in America.

CHENEY: Well, it all depends on how you define torture.

TODD: Detainees were kept naked, chained and shackled, beaten, starved, waterboarded, shot and even killed.

CHENEY: Get to the torture part...

TODD: And you would do all these things again?

CHENEY: You bet your liberal ass I would! And just for shits and giggles, Chuckie. They don't call me Dr. Evil for nothing.

TODD: So you don't think any of this is torture.

CHENEY: Torture to me is having to listen to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. You can waterboard my ass all day long...just please don't make me listen to those two.

TODD: Let me ask you about a few specific cases. Let's start with Abu Zubaydah, who was waterboarded so aggressively, leading led to convulsions and vomiting....and in one instance he became completely unresponsive with bubbles rising through his open full mouth.

CHENEY: Bubbles? Sounds like party-fun to me, Chuck.

TODD: But Mr. Vice President, Zubaydah was also shot while he was held captive....and developed an infection in his left eye, which had to be removed.

CHENEY: He's got two eyes, for Pete's sake. What does he want...everything?

TODD: What about the near-drowning of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was waterboarded at least 183 times?

CHENEY: That's not torture. In my house that's a shower.

TODD: Mr. Cheney, this next allegation is even more disturbing. It involves...er...um...rectal feeding or rectal hydration, without any documented medical need. Seems like it was used as a form of behavior control.

CHENEY: Damn right it was. I think we got that idea from that Al Pacino movie, "CRUISING."

TODD: That's not funny, Mr. Vice President.

CHENEY: (looks at Todd glaringly, with sounds coming from his mouth as if he's chewing on marbles) Do you see me laughing?

TODD: Some detainees were forced to walk around naked and shackled, hands above their heads. Dragged all over the place, being beaten. What is your response to that?

CHENEY: Um...that would be the Pacino film again.

TODD: C'mon, Mr. Cheney, one detainee, Gul Rahman, was found naked from the waist down, chained to the floor of his unheated cell, frozen to death. That, quite frankly, is unconscionable.

CHENEY: He didn't pay his utility bill. So we turned off the heat. We're not running an SRO at Gitmo!

TODD: Mr. Cheney, I'm really starting to get upset with your arrogance, colossal inhumanity and chilling disconnect from reality.

CHENEY: Chuck, one more comment like that and I'll chain you to the floor naked, club you with a spiked paddle and pour ice water all over you while blasting Ariana Grande.

TODD: Now that, Mr. Vice President, is indisputable torture. You can't deny that.

CHENEY: You're right, Chuck. No one should have to listen to Ariana Grande.

Some Hillary Advice for Christie

So New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has weighed in on Hilary Clinton's electability. That's like the Knicks telling the Warriors that they have little chance of winning this year's NBA championship. 

With the holidays approaching, I'd like to offer Christie this little gift of advice: you should spend your time contemplating your own depressed political stock, and chances (zero) of winning the Republican nomination for president in 2016, and not worry so much about Hillary Clinton, who has the support of 65% of Democratic primary voters.

The New York Times on Sunday reported that Christie recently told a group of energy executives that Clinton "lacks her husband's talents and personal appeal." I'm not sure what alternate universe Christie resides in, but Hillary Clinton is perhaps the only politician on this planet who is more popular than Bill Clinton.

Christie also claims he's more likeable than Hillary. While I'm sure he's a huge hit among nasty, arrogant, dismissive, disrespectful Northeastern conservatives who love being told "shut up" and "you're an idiot" by their elected officials, I have serious doubts that his big, bad Jersey blowhard routine will play well in the rest of the nation. 

BridgeGate. Temper. Obesity. Just a few of The Boss's outsized liabilities to go along with his outsized personality. And when (not if) both Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush toss their hats into the ring, Republicans from California through the Midwest to the Rust Belt, Great Plains and down into deep South will be a singing a chorus of "Christie who?"

The GOP's "The Party of Working People?" Who Knew!

Louisiana Congressman Bill Cassidy defeated Sen. Mary Landrieu in last Saturday's runoff election, handing the Republican Party their eighth pick-up and a 54-seat majority when the new Senate convenes in January. The victory broadens the already massive shift in that region's politics: the deep South is now as red as a fire engine, with nary a Democratic Senator or Governor across nine states spanning the Carolinas to Texas. 

In his victory speech, Cassidy proudly made clear his constituency:

“We are a working-family region,” Cassidy said. “The Republican Party is the party of the working people.”

The problem with this declaration is that it is 100% patently false. Unless of course he's referring to another GOP, not the one that's vehemently against raising the minimum wage, or providing healthcare coverage for all Americans, or regulating Wall Street and banks, or seeking to dismantle the Department of Education or the Environmental Protection Agency, or cutting off funding to Planned Parenthood, or fighting immigration reform, or protecting the interests of Corporate America. Shall I go on?

As for Cassidy himself, let's take a peek inside his own Congressional record in terms of his support for the little guy:

-Voted YES on terminating the Home Affordable Mortgage Program
-Voted NO on additional $825 billion for economic recovery package
-Voted NO on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act
-Voted NO on four weeks of paid parental leave for federal employees
-Voted NO on expanding the Children's Health Insurance Program
-Voted YES on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion
-Sponsored prohibiting abortion information at school health centers

Hardly the record of an advocate of the poor and middle class. But Cassidy and his party are certainly crafty enough to convince an appreciable segment of their base that words matter way more than actions.  Haven't poor and middle class white, rural conservatives been duped and disappointed by the GOP in the past? Apparently they have short memories, and voting against one's own economic interests still rules the day.  

To be sure, right-wingers love to attack liberals for being in bed with Hollywood and the entertainment industry. But the GOP claiming to be "the party of the working people" is as big an example of fiction and fantasy as anything coming out of Los Angeles.  

After the New Year, it'll be the first time in eight years that the Republican Party has controlled both houses of Congress. American's working people will soon find out how much Cassidy and the GOP will value and protect their interests.

What Ray Rice Needs

I am not a violent person. It's not in my DNA to use my fists, or any type of weapon, to harm anyone, let alone a defenseless woman. Even if provoked, it would be hard for me to cause physical harm to another person. That said, if I felt threatened, or my family was in danger, I'm sure the adrenaline would kick in and I'd do whatever necessary to protect myself and my loved ones. But I could never slam my fist into someone's head and knock them unconscious simply because I was angry.

Which is why I believe we're missing the main point in the Ray Rice domestic violence case: that nothing except an intensive, lengthy psychological rehabilitation process will help the Baltimore Ravens running back become a better man. It's terribly misguided, and an oversimplification of the root cause of domestic violence, to think that an indefinite suspension or lifetime ban from the National Football League will "teach him a lesson" and provide some deterrent effect among offenders. Domestic violence is not about "lessons." It's not about conscious, rational thought. It's purely about uncontrollable rage, and the use of violence, often deadly, to express that rage.

Studies have proven that dealing with criminals punitively (and yes, domestic violence is a crime, not something between "Rice and his wife," as some female nitwit at Thursday night's Ravens game told a reporter) has little or no effect on preventing future crimes. Do we honestly think that the next time some pro athlete is about to coldcock his woman in a fit of anger he's going to stop and say to himself, "I shouldn't do this...it could cost me my career?" Our prisons are full of people who've seen others get punished for the very crimes they then went on to commit.

Rage has no brain. Rage doesn't stop to think about consequences. Rage acts first and thinks later. It cannot be "treated" punitively.

Should Ray Rice be banned for life from the NFL? Personally, I'd like nothing better than to see him get everything I feel he deserves, including criminal prosecution and prison time. He's a violent criminal and a coward and I detest his behavior. So yes, if his NFL contract includes a morals clause which specifically calls for such a ban under the circumstances, he should be barred from ever playing professional football again. But let's not kid ourselves. More importantly, he needs treatment. Psychological treatment. He needs to control the very rage that deemed nothing wrong in punching the lights out of his then-fiancee, Janay Palmer, and dragging her limp, unconscious body out of a hotel elevator like a dead fish. A lifetime ban will not stop him, or anyone else, from again causing physical harm to another human being.

What Happened to "Never Again?:" Thoughts From an American Jew

The current crisis between Israel and Gaza has certainly stirred up a tornado of emotion and strong opinion worldwide, and has become a polarizing force among American Jews. Caught between their cultural identity and the horrific images of dead civilians, including children, it's easy to understand how many have become sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians.

To be sure, no one wants to see dead children. It's hard to support any military action that kills kids. But I think there's a critical perspective being lost in this war. And that is that it is war. War is horrific, brutal and ugly. Soldiers die. And war kills innocent people. Even children. Which is why governments typically go to war as an absolute last resort, when all other options have failed, because very, very bad things happen during war.

War is typically fought to the death. There are no gentlemanly courtesies afforded the enemy. They try to kill you, you strike back with deadly force as well. It's kill or be killed. It's not, "Hey...you're trying to kill me, but you're a lousy fighter with crappy weaponry so I'll just slap ya down a little and let ya live so you can keep on trying to kill me." Because one day, they might succeed. And then you're dead.

Which is precisely why I'm having a very hard time understanding how some of my fellow American Jews can be so supportive of Gaza and the militant group Hamas which governs it. How they can excuse the actions and atrocities caused by this genocidal Jihadi organization, whose charter calls for the annihilation of Israel and it's people?

Contrary to the rhetoric and radical Islamist propaganda surrounding the current conflict, the battle is not about Israel occupying Gaza (a more fact-base case can be made that it began in response to the June kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers from the West Bank). Israel withdrew from its occupation of Gaza in 2005 amid intense and violent protest by, and forced removal of, the area's 8500 settlers. Every building, with the exception of synagogues and greenhouses, was demolished. This painful struggle, pitting Israeli against Israeli, civilian against soldier, including daily images of troops dragging screaming and sobbing settlers out of their homes, was played out on television screens all over the world that controversial Summer.

And what did Israel get in return for handing over the region to the Palestinian Authority? Two years later Gaza's citizens went to the polls and in a "democratic" election gave control of the territory to Hamas. And we're now witnessing its colossal failure as a governing body. Rather than build schools, hospitals and mosques, it's been using these locations as launch pads for the thousands of rockets that have been fired towards Israel since their victory.

Hamas has also diverted critical funding and resources--concrete, for example--to build terror tunnels into Israel through which its militants can abduct and murder both soldiers and civilians. And its main defensive strategy is to cowardly use its citizens as human shields, while subsequently crying foul when those citizens get killed in return fire.

Let's be clear: Hamas's rockets have a very specific purpose: to kill Israelis. Not just Israeli soldiers, but innocent men, women and yes, children. And they're being fired to also cause destruction to Israel's cities, its infrastructure and its nuclear facilities. These are not warning flares that Hamas militants are firing towards Israel. They are deadly weapons launched with an intense, venomous hatred, and with a desire to kill and maim Jews.  

Israel's critics charge that its aggressive response to the rocket attacks has been "disproportionate." They cite the death toll, which has almost 2000 Palestinian civilians in Gaza being killed, while just three Israeli civilians have died. But does the fact that most of these Hamas rockets have been shot out of the sky by Israeli's incredible Iron Dome air-defense system, before they do harm, mitigate their intent to blow innocent Israeli civilians into bloody pieces? Would the "score" not be much closer if Israel was less capable of defending itself?

Perhaps Israel's American Jewish critics could answer a few key questions: Should Israel be excoriated and condemned for having more sophisticated weapons, and for minimizing its civilian casualties as a result? Should Israel, because of its successful defense against these deadly rockets, not be firing back at the terrorists launching them because they're being launched from residential areas and schools? Should Israel be treating Hamas like a bunch of petulant teenagers incapable of causing real harm, or as the murderous terrorist organization it is, hellbent on its death and destruction? Must Jewish blood and body parts fill the streets of Israel's cities before its armchair critics in the U.S. and elsewhere can justify its aggressive response? Before American Jews can support such retaliation?

The pro-Gaza, hashtag-fueled cries from American Jews is misguided and, quite frankly, shameful. Whatever happened to "Never Again," the promise by Jews to never again let themselves fall victim to genocide? It's easy to sit in a Starbuck's on Manhattan's Upper West Side and spread social media gospel about how Israelis are "overreacting." I suppose 5600 miles gives one both a safe perch to preach from as well as a false sense of security. But just imagine how these same people would be acting if a bomb exploded on the #1 subway train. And another the next day, and then others in a mall, supermarket and cafe. I wonder if there'd be the same cries for restraint and "proportionate" retaliation.

American Jews seem to be forgetting the thousands of innocent Israelis that have been blown to pieces since 1948 in synagogues, restaurants, nightclubs, on buses, in schools and elsewhere by Palestinian suicide bombers and other acts of terrorism. They're forgetting the horrific images of dead Israeli children being dragged lifeless from the rubble, who died a horrible death simply because they were Jews. How can they forget? This conflict did not start last month.  

We must remind ourselves that without Jewish arrogance, naivete and complacency, the Nazis may not have been able to murder 6-million of our people seventy years ago. A failure to recognize the enemy's goal of ultimately exterminating their entire population helped lead Europe's Jews onto the trains and to the concentration camps without a fight. And, while the rest of the world did little to stop it either.

So against that historical backdrop of genocide, and with chilling acts of anti-Semitic vandalism and violence spreading across Europe once again, the message from Israel is clear: American Jews can think and say what they want, and be naive, complacent or pretend the enemy's sole reason for existence is not to brutally destroy theirs. But Israel vows...never again.

What Boehner's Lawsuit really Means

Thank you John Boehner. The nation truly appreciates you and your fellow House Republicans altruistically devoting your last moments in Congress, before a much-deserved 5 1/2 week vacation (hey, you try doing nothing for a whole year...it's exhausting!) to protecting healthcare. Despite obsessively voting fifty times and spending $70+ million of taxpayer money to repeal the Affordable Care Act / Obamacare, you're on a mission to ensure that Americans receive every single benefit the insurance law intended. Bravo!    

That's right. Republicans have sued the President of the United States. That's a pretty serious action. Must've been over something so egregious...something so detrimental to America's health and welfare...something that, if unchecked, could literally bring down our great nation. Guess again. 

The lawsuit is over Obama's use of an executive order to delay for one-year the employer mandate provision of ACA, which requires business owners to provide health care for its employees. Forget Immigration, minimum wage or extended unemployment insurance. There's no time to waste on these pesky little issues when one aspect of Obamacare is at risk! Because no one wants to force businesses to provide health insurance to employees more than House Republicans, right?

Oh, those executive orders! Republicans hate them, especially when it's a Democrat who signs them. But for anyone keeping score, Obama's signed 183, far less than any president in modern history, especially Republicans. George W. Bush signed 291 of them. Bill Clinton 364. Ronald Reagan 381. And George H. W. Bush 166 (in four years). So why all the Republican concern about the Constitution all of a sudden? It's because there's only one thing Republicans hate more than a Democratic president's use of executive orders is this president himself. No president has been more disrespected, or been the object of more vengeful scheming, than Obama.

To be sure, for Republicans, the lawsuit is not only baseless but meaningless. It will have no material impact on Obama's presidency, and its cost to taxpayers will ultimately seem small compared to the cost to the party come election day. But the real gain is to be had by Democrats, whose base is more energized than ever heading into November's critical midterms, while being handed on a silver platter a delicious boon to fundraising. They've raised millions since the suit's been filed...at a rate of about $1-million per day.

An Open Letter to John Boehner and House Republicans

Dear Mr. Speaker...
On behalf of Democrats everywhere, I would like to ask you to impeach President Obama. Please. I implore you. Nothing would make us happier. You know you want to. You know that merely suing him is not going to satisfy you and your rabid brethren. Impeachment is the only solution. So just go ahead and do it. You have our full and unyielding support!

And why are we so supportive? Because it'll be the nail in your political coffin. It will finally convince moderate Republican and independent voters that you're nothing but a worthless cabal of self-serving, tone-deaf, obsessed, manic, hateful, polarizing obstructionists. With your approval ratings swirling in the toilet, and your intransigence paralyzing Washington, impeachment would obliterate any shred of doubt that America's best interests are the last of your priorities. Not the economy, not jobs, minimum wage, immigration, education or the environment. Screw America. If only you guys worked half as hard at doing your job as you do at tearing down Obama...

He's Kenyan! He's an illegal alien! He's a socialist! He's a constitutional criminal! He must be stopped! You do realize how crazy you sound, right? And we love every convoluted, insane word of it.

We also support you in this mad quest because we know it will ultimately have no impact on Obama's presidency or the liberal agenda. To the contrary, it will empower him. Think of all the executive orders he'll use to push through his policies after he's impeached. He'll make you the laughingstock of Washington.

You might want to pay attention to history. What happened to the post-impeachment Bill Clinton? How did former Speaker Newt Gingrich and his merry band of revolutionaries, of which you were one, materially affect his presidency with their venomous lynching? Clinton emerged the victor from that shameful partisan witch hunt. He was acquitted by the Senate, became the most popular politician on the planet, and is still the guy who can charm the pants off folks on both sides of the aisle. And Newt? He was forced to step down as Speaker, left Congress shortly thereafter, and cost his party appreciable seats. And you lost your leadership post for the next decade. 

Mr. Speaker, if you relish being this decade's Gingrich, and want to feel what it's like to suffer humiliating defeat again over an out-of-control obsession with destroying a Democratic president, we will gleefully watch as you drive the GOP crazy-car straight off the cliff and into utter irrelevance and obsolescence.

Mitt Romney: The GOP's Great White Hope

Bring up the subject of the 2016 Republican presidential nomination and the conventional wisdom has either New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie or political scion and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush as the likely nominees. Oh sure, there's a few people who, with a straight face, believe Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul or Florida Sen. Marco Rubio are viable candidates, but they have as much of a chance of being nominated as I do. Which is why my money's on Mitt Romney 3.0.

A New Hampshire Granite Poll released last week showed Romney with an astonishing 39% lead over all other hopefuls including Christie, Bush, Paul, Rubio, Rob Portman and Ted Cruz, none of whom broke single digits. That's a pretty startling statistic. And one Romney is no doubt seriously mulling. When New Hampshire beckons, you listen.

Consider Romney the New Nixon. The dull, awkward loser who, despite all the odds, makes a stunning comeback, aided in part by timing and circumstance. Like Nixon, Romney likely won't stop running until he wins, regardless of his halfhearted statements to the contrary. Running for the most powerful and complicated job in the world requires a massive ego. Something Romney has in abundance. But he also has deep pockets and prominent pals with even deeper pockets. Lastly, he's an oasis of mainstream sanity in a sea of radical Tea Party lunacy. He's truly the GOP's Great White Hope.

There's a reason Romney's polled 31 points higher in New Hampshire than other GOP hopefuls. It's a pretty sorry pack. Christie, the former Hope, is damaged goods. He's a belligerent, bullying, scandal-plagued New Jersey back-room brawler. And he's obese. Seriously, people, let's move on. It ain't happening. Bush? He stands the best chance despite his potential deal-killing last name, family troubles, and unpopular views on taxes and immigration....but only if Romney's not in the race.

Let's face it: Romney looks pretty damn good in a suit. And he's quite accomplished politically and in business, is squeaky-clean, and heads a quintessential all-American white-bread family. And once you peel away his fringe-pandering "severely conservative" layers, he's an unapologetic moderate at heart. Would that play well with independents and conservative Democrats this time around?

If Romney wants to win he must address four critical areas: first, he must shed the flip-flopper costume and demonstrate integrity and conviction in his positions. In short, he's got to grow some mainstream balls, embrace his record (including and especially RomneyCare) and stop pandering to the party's lunatics. Trying to out-crazy Rick Perry is not a winning strategy.

Next, he needs to show voters passion and personality, two critical traits that were painfully absent in the 2012 election. He must stop appearing robotic and out of touch. He needs to be the charming, compassionate Romney that his pals supposedly know, not the stiff, tone-deaf automaton who ran against Obama.

He also needs to acknowledge his wealth and put a productive spin on it: "Hey, I'm rich, ok? But guess what...so is every other presidential candidate! My wealth, which I amassed on my own as a businessman, is precisely what affords me the time and ability to commit myself to public service. To be able to help those less fortunate."

Lastly, he needs to clean house. Assemble a whole new team and, more important, a whole new campaign strategy. Together with his advisers, he must figure out a way to bring normal Republican voters to the primaries. The campaign can't be the exclusive playground of the nutballs. He's got a huge opportunity to appeal to all those moderates who lament that "there just doesn't seem to be any place in the party for folks like me anymore." If the man who's put the "aw" in awkward  can enjoin them into the campaign early, and simultaneously come across as a real human being, 3.0 might just be his time in the sun.

An Open Letter to Sarah Palin

Dear Ms. Palin:

I feel sorry for you. I truly do. It must be terribly frustrating to be so irrelevant. To have your rabble-rousing, race-baiting drivel limited to Fox's Sean Hannity Show in your desperate, pathetic, never-ending quest for attention. You are, put simply, one of the most ignorant, misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic, hate-filled racists to ever hit the national political stage (thank you John McCain).

Your new video, in which you call for President Obama's impeachment because of his "lawlessness," is an unconscionable, unpatriotic piece of garbage. The level of disrespect, condescension, sarcasm and reality-butchering is astounding. To say that your fake-cutesy, sing-songy, snarky delivery is vomitous would be a colossal understatement. You're also quite tone-deaf, comparing your suffering over his presidency to that of a "battered wife." There really are no groups you won't offend, are there?  

Impeach Obama? For what, doing his job amid relentless Republican obstructionism and intransigence? For trying to keep government operating efficiently? For growing the economy? For creating millions of new jobs? For caring about 8-year-olds crossing the Mexican border alone? For wanting to find a practical, compassion solution to the immigration issue? For providing everyone health care? For trying to narrow the income inequality gap? For protecting women's rights?  For allowing people who love each other to marry?

That you, like that other heartless conservative Dick Cheney, even have a perch from which to still spew your venomous hate-speak, is unfortunate. No one, not even the Fox faithful, should be subjected to your incendiary bile. You're a failed, disgraced politician who, despite becoming a humiliating punchline following the 2008 election, refuses to crawl back under your rock. Trust me: no one except Hannity, a few horny white Republican dudes and a smattering of their intellectually bankrupt women are interested in what you have to say.

Ssshhhh....hear that sound? It's the rock beckoning.... 

What Religion is My Company?

I own a marketing company. I'm Jewish. My partner is Italian and Christian. Of our almost fifty employees, our cultural and religious make-up is quite diverse. We are a company of people. The company itself is not a person. So what's our religion? Whose religious beliefs should trump those of all others? Mine? My partner's?

The United States Supreme Court issued a highly controversial decision this week involving Hobby Lobby, an arts and crafts chain, and Conestoga, a cabinet making company, ruling that "closely held" companies can, based on the strong religious beliefs of their owners, refuse to provide certain contraceptives at no cost to their employees. In his majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote: "Protecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby, Conestoga ... protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those companies." The court essentially gave legal precedent to Mitt Romney's preposterous 2011 assertion that companies are people too, and therefore have the same rights as individuals.

"The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield," wrote Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her minority opinion of the 5-4 decision. "Can an employer in business for profit opt out of coverage for blood transfusions, vaccinations, antidepressants, or medications derived from pigs, based on the employer's sincerely held religious beliefs opposing those medical practices?" she added.

Exactly. Just where is the new line drawn? How far can business owners twist this ruling to deny their employees health care? Can Christian Scientists refuse some basic medical coverage altogether? Can Jews refuse to cover medical procedures that occur on the Sabbath? What about those business owners whose personal religious beliefs are based on strict interpretation of the Bible? Can they therefore deny coverage to homosexuals? Adulterers? Atheists? (all of whom, by the way, should be killed according to various passages in the Bible).

So what is my company's religion? My company doesn't have one. My right, on any conceivable level, to force my personal religious beliefs on my employees disappeared the nanosecond I signed our Limited Liability Company (LLC) documents that would serve to insulate me as an individual from legal and financial claims against the company. Signing those documents created a distinct, legal firewall between my company and me personally, my religious beliefs and, more importantly, my ability to impose them on my staff. I gave up that "right" (assuming I ever had it, which is debatable), as soon as I sought the government's and the court's protection as an individual. I can't have it both ways. Nor can Hobby Lobby, Conestoga or any other "closely held" for-profit company. The Supreme Court's ruling is misguided and convoluted.

Dick Cheney's Big Neo-Con Con

Former VP Dick Cheney wrote the following in his Wall Street Journal op-ed this week:

"Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many."

And if you were to guess that he was referring to his former boss, George W. Bush, you'd be wrong.

The man with whom Bush committed the worst military debacle in U.S. history and, as many believe, with whom he's guilty of war crimes, was actually talking about President Barack Obama.

In in the wake of escalating sectarian violence in Iraq, neo-cons like Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Paul Bremer and others have crawled out from under their war-mongering rocks in a pathetic attempt to vindicate themselves while dumping the blame for this disastrous mess on Obama.

The level of audacity, duplicity, shamelessness and megalomania with Cheney in particular is astounding. The war began unjustly, was misguided and mismanaged, and soon proved Cheney 100% dead-wrong on everything he pitched to Americans. Let's revisit for a moment his greatest hits:

-Insisted Iraq had WMD
-Predicted the invasion/war would "last weeks, not months"
-Claimed we'd be "greeted as liberators"
-Bragged that extremists would have to "rethink their strategy of Jihad"
-Boasted that the insurgency "was in its last throes" back in 2005

In fact, the war lasted eight years, cost $1-trillion and 4500 U.S. soldiers' lives. It was a blood-thirsty conflation of Saddam Hussein with 9/11. It was battered with threats of "mushroom clouds" and domestic terrorism. It remains a vile twisting of reality, and an unconscionable exploitation of the nation's collective emotion and fear following the horrific New York City and DC attacks. And it was all perpetrated by Bush/Cheney & Co., not Obama, who merely inherited this mess.

To say that Cheney's op-ed piece is revisionist history would be a gross understatement. Rather, it's the most mind-numbing case of delusion in political history.

Like Vietnam, Iraq is falling following U.S. withdrawal...spiraling into bloody civil war because it lacks a strong enough democratic government and military to sustain itself without American help. And it's been racked by centuries of violent sectarian conflict. It's no surprise that the country now finds itself on the eve of destruction just three years after Obama brought home the troops.

To be sure, Dick Cheney is a very lucky man. That he's not spending his last days rotting in prison for the death and destruction he's caused is quite fortunate for him, as is his ability to continue spewing his unpatriotic, self-serving bile in the neo-con-friendly Wall Street Journal.

But if the unforgiving drubbing that Fox News' Megan Kelly gave Cheney on her program Wednesday night is any indication, history, even among Republicans and conservatives, is judging him quite justly.

Forget Christie: Why Jeb Bush Will Be the 2016 GOP Nominee

ABC US News | ABC Business News

Chris Christie will not be president. Nor will he win the Republican nomination. In fact, it's likely the BridgeGate and SandyGate scandals will derail his decision to even run.

Despite bragging of his vindication in the incomplete report released last week by his hand-picked 'independent investigator,' Randy Mastro, the New Jersey governor's hole just keeps getting bigger and deeper. You know you're in trouble when the surrogate you send out to do your biased bidding on the Sunday morning talk shows, Rudy Giuliani, calls the report "inconclusive" on NBC's Meet the Press.

So as Christie was jetting out to Vegas to kiss billionaire kingmaker-wannabe Sheldon Adelson's ass, thumbing his nose at the allegations against him and pretending everything's back to normal, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC poll was released showing his popularity's dropped to an embarrassingly low 17%. And at his press conference last week, he traded in his new softer, gentler, contrite self for the original brash, belittling, confrontational model....excoriating reporters simply for doing their jobs. Yes, Christie's back and he's pissed!

Someone needs to remind The Big Man that Americans don't elect angry, arrogant bullies as president, especially those from New Jersey who are embroiled in revenge scandals. As the polls indicate, voters aren't buying his "I didn't know anything" routine. They're instead concluding that he's either lying through his teeth or is utterly incompetent. Nobody wants a president who can't control his staff, or who might call Russian president Vladimir Putin "stupid" or an "idiot." To be sure, Christie's damaged goods, and the goods weren't that hot to begin with.

Which is why former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush will most likely toss his hat into the ring and eventually become the GOP's nominee. He's got class, pedigree, political juice and a Mexican-born wife...assets the Republican Party desperately needs. He's an oasis of respectability and sanity in a sea of fringe madness. He's appealingly establishment and old-school against a backdrop of Tea Party Turks run amok. He's Steady-Eddie. Conservative enough to appeal to the masses, but not too conservative to attract independents.

Forget Christie. And forget Rand Paul, Scott Walker, Rick Perry and Paul Ryan. They have as much chance of becoming president as I do. Bush is the only electable one in this bunch. And the only one who makes Democrats very, very nervous. Those Bush's...they have this habit of winning...

Bush v. Clinton 2.0. Get ready...

Is Woody Allen Guilty or Innocent of Child Sexual Abuse?

Woody Allen is guilty. Woody Allen is innocent. Actually, I have no idea what Woody Allen is, nor does anyone else except Dylan Farrow and Allen himself, although that hasn't stopped anyone, especially in the 24/7, free-wheelin', open-mike social-media playground, from pontificating as if they do.

To many in the court of public opinion, Woody Allen is as guilty as sin. Why?  Well, because it looks that way.  And because Dylan, his adopted daughter with ex-girlfriend Mia Farrow, published a shocking letter earlier this month recounting the sexual abuse she claims to have endured over twenty years ago when she was seven.

Perhaps like so many explosive allegations such as these, the truth will never be known. But that hasn't stopped people from making unequivocal judgments against Allen as if they were eyewitnesses to the alleged crime. The intoxicating allure of social media has given every Tom, Dick and Jane the forum to serve as judge and jury, absent the evidence to render such devastating judgements. Opinion has become the new fact. 

Let me state for the record, again, that I have absolutely no idea whether Allen is guilty or innocent. But I do believe in America's system of due process, and the state of being innocent until proven guilty. The allegations against Allen are not new, nor are the conclusions drawn by Connecticut police, the state attorney and child-abuse experts they hired in 1993 to investigate; experts who had concluded that there was insufficient evidence that Dylan had been molested by Allen, and that it appeared she'd been coached.

Let's be clear, the allegations made by Dylan and outlined in her open-letter are horrifying.  As the father of three daughters I cannot comprehend such abuse. It sickens me to even think about it. I accept that she believes every single word of what she's saying, and that these ghastly experiences comprise her absolute truth. Whether they are real memories based on actual experiences, or are the nightmarish images cruelly planted by her mother when she was seven, will never be known for sure unless Allen one day confesses or Dylan experiences an epiphany.

But there's one indisputable fact here. Dylan Farrow was indeed abused by someone: either a sick, twisted, evil man with whom her mother was involved for many years, or by an even more deranged mother who, out of her own angry, vindictive and unconscionably self-serving state, sentenced her child to a life in an emotional prison and destroyed her relationships with her father and sister. She is a victim of unthinkable, heinous abuse either way. And for that we should feel nothing but compassion and rage. 

But for many it hasn't stopped there. This emotional outrage is the basis for Allen's conviction in the court of social media. The "experts" on Twitter and Facebook use as "proof" myriad situations--misguided conflations-- that should have nothing to do with this case but have served to complicate it even further: the horrible abuse of children that occurs every day all over the world; how women are abused and mistreated by more powerful men; and by what many believe is Allen's "creepy" behavior with the then 19-year-old adopted daughter of Farrow, Soon-Yi Previn, with whom he's been married since 1997. None of which can or should be used to draw any conclusions about Allen's guilt. But is has.

Which is why it's time for people on Facebook, Twitter and elsewhere to stop drawing broad, unfounded, incriminating and terribly unfair conclusions of guilt, or unequivocal statements of innocence, about a very complicated 21-year-old case with which they personally know absolutely nothing about.