An Open Letter on Brexit to Trump's Angry Old Working-Class White Male Supporters

First off, I want to say for the record that I truly understand your frustration, your anger, your general discontent with income inequality, your fears of terrorism and your desire for secure borders, homeland security, and real change. The poor and middle classes should share in America's wealth and prosperity by having good jobs, rising wages, affordable health care, housing and education, and a chance to live out the American dream that our parents and grandparents--most of them immigrants--experienced. I get all of that. But what I don't get is your support for Donald Trump and your belief that he is the answer to your problems.

Also for the record, I am not the product of a wealthy real estate family...or any wealthy family. My father drove a New York City taxi for 35 years. The job took such a toll on him physically that he would often come home bent over in a 90° angle from sitting behind the wheel 15 hours a day. Nobody handed him anything. I shared a room with two brothers, and when I was old enough to work (14) my parents had me pay room and board. I paid my way through college, holding down two jobs while squeezing in my studies, racking up thousands in student loan debt that took me a decade to pay off.

Just to be clear, and regardless of my current political/socioeconomic status, what I've earned, and what I've saved, like you, is all I have. There is no inheritance waiting in the wings. As the years quickly pass, I've excitedly looked forward to the day when I can retire, sit on a park bench, read the paper, feed some pigeons, and live out my remaining days in peace, tranquility and relative financial comfort and security. Which is why I need to issue you a very serious warning. A grave warning for all of us.

Take a look at the fallout from Brexit, the United Kingdom's controversial and, to many, shocking exit from the European Union, thus ending a 40-year relationship with this giant economic and political bloc. The referendum, which ended in a 52-48 vote, was largely fueled by the same type of voter anger, frustration and disenchantment that you feel. But there's a tremendous cost to voting out of anger and emotion. Of sending "protest" votes. The consequences can be devastating and irreversible, as the Brits are now experiencing. The political system collapses, the currency craters, financial markets tank, and the economy risks falling into a protracted tailspin, wiping out trillions in savings and wealth in the blink of an eye.

The parallels between the intense economic concerns and nationalistic motives behind the Brexit vote, and the sentiment that's fueling Trump's incendiary campaign, are more than worth noting. To be sure, what happened across the Atlantic could very well happen here. Think about that for a second. Think about your retirement, your savings, the plans you hatched decades ago and how quickly it all could disappear if the American economy and political system is turned on its head and thrown into chaos with the election of Trump, a divisive, polarizing figure with zero political experience, and with rapidly dwindling faith and trust within the Republican Party, in the financial community and on Wall Street, and on the global stage.

In just the past two trading sessions alone the Dow Jones Industrial Average has dropped almost 900 points and 5%. And we may not be done with the carnage yet. Keep in mind these losses are merely the impact of what's taking place in England which, by the way, is not even among our top five trading partners. Think about what would happen to the U.S. markets if this was our political and economic system that was thrown into complete disorder and confusion. The Brits are already having serious buyers' remorse, evidenced by the over 4-million citizens who've signed a petition calling for a new referendum. The Leave movement's leaders are already backing off their promises regarding key issues such as health care and immigration, realizing that the lies which fueled their hate-filled campaign can't realistically result in policy or change. Don't make the same horrible mistake British voters now know they've made.

I know you're not terribly fond of Hillary Clinton. Ok, some of you despite and hate her and can't fathom her back in the White House, this time sitting in the Oval Office as president and commander-in-chief. But let me assure you this: a Clinton presidency will not cause an upheaval in our political and economic system. The dollar will not plunge to 30-year lows. The stock markets will not devolve into crisis, triggering massive selloffs domestically and from investors abroad. America's credit ratings will not be lowered. There will not be a run on banks by terrified small investors like you. You will not lose everything you've worked hard for your whole life because we have an "un-PC" self-serving racist maniac in charge. You may not like Hillary or her politics, but you will be able to sleep at night with Madam President at the helm.

But I will promise you this: "President Trump" will make you regret the day you ever pulled the lever for him. He'll renege on his wild promises, just as he's already backing off the Muslim ban. The anger you feel now will be nothing like the anger you'll feel when you see your retirement account cut in half, or worse. America won't feel so great again. You know the old adage, be careful what you wish for. Because as John Oliver so aptly put it, "there are no fucking do-overs."

What Broadway Can Teach Hollywood About Diversity

Hollywood has a problem. It's largely run by rich straight white men who, for the most part, champion the work of other straight white men. According to well publicized statistics, if you're a black, Hispanic, female or LBGT actor of director you've not been invited to the party. Getting jobs, good jobs, Oscar potential jobs, is nearly impossible.

In the last twenty years there have been twelve black Oscar winners. Only five have been in the acting category. There were two directors, one for documentary feature and one for documentary short subject. Four winners were in the music and writing categories, and there was one producer.  In the last ten years, just ten black actors received Oscar nominations, while two black directors were nominated (in the feature category). Shockingly, not one black actor has been nominated in the past two years, spawning the #oscarssowhite social media backlash and calls for a boycott of the 2016 Academy Awards ceremony.

The last woman to win an Oscar for Best Director was Kathryn Bigelow in 2009 for THE HURT LOCKER. She is also the last woman to be nominated in that category. Prior to her, Sofia Coppola was nominated in 2003 for LOST IN TRANSLATION.

In the Best Picture category, in the last ten years, just five films with a mostly black cast and/or central theme have been nominated. Overall, the stats for Hispanics are pretty dismal as well.

(For a more in depth look at the statistics of "Hollywood's Diversity Problem" please check out the results of research performed by The Adrienne Shelly Foundation)

Contrast that with Broadway in just the last year alone and you get a starkly different picture, one that screams of diversity and inclusion. One of the four best plays was written and performed exclusively by black women. Two of the five Best Musical nominees were black productions, as was one of the four nominated best musical revivals. And all four musical acting awards went to to black actors. The overall nominees list was quite diverse as well; seven other individual nominees were actors of color, as were two directors in the Best Play and Musical categories.

Women fared well as well across many categories, most notably in a production like WAITRESS, with its ground-breaking all-female creative team (full disclosure: my late wife Adrienne Shelly, who was killed in 2006, wrote and directed the film on which this musical is based).

The obvious question is, how can the two communities be such polar opposites when it comes to diversity? The answer isn't clear. But what is clear is there's a desperate need for the power brokers in Hollywood to own up to the fact that there's a shameful dearth of black, Hispanic, female and LBGT talent in front of and behind the klieg lights. And that needs to change.

“Think of tonight as the Oscars, but with diversity," host James Corden said in his opening monologue. "It is so diverse that Donald Trump has threatened to build a wall around this theatre.”

When it comes to race and inclusion, it's not a good sign when your industry is compared with Donald Trump, even in jest.

Donald Trump is America's Gift to bin Laden

Somewhere, somehow, amidst his decadent cavorting with 72 virgins, Osama bin Laden must be smiling. Smiling like a man who's finally seeing his master plan come to fruition.

In the wake of the horrific mass killing at the Pulse gay nightclub in Orlando, FL, where 50 people died in the the deadliest shooting in United States history, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has been spewing newly amped up nativist racist rhetoric against refugees, immigrants and Muslims in particular.

Trump early Monday disingenuously attempted to conflate the attack by 29-year-old American Omar Mateen with what he called the threat from Syrian refugees entering the country, going so far as to lie in his claim than Mateen was "born in Afghan." Hours later in a speech in Cleveland, Trump offered an even more outrageously offensive line of attack:

"The bottom line is that the only reason the killer was in America in the first place was because we allowed his family to come here."

Mateen's parents are immigrants from Afghanistan. Mateen was born in New York.

Trump also reiterated his plan to temporarily ban Muslim immigration, specifically from countries where he believes the threat of terrorism was greatest.

"We cannot continue to allow thousands upon thousands of people to pour into our country, many of whom have the same thought process as this savage killer," Trump said, promising to only lift the ban "when we as a nation are in a position to properly and perfectly screen these people coming into our country."

He continued, "Many of the principles of Radical Islam are incompatible with Western values and institutions... Radical Islam is anti-woman, anti-gay and anti-American" (many, by the way, would argue this could also be said about Trump himself).

When bin Laden masterminded the horrific September 11 attacks which killed 3000 people on U.S. soil, he of course sought to kill Americans and cause catastrophic destruction in the process. But there was a more likely goal: to forever change America. To turn American against American. American against immigrant. American against Muslim. bin Laden's aim was to prove to the Muslim world that America was in fact as ugly, ignorant, racist and anti-Islam as he preached to his jihadis. Give America time, he believed, and everything it stands for, everything it believes in, its core tenets, its morality, its free press and even its precious rule of law, will be turned on its big fat arrogant head by scapegoating, hatred and violence. The bullies and fascists will take over, and democracy as we know it would be corrupted forever.

And now, fifteen years later, comes Donald Trump, the rabble-rousing, wall-building anti-Muslim isolationist gift-wrapped in a bloated orange box. The birthday present bin Laden always wished for but never lived to receive. Trump is the perfect vessel to realize bin Laden's ultimate dream of destroying America. He's everything the brutal monster hoped for and wished upon "The Great Satan." If Trump were to become president, America loses, but more tragically, bin Laden finally wins as he always planned.

The Winning Strategy for Hillary: Just Let Trump Be Trump

There's no question that Hillary Clinton's speech in San Diego last week was incredibly effective in defining the Republican presumptive nominee Donald Trump as erratic, petulant, thin-skinned, dishonest, dangerous and woefully unqualified to be president. It was an evisceration of the kind not experienced by Trump during the GOP primaries. It also served as the foundation for a barrage of unrelenting attacks he can expect for the next five months. But one thing's certain: Clinton will be greatly helped during this time by Trump himself. She just needs to let Trump be Trump.

Trump simply cannot help himself. Like a child. Or an addict. Unfortunately for him, he is incredibly thin-skinned. He is super-sensitive. He cannot hear even the slightest challenge or criticism without coming out swinging like a ranting, raving, unhinged, emotional lunatic, which sends him careening off message. And that's when anything and everything can and will come out of his mouth. No matter how irrational, incoherent or offensive. No matter how un-presidential.

Safe to say, last week was not a particularly good one for Trump. He faced a mountain of criticism over his controversial racist comments about Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who's presiding over the Trump University civil fraud case. The case itself also took the news spotlight, with Trump accused of essentially robbing seniors and low-income folks out of their savings. Trump also imploded at a press conference he held to address accusations that he reneged on a promise to raise $6-million for veterans causes. And there was that brilliant Hillary speech, which was so unsparing and scathing that it left Trump a terrified sweaty mess the rest of the week.

The media may have also reached a tipping point with Trump. At his press conference he unleashed a tirade of insults, referring to journalists as "dishonest" and "disgusting" while calling one ABC News reporter "sleazy." At almost every Trump rally he also relishes calling them "scum" and "slime." It would seem that the media's love affair with the bloviating, sexist, racist billionaire may finally be over, in which case he will face a tsunami of scrutiny the likes of which will result in even greater Hillary-landslide-causing temper tantrums.

To be sure, what we witnessed last week was that there's clearly just one adult in the room.  Which is why Hillary should stay on point, discussing substantive policy issues while defining Trump as "dangerous" and "incoherent," drawing a stark contrast between them. She should demonstrate experience, leadership and presidential temperament, just as she did in San Diego. And she can bet that Trump will continue to do and say outrageously offensive things, and will pout, whine and stomp his feet like a spoiled, petulant 6-year-old every time he's "insulted," treated "unfairly" or not properly "praised." Hillary should simply let him self-destruct.

Why Donald Trump Will Not be Eleceted President

First let me state for the record that all of my previous predictions about Donald Trump since he began his campaign a year ago have been dead wrong. Which raises the question, why the hell should anyone care about yet another prediction from me? Because if I'm wrong again it will signal the fall of the greatest nation in history.

The conventional wisdom is that there's a huge difference between angry white male Republican primary voters and the general electorate. Given that roughly 16% of Americans voted in the Republican primaries, and that Trump garnered about 45% of them, that would mean his "fans" comprise approximately 7% of the general electorate. Now while we've learned that with Trump there is no conventional wisdom, it's still hard to fathom how he can expand his base to achieve the 51% majority need to win in November, especially without women, Hispanics, independents, moderate Republicans and with a 60% unfavorable rating.

But what's really difficult to fathom is that America could be led by a fascist dictator like Trump. Someone who's blatantly and shamelessly attacked the likes of immigrants, minorities, women, the disabled, veterans, war heroes, world leaders and the Pope. An attention-starved thin-skinned narcissist who's run an insult-laden campaign built on bombast, bullying and false bravado. A mean-spirited, nasty, divisive, polarizing loose-cannon with an utter disdain for America's free press, the bedrock of a democracy. A tone-deaf, self-serving, entitled megalomaniac and pathological liar who's promised to shut the Department of Education, the Environmental Protection Agency and the IRS; withdraw from NATO; expand nukes globally; defund Planned Parenthood; punish women for getting abortions; deport 11-million immigrants; and register and ban Muslims. In short, someone who is fundamentally unqualified to be president.

Trump is so dangerous and self-destructive that he'd turn America into a domestic and international joke, similar to Italy under controversial power-hungry billionaire Silvio Berlusconi's indictment-ending reign of greed, corruption and sleaze. Under "President Trump," America would degenerate to its ugliest, darkest days. He would single-handedly destroy its reputation and the 240-year-old principles on which it stands.

And that is precisely why Donald Trump cannot, will not, be elected president. Because I believe my fellow Americans are inherently good, decent, moral and patriotic people. Unlike the small minority of Republican primary voters, I refuse to accept that they will vote for a self-aggrandizing empty-suited reality-tv buffoon like Trump, who in just 12 months of campaigning has tarnished the office of the presidency like no one since Richard Nixon, the disgraced Republican whose career-ending unethical, amoral and criminal behavior paled in comparison to Trump's sexist, racist, xenophobic offenses.

Yes, I believe America is better than Trump. That the general electorate will ultimately demand more than an angry, vulgar, crass, impulsive, intolerant, intellectually-bankrupt peddler of negativity and doom as leader of the free world and commander-in-chief of the greatest military on the planet. That's my new prediction. God help us if I'm wrong.

A Conversation Between Donald and Melania Trump?

Donald: What the hell do I do now, Melania? I'm the frickin' Republican nominee! That wasn't supposed to happen! This was supposed to be fun for a few months. I'd get to feed my ego and pretend that I actually have a shot at being president. Tons of free advertising. Would be great for business. The brand. Bring more viewers to The Apprentice. More people to my hotels. Instead, I'm the one who got fired on Apprentice, and bookings at the hotels are way down. This is a nightmare!

Melania: But Donald, wouldn't it be fun to be president?

Donald: Fun? I don't want to be president, Melania! Don't you understand? That's a horrible job. We'd have to move to Washington DC and live in that little house. And instead of having everyone kiss my ass all the time I'd have to kiss everyone else's ass...Congressmen, Senators, world leaders, the press. And they hate me there. Here I'm The Donald. The boss. When I say 'jump' they say 'how high?' In DC no one would listen to me.

Melania: But Donny, you always say 'When Trump calls and asks people to do things, they do it!'

Donald:, Melania, my saucy Slovenian sex goddess, are you dumb!? That's all just BS I say on the campaign trail. Life doesn't work that way. In NY if people don't listen to me I fire them. I can't fire anyone if I'm president. They don't have to listen to me.

Melania: So then how do you get out of this mess, my sweet sexy orange manchild?

Donald: I don't know. I've tried everything. I've called Mexicans rapists. I rant about building a stupid wall. I say I'll ban Muslims. I call women bimbos and fat ugly pigs...and say they're not "10's" like you, my hot little immigrant baby mama. I've mocked the crippled. Bashed war heroes. Cozied up to David Duke and the KKK. I've even taken on the freakin' Pope, for God's sake. I've bragged about my shlong size! And they still love me! There's nothing I can do to turn them off. They're really stupid, these people. They think I actually give a shit about them. Too dumb to even see how I've used them. I live in a gold-filled mansion in the sky, travel on private jets and helicopters, ride in limousines...yet somehow I've convinced these bozos that I'm one of them. What's wrong with these people?

Melania: What else can you do, Donny?

Donald: Maybe I should amp up the nastiness. Call gay people fags. Throw the N-word around. Maybe come up with some nasty nicknames for world leaders. Ugly Angela! Gangsta Vladimir! Fat Kim! Jewboy Bibi! Maybe that'll finally scare people bigly!

Melania: But you know I don't like it when my Donny is so mean!

Donald: Maybe I'll shoot someone! Like Cheney did! I'll take Lewandowski hunting with Eric and Don Jr. We'll make it look like an accident. They'll say I'm too dangerous to be president!

Melania: Ok, Donald, that sounds like a great plan!

Donald: No it doesn't! You really don't understand the problem, do you!? I could actually kill someone and my crazy fans will make excuses for it. They'll say the person deserved it. 

Melania: So what are you going to do, my big strong spray-tanned love savage?

Donald: I don't know. Maybe I'll name Bernie Sanders as my running mate. But ya know what? His fans are just as crazy as mine. That might just clinch the whole thing for me. What do 'The Jews' say, Oy Vey?

Congratulations Donald Trump!

Congratulations, Donald! My hat's off to you. I'm not exactly sure how you did it, but you actually ended up the Republican presidential nominee. You accomplished what I and just about every other pundit except the loathsome Ann Coulter repeatedly predicted was the impossible. Though I disagree with virtually everything that's come out of your blabbering, bullying, sexist, racist mouth, I have to give credit where credit is due. You made history. You changed politics as we know it. You did it your way, all the way. Now we just have to pray to the gods of politics that you never get elected.

I admit, you made me look foolish. I predicted you'd drop out early. I predicted Jeb Bush would win. I said Republicans would never elect such an ignorant, polarizing, rabble-rousing empty-suit like you. I believed at some point you'd say something too offensive, go one step too far, be caught in such an obvious lie, that your circus-like campaign would come crashing down like a house of cards. What I didn't expect was that 45% of Republican voters would gleefully embrace your incendiary rhetoric. Your bigotry. Your shameful defiling of the office of the President. I gave them way more credit than they clearly deserved. My bad.

You're the first person since Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952 to win the nomination without a day of political experience. You raised and spent almost no money. You offered no substantive policy proposals. You pissed off virtually every ethnic group. Mocked people with disabilities. Disparaged countless women, calling them "bimbos," "fat pigs" and "ugly." Engaged in name-calling like a 12-year-old. Cursed like a 1970's Times Square pimp. Called for violence at your rallies. Refused to release your tax returns.  You lied more than Pinocchio. You've essentially told the heads of your party, including RNC Chairman Reince Priebus and House Speaker Paul Ryan, to f**k off. In short, if there was a "Things Never to Do or Say If You're Running for President" instruction manual, you'd have violated every commandment. You've defied the odds like no other phenomenon in the history of phenomenons.

The conventional wisdom is that once a candidate wins the nomination he or she will move to the center to win over moderates and independents. But "conventional wisdom" are two words we've all learned not to use in the same sentence as "Trump." As such, judging by your juvenile behavior over the past couple of weeks, you clearly have no intent to lower the temperature, tone down the rhetoric and unite the party.

To be sure, now that you're in the infancy stages of a general election battle with the presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, you show no signs whatsoever of slowing down. You're continuing to tear up the presidential campaign playbook and do it your way. Afraid of nothing. Of no one. As mean, nasty and belittling as ever. Maybe even more so because you're empowered like never before. Because your rapacious id has been feasting for a year now on monumental adulation and attention. Talk about enabling.

And so, incredulously and perhaps a tad arrogantly, including from this writer as well, the predictions will start up again."Trump can't win in November!" "The general electorate is much smarter than Republican primary voters!" It's gonna be Hillary in a landslide!" Except this time they'll be made not out of confidence and assuredness, but from an overpowering sense of frustration, panic and fear.

Why a National $15/Hour Minimum Wage Makes No Sense

The minimum wage earned by most Americans is shamefully low, varies by state, and is in desperate need of increasing. It currently (as of January 1, 2016) ranges from $5.15 in Georgia and Wyoming to $10.50 in Washington, DC.  Many states have already passed legislation that would raise the rate to $15/hour over the next several years. But the politicizing of this issue is both misguided and disingenuous. Calls for a national $15/hour minimum wage simply make no sense.

To be sure, in the current hotly contested presidential election year this is a very sexy issue that generates a lot of noise, in particular from Democrats Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton who are engaged in a back and forth about how much is enough. Sanders promises $15, while Clinton believes the issue is nuanced and seeks at least $12, an amount which has brought her much criticism from her opponent. Donald Trump, the Republican presumptive nominee, has added to the rhetoric as well, merely saying the rate should be "looked at" but has not yet committed to what that means in terms of actual dollars.

From a purely logical business perspective, Clinton is correct. Oversimplifying the minimum wage debate is both politically expedient and irresponsible. Consider the fact that the cost of living varies tremendously from state to state. Let's use Tulsa, OK and Smithtown, LI as examples. The average rent in Tulsa is $720 vs $2550 in Smithtown.  A gallon of gas costs $1.82 in Tulsa vs $2.33 in Smithtown. A dozen eggs in Tulsa is $2.25 vs $3.00 in Smithtown. Isn't it therefore fair and reasonable to suggest that the hourly worker on Long Island might be justified in receiving a higher wage than his or her counterpart in Tulsa? Should they truly be earning the same hourly rate despite having such disparate expenses?

Similarly, isn't it logical to assume that businesses in Tulsa have a much lower overall cost structure than businesses on Long Island? They pay less for rent, utilities, transportation, supplies and staffing, and also have a lower cost-of-goods-sold, lower prices and lower profit margins. In which case they can't afford to pay the same higher hourly rates as the businesses on Long Island that, while paying higher costs, can also charge more and have higher gross incomes to support the higher cost structure.

Which brings us back to Clinton's point that this is a highly nuanced issue that requires thorough analysis and sensible legislation, not people-pleasing talking points. Sanders' call for a universal $15/hour wage makes about as much financial sense as his call for free college tuition for all without means-testing to ensure that only the children of the truly economically disadvantaged benefit from it rather than children of privilege. Both proposals are little more than red-meat rhetoric to the "Democratic Socialist's" base.

Yes, the minimum wage must be raised. But it needs to be done in an intelligent, practical manner taking varying state-to-state economic factors into consideration.

The Hypocrisy of Bernie Sanders' Income-Inequality Revolution

Bernie Sanders has run one of the most successful "outsider" campaigns in the history of American politics. The self-proclaimed socialist has done so largely as a crusader against income inequality.

Yet in 2014 Bernie and his wife Jane earned $206,000 according to their federal tax return, placing them in the top 6%. Even if you use just the Vermont Senator's $174,000 salary, he's still an 8%'er. And then there's the $200,000 golden parachute his wife Jane took upon her departure as president in 2011 from Burlington College after nearly bankrupting it over a bad real estate deal. The poor and middle classes are lucky to get two weeks' notice when they get fired.  Talk about inequality. Excuse me if I see a bit of hypocrisy in the Bank of Sanders.

Bernie's supporters argue that his high salary is what the U.S. government pays him, as if that's some sort of justifiable excuse; an excuse they surely don't accept from Hillary Clinton when defending her $200K Goldman Sachs speaking fee with, "that's what they paid me!"

As the man or woman on the street would tell ya, $174,000 is a lot of dough. More than what 92% of Americans earn. Jane's $200,000 exit payoff is nearly four times the average U.S. annual household income. How come Bernie doesn't take a big chunk of his taxpayer-paid salary, $75,000-$100,000 for example, and donate it to NARAL Pro-Choice America, Black Lives Matter or any one of the numerous charities that help single mothers and people living in poverty, such as A Safe Haven?  Wouldn't that make his Robin Hood campaign that much more credible?

How does Jane's golden parachute--a financial practice typically reserved for corporate bigwigs, the very people her socialist husband relentlessly and mercilessly rails against--square with Bernie's income inequality crusade? Could she have taken this obscene sum and donated it as well?

The Sanders' 6%'er household income and Jane's parachute is like a movie being played out with two vastly different narratives. The first act tells the story of a relatively unknown righteous underdog of virtue who fights tirelessly to level the economic playing field in what former North Carolina Senator and presidential candidate John Edwards referred to as "the two Americas."

In the second act we struggle with the inherent hypocrisy of the man's own elite financial standing and Goldman-esq payment to his wife. The audience squirms and asks, how is this possible? Why take Bernie seriously while, when it comes to his pocketbook to support his own standard of living, he seems all too comfortable cashing checks that make him wealthier than 94% of the population? A man who has no problem with his wife accepting a $200,000 Wall Street-ish golden parachute as he demonizes the very same industry for engaging in the very same practices that serve to create the very same income and wealth inequality he's made the cornerstone of his revolution? The goose and the gander come to mind here.

So the big question is, what does the third act have in store? There's no indication that Sanders will alter his personal financial landscape to match his fiery anti-corporate/wealthy rhetoric. So is Bernie a "Democratic socialist" because this contradictory label allows him to say one thing and do another? To tell the rest of us how unfair our economic system is while he nestles comfortably in its bosom?

Perhaps this is how the film will end: that after 45 years in public life as a relatively obscure progressive outsider from Vermont, Sanders simply took to his newfound celebrity and rock-star status (who wouldn't love thousands of young women chanting his name at packed arenas?) like a junkie on a crack pipe. That he's now had a taste of this unprecedented fame and political fortune he simply cannot let go of it. For his legacy's sake, hopefully he won't turn the Democratic nomination process into a chaotic mess, helping Donald Trump ultimately win the presidency, and end up a mocked and scorned footnote in history like Ralph Nader.

To be sure, it doesn't appear that, despite having no rational, mathematical path to the Democratic nomination, this 74-year-old white-haired Thomas Paine is throwing in the towel anytime soon. Instead, he's disingenuously filling his supporters' heads with more inflammatory red meat about a "rigged system," rather than a lack of votes and delegates, that's denying him his inevitable seat in the Oval Office.

So despite the enviable veneer of altruism and selflessness, is Bernie Sanders just a typical politician who lies to his constituents, feeds them empty promises, all the while living the life of the kind of wealthy, privileged American he attempts to shame at every turn? Only time will tell.

Who the Super Delegates Are and Why They Will Not Switch to Sanders

Math. Path. Wrath. This has been the process through which Bernie Sanders' supporters travel. They don't get the math, so they continue to see his path, and if you disagree and speak to the realities of the campaign, you'll reap their wrath. And what's their main fuel? The super delegates. Hillary Clinton has about 500 more of them than Sanders. But according to Sanders' ferociously loyal legion of millennials, Bernie can still win the nomination because the super delegates could dump Hillary for him at the convention. And herein lies the massive delusion.

To be sure, Sanders' supporters hate the concept of super delegates, and are in denial over their allegiance to Hillary. "They don't count" is the common refrain. But all this bluster only serves to demonstrate a lack of understanding of who the super delegates are and why the chance of them switching from Clinton to Sanders is less likely than Knicks president Phil Jackson abandoning the triangle offense.

So let's analyze for a moment just who these mysterious folks are. Super delegates consist of members of the Democratic National Committee, party leaders, Senators, Congressmen/women and state Governors. Stalwarts of the Democratic establishment. Prominent people such as Andrew Cuomo, Cory Booker, Sherrod Brown, Jim Clyburn, Joaquin Castro,  Dick Durbin, Kirsten Gillibrand, Terry McAuliffe, Claire McCaskill, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters and Charlie Rangel. At best it's misleading for Sanders and his surrogates to repeatedly drum into supporters' heads that these super delegates can be co-opted. They can't. And won't.

One needs to understand why the super delegate process was created in the first place. It was part of a set of rules created by the Party following the 1968 nomination of Hubert Humphrey, who hadn't run in a single primary and who eventually lost in a landslide to Richard M. Nixon. It was a failsafe strategy designed to ensure the nomination of electable candidates; to prevent a candidate precisely like like Bernie Sanders--an independent, socialist outsider who's not part of the Democratic machine--from winning the nomination.  So to understand this super delegate system is to understand why there's no chance these Washington "insiders," the establishment, would not only not abandon the candidate who currently has the most votes and pledged delegates but, more so, would suddenly throw their support to someone who is not one of them.

The real rub here is that Sanders himself knows all this. Yet he continues to fan the flames of anger and resentment, amping up his rhetoric of a "rigged system" where super delegates either don't count and/or will magically propel him into the Oval Office despite there being absolutely no logical or historic basis for them to switch allegiance. It's time that he share this reality with his supporters.

An Open Letter to Bernie Sanders Supporters

Dear Bernie Supporters:
Enough with the "rigged system" claims. Please. The system is not rigged. Or corrupt. Or disenfranchising any of you. Last time I checked, you guys are all over the place 24/7. On TV, at rallies, in the voting booth. You've made Bernie Sanders what he is today: a major contender. But make no mistake: there's simply not enough of you. That's it. No vast left wing conspiracies. No back-room shenanigans. No covert mission by DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz to keep your guy from winning. Bernie's losing for one reason and one reason alone: he hasn't convinced enough of you to vote for him. And it's because his message hasn't resonated as well as Hillary Clinton's. Period. 

Bernie is losing because America's democracy works. It's a process he signed up for (as an independent running as a Democrat), and one which has allowed him to go from being a relatively obscure Vermont socialist (yes, socialist) a year ago--60% behind in the polls--to running an unprecedented "outsider" campaign as a very close runner up. Think about that: he's gone from being a political nobody to giving the powerful Clinton machine the most nagging yet effective opposition it's ever experienced. That in mid May Sanders continues to nip at Hillary's heels is not just a testament to his grass roots appeal and tenaciousness, but to the very election process that's got him there.

Sanders' success has become not just a national phenomenon but one that's garnered him worldwide praise and respect. Sounds like "the system" has worked pretty well for him. That he now is turning on that very system for politically expedient, populist purposes speaks to character. This narrative he's reinforcing of a rigged system is irresponsible and disingenuous. He's telling you that he's not winning because of cronyism and corruption, not because he can't gain more traction with voters. He's riling you up with trumped up (pun intended) baseless charges that he and you are being robbed, rather than simply outvoted. The awesome legacy he could have is dangerously close to being destroyed by his ego and selfishness.

How about answering one simple, obvious question: If the system was/is so rigged for Hillary, how come she's having to have this close a fight right down to the wire? To be sure, the campaign has certainly been no cakewalk for her. She's had to fight way longer, way harder and way more expensively than she ever hoped and expected. If the system is rigged, it's the worst rigging in the history of rigging.

What is "Broke Donald" Hiding?!

Donald Trump loves nicknames. Over the year-long course of his bombastic campaigning he's come up with a bunch of 'em for various opponents: Lyin' Ted, Little Marco, Crooked Hillary, Low-energy Jeb and his latest, Goofy Elizabeth and Crazy Bernie. So it's time we slap a label on Trump himself: Broke Donald.

And why Broke Donald? Because his refusal to release his tax returns raises major suspicion that he's either insolvent and/or involved in business transactions or investments that portray him in a negative light. Is there another explanation for why he refuses to hand them over until at least after the election, if at all? He claims he "can't" release them because he's in the middle of an audit. But as I wrote back in March, even the IRS states that the decision to release his tax returns is Trump's and only Trump's.

Every presidential nominee for the past forty years has released tax returns before the election. So Trump's refusal raises the billion-dollar question, what's he hiding? Is he broke? Will the returns show low income? Low tax rate? Massive debt? Business losses? Do the returns show an embarrassingly low amount of charitable contributions? And to whom he's contributed to, or not? For example, has he not supported veterans as he's claimed? Do the returns show questionable deductions and/or offshore investments and shelters? Something even worse? As the GOP's 2012 nominee Mitt Romney suggested Tuesday, is there a "bombshell" in there?

Contrary to Trump's claim that "tax returns show very, very little," these official documents actually show quite a lot, and provide an official window into an individual's true financial standing. So maybe Trump's insistence that they remain private is because they're the house of cards that could bring down the house of Trump.

And there's the problem. For an individual who's anchored his entire narrative to his "huge" wealth, perhaps those tax returns would be a devastating blow to the Trump mystique and brand. Imagine what life would be like for Trump if it appeared that he wasn't worth the $10-billion he's claimed? If he couldn't brag about his success and those billions. Shielding his tax returns from the public certainly allows him to continue his relentless trumped-up self-aggrandizing.

Let's be clear: it's not been the American people who've entered Trump's personal wealth into the campaign as the candidate's primary political asset. It's been Trump himself who's consistently claimed for a year now that his personal fortune and business success are his core presidential calling cards. Which is why verifying those claims should be an essential part of the vetting process.   

Hillary Clinton should embrace "Broke Donald" and run with it. She should define the presumptive Republican nominee as a financial fraud. She should attack him where it'd hurt the most. The one button that when pushed would rattle Trump like no other. His wealth is how he defines himself. Attack the money and you attack the man. And it's what she should do non-stop until November. It'd keep her on offense and him on defense.

Imagine the following ad: "Broke Donald. Refuses to release his tax returns. What's he hiding? Is his "huge" wealth just a myth? Is Donald Trump a financial fraud? I'm Hillary Clinton...and I approved this ad..."

The Trump "Pivot"

Seems like hardly a nanosecond ago Donald Trump, the Republican front runner, sounded like an ignorant, intolerant, sexist, racist buffoon. And since his big win in the New York primary last week, he's put much of the nastiness on hold and, according to the mainstream media, is sounding more "presidential." Talk about setting the bar low.

Welcome to Trump's new reality show: The Pivot. In a flash, he's all but replaced his controversial campaign manager Corey Lewandowski with Paul Manafort, the embodiment of the very political establishment which Trump excoriates, a theme on which he's built his entire campaign; a campaign fueled by the candidate's Morton Downey-esque blistering persona and incendiary rhetoric.

But now Trump appears to be on a calculated mission to make nice with the GOP, RNC chairman Reince Priebus, and moderate voters in an attempt to win enough delegates (preferably the 1237 minimum) to win the nomination and avoid an all-out war at the party's convention this Summer in Cleveland.

Manafort, who cut his teeth delegate-hunting in 1976 for President Gerald Ford, dropped a bomb last Thursday while addressing about 100 RNC members in a closed-door meeting in Hollywood, FL. He 'assured' the group that Trump's campaign thus far has been an act. That he's been playing a "part."

"He gets it," Manafort told RNC members. "The part that he's been playing is now evolving into the part that you've been expecting. The negatives will come down, the image is going to change, but 'Crooked Hillary' is still going to be 'Crooked Hillary.'"

The Pivot even had Trump criticizing North Carolina's recent "bathroom bill." When asked whether well known transgender reality star Caitlyn Jenner would be free to use any bathroom she wanted in Trump Tower, he said, "That is correct."

The big question raised by The Pivot is, what happens when a candidate like Trump, whose 'authenticity' and anti-establishment bona fides have been the primary source of his appeal, suddenly appears inauthentic and very establishment? And how will his legion of angry blue-collar white dudes feel about their hero's new open bathroom policy?

Trump's rabidly loyal fans will surely be put to the test now. Will these same folks, who've unequivocally excused and defended his inflammatory rhetoric over the past year, accept an abrupt shift to the center by "Lyin' Donald?" Have his comments about North Carolina and Caitlyn Jenner stunned them into re-thinking the 'truer' conservative Ted Cruz? Does Trump now appear like the closet Democrat many have suspected him to be all along?

Stay tuned to The Pivot. The next episodes promise to be quite titillating...

Is Donald Trump Preparing His Withdrawal?

"The system, folks, is rigged! It's a rigged, disgusting, dirty system."

Welcome to the newest Donald Trump campaign strategy, or perhaps the launch of his exit strategy. Still hot under the collar from getting his unprepared, unorganized butt kicked last Saturday by Ted Cruz, who snagged all 34 Colorado delegates in that state's GOP convention, Trump is starting to sound like a man who's finally found the right excuse to get the hell out of politics, a "dirty" business he got into only to feed his rapacious id and have some fun for a few months.

But little did Trump know that he'd become the clear front runner by awakening the "silent majority," those mad-as-hell-and-I'm-not-gonna-take-it-anymore blue-collar white dudes who misguidedly think the best candidate to fix the broken, inequitable system they feel  screwed them all these years is the Ivory Tower billionaire who's exploited that very same system to become rich and powerful beyond their wildest dreams....all the while bankrupting businesses, hiring undocumented workers and refusing to support a $15/hour minimum wage increase.       

"The economy is rigged, the banking system is rigged, there's a lot of things that are rigged in this world of ours," a shrill Trump ranted at his Albany, NY rally this week. "Rules are no good when you don't get Democracy. The rules are no good when they don't count your vote....when you have to play dirty tricks to pick up delegates!"

Trump's latest salvo puts the blame of his Colorado loss not on his ineptitude and ground-game deficiency, but squarely on an allegedly corrupt process that disenfranchised voters and stole his delegates. A process, mind you, that Cruz seemed to understand and capitalize on quite well.

Which fits nicely into a future narrative of, 'I could be president, I would've been president, but the corrupt Republican establishment's backroom brokers changed the rules so I couldn't win. I'm outta here!'

This would be followed by lawsuits against the GOP, individual states and the U.S. government. And as a final kick in RNC Chairman Reince Priebus's balls, Trump would announce a last-minute independent candidacy, all but assuring a Hillary Clinton landslide in November. A scenario which, by the way, fits my narrative of a secret conspiracy by Trump to help Madam Secretary get elected.

It should be noted, however, that even Trump doesn't believe his own "rigged system" conspiracy. "I'm not complaining about the states I won...those are ok!," Trump smugly boasted. That's been Trump's mantra from day-one: 'When I win, it's great. When I lose, it's everyone else's fault.'

Is Donald Trump Broke?

To use Donald Trump's logic, just as he challenged President Obama's citizenship because he didn't present his full birth certificate, we must conclude that the reason he refuses to release his tax returns is because he's financially insolvent. Flat out broke. Why else would he so stubbornly be keeping the official IRS documents under lock and key?

Here's what we do know for certain: that Trump's a failed businessman on many levels, including the airline, steak, vodka and mortgage companies, Trump University and, of course, the bankrupt casinos.

Many believe that the "billionaire developer's" vast real estate "empire" is little more than the ubiquitous Trump brand slapped on other developers' buildings; that his real "wealth" consists mainly of a ginormous inheritance, estimated at between $40-$200-million from his uber-wealthy developer father Fred. Trump's detractors suspect that if not for his father's funding throughout his career, and the life-saving bailout by his bankers and creditors in 1990, his overall business would've gone bankrupt.

Trump's tax returns, unlike the voluntary financial disclosure forms he's filed, which consist of self-reported data, would show just how much he's worth, how much income he generates from his businesses, and just how "self-made" he is versus the "success" due to inheritance.  Since his entire cache rests on his status as a great businessman and deal-maker, the release of his returns could shatter decades of masterful brand-building.

The Republican front-runner claims he cannot release his tax returns because he's in the middle of an IRS audit. But the IRS disagrees, stating that it's up to the individual whether or not to share tax returns.

Which begs the question, just what the heck is he hiding? Is he afraid that when the economic curtain is pulled back it will reveal, in an unprecedented case of smoke and mirrors, someone very different than the financial wizard he's been shamelessly promoting since the 1970's? Will it prove that Trump's a financial fraud? If so, his "empire" would come crashing down like a house of cards.

Until Trump releases his tax returns for the last ten years there will be an ominous cloud of doubt hovering over his income, his net worth and his claim to be a self-made billionaire.

An Open Letter From the Spirit of Ronald Reagan

My fellow Republicans:

What the heck has happened to our party!? I don't recognize us anymore, and haven't for many, many years. I can't believe what we've become. This is the party of Lincoln? Of me?

I've listened for years now as candidate after candidate invokes my name as the standard-bearer of the Republican Party. Of the conservative ideal. I'm the one they all want to be like. The one they compare themselves to every five seconds. My coattails are filthy from their footprints. But to paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, I know me, and none of these jokers are equipped to shine my shoes.

They should all be ashamed of themselves. Not just for destroying the party I loved so much, but for shaming America with their myopic, bigoted world view. And for their unprecedented obstructionism. And for creating such toxicity with Democrats that Washington has ground to a legislative standstill.

We've become not just the party of 'no' but the party of 'nothing.' We don't stand for anything anymore. We have not served those who voted for us. We are selfish, self-serving, petulant and angry. And that's the part I just don't get. Why all the vitriol? The hatred? The inability to talk with each other? Why has "compromise" become such a dirty word?

Back in the day, you disagreed with someone, found the middle ground, and moved onto the next subject. As I liked to say, if I could get 70-80% of what I wanted, that was considered a good day. Today we have leaders who vow never to agree to anything Democrats propose. Everything is summarily rejected, no matter how harmful this intransigence is to the country.

We can't even pretend to hold a hearing on a president's Supreme Court nomination. All this nonsense about "lame duck appointments." Shameful. Do they not remember that I nominated Anthony Kennedy in November of my 7th year, and that his hearing and confirmation took place in my last? Do these fellas not even respect the Constitution anymore? Is nothing sacred in their partisan war?        

And, who the heck is this Donald Trump character? What rock did he crawl out from? He's the best we've got? Have our voters gone mad? Must we pander to the lowest common denominator? We're talking about the nomination for president of the greatest nation in the world, for Pete's sake, not host of some pathetic reality show.

I watch as Trump mocks, denigrates and offends everyone from minorities to women, immigrants to people with disabilities and war heroes. I shudder at the language he uses at his rallies. Not just the curse words, but the racist rhetoric that's been inciting violence. My God, are we really going to nominate this dangerous, destructive, polarizing individual to head our party in the general election? 
     
Donald Trump has campaigned on the "Make America Great" theme. How ironic. He's turned the nation backward to its darkest, ugliest days. Remember the old "Keep America Beautiful" ad from '71? The one with the Native-American man crying as looks out onto a littered landscape? Well, when I see the political pollution that's destroying my beloved America today, the tears stream down my face.

My message was one of hope, strength, positivity and patriotism. Of taking an already great America and making it even greater. Trump's message is not my message. His ideals are not my ideals. And if I could vote in November, well, gosh darnit I'd be voting for Hillary Clinton. 

Is Trump's Campaign the Altamont of Politics?

It was 1967. The Summer of Love. A defining moment in America's social history which symbolized the hippie counterculture movement. Over 100,000 young people descended upon San Francisco's Haight-Ashbury district amid free love, awesome music and lots of hallucinogenic drugs. Just two years later the euphoria came crashing down just a few miles East at the Rollings Stones' free concert at the Altamont Speedway.

Only four months after the Woodstock festival's orgy of peace and love, Altamont has come to paradoxically symbolize the violent, abrupt conclusion of the Utopian hippie era. Mick Jagger and his band thought it was a great ideas to hire the Hells Angels motorcycle gang to provide security and keep stoned-out fans and groupies from rushing the stage. It wasn't. The night was marred by unprovoked brutality which ended in the stabbing death, by a gang member, of 18-year-old Meredith Hunter.

"Altamont became, whether fairly or not, a symbol for the death of the Woodstock Nation," music critic Robert Christgau wrote in 1972. 

What makes the phenomenon of Altamont fascinating 50 years later are the chilling parallels between the tragedy of that night and the tenor of the typical Donald Trump rally. Of most concern is that the 2016 political era will end in the same tragic manner.

While there may not be any hot-headed pool-cue-swinging Hells Angels at Trump's hate-fests, the overall mood is the same. There's the same palpable sense of imminent danger. Trump's playing with fire the same way Jagger had. The rocker thought it'd be cool to have the renegade bikers at his service, much in the same way the race-baiting billionaire thinks it's "exciting" to arouse the ire of his angry, white, blue-collar "fans," some of whom believe that a difference in political opinion is grounds for a beating. But as Jagger soon found out, the adrenaline rush of hangin' with the bad boys quickly turns to shock and horror the nanosecond someone takes the commitment too far.

As the primary season shifts into its third act, let's hope the name "Trump" doesn't become synonymous with "Altamont," symbolizing the violent, tragic end to the historic 2016 Republican clown show.

Will Someone Eventually Get Killed At a Trump Rally?

In the 1960's, mass-murderer Charles Manson believed that The Beatles were speaking to him through their song "Helter Skelter," whose message he interpreted as a warning of an impending race war.

In the 1970's, Travis Bickle, the fictional character in director Martin Scorsese's "Taxi Driver,"  attempted to assassinate a politician in a psychotic, delusional haze motivated by political disenchantment and racism.   

Also in the 70's, New York City serial killer David Berkowitz, the infamous Son of Sam, claimed that a demon in the form of his neighbor's dog ordered him to kill innocent people.

Given the current, unprecedentedly volatile political landscape, it would be incredibly naive and irresponsible to believe that there's not one psycho out there right now who, in similar fashion to Manson, Bickle and Berkowitz, believes Donald Trump is speaking directly to him. That Trump's mantra to "make America great again," coupled with his incendiary, race-baiting rhetoric, is a direct call to take up arms, fight Trump's war, and be a 'hero.' Just one. That's all it will take to cause a horrific, bloody tragedy.

To be sure, there's a palpable level of toxicity and hatred that permeates Trump's events. And it's the direct result of the candidate himself. Of one protester in Las Vegas, he boasted that "I'd like to punch him right in the face." Of other protesters in Iowa, he urged the crowd to "Knock the crap out of them." He's also defended some of his "fans" for punching and kicking a #BlackLivesMatter protester saying, "Maybe he should have been roughed up."

As CNN's Michael Smerconish said Saturday, "Donald Trump has shouted 'fire' in a political theater."

At Trump's North Carolina rally last week one angry old white dude sucker-punched a black protester in the face as he was being removed by security. Afterwards, he chillingly threatened that"Next time we see him, we might have to kill him." Can someone, anyone, tell me how this sort of hate-speak is making America great?

There was more violence Friday at a Trump rally in St. Louis, and later that night his massive rally in Chicago was cancelled after violence erupted in the arena.

And over the weekend a protester charged the stage at Trump's rally in Ohio and was taken down by Secret Service before he reached Trump, who looked terrified as three agents bear-hugged him to prevent an attack.

So what happens next? Will Trump himself become more of a target? Will he ultimately get the message that he's the one inciting the violence and start to bring down the temperature in the room? Or will he continue to ratchet up the toxic rhetoric until it leads to an awful tragedy? Unfortunately, it appears Trump, in some very twisted way, is getting off on it all.

"Honestly can I be honest with you?" he said after the cancelled Chicago rally. "It adds to the flavor, it really does, makes it more exciting."

I bet it won't be so "exciting" if and when someone gets killed.

An Open Letter From Donald Trump's Penis

As Donald Trump's penis, I feel I must weigh in on the growing speculation as to just how big I am. At Thursday's GOP debate, the man whose flabby, out of shape body I am attached to boasted "I guarantee, there's no problem." This was in direct response to Marco Rubio's charge that I am small because Trump has small hands. Well, it's time to set the record straight.

Of course I'm small! Why else would Donny be such a bloated, egotistical, self-aggrandizing, insecure, over-compensating jerk!? The man's been dealing with small-penis syndrome his whole life. Unfortunately for him it's the one thing his money can't change, and it frustrates the hell out of him. Why do you think he spends so much time attacking the masculinity of Marco Rubio and other men (who I hear through the grapevine have really large weiners)?

And why do you think everything else to Trump is always so "YUUUUGE?!" He obsesses over size because I'm microscopic! I'm as flaccid as his policy proposals. Why do you think he wants to abolish the Board if ED? Because he thinks 'ED' stands for 'erectile dysfunction!' He's so insecure about me it's amazing he doesn't debate while sitting in a red Ferrari.

Look, think of me like his real estate deals, which are largely just licensing arrangements: Trump's not actually erecting anything! If he could slap his name on me he would. The trouble is, there's not a font size that small.

An Open Letter to (and Winning Campaign Theme For) Hillary Clinton

Dear Madam Secretary:

The conventional wisdom at this point has you in an ultimate head-to-head match-up with Donald Trump for the presidency of the United States. Given that Super Tuesday will certainly bring you closer than ever to the Democratic nomination, you're going to need a simple, clear and strong campaign theme that can effectively counter that of the presumptive Republican nominee, who's been campaigning since June to "Make America Great Again" (meaning, America is not great now.).

Not only is Trump's slogan negative and uninspiring, it's simply not true. So how about turning his words against him with a more positive, patriotic and uplifting version that proudly declares that we're the greatest nation in the world with even brighter days ahead: "Making America Even Greater!"

"Making America Even Greater!" establishes for voters a crystal clear contrast between the two campaigns. It gives them a choice between pessimism and optimism; discouragement and inspiration; failure and success. A message that continues the hope and change mantra delivered so effectively by Barack Obama in 2008.

I'm sorry, but "Fighting For Us" doesn't cut it. It's dull and spiritless. You're so much more transcendent than that. Your campaign needs an effective bumper-sticker that perfectly sums up who you are and what your candidacy is all about. Every time Trump tells voters he'll make America great again, you'll be telling them we're already great and getting greater. That you'll be leading them to an exciting future, not back to America's dark, ugly past.

"Making America Even Greater!" It's a winner. Take it. It's my little gift to you.  

(by the way, I don't work for you, but I should (and would)).