Showing posts with label Jeb Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jeb Bush. Show all posts

Friday, February 5, 2016

Forgetting the Message Behind the Music

Another one died Wednesday.

I can’t say that as I approach my 67th birthday next month I find myself paying more attention to obituary notices. There’s no truth to the cliched joke that I check the obits each morning to make sure I am still alive. Truth is, I’ve always found the recounting of an individual’s life to be among the most fascinating and interesting articles in a newspaper. 

A few years ago, at a luncheon for mostly retired journalists eager to hear Gail Collins, an acquaintance from back in the early 1970s when her husband and I worked at The New Haven Register, I sat next to a veteran reporter from The New York Times. His career covering police and politics had downshifted to part-time work on the obit page. Most of the history of the renowned, he confirmed to me, was pre-written. Only the most recent news of the deceased required immediate input by deadlines made ever tighter because of Internet editions.

No doubt, like many of you, I’ve been startled and saddened by the seemingly weekly revelation that another icon of the rock scene of the 1960s and 1970s has passed away. Not that they were young. David Bowie was 69, Glenn Frey, 67, Paul Kantner, 74, Signe Anderson, 74, and Maurice White, who died Wednesday, was 74. To some it must have been amazing that they lasted as long as they did given the abusive lifestyle many rockers lived decades ago. 

Here’s another truth—I knew few if any of them by name (don’t fret, I knew David Bowie). Oh, I knew their groups, even sang along with many of their songs. However I would not survive the first round of a game show contest if I had to match a band’s name with a specific song.  

But ask me to identify the music from a Broadway show circa 1943-1970 and I’d possibly run the table. Perhaps that’s one reason I so enjoyed Ellie’s star turns in musical theater productions during her teen years, though the plays she performed in were written later than my sweet spot years.

I’m not trying to be sentimental in my appreciation of the music of the deceased and nearly so. Read Timothy Egan’s genre eulogy instead: http://nyti.ms/1UPVA9J.

If you must mourn, lament members of a generation now in their middle age who have forgotten the message behind much of the music of their youth. Love, peace, tolerance, equality. Instead, too many have embraced the message of anger and exclusion espoused by Ted Cruz and Donald Trump.

I get it. Not everyone was a liberal back in the 1960s. But there outta be a law, or at least an admonition—you can only listen to someone’s music if you share their values. I’m okay not playing Ted Nugent. Let’s check the playlists on Cruz’s and Trump’s iPhones. And those of Marco Rubio, Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and Rick Perry, as well.



Monday, February 1, 2016

Once Election's Over, Here's What to Expect

If you’ve ever wondered if I have a warped mind, here’s proof in the form of strange post-election scenarios that drifted through my mind as I tried to fall asleep Sunday night. Each one-step-before-absurdity prediction is not dependent on any other for it to come true:


*Michael Bloomberg’s third party candidacy will prevent Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump from securing the required 270 Electoral College votes to become president. As directed by the Constitution, the choice of president will be left to the House. As Congress is dominated by Republicans, the GOP representatives will promote their own Speaker of the House—Paul Ryan—to the presidency!

Fooled ya—Ryan is ineligible, as are all but the three highest polling candidates in the Electoral College election. Given the choice of Trump, Clinton or Bloomberg, the House will choose Trump.


*Hillary and Bernie Sanders will not make it through the nomination process. Hillary will be indicted for the classified email scandal and choose not to continue her campaign while Bernie will suffer a medical setback and have to withdraw. An open convention will select vice president Joe Biden as the Democratic Party candidate. Biden will tap either Missouri senator Claire McCaskill or Texas congressman Joaquin Castro or his brother, Housing & Urban Development secretary Julián Castro, as his running mate. Biden et al will win. 


*Showing how magnanimous in victory he could be, and in his desire to channel Abraham Lincoln’s “team of rivals” cabinet strategy, President Donald Trump will make the following appointments:

Secretary of State: Bombs away Lindsey Graham;
Attorney General: To return the nation and the Constitution to the late 18th century, Ted Cruz;
Secretary of Transportation: A governor of a state millions travel through every day, with lots of experience making poor bridge and tunnel decisions, Chris Christie;
Secretary of Energy: Who better to protect the coal industry than Kentucky’s own Rand Paul;
Secretary of Labor: Mr. union-buster himself, Wisconsin governor Scott Walker;
Secretary of Health & Human Services: A difficult choice from among a plethora of right-to-lifers and personhood advocates but Rick Santorum wins over Mike Huckabee;
Secretary of Commerce: Let’s see if Carly Fiorina is the face of America Trump wants to project to the world;
Secretary of Homeland Security: Trump wanted to keep this portfolio for himself but was talked into appointing Ben Carson as the perfect symbol of the danger of appearing to be sleeping on the job of protecting America;
Secretary of Agriculture: Bobby Jindal needed a job now that he’s no longer governor of Louisiana. Maybe being in charge of the nation’s food supply will fatten him up a little;
Secretary of Education: Rick Perry. Oops, I forgot. Perry wanted to kill this department when he ran the first time for president. 
Secretary of Interior: She wasn’t running but Sarah Palin’s endorsement should be worth something, especially since she’s such an avid hunter, even from aircraft. And let’s not forget her “drill, baby, drill” pro-oil, anti conservation battle cry.
Secretary of Treasury: Marco Rubio couldn’t handle his own finances, but let’s let him try balancing the nation’s books;
Secretary of Veteran Affairs: Another candidate from 2008—Trump considered him a loser for getting captured, so why not saddle John McCain with one of the biggest headaches in the country that will surely have more veterans to service given The Donald’s desire to increase our military involvement in the Middle East;
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development: Not a very sexy cabinet post, perfect for Jeb Bush;
Finally, a new cabinet post will be created—Secretary of Religion, headed by Mike Huckabee who has proclaimed, “Exercising Religious Liberty should never be a crime in America. This is a direct attack on our God-given, constitutional rights.”


*Hillary Clinton will be sworn in as president only to become not just the first female commander in chief but also the first to become part of the first husband-wife team of presidents of the United States to be impeached. 

I have no doubt the Republican-controlled House of Representatives would vote to impeach Hillary over the alleged misuse of classified emails contained on her personal computer while she was secretary of state. The Senate, however, will once again rise to the defense of a Clinton by failing to muster the required 67 votes to convict. The toll of the impeachment proceedings, however, will hamper Hillary’s first two years in office.

Uh-oh, this one could actually come true.



Sunday, December 20, 2015

The Jerk May Have the Law on His Side

Jeb Bush is right. Hard to believe I find myself agreeing with the wannabe president, but there I was, reading a New York Times article under the headline, “Still Assailing Donald Trump, Jeb Bush Calls Him ‘a Jerk’.

“Donald Trump is a jerk,” Mr. Bush said to applause (The Times reported from a New Hampshire town-hall-style event).

“You cannot insult your way to the presidency,” he said. “You can’t disparage women, Hispanics, disabled people. Who is he kidding? This country is far better than that. The idea that he’s actually running for president and insulting people is deeply discouraging, to be honest with you, and I think we should reject that out of hand. I hope you’ll reject it by voting for me, but a guy like that should not be the front-running candidate of our great party.”

Jeb is right. But his problem is that the GOP has morphed into a party of “no,” of “you-can’t-have-any-or-come-here-if-you-are-different,” a party of distrust, of bait-and-switch that promises benefits to middle- and working-class people but delivers benefits just to the elite. It’s become a party of exclusion, not inclusion. A party of dogma one dares not dissent from, a party of religious extremism, a party whose foreign policy is founded on the principle of “my way or bombs away,” a party repulsed by scientific discovery, a party more comfortable with the values of the Dark Ages than of the Enlightenment.

For the moment let’s not talk about the Republican Party as a whole but rather the Trump phenomenon. His appeal has confounded “experts” within and without the GOP. It might be instructive to view this clip by Jordan Klepper from a recent Daily Show with Trevor Noah. It’s an enlightening, if not frightening, piece on why everyday, normal-looking people are supporting Trump: http://on.cc.com/1lOYpwG.

Also consider the consternation arch conservatives are feeling about the current Republican front-runner. Here’s part of a commentary from Charles C. W. Cooke, a staff writer at National Review:

“… if the current Republican front-runner is any indication of things to come, large swathes of the party have already abandoned their talk of ‘constitutional conservatism’ and ‘limited government’ and embraced a flat-out authoritarianism, at least as preached by ‘The Donald.’ Whatever else he might be, the idea of Trump as a paladin of civil liberties should make one howl with terrible laughter. Since he announced his candidacy, Trump has threatened to ignore those who are carping about free speech and shut down parts of the Internet; he has promised to summarily deport those who are suspected of being illegal immigrants, without due process of law; he has endorsed extensive campaign-finance regulations that fly directly in the face of the First Amendment; he has vowed to restrict the Second Amendment rights of those on the terror watch list, again without due process; he has praised Franklin Roosevelt’s internment of American citizens, suggested that natural-born Americans can be deported against their will, and proposed that American Muslims be barred from reentering the country; he has described as ‘wonderful’ a Supreme Court ruling that obliterated the ‘public use’ limitations on the invocation of eminent domain; and he has refused to rule out registering Americans on the basis of their faith. Worse still, he has responded to the criticism that these positions have generated by channeling his inner Nancy Pelosi: ‘Are you serious?’

“And yet, despite all of these transgressions, 30 percent of GOP-primary voters still list him as their top pick. This is an unmitigated disgrace.” (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428208/trump-anti-constitutional-authoritarian)

Okay, so the left and right are against Trump, particularly his anti-Mexican and anti-Islam “throw them out” or “bar them from entering” stances. But what if Trump is not constitutionally blind? What if his rants are within legal, if not ethical, bounds?

Consider, if you will, the following from the Immigration & Nationality Act of 1952 US Code 8, Section 1182, Sub-Section F:

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. 

I’m no constitutional scholar, but it appears The Donald’s plan to restrict immigration could be within the law as long as he doesn’t define class by religion. Country of origin might be a way to define the class of alien he wants to keep out. 


That being said, Jeb is still right. Trump’s a jerk.

Saturday, August 8, 2015

Personhood from Womb to Grave

In case you missed it during Thursday’s Republican Party presidential primary debate, the GOP war on women has gone universal. Republicans now want to intrude on all health decisions, regardless of gender. From womb to grave, the GOP wants to be in control of your body and the decisions you make about it.

Republican presidential contenders spouted the usual attacks on Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. On the Iran nuclear deal. On the need for a stronger military to be sent to combat evil anywhere and everywhere. On the need to lift the burden of overregulation from the economy.

Mostly lost amid the compelling two hour-plus debate on Fox News was a commitment to intrude on the personal health decisions of all Americans. It started off as a routine assault on the right of a woman to end an unwanted pregnancy, even if that pregnancy could kill her. 

Personhood became a new battle standard. And government involvement in medical decisions would include end of life decisions. Jeb Bush proudly hailed the “culture of life” he created while governor of Florida, an allusion not just to his defunding Planned Parenthood but also to his involvement in the Terri Schiavo case. Schiavo was a brain dead woman whose husband sought to have a feeding tube removed. Her parents objected. Bush repeatedly intervened despite decision after decision in state and federal courts. 

“My record is clear,” Bush said during the debate. “My record as a pro-life governor is not in dispute. I am completely pro-life and I believe that we should have a culture of life, it’s informed by my faith from beginning to end. And I did this not just as it related to unborn babies, I did it at the end-of-life issues as well. This is something that goes way beyond politics. And I hope one day that we get to the point where we respect life, in its fullest form, across the board.”

One can imagine if he were president federal laws barring the removal of life sustaining methods. Anyone assisting in an abortion, even if it would save the life of a pregnant woman, could be prosecuted—doctors and nurses, as well as the woman and any family members who agreed with her decision to end the personhood of the fetus. 

Granting the status of personhood to a fetus could significantly change judicial views on pregnancy and abortion. And possibly miscarriages or actions that could be harmful to the unborn. Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee championed personhood during the debate. 

In answering a question on passing a constitutional amendment barring abortions, he said, “I disagree with the idea that the real issue is a constitutional amendment. That’s a long and difficult process. I’ve actually taken the position that’s bolder than that.

“A lot of people are talking about defunding Planned Parenthood, as if that’s a huge game changer. I think it’s time to do something even more bold. I think the next president ought to invoke the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution now that we clearly know that that baby inside the mother’s womb is a person at the moment of conception.

“The reason we know that it is is because of the DNA schedule that we now have clear scientific evidence on. And, this notion that we just continue to ignore the personhood of the individual is a violation of that unborn child’s Fifth and 14th Amendment rights for due process and equal protection under the law.

“It’s time that we recognize the Supreme Court is not the supreme being, and we change the policy to be pro-life and protect children instead of rip up their body parts and sell them like they’re parts to a Buick.”

It is accepted medical wisdom that smoking or drinking alcohol while pregnant is harmful to a fetus. Does that mean Huckabee would prosecute a pregnant woman who smoked or drank a beer for endangering the life of a minor? Since second hand smoke is said to be toxic, would Huckabee also prosecute anyone who smoked near a pregnant woman? If a car accident causes a woman to miscarry, would the driver of the car that caused the accident be charged with involuntary manslaughter? If the pregnant woman wasn’t wearing a seat belt could she also be culpable? 

Legal scholars also are divided as to the potential ramifications of personhood on inheritance claims. Or if fetuses should be counted in censuses. In their all-out assault on a woman’s right to choose, Republicans are advancing on very mushy terrain.


Take Back That Compliment: Like many observers I was impressed by the quality of the questions asked by the Fox News panel. They exposed many of the warts each candidate tries to hide.

However, I was disappointed Brett Baier, Megyn Kelly and Chris Wallace too often permitted the candidates to talk around their questions and not respond to direct requests for specifics. Ah well, I guess we should be content with half a loaf.

If I was disappointed in the moderators I was downright infuriated by corporate Fox News and its blatant attempt to control the transcript record of the debate, thereby whitewashing Jeb Bush’s association with a Bloomberg charity that provided funding for Planned Parenthood. I remember hearing his exchange with Megyn Kelly, but I couldn’t find it in the official transcript released by Fox as printed by The Washington Post and Time on their Web sites. 

It was only after I googled crooksandliars.com that the relevant colloquy appeared. For shame, Fox News, for trying to cover up what some conservatives might think was a Bush transgression. Of course, one must remember that Roger Ailes, head of Fox News, has been a long-time Bush family friend and advisor.

Monday, May 12, 2014

"Nothing Is Dearer Than a Daughter"—Euripides

Every pundit is talking about the inevitability of a Hillary Clinton Democratic party presidential run, if not election, so I thought I might as well give my take on her chances of securing the nomination and who would be her Republican opponent. 

With Euripides’ quote in mind, that “to a father waxing old, nothing is dearer than a daughter,” I researched the offspring of the last 12 presidents. During the 2012 election cycle, I determined that candidates with daughter(s) had greater opportunities to sit behind the desk in the Oval Office (http://nosocksneededanymore.blogspot.com/2012/06/political-offspring.html?m=1). Six of the last 12 presidents, including the last three, restricted their fatherhood to daughters. Only Dwight D. Eisenhower had exclusively male progeny. It was thus a no-brainer to predict Mitt Romney, father of five boys, would fail in 2012 to unseat Barack Obama and send him and his two daughters, along with Michelle, back to Chicago. 

Hillary has only one daughter, Chelsea, whose magic might have been used up to elect her father in 1992, leaving her mother to be double-teamed in the 2008 primaries by Malia and Sasha Obama. 

Fast forward to 2016: Now, Hillary faces the prospect of running against the three daughters (no sons) of Andrew Cuomo and the two daughters (plus two sons) of Joe Biden. My money, nonetheless, remains on Hillary, especially if Chelsea rewards her with a granddaughter later this year (it wouldn’t hurt Chelsea’s own chances in, say, 2036, if she delivers a girl).

Clinton, Biden and Cuomo have the early star power, but if they falter or choose not to run, pundits see these other Democratic wannabes: Maryland governor Martin O’Malley, two girls, two boys; Virginia senator Mark Warner, three daughters; Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren, one daughter, one son; New York senator Kirstin Gillibrand, two sons; and Minnesota senator Amy Klobucher, one daughter. 

Clearly Warner has the advantage in the second tier grouping. 

On the GOP side, Rand Paul strikes out. Not one of his three children is a girl. And my dark horse candidate of retired general Stanley McChrystal comes up short. He has but one son. 

For sheer numbers of offspring, Rick Santorum can’t be beat. Nine, count ’em, nine children, four of whom are girls. But Santorum’s a wacko only the far right, besides his wife, can love, which doesn’t automatically eliminate him from primary contention but surely does from the general, thinking, electorate, assuming there still is a majority of those voters around in a sufficient number of states to electorally elect Hillary.

Another wacko, with one daughter out of two spawns, is Rick Perry. No “sane Republican” (hopefully, that is not yet an oxymoron) could vote for him. 

With one daughter out of their respective three children, Congressman Paul Ryan, ex-Florida governor Jeb Bush, Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal and former Arkansas governor and current talk show host Mike Huckabee just didn’t try hard enough during their family formative years. 

Chris Christie and Marco Rubio each have two girls among their respective four children. They could be serious contenders for the Republican nomination and the general election. But the clear, focused winner for the nomination is Texas senator Ted Cruz. Cruz’s cruise missile twice bombarded his wife with Y-chromosomes. The result: Two daughters.


So there you have it—it’ll be Hillary Clinton vs. Ted Cruz, a pairing that will make both sides shutter at the possibilities. 

Monday, November 5, 2012

Kickoff Time for the 2016 Elections


It’s all over but the shouts of joy or despair, the air of resignation or elation, the couldabeen, shouldabeen cries of missed opportunities, the atta-boy, way to go hurrahs of “yes, our country has been saved from (you pick it) socialism or 19th century-style robber baronhood.” 

Hard to believe that, barring a hanging chad-like controversy, we will settle into the 2016 presidential election cycle in less than 36 hours. I know, you just can’t wait. Who’d have thought there was an actual silver lining to gender neutral Hurricane Sandy (like the Saturday Night Live character Pat, who’s to say Sandy was a female or male hurricane), when it knocked the campaigns off front pages and TV screens for days, giving the nation respite from the shallow, often offensive tones of the candidates and their surrogates. 

As anyone who has read my blogs knows, I’m hoping for an Obama victory. No need to review why. But there’s still time to point out some interesting and perhaps fun thoughts about the election.

For instance, I wonder why so many Republicans deny the reality of evolution when they’ve witnessed it in warp speed before their very eyes. During his years-long run for the White House, Mitt Romney has evolved from a moderate to a conservative to an extreme conservative to a moderate (at least in his eyes). It’s not so much survival-of-the-fittest as survival-of-the-whatever-it-takes-to-win. We’ll see Tuesday if the public swallows his brand of political posturing.

From the Republican party and presidential debates, Romney came across as a silver-tongued salesman. Rapid fire delivery of purported facts. No countenance of disagreement. Aggressive to the point of disrespect. A manner more suited to the manor than to the general public. It was a type of behavior I’ve seen before, in captains of industry. Even in public companies, they broached no dissent. Shareholders at annual meetings who questioned their authority were barely tolerated. Shareholders could submit resolutions and get to vote on the election of corporate directors, but the tally was usually stacked in favor of management. For Romney to win he would have successfully convinced enough voters that he knows best. 

I found an insight into his character in a story that didn’t get as much play as I would have suspected, given its human interest nature. The Associated Press reported that after the second debate, the town hall debate where Obama woke up from his first debate coma and attacked Romney’s misrepresentations, Romney's son Tagg was tempted to "take a swing" at the president for criticizing his father. Tagg made that admission in a radio interview. He apologized for his thoughts. Forty-two-year-olds don’t make those kind of statements if they haven’t been brought up in an environment where the powerful are not meant to be challenged. 

During one of his campaign stops last month, Romney predicted stock markets would likely rise if he wins. "There will be a great deal of optimism about the future of this country," he said. "We'll see capital come back and we'll see—without actually doing anything—we'll actually get a boost in the economy," he said. "If the president gets re-elected, I don't know what will happen. I can­, I can never predict what the markets will do."

What does he think has been happening to the stock market over the last four years? Here are the facts: On Election Day 2008, the Dow Jones Industrial Average stood at 9,625. On the next three Election Days under Obama, the DJIA went up to 9,771, then 11,189, then 12,170. As Americans troop to the polls Tuesday, the DJIA is at 13,113, a 36.2% increase under Obama. Compare that to what happened under George W. Bush’s presidency. The day he got elected, the DJIA was 10,952. Eight years later it was 9,625, a 12.1% decrease. For all their bellyaching about Obama wanting to increase taxes on their oversized earnings, Wall Streeters have done quite nicely under our “socialist” president.

It’s apparent that once more the country will be divided in politics and philosophy. So why not adapt an idea from Britain and separate the country in two, much the same way Ireland was divided as was the Indian subcontinent into India and Pakistan? Actually, the idea of two entities precedes British action. The Confederacy thought it up first. You’d have the Republic of Red States stretching across the South, Midwest, and Plains states separating the two sections of the Republic of Blue States in the Northeast and West Coast—having two parts is like the original Pakistan, the eastern section is now independent and known as Bangladesh. (For the moment, let’s not concern ourselves where Florida, Illinois and perhaps Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota fall.) Let’s remember that Texas governor Rick Perry thought his state might want to secede from the Union. This idea just elaborates on that birdbrain notion.

The Red States would have lots of natural resources, lots of agriculture, lots of nuclear rocket silos, lots of tornadoes and drought, lots of Bible belters. Lots of people working with their hands and big machines. Blue States would have lots of earthquakes and shore erosion. Lots of lawyers, bankers, geeks, surfers, media stars, fashionistas. Lots of people dedicated to making money from  intellectual capital, with no guarantee their ideas are anything more than schemes to make money out of thin air. 

I don’t have all the details worked out, but it’s worth keeping in mind as we start the next presidential selection process on Wednesday. Assuming Romney loses, the GOP will undergo an internal contest of values. It will either veer further right or return to a more moderate, just right of center, position. If it does the latter, NJ governor Chris Christie has a shot at the nomination. He’d have to fight off Jeb Bush. If it swings further right, Christie would either have to alter his stances or Congressman Paul Ryan would have an inside track, along with Senators Marco Rubio and Jim Dement. 

On the Democratic side, the battle for the nomination will be between Hillary Clinton, Joseph Biden and Andrew Cuomo. Those are easy predictions. My real crystal ball forecast is the vice presidential pick—Cory Booker, the mayor of Newark, NJ, or Deval Patrick, governor of Massachusetts. 

That’s it for now. Go vote. Pray. Cross your fingers. Light candles. Vote again (just kidding). Pray some more (not kidding).


Fair, of Should I Say, Storm Warning: Anyone, anywhere in the market for a new or used vehicle in the next half year or so better check where and when that car was manufactured and serviced. With so many cars swamped by Hurricane Sandy, lots of autos and trucks will be bought as replacements. But if you’ve ever wondered what happens to the cars and trucks salvaged from the deluge, even those that were on dealers’ lots, listen up—they are often “repaired” and many times shipped to other parts of the country to be sold to unsuspecting customers. 

That’s where CarFax or other services that can trace a car’s provenance come in handy. Trust me, you don’t want to buy a car or truck with an engine that was under water. For a new car, it’s probably a good idea to buy one built after November 1. It also would be a good idea for any new or used vehicle purchase to get the dealer to give you a sworn statement that it has not gone through Hurricane Sandy.


Tragic Bookends: New York mayor Michael Bloomberg moved into city hall months after the devastation of September 11. He will be leaving office at the end of 2013 while the Big Apple is still in the midst of recovering from the big bite Hurricane Sandy took from it.