This upcoming election, at least on the Republican side, has looked not so much like the road to a nomination but rather a circus event.  The two leading candidates for the Republican nomination, at this moment, are Donald Trump and Ben Carson.

While one can laugh at some/many/most/all of Donald Trump’s statements (he’s made mincemeat, IMHO, of “serious” candidates like Jeb! Bush), the fact is he’s a carnival barker and a reality TV star.  Sure he has a real estate empire and knows more than a thing or two about the business world, but what exactly does he offer as president?  Stripping away most of his very heated talk, his most “serious” proposal is to deport millions of illegal immigrants (humanely!) and build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico.  He’s made some vague statements regarding international trade and China, but they’re too vague to glean any action he intends to take.  Given his volcanic nature, I’d be really frightened to give him the keys to the kingdom and, especially, the “button.”

Likewise, Ben Carson really scares me as well.  While he is clearly a brilliant surgeon, he otherwise appears to be a man who lives in some kind of alternate reality.  I need not repeat some of his more odd pronouncements (like his idea of what the Pyramids are all about), but every time he does speak I seriously wonder what color the sky is in his world.   As the famous Mark Twain saying goes:

It’s better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt.

The idea of someone so…detached…from the real world leading us in the real world is therefore beyond scary.

But those two individuals are nonetheless at the top of the polls for the Republican party, much to the chagrin of the “old guard” and now, some are wondering…

Time for GOP Panic?  Establishment Worried Carson or Trump Might Win

The above article, written by Phillip Rucker and Robert Costa for The Washington Post, notes that while there is still quite a bit of time before the general election (a little less than a year at this point), we’re rapidly running out of time regarding the presidential nominations.

In fact, we’re less than three months from the Iowa Caucuses which begin the nominating process and, to date, Trump and Carson not only have but also maintain a strong lead over all the other candidates.

According to the article, many donors are withholding their money and its understandable.  Why would you donate to a Jeb! Bush or a John Kasich, two candidates viewed as far more electable in a general election, when they so far haven’t come close to either Trump or Carson in the polls and therefore don’t appear to have a chance -at least so far- of getting the Republican nomination?

Many thought this nomination cycle would be like the last.  In the previous election, there were a bunch of really far-out candidates for the Republican nomination.  Each of them had their moment in the sun (and polls) only to melt under its harsh lights.  Eventually Mitt Romney, the “safe” candidate, was nominated while all the others were long gone.

Not so this time around.

I’ll be honest here: I’m liberal.  I like change and feel we should always be looking for ways to improve society rather than try to strip away people’s rights and/or return to some kind of non-existent “rosy” past.

You would think someone like me would therefore be gleefully taking in the circus that is the Republican party and relishing the fact that the “old guard” is dealing with the seeds they’ve sown (and make no mistake about it, the “old guard” is every bit as responsible for this mess as they are chagrined by its results).

But I’m not gleeful.

Why?  Because of this chilling line found in the article.  It is provided by an anonymous Republican strategist and puts all this nonsense into perspective (I’ve highlighted the most chilling part):

“We’re potentially careening down this road of nominating somebody who frankly isn’t fit to be president in terms of the basic ability and temperament to do the job,” this strategist said. “It’s not just that it could be somebody Hillary could destroy electorally, but what if Hillary hits a banana peel and this person becomes president?”

There’s another saying, attributed to Woody Allen, that bears repeating here:

90% of success is showing up.

A President Trump?  A President Carson?

Scary thoughts indeed.

It’s been all politics all the time it appears of late.  I skipped the latest Republican debate and, based on what I’ve read about it, I couldn’t be happier.  The Republican Party has degenerated, in my opinion, to such a strange, comical-if-it-weren’t-so-damn-frightening extreme that its hard to take them seriously.

Perhaps the best example of the (let’s be kind) oddities current Republican candidates display can be found in the below, a question asked in this latest debate about which woman they would put on the $10 Bill.  I found the article, written by Ben Mathis-Lilley, on Slate.com:

GOP Candidates, Asked To Name Iconic American Women, Cite Foreigners and their Relatives

You read that right, the answers by many of them were, to say the least…silly.

For those who don’t want to hit the link, I’ll post the candidate replies below:

• Rand Paul: Susan B. Anthony.
• Mike Huckabee: His wife.
• Marco Rubio: Rosa Parks.
• Ted Cruz: Rosa Parks (but on the $20; he’d keep Hamilton on the $10).
• Ben Carson: His mother.
• Donald Trump: His daughter or Rosa Parks.
• Jeb Bush: Margaret Thatcher.
• Scott Walker: Clara Barton.
• Carly Fiorina: Wouldn’t change the bill.
• John Kasich: Mother Theresa.
• Chris Christie: Abigail Adams.

So basically three of the eleven candidates chose relatives (Huckabee would put his wife on the bill, Ben Carson his mother and Donald Trump his daughter…or Rosa Parks).  Frankly, I find these answers shameful.  If the three were trying to be “funny”, the joke is pretty damn weak.  Regardless, one gets the feeling their answer displays more about their ignorance of famous American women than any actual humor.

You would think that would be the worst type of answer, but then you have the very bizarre responses from Jeb Bush and John Kasich.  Jeb Bush chooses…former British P.M. Margaret Thatcher?!  John Kasich wants to put Calcutta’s Mother Theresa on a U.S. bill?!?!  As with the relative answers above, I can’t help but think these responses show their ignorance of famous American woman.

Three of them chose Rosa Parks: Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump (but as noted above, he said either Ms. Parks or his daughter!).  I find the choice of Rosa Parks, especially with regard to Ted Cruz, a curious one.  Considering some of the philosophies he -and the others- espouse, I wonder if they’re not just mentioning a name they’re familiar with rather than what she’s most known for.

Scott Walker’s choice of Clara Barton, the nurse who founded the Red Cross, is actually a rather neat choice, in my opinion, though it doesn’t warm me at all to his candidacy.

Susan B. Anthony, a feminist involved in the woman’s suffrage movement, was Rand Paul’s choice and is also not bad at all, though we did have her already appear on currency, albeit a coin…

Chris Christie chose Abigail Adams.  I think she’s an interesting choice though if I were to go with a First Lady, I might be more inclined to pick Eleanor Roosevelt.  Given Mr. Christie’s party, it would have been quite shocking had he -or any of them- chosen her.

Finally, and most curiously, the only female candidate at the Republican debate, Carly Fiorina, stated she wouldn’t change the bill at all.  I’ll give her this much, that’s a very conservative answer.

So…what have we learned by this little exercise?

Hmmm….maybe….

No…

…Uh…

I have no idea.

If the results weren’t so damn scary (the man could have died!), you’d laugh at the following article concerning one Holly Nicole Solomon, an Arizonian who got so furious with her husband for not voting for Romney (he apparently didn’t vote at all) that she ran him down with her car:

http://theviralvault.com/woman-gets-3-12-years-in-prison-for-running-over-her-husband-for-not-voting-for-romney/

I’ve said it before but it bears repeating: the political climate these days is so damn rancid.  The “product” from Fox News and the radio conservatives (among them Rush Limbaugh) are heavily to blame for this.  Mrs. Solomon, by the way, was pregnant at the time and felt that another Obama presidential term would somehow devastate her life.

Ironically enough, Romney won the Arizona vote and therefore the electoral votes for that state so her husband’s non-vote didn’t really matter.

Hopefully, we’ve already reached the crest of this particular wave and things will normalize…at least as “normal” as they can be in the wonderful world of politics!

So there’s this guy named Luis Lang who hails from South Carolina and is one of those staunch Republicans who absolutely hates “Obamacare” and all it entails.  Thing is, he’s going blind now and…well, this is the upshot:

(he) declined to sign up for Obamacare because he “prided himself on paying his own medical bills,” and is now upset that the Affordable Care Act won’t bail him out.

To read the full story, check out the link below:

http://gawker.com/man-who-would-rather-go-blind-than-get-obamacare-now-go-1704019495

Politics are like sports.  You have your “team” that you root for and you hope the other team will fail…after all, they’re the “enemy” and therefore everything they do has to be wrong, amIright?

I rarely discuss politics in this blog because, frankly, I don’t want to expend the energy on something that might cause wheels to turn ’round and ’round without any resolution.

However, news like this make me both incredibly sad as well as incredibly angry.  For years I’ve been alarmed by conservative, hard right talk radio as well as the rise of Fox News.  Spreading the attitude that somehow conservative thought is the only “legitimate” philosophy and everything else is dead wrong and unacceptable is to me, well, unacceptable.

I’ve had a rather unique life in the sense that I was born and traveled in my very early years between two Cold War era Communist countries, then lived in a European style socialist country, then what I like to describe as a “right wing wet dream” capitalist country, before finally settling in the United States, a country I would describe as straddling the line, at least in recent years, between socialist and capitalist ideals.

Brother, I’ve seen -and experienced- ’em all.

And I’ve come to realize that if people keep preaching pure negativity about something, especially something like Obamacare that just might be helpful to them, you’re going to get many more Luis Langs…people who could benefit from a service if they could only get past their pre-programmed and illogical dislike of it.

Will Mr. Lang realize this at any point?

I wonder.

Jon Stewart pretty much nails it, as usual:

It is exasperating seeing the Democrats flounder so much with so much on the line.  It is incredible to think that at one time liberals were very much capable, willing, and able to go after conservative philosophies and succinctly point out their deficiencies.  Nowadays, they do what Mr. Stewart says.  They act like a bunch of chickens*#ts and, surprise surprise, they get wiped out.

Though I loath to get too political in this blog, the following news item is just a little too much.

So a bunch of -for the most part- Republican Senators managed to kill a bill that allowed for background checks for gun purchases, a relatively minor and common sense (both in my opinion) proposed law that should have been enacted (again in my opinion) ages ago on the grounds that it was an invasion of personal privacy.

Yet these same people are now defending the NSA spying.  When asked about the inherent contradiction of voting against gun buyers’ background checks -because they supposedly invade personal privacy- and defending the NSA spying -which essentially does the same on a much, much larger scale even though it is in the fight against terrorism- they reply that the two issues are very different and comparing them is like comparing “apples and oranges”.

Really.

Read for yourself…

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/12/nsa-senators_n_3428074.html

I’ve noted it before and I’ll note it again:  The internet and the digital revolution has created a vast new world, one where we’re only now beginning to see the potentially massive changes in how we and future generations will live our lives.  Already some of the changes are obvious, from the extinction (for all intents and purposes) of both the video and music store -and coming soon, the extinction of the book store- thanks to online shopping to the fact that companies -not just the government!- now have a wealth of personal information on just about everyone out there which, in turn, leads to programs such as the NSA.

Am I against the NSA program?

It’s tough to form an opinion when I know so little about it.  All I do know is that, again thanks to our new information age, it is suddenly much easier for an individual -any individual with access- to spill government secrets with the ease of clicking a button.  The scary thing is this:  In their zeal to expose what they believe is government overreach or possible corruption, could they be putting other people in danger?  If the NSA program has been successful in stopping potential terrorist activity, will the exposure of same -and the potential of terrorists to circumvent what they now know the U.S. government is doing- endanger us?  If, heaven forbid, a major terrorist strike occurs in the U.S. or in any friendly nation and scores of people are killed, and we find that the terrorists used the NSA leak to work their way around our security…then what?

But let’s look at the opposite side of the coin as well:  What if the massive information the NSA collects is used by individuals to enrich/enpower themselves?  If someone could look into the emails of big corporations and gain insight into their next moves, could they not use that information for themselves?  And we’re not even talking about potential blackmail material, such the possibility of discovering that a certain CEO likes to hop onto certain pornographic websites or has made incriminating statements in an email…

I’ll repeat it one last time:  The internet has changed things on a massive scale.  The information age is upon us and privacy isn’t what it used to be, for better or worse.

Politics, like sports, can be a fascinating thing to watch, and last night turned out to be another example, in my mind, of why the Republicans face an incredibly uphill battle to unseat Barack Obama.  Yes, I know there are pundits far more knowledgeable of the system than me who speak of a “squeaker” election.

So far, I have strong doubts about that.

The Republican’s most viable candidate, again in my mind, is John Huntsman, but he was an almost complete no show in Iowa.  While he may surge a bit in New Hampshire, it just doesn’t seem like he’s got enough interest to secure the nomination.

The “strongest” candidate and yesterday’s Iowa winner was Mitt Romney.  But he appears to have a ceiling of support that rises to not much more than 25% (which is what he scored, not so coincidentally, in Iowa).  I suspect he will eventually get the nomination, but when one on one up against Barack Obama, I believe Mr. Obama will prevail.

Then again, I also feel that both these individuals, Mr. Obama and Romney, are essentially the same politician…moderate Republicans of yesteryear who show some liberal tendencies but may be more comfortable with the policies and philosophies of a Eisenhower, Nixon, or Ford rather than a Roosevelt, Kennedy, or Johnson.

Then again, we’re talking politics, and individual opinions are as easy to find as solid truths are virtually impossible to ascertain.