We’re neck deep in the run-up to Primary Season. On the national scene, the Republican horse-race for the presidential nomination has been something of a circus.  No less than half the field of candidates have had a turn carrying the banner of “front-runner”. This “flavor of the week” elevation and deflation of the candidates is exhausting both to the voters and the office-seekers!  Voters are confused, and “undecided” garners more votes than any single candidate! Primary contests for House and Senate seats and even some lesser state and local offices have been no less contentious and chaotic. There must be a way to make sense of it all and select the best choice of candidate to represent our viewpoints!

In today’s educational and political paradigm, where certain people propose to indoctrinate you with what to think rather than train you how to think – and encourage you to do so; it is difficult to even set a criterion by which to analyze and evaluate the various options.

Therefore, I propose to do just that. I will not promote any particular idea or candidate over another here. This method will work for everyone regardless of your political ideology. It will help you analyze how well a candidate represents YOUR views and interestes – not mine. And it can apply outside of politics. It can, for example, be used in hiring decisions when selecting between candidates for a job!

The candidate should be evaluated against the “6 Ps”: Platform, Positions, Policy, Plan,Past Performance and Personal Integrity and Character.

This will help quantify the major questions you need asked and answered: What are his guiding principles? What’s his philosophy?  How will he approach implementing it? How’s he done in the past? Can I trust him? (Please assign gender neutrality to the male pronouns – it’s tedious to keep specifying him/her)

You want to understand the candidate’s philosophy, his strategic plan, and his tactical plan.

First, you want to understand where the candidate’s coming from. What’s his philosophy? His core values. What are the non-negotiables for him? What’s his motivation? Understanding his Platform and Positions will give insight here. What is he FIRM on, and where is he “squishy”? Is he uncompromising or pragmatic, and in his pragmatism, will he negotiate away YOUR non-negotiables?

Next, you want to understand what he intends to do with that philosophy! What are the Policies he seeks to pursue and what is his Plan to implement them? Does it make sense to you? Does it seem workable to you. Can you support it? Can you understand it?

What’s the candidate’s track record? How’s he done at what he’s attempted before? As any investment’s prospectus will tell you “past performance is not a guarantee of future results”… however it is a pretty good indicator – especially when used to compare between the various choices!

Finally, character counts! As we learned from the Clinton Era, there are those who will support and defend an individual no matter what he does, as long as he espouses their political view. But if we, as a people, don’t hold our leaders to a certain standard of integrity and character, we will all reap the consequences. No matter how rhetorically “pure” a candidate is on the political issues of the day – if he will compromise his personal integrity, there is no reason to believe he’ll hold fast to a political philosophy and not sell it out for self-interest. Therefore, we must demand from our elected officials a higher standard of character.

Will there be a perfect candidate for you? Only if you yourself are running! Everyone has their own warts. Everyone will have some area of disagreement, whether philosophically, strategically or tactically. But you can analyze the field and put your support with the candidate who most closely represents your views and interests. This method will simply help you logically determine which of the available candidates is closest.

Once you make that determination, go all in. Support your candidate. Remember, however, that once the primaries are over and one candidate has prevailed, he may or may not be your first choice. If your candidate fails to win the nomination, don’t be a “sour grapes” voter and sit out the general election. Your second, third or even fourth choice in the primary still probably represents your interests and values better than the opposition in the general election

Copyright © 2011 by Doug Edelman

Let’s start with the 60s. A time when racism was common, segregation, discrimination and bigotry were institutional, and “the man” truly was keeping the black community down.

But “the man” wasn’t your typical right-wing conservative! It was primarily the DEMOCRATS!

The early civil right movement was supported and encouraged by the GOP and conservatives. Civil rights legislation was OPPOSED and even filibustered not by those evil right-wing conservatives, but by the LEFT WING Democrats! Bull Connor, whose name is practically synonymous with racism and civil-rights opposition, was not only a Democrat; he was Democratic National Committeeman for Alabama! He ran for Governor on the Democrat ticket. He led the Alabama delegation to the 1948 Democratic National Convention to walk out over a civil-rights plank in the platform!

Another iconic Democrat, George Wallace, served as Governor of Alabama. In his INAUGURAL SPEECH he made the following statement: “In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!”

Lyndon Johnson is hailed today as a liberal pioneer and champion of civil rights, but Johnson himself was a notorious racist and no lover of our black brethren. He did, however, view them as a malleable resource. He did not oppose civil rights legislation  (which, by the way, was supported by the GOP and opposed by many democrats, and would never have passed without the GOP). Instead he supported it as a means of securing power for Democrats. He is famously quoted as saying “I’ll have these (n-words) voting Democrat for the next 100 years!” He was right! For the last half of that predicted century – the black community has been a monolithic voting bloc, supporting democrats about 97%.

How’s that workin’ out for ya?

Johnson doubled down on Civil Rights – sensible, reasonable, moral and appropriate legislation – and ushered in the “War on Poverty”.

Vastly expanding on FDR’s New Deal Welfare State, Johnson ushered in a whole new culture, creating generational dependency and a paradigm of the entitlement mentality.

By providing a bare subsistence, but requiring nothing from the recipients; by subsidizing out of wedlock childbearing; by setting the “soft bigotry of low expectations”; a new “system” was created and the “underprivileged” soon learned the rules of the game to receive a meager but adequate living at government expense… without having to learn, earn or contribute to their own subsistence. Add to this the deference to the Educational Cabal which promoted the teaching unions and denied vouchers and school choice, and the urban schools became cesspools where thriving educationally was virtually impossible. A new dependency class was born – and could be counted on to vote for their “benefactors”. How’s that workin’ out for ya?

The “war on poverty” is lost! More people live near or below the poverty line than when the programs were started.  And for the record, there are as many poor whites as blacks, gaming the same system. There are as many whites on assistance or food stamps today as blacks. The “dependency culture” is not melanin specific!

Now let’s look at the 70s

Carter instituted the “Community Reinvestment Act” – ostensibly ending the banking practice of “redlining” which essentially declared entire neighborhoods to be bad loan risks. A laudable purpose… but the real result of the Act was to force banks to abandon sound underwriting principles and risk assessment, and to make unwise loans to those who were at high risk of default. This was the beginning of the “Sub Prime” Housing Debacle!

Nevermind that Carter’s other leftist policies drove the country to a “malaise” that brought us to the brink of another 30s style depression. The CRA (and Clinton’s doubling down on it under the direction of ACORN in the 90s) set in motion the mortgage crisis, the Fannie/Freddie crisis, the banking crisis and ultimately all the economic woes currently being blamed on George Bush!

So how’s THAT workin’ out for ya?

The 80s saw a brief respite! Reagan’s tax cuts DOUBLED revenues and spurred economic growth unparalleled in at least 30 years! Despite the Tip O’Neal Congress increasing spending $1.84 for every dollar in new revenue, thus creating the so-called “Reagan Deficits”… the economy generally thrived and expanded. Unemployment was down. Interest rates came down. Inflation came down. Standards of living went up. There was optimism in America.

Are you old enough to remember? Do you miss those days?

The 90s were a mixed bag. Clinton strengthened and expanded the Community Reinvestment Act – placing even more odious regulations on the banks and essentially telling them they MUST make loans to people who can’t afford them. The mentality that homeownership is a right superseded the notion that Americans have a right to purchase any home they can afford! The stage was set for collapse, and collapse it did in the latter half of Bush’s 2^nd term. But remember that it was the Bush Administration and the GOP in Congress who raised the red flag in 2005, with the Fannie Freddie Hearings (check ‘em out on YouTube!) while the powerful Dems – Dodd, Frank, Waters, Clay etc. all stood up to defend Fannie/Freddie and it’s leadership. “Nope, no problems here! Nothing to see here, folks, move along. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!”

How’s THAT workin’ out for ya?

Still there was a silver lining to the 90s. In 1994 the Gingrich Revolution and the Contract With America swept the GOP into power in the Congress. With Newt at the helm, Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming to a balanced budget and the first actual SURPLUSSES in 50 years – which of course Clinton took credit for, and which the complicit press has turned into accepted fact over the subsequent decade! The positive numbers continued until 9/11 and the War on Terror.

The millennial decade is largely misunderstood. Bush is touted by the left as the worst president ever. They blame him and the wars for our economic difficulties at the end of his presidency. But the reality is different from the narrative.

It’s true that the dot-com bubble burst, 9/11 and the wars took a toll on the economy. We fell from surplus to deficit as we ramped up military action.

Still, Bush’s WORST deficit in his first 6 years (while he had a GOP Congress) was around $430 Billion in 2003. Yup, His WORST deficit was around half the cost of the Obama Stimulus alone! Still, that was a big number for its time.  So what did Bush do? He instituted the Bush Tax Cuts that are once again in the news today! The result? 3 consecutive years of reducing deficits! The last deficit with a GOP Congress, the deficit was cut to only $120 Billion, a reduction of nearly 2/3 in 3 years. Still, six years into his presidency, Bush was soundly and rightly criticized four raising our 4 Trillion Dollar National Debt by 50% to 6 Trillion. And the reins of Congress were turned over to Pelosi/Reid. By the time Obama took office, Pelosi/Reid had added a TRILLION to our deficit, and 3 more Trillion to the Debt! NOTICE that in 2 years Pelosi and Company added 3 Trillion, while it took Bush and the GOP 6 years to add 2 Trillion.

So Obama comes into office with a 9 Trillion dollar debt. In his time occupying the White House, we’ve seen the debt balloon from 9 Trillion to 15 Trillion… more than a 50% growth in 3 years!

How’s THAT workin’ out for ya?

Are you starting to notice a pattern here?

It’s been said that if you tax something, you get less of it. If you subsidize something you get more of it. Why, then, do we tax success and subsidize failure?

How’s that workin’ out for ya?

There are few opportunities for legislation that holds the prospect of gain for EVERYONE who supports it, regardless of party or ideology – but amazingly, the repeal of ObamaCare offers that very opportunity, if our elected officials would but examine the possibilities!!

First and foremost, the majority of America rejects ObamaCare and supports its repeal. So you’ve got popular support. For the Democrats, that majority thing ought to be a biggie. After all, they’re all about direct democracy, aren’t they? Majority rules, right?

But as I’ve been quick to point out on many occasions, not everything that’s popular is right, and not everything that’s right is popular, so let’s look at some other motivations that might move our members of Congress to action.

Dems should consider that ObamaCare is about to undergo a major review by the Supreme Court. Even with Kagan participating and not (properly) recusing herself from the case – there is a very strong possibility that at least some part of ObamaCare will be struck down – if not in its entirety! This would deal a major blow to the party that rammed it through without a single GOP vote, after arm twisting and bribery by Pelosi, generally UNREAD, which had to be PASSED so we could know what’s in it! Not only was it bad law, passed in an unscrupulous manner against the will of the people, but SCOTUS will also give the slap of unconstitutionality to at least part of it. That stings.

Why not get out in front of this and defuse it by repealing ObamaCare and making a SCOTUS review moot?

And likewise, GOP, what if SCOTUS only finds PART of ObamaCare unconstitutional? Do you want to HAVE to live with any part they find legit enough not to strike down? Are you confident that Kennedy will hang tough with the conservatives on the Court ENOUGH to do away with ObamaCare? What kind of mixed bag of upheld and struck down provisions might we have to contend with?

But hey, Republicans, here’s the BEST reason to move on repeal. YOU PROMISED TO! You were ELECTED to! The whole point of the Mid-Term Elections was to put you in a position to. And you’ve forgotten all about it. That will not sit well come primary season!

Back to the Dems. Since you took the reins of Congress in January 2007, we watched the deficit climb from 120 Billion at the end of GOP control of Congress, to nearly 15 times that amount at 1.7 Trillion. We watched the National debt climb from 6 Trillion after 6 years of Bush and 2 wars to nearly 14 Trillion in 4 years of Pelosi/Reid. So whatever Bush Bashing you may do, and however much you seek to blame Bush and say Obama INHERITED his problems… the American People understand that you are the party of spending with reckless abandon. A reality, and a perception you may do well to strive to reverse!

The Super-Committee is charged with finding a Trillion in cuts over 10 years. A pittance! That’s really only 100 Billion a year… and they can’t do it! If the automatic cuts kick in, the military will be slashed, and lefty ideologues aside (as they represent only around 20% of the population) the people of America DO NOT want to see the military slashed by 500 Billion!

Repealing ObamaCare will save TRILLIONS over a decade. All by itself. Your precious spending programs don’t even have to be touched, and you can claim victory in achieving the spending reduction!

For the GOP, repealing ObamaCare is a victory fiscally, and ideologically, protecting individual rights, reigning in an egregious over-reach by the federal oligarchy.

For all of you. Repeal would result in an economic recovery far exceeding the wildest dreams or expectations of any program or stimulus the Administration has considered, offered or implemented! Companies, freed from the shackles of ObamaCare, would loosen the hiring constraints. Jobs, production, GDP and tax revenues would all climb – and true to Reagan’s quote… a rising tide does indeed lift all boats. And you could all claim credit for stimulating the economy out of the worst “recession” (depression) in our lifetimes at least!

Back to the Dems. Are you REALLY supportive of affordable healthcare for people? Then realize how many companies are ready to ABANDON providing care when ObamaCare is fully implemented!! I know many of you are idealogically committed to Single-Payer healthcare, and such a collapse of the private and employer provided market would leave a vacuum that you’d feel compelled to fill with Government care… but America resoundingly doesn’t want it! Given the choice between the private enterprise Hospitals like Barnes, Mayo, Mt Sinai, or Hopkins, and government care like say, a VA hospital, which do you think most Americans would opt for? Even if they pay for private insurance?

If ObamaCare is SO GOOD for people, why the waivers for so many FOD’s (Friends of Democrats)? And why is Congress exempt?

ObamaCare is a boondoggle. It’s an embarrassment to the Dems and CAUSED the massacre of 2010. It’s impractical. It’s unsustainable. And eliminating it will save TRILLIONS.

Truly. WHAT are y’all waiting for? How about a nice Christmas present THIS year? America said THANK YOU for Pelosi’s Christmas Present of 2009 with the November 2010 elections. Repeal for Christmas 2011 would be a present America would TRULY appreciate!

Copyright © 2011 by Doug Edelman

Doug Edelman is a conservative political analyst and commentator, writes for the St Louis Examiner, at http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-st-louis/doug-edelman and was a contributing editor for The Conservative Voice. His work has appeared on ChronWatch, Western Front American, Small Government Times, Western Journalism, News By Us, The American Daily, The Post Chronicle, New Media Journal, Capitol Hill Coffee House and more. Mr. Edelman is also an IT Consultant/Contractor and owner of a Computer Services Business.  He has taught PC Maintenance & Repair and Networking at his local Community College, and maintains a blog at http://starboard.blogtownhall.com. 

Cain’s background is impressive. Born during a time when racial prejudice was the norm, to a mother who worked as a cleaning woman and a father who held down three jobs (janitor, barber and chauffer) just to make ends meet, Cain applied himself to education and earned a degree in Mathematics. Yes, Mathematics – not political science, sociology, or Liberal Arts. The man understands MATH. Probably a good idea for one who seeks the presidency at a time of trillion dollar deficits and massive debt!

From there he went on to earn a Masters Degree in Computer Science. He understands technology - another good idea for one aspiring to lead the nation in the age of tablet PCs, smart-phones, Facebook and Twitter.

Parts of his business career are well known. His legendary leadership of Godfathers Pizza, where his stint as CEO saved the company; and his term on the board of directors at the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank are fairly common knowledge. His suddenly controversial time as CEO of the National Restaurant Association is also becoming well known.

Lesser known, perhaps, are his service with the Navy, where he designed Fire Control Systems; a time working for Coca Cola, and his Vice Presidency of Pillsbury. He also has a radio program and writes as a columnist.

Cain’s prowess as a businessman is undeniable. He understands markets, economics, problem solving, power delegation, responsibility and accountability. His leadership skills are unassailable.

Political wonks may remember, but it bears pointing out to the public at large that during Herman Cain’s tenure as CEO of the National Restaurant Association, he attended a televised Town Hall meeting where Bill Clinton was defending his proposed healthcare reform, later to be known as “HillaryCare”. Clinton was claiming that his reform would not harm American business owners. Cain spoke up, saying, “Quite honestly, Mr. President, your calculations are incorrect. In the competitive marketplace, it simply doesn’t work that way.”

Cain’s words resonated through the nation, and Newsweek later credited him as the “primary saboteur” of HillaryCare.

Unlike Mitt Romney, Cain has a long history of standing up AGAINST government healthcare. This took place in 1994.

So what of these harassment allegations?

Only Herman Cain and the accusers know exactly what took place… but we can look objectively at what we do know and try to make sense of it.

The allegations were made in 1998. The Restaurant Association settled with the 2 women with one getting around $30,000 and the other around $45,000, according to the Politico. This represented a year’s salary. No civil action was ever brought against Cain personally.

To anyone familiar with business or with the legal system, making a settlement payout, especially one so small – relatively speaking – is certainly not prima facie evidence that an allegation has merit! It’s nuisance insurance. Companies will often settle such claims rather than invest time and expense in fighting off spurious complaints and allegations. It’s part of the cost of doing business and if you investigate any company of size, or any CEO of prominence, you’ll probably find somewhere, sometime, that they settled a meritless claim against them!

But let’s leave aside the he-said, she-said for a time. It is much more interesting and telling to analyze the REACTIONS to these allegations coming to light.

Here we see Herman Cain, a successful black CONSERVATIVE man, and a rising star politically who could very well take a position of power a year from now.

Black conservatism is on the rise, and threatens the very fabric of the Democrat demographic. Successful black conservatives run counter to the narrative that empowers the Left: that blacks are oppressed and unable to achieve apart from white liberal beneficence! That blacks need liberals to “take care of them”. Blacks are indoctrinated to believe that success is impossible – unless that success comes from pimping the very dependence and victimhood that empowers the left… like Jackson, Sharpton and Obama! But let a black man apply conservative principles and attain success, and he will become a target. While no black man CAN succeed on the Democrat’s plantation of enforced dependency… no black man may be allowed to succeed if they’re OFF that plantation! Especially if that success leads to prominence, public attention, or worse – political power!

Hearken back to the early 90s and Clarence Thomas!

Remember that the Anita Hill allegations were based on little more than a coke can – and a hair which could easily have fallen innocently off the head of a black man. Coarse curly hair may have an "association" in the white mind… but could be found on the bathroom sink of most any black man who combs his hair or trims his beard in front of a mirror!

Still, the Left and their willing accomplices in the media did everything they could to turn this allegation into the “borking” of Clarence Thomas’ nomination to the Supreme Court. Not because it had any bearing whatsoever on his character, but because they saw it as a weapon to use to derail a black conservative on his way to a position of power and influence.

The duplicity and hypocrisy of the left is astoundingly striking when it comes to such allegations as those leveled against Thomas and Cain.

On such flimsy evidence as a Coke can or a hand gesture and comment about one’s height, the entire character of a man is held in question… yet water was carried for a John Edwards until the NATIONAL ENQUIRER did the journalistic job the mainstream press WOULDN’T do and presented incontrovertible evidence that finally proved his downfall. And the left went so far as to REDEFINE SEX in defense of Bill Clinton, when there was a stained blue dress as evidence of his misdeeds in the very Oval Office!

The attempt to derail the Cain Train with these allegations may well backfire, as the American People are seeing through the dirty politics. Some free advice to those who oppose a Cain presidency (whether on the left or the right): If you find fault with his policies, platform, plan or proposals, then debate those issues on their merits. But the politics of personal destruction has seen its heyday and it has come and gone. The American people are tired of it, and will punish the purveyors of it with their votes.

So persuading these people must take another tack. We must convince them of two truths: 1) the so called “Buffett Rule” will hurt not only the rich, but everyone, including them; and 2) The math DOESN’T work!

The big push from the administration is that Capital Gains rates are lower than the Income Tax Rate of the middle class, so they want to raise the Capital Gains Tax Rate. Of course, there is a very good reason Capital Gains are taxed at a lower rate… but that’s not the focus here. Let’s just stick to our two primary premises!

Raising Capital Gains rates affects not only the Wealthy… but EVERYONE who has investment income! If you have an IRA, 401K, Pension, mutual fund or any other investment – it will affect you. Raising Capital Gains tax rates means your retirement fund will not have as big a nest egg for you when you retire. That’s not the fat cats being hurt… it’s YOU, or it’s your PARENTS. It’s the guy who worked hard all his life and seeks to retire and live on the fruits of his labor. The less that a middle class family can acquire toward retirement during their earning years, the more dependent they will be on Social Security or other Government Largesse… which seems to be exactly the goal of the Leftists, and exactly the cause of our economic demise!

The mantra of the Left is that no matter how much the wealthy pay, they aren’t paying their “fair share”. The upper income earners do pay the lions share, shouldering on the order of 70% of the total tax burden while half of America has NO income tax liability and a goodly portion reap a refund they didn’t pay into via refundable credits – meaning that even if they paid NOTHING IN AT ALL they can still get a “refund” (though a “refund” is a misnomer implying return of an OVER PAYMENT! Just how is contributing NOTHING an overpayment?)

According to the latest Government Figures, the earnings total of ALL people in the USA was around 7.8 Trillion Dollars a year.

Government already spends about half of that, with our 3.5+ Trillion Dollar “budget” (well, we haven’t actually PASSED a budget in over 3 years… but that’s a technicality!)

Obama and Co want to raise that level to $5 Trillion, with the Trillion and a Half NEW spending he’s proposing! So, more than 5/8th of ALL MONEY goes thru Government hands??

They scoffed when conservatives warned that the Left sought to take over the entire economy. The laughed and poo-pooed when we warned that the move toward Government Healthcare was a takeover of 1/6 of the economy. They ignored when the government "nationalized" 2/3 of our auto industry and threatened to "socialize... er... er... take over" the oil industry. But here you go! Government now passes almost half of ALL money in the economy thru it's hands... and obama's shooting for over 60%!

And, of course, the “wealthy” are supposed to foot the bill! Obama says that’s not “Class Warfare” but it’s “Math”!

The math doesn’t work! The “Rich” footing the bill is a concept that doesn’t FIT the bill!!

Of the 7.8 Trillion earned by ALL Americans, only 17.5% of that total, or about 1.37 Trillion was earned by those making $200K or more a year!!

So, confiscating every dollar earned by every person making 200K a year or more wouldn’t even meet our current deficit of $1.6 Trillion! In fact, since these people ALREADY PAY taxes on this money, confiscating it all would only net about $1Trillion in additional revenue! Well, ONCE anyway, as there would be no business, no jobs and no economy at all if they did implement such a confiscation!

The fact is, and always has been, that the profligate SPENDING problem in Government can’t be solved by revenue! Reagan DOUBLED revenues, yet all we hear about are the “Reagan Deficits” – more properly dubbed the Tip O’Neal deficits as Reagan’s reasonable budgets were pronounced “dead on arrival” and the O’Neal congress spent $1.84 in new spending for every dollar in new revenue Reagan’s tax cuts generated!

The irrefutable, uncomfortable truth is that Government simply spends too much!

Bush’s worst deficit with a GOP congress was in 2003, at around $420 Billion. That’s half the cost of Obama’s first failed stimulus! The 2003 tax cuts REDUCED the deficit each year thereafter until the reins of power passed to Pelosi/Reid in 2007. But the deficit was reduced to $120 Billion when that baton was passed! THAT’s the deficit Pelosi/Reid inherited! They also inherited a Triple A credit rating and a budget around 2 Trillion a year.

In their 4 years in power, the deficit ballooned to 14 or 15 times that 2006 deficit. Our spending grew from 2 Trillion to 3 and a half Trillion, and Obama would have it at 5 Trillion!

The issue is not, and never will be a matter of Government not appropriating enough money. It is, was, and ever will be the reckless spending of those who wish to buy votes, and retire before the bill comes due.

Margaret Thatcher famously stated that the problem with Socialism is that at some point you run out of other people’s money. We see that happening throughout Socialist Europe. And we have Obama, Pelosi and Reid for bringing the USA to that point now. Is it any wonder that Standard and Poor downgraded our credit? Who still has “full faith” in the credit of the USA?

This week I heard yet another black liberal caller to a conservative radio program who felt “offended” that there was so much opposition to “America’s First Black President.” As I listened, (frustrated that I couldn’t just call and debate this guy since I was in the parking lot about to walk into my day-job) I began to think just how racist the caller’s line of thinking was! He was defending the President based SOLEY on his race. Irrespective of the President’s policies, plan, purpose or performance – he was deemed unassailable because he is black. But is he?

Does the caller not realize that there is the same opposition to these policies when they’re put forth by the white Pelosi, the white Reid, the white Barney Frank, the white Dick Durbin etc?

Is Obama immune from criticism by virtue of his dark skin? Is it impossible for a black president to suck? Does the caller not realize that Obama is half white, and his other half is 7/8 north African Arab (think Ghaddafi not Mandella)? Does he identify with the 1/16 of Obama’s Black African Roots when there is virtually no “slave blood” in Obama?

In their zeal to put a man of color… ANY man of color… into the White House, Black America has helped elect THIS man to the presidency. And America is not the better for it.

Meanwhile, some black elected officials have been making some remarkable public statements.

Congressional Black Caucus member Andre Carson tells us the Tea Party wants to see blacks hanging from trees! Not only a ridiculously false assertion, but an incendiary one intended to incite unrest and possible violence!

And then there’s that brilliant Congresswoman, Sheila Jackson Lee, who claimed that the House was “complicating” the debt ceiling talks because Obama was black.

Maxine Waters tells us that the Tea Party is racist, and that they can “go to hell”. This coming from the Marxist that let the cat out of the back in May of 2008 when she admitted the intent to “socialize” the oil industry… and who most recently threatened banks to modify loans for people who can’t afford them or she would have the Gubmit “tax them out of existence”.

Someone should remind Ms Waters of that pesky document, the Constitution, which was designed to limit the powers of the federal government!   Article 1, Section 9 prohibits something called a “Bill of Attainder”. In the context of the Constitution, a Bill of Attainder is meant to mean a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group (for example, a fine, a tax, or term of imprisonment). So singling out banks for special tax punishment would be unconstitutional!

The fact of the matter is that the race card is played because historically it worked. Shouting “racist” ended the debate and sent the opposition scurrying for cover, despite the accusation being entirely unfounded.

But we are in a new paradigm! We have an environment today where a black man not only theoretically CAN, but in fact HAS been elected President; where a black man like Herman Cain can serve as Chairman of a bank, and CEO of a major Pizza chain; where blacks truly have attained Dr. King’s dream of being judged on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin! Blacks who avail themselves of educational opportunities, who apply themselves to acquiring and developing marketable skills, are able to advance themselves as well as whites who do the same. And Americans are awakening to the agenda of the race-baiters as advancing their own interests and not that of the black community at large! The race-card is becoming passé. It’s an anachronism; an archaic curiosity. It’s as relevant as a buggy whip in a Chevy dealership!

Sadly, for those who have never developed a legitimate case with which to debate their failed policies in the arena of ideas… the Race Card is the only card in their hand. Sadly for them, it is no longer trump, it is no longer the wild-card. Resorting to playing the race-card is no longer seen as striking from a position of strength – it is viewed as an act of desperation by one without any other resource. And that view is accurate.

We’ll discuss the remainder of Wasserman Schulz’ statement in a moment… but first let’s establish a little historical background.

George Bush took office in January 2001 with a National Debt of 4 Trillion Dollars. The economy was riding the bubbles of the tech explosion and the easy money in the housing market. Less than a year later, we experienced the dot-com bust and the attacks of 9-11. Remember that 9-11 was a DIRECT assault on our economy – the attack was directed at the WORLD TRADE CENTER… both a symbolic and a de-facto heart of our world commerce. We naturally tend to focus on the loss of life and property, and well we should. But the economic impact of that attack was enormous as well.

So we went to war.

How many times have you heard how military spending and Bush’s wars have bankrupted us? Undoubtedly so many you can’t put a number to it! But let’s examine the facts.

Remember the 87 billion dollars that John Kerry balked about… voting for it before voting against it back in 2004? That was to fund those 2 wars for a year! Is 87 billion dollars a lot of money? Hell yes! But we spent less on both wars in a decade than Obama’s stimulus cost us in one year! So a little perspective, please!

But I digress.

The economy took a hit after 9/11, and our deficit climbed. By 2003 it had soared to 420 billion dollars. While a deficit that size would be a major blessing today, at the time it was historically large! So what did George Bush do?

TAX CUTS!

And the left went nuts. But the tax cuts did what tax cuts always do; revenues increased! The deficit fell each of the following 3 years until; in 2006 the deficit was reduced from a high of 450 billion in 2003 by more than 2/3 to 120 billion.

In 2004, Congressional Republicans began hearings on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and started waving red flags about the sub-prime mortgage threat. They were demanding MORE oversight and regulation of these entities and warned of the dangers of forcing lending institutions to make home loans to people who can’t afford them.

Who came to the defense of Fannie and Freddie, claiming there were no problems and there’s “nothing to see here”? Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Maxine Waters etc!

The Democrats created the problem with Carter and the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. Under guise of “encouraging” lending institutions to “meet the needs” of home borrowers in “moderate income areas”… this act empowered ACORN and other community organizing groups to pressure banks into making ill advised loans to people who simply would never be able to repay them. You may wish to read about the act here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

All sorts of new lending vehicles were created. Interest only loans? How is that different from rent? One never gains any equity! Balloon notes? Get people into the house with an affordable payment, only to watch it skyrocket out of sight in a few years?

The Community Reinvestment Act was revisited by Clinton and even more regulations were placed on the banks. The bubble was expanding faster now, and would soon burst.

Then we handed the reins of Congress, and the purse-strings, to Pelosi and Reid. Bush had 2 years of his term remaining. And yes, we were driven into the ditch during those 2 years. But it wasn’t Bush that was driving… it was Pelosi and Reid!

In their first year, they tripled the deficit to 450 billion… 30 billion more than Bush’s worst deficit with a GOP congress. And in their 2ndyear they tripled that to 1.3 Trillion dollars! (More than 10 times the 2006 deficit!) They added 3 trillion to the debt in just 2 years, so Bush left office with a 9 trillion dollar debt.

Bush had added 2 trillion with a GOP Congress in his first 6 years. And 3 trillion more (a 50% increase in debt) in his last 2 years under the Pelosi/Reid 110thCongress. In 2006 all of government spending was right around 2 trillion dollars. Pelosi/Reid swelled the budget to 3.5 trillion in their 4 years!

Barack Obama took office, and the democrat triumvirate of Obama/Pelosi/Reid went on a spending spree. The debt increased by another 5 trillion in 2 years. Under a GOP presidency with a GOP congress, after 5 years of war, our debt was 6 trillion. After 4 years of Pelosi-Reid, it is over 14 Trillion… and 5 trillion of that added in Obama’s first 2 years. Remember that it took 230 years and 42 presidents to bring our debt to 5 trillion. And the democrat triumvirate managed to raise our debt by 5 trillion in 2 years. Interest payments on the debt have more than doubled in 4 years.

Yes. Democrats own the economy.

And the downgrade?

Consider a family with a household income of $21,700 a year. They have been spending $38,200 a year and added $16,500 to their credit card balances in the last year. Their cards are at limit. They are $142,710 in debt on their cards. They sat down to make a budget, and managed to find $385 in cuts they could live with.

You’re the bank. Do you give them another loan?

Add 8 zeros to each of the numbers above. That’s our federal government.

But what about the remainder of Wasserman Schultz’ comments: “We own the beginning of the turnaround and we want to make sure that we continue that pace of recovery…”

Yeah, what about that?

As a public service, I will distill some of the current numerical dialogue into terms that the average citizen should be well able to comprehend and analyze its impact.

Let’s begin with the basics. A million is 1000 thousand. A million dollars will buy between 5 and 8 typical family homes. A million dollars represents about 20 years of earnings for the average family. A million dollars is 10,000 $100 bills. A million dollars will fit into a briefcase.

A billion is 1000 million. A billion dollars in $100 bills would take up 12 shipping pallets stacked 7 feet high. If we round off the population of the USA to 250 Million people, then you would have to take $4 from every man, woman and child to make one Billion dollars. Remember that fact as we will use it in our discussion.

A trillion is 1000 billion. That means a trillion is one million million. Imagine 12,000 shipping pallets stacked 7 feet high with $100 bills. Imagine a 200 car railroad train loaded to capacity with $100 bills! You’d have to take $4000 from every man, woman and child to make a trillion.

Remember, whenever government talks about a billion dollars, think $4 to you. When they talk about a trillion, think about $4000 of your own money.

The worst deficit that Bush had with a GOP congress was in 2003 after 9/11, 2 wars and the dot.com bubble burst. It was around $420 billion dollars. $1680 cost to you.

The 2003 tax cuts did what tax cuts always do, they increased revenues, and the deficit was reduced each of the following years so that by the time power shifted to the Pelosi/Reid congress in January 2007, the deficit had been reduced to under $120 Billion – or $360 to you.

How about the National Debt?

Bush took office with the National Debt of $4 trillion. That’s $16000 debt for you.

In his first 6 years, he added 2 Trillion to the national debt and was harshly and rightly criticized for increasing our debt by 50% in 6 years. This brought our debt to $6 trillion, or $24000 to you.

Pelosi and Reid took the reins of Congress. In 2 years the 110th congress added $3 trillion to the debt. That increased the debt by another 50% in just 2 years. That increased your share by another $12000. Bush took 6 years to add 2 trillion with a GOP congress, but with a Democrat congress they added 3 Trillion in 2 years.

Then we elected Barack Obama.

In the first 2 years of the Obama Administration, the Pelosi-Reid 111th congress added 5 TRILLION DOLLARS to the debt. They borrowed more in 2 years than ALL 42 presidents before Bush COMBINED! They increased the debt more in 2 years than was accumulated in the first 224 years of the United States!

That 5 Trillion increase brought our debt to 14 Trillion. That $56,000 of debt for every man, woman and child in the USA. If you thought things were bad in 2006 when we turned control over to the Democrats, realize that your share of the National debt has, in 4 short years, gone from $24000 to $56000! Is this helping you to put it all into perspective? Are you recognizing the impact that 4 years of Democrat dominance of Congress, and 2 years of a democrat congress and presidency has had on you personally?

Back to deficits for a moment.

Remember that Bush’s WORST deficit with a GOP congress was 420 billion, and that was reduced to $120 billion by the time Pelosi/Reid took power. In their first year at the helm of congress, they more than tripled the previous year’s deficit to $450 billion. That was the best they did in the 4 years they had both houses of congress. And it was 30 billion worse than Bush’s WORST deficit in his first 6 years!

But they were just getting started.

Remember that Bush’s $120 billion deficit in 2006 represented a cost to you of $360.

In their second year, Pelosi Reid tripled their first year’s deficit, and brought our deficit over the unheard of TRILLION dollar mark. The deficit that year was actually $1.2 Trillion, or $4800 to you. That’s right, in 2 years they brought your personal share of the deficit from $360 to $4800.

This year, the deficit is $1.7 Trillion, or $6800 to you. They are DEFICIT spending almost $7000 for every person in the country. That means that after they spend EVERY DOLLAR that they actually COLLECT in taxes, they keep spending, and borrowing at that level.

Now think back to the budget debate.

Our budget is around 3.5 Trillion a year ($14,000 for each of us). “Discretionary Spending” represents about $1.3 trillion. (That’s about $5200 to you). That includes our military, and the non-entitlement departments, agencies, bureaus and programs. The remainder (2.2 Trillion) represents our entitlement transfers of wealth, and interest on the debt. So the government spends $8800 a year for each one of us, taking from Peter who works, to pay Paul who doesn’t – and to pay the interest on financing the whole scheme!

And yet, the Senate Democrats can’t even agree to cut the 3.5 trillion dollar budget by $100 Billion. They couldn’t bring themselves to reduce your deficit share of $6800 by a lousy $400.

So, now when you hear democrats saying Bush and the GOP are worse than Obama and the Democrats, you can share this information! When they tell you our hardships today were inherited from Bush, you can share this information. And when the politicos and wonks throw numbers around, you can translate them into numbers that make sense! Just remember $4 per billion, $4000 per trillion.

Just where would we be, if the government succeeded in seriously putting the hurt on the world’s few companies capable of taking crude oil and delivering useful products to market?

Forget, for a moment, the energy resources coming from petroleum like gasoline, jet fuel, kerosene, home heating oil and the like. We are dependent upon petroleum for plastics, for medicines, for pesticides, for synthetic fibers necessary to clothe us. For asphalt necessary for roads and roofing. Look at what these demonized companies provide to us, on a slim margin of profit, as we’ll see.

The pain at the pump felt by Americans as gas prices hover around $4.00 a gallon is palpable. And as Rahm Emmanuel famously quipped, the left will “never let a good crisis go to waste”!

Politically, the left sees a golden opportunity: They can attack an “enemy of the common man”. They can (they think) raise tax revenues. They can further cripple the petroleum industry – providing impetus toward their “green economy”. They can attack corporate capitalism. So, of course, they go after the oil companies with great zeal.

But even Democrat Senator Mary Landrieu (a hard core leftist) recognizes that the attacks on the oil companies are both unfounded, and ill advised. Acknowledging that punitively terminating tax provisions (which are available to multiple industries and for good reason!) for the oil companies will not reduce (and might increase) gas prices at the pump, and will NOT increase revenues to the government, she spoke out on May 11, 2011 against the attempts to score political points by setting up the straw-man boogie-man of the “Evil Oil Companies” as an enemy to be taken down.

What REALLY is the cause of these high gas prices? Who’s REALLY to blame?

Well, let’s take a look at the factors influencing our pump price today.

First and foremost is the cost these companies must pay for crude! Raw Material Costs. Presently above $100 a barrel, these costs are bolstered by the weakness of the US Dollar – a function of the poor fiscal policy coming out of Obama’s Washington. A weak dollar means a dollar doesn’t go as far in purchasing commodities on the world market. We can only expect to see commodity prices (of EVERYTHING, not just oil!!!) to continue to climb unless drastic action is taken to stabilize the value of our money!

In addition, we are dependent on foreign (and not always friendly) sources of our oil. Leftist policies have hamstrung our domestic production. When the Department of Energy was created (ostensibly to REDUCE our dependence on foreign oil) our imports represented around 30% of our total petroleum consumption. Presently about 2/3 of all our oil is foreign sourced! (Good job, federal bureaucracy!)

All that oil we’re obtaining from foreign sources must be transported halfway around the globe (on very environmentally friendly tanker ships!). Those Shipping and Delivery Costs contribute to our gas price. Don’t forget, those ships run on DIESEL!! How many gallons do you think a tanker burns to bring a million barrels of oil across the ocean? (And what happens to the shipping costs as the price of Diesel rises?) Then, once offloaded in port, the oil must be transported via pipelines (which charge fees) to the refineries.

Our Refinery Costs are also factored into our gasoline pump prices. We haven’t built a new refinery since the Carter Administration… but we’ve lost a few in that time. Our refining capacity is not increasing to meet demand. Meantime our “helpful” federal government has mandated boutique fuel blends – different formulations engineered for different geographical regions. The refineries must make one blend for Missouri, and another for Illinois! These blends cannot be sold across the regional boundaries, so if there’s a shortage in Illinois for their blend, they can’t sell Missouri’s blend, even if there’s a surplus of that variety! So what happens? The price in IL must go up relative to the price in MO, as a function of its scarcity. And when IL residents note the difference, they cry GOUGING against IL gas retailers, who are innocent of any wrongdoing!

Speaking of the gasoline retailer, their average Retailer Profits are about 10 cents per gallon… unless you pay by credit card! Then the credit card company, which takes a fee based on the SALE PRICE will eat about 6 or 7 cents per gallon, leaving the station operator a mere 3 cents per gallon. This is why gas stations are now mini-markets. They need to sell higher margin items to stay alive! The gas is often a “loss leader” used simply to get motorists to stop and shop their convenience store!

Oil Company Profits must necessarily be figured into the cost equation… but let’s do so with perspective. Oil companies earn approximately 2 cents for every gallon sold! States place Taxes on Gasoline ranging from 30-something to 60-something cents per gallon, with the national average being 48 cents. So for every penny the oil companies earn, the states make almost a quarter. WHO’S reaping the windfall profits? The states invest nothing in exploration, extraction, transportation, formulation, refining, or delivery of gasoline, yet they make nearly a quarter for every penny the oil companies earn in profit!

But we’re not yet done with taxes! Once the states get their share, the feds also get a chunk. About 18 cents per gallon goes to the Federal Government. So about $.66 of every gallon you pump is simply paid to the state and federal government in taxes. Lay that against the lowly 2 cents profit per gallon that the oil companies get! If the profits of the oil companies are obscene, what about the Federal and State Governments appropriating 33 cents (and delivering NOTHING) for every cent the oil companies make in profit while delivering vital products to market?

But they sell billions of gallons! They earn BILLIONS in profit!

Ok… and so? That profit goes to their shareholders. When they make money, 9.2 million stockholders benefit!! Do you have a 401K or IRA or a pension? I’ll just bet you’re one of those evil oil profiteers!

And what of those billions? Oil companies operate on margins that would shut down most other industries. What business could survive with an effective tax rate of 48% and a profit margin under 7%?

According to ABC News (hardly a friend of the oil companies, and certainly not a conservative news outlet) the big oil companies had the following revenues/profits: Source: http://abcn.ws/jgMnP4  

The total profit for these 5 big oil companies was 38.2 Billion in 2010. (How fast does Government spend 38.2 billion?) Sounds like a lot, doesn’t it?

With approximately 250 million people in the USA, it takes $4 per person to make a billion dollars. So all 5 companies in total earned about $152.80 from each of us in 2010! Now think about what you SPENT on gasoline in 2010! Now realize that over $5000 was collected from each of us in gas TAXES by the states and the feds in that same time period. WHO are you mad at now?

Oh, and the Feds want to raise taxes on the oil companies. Where do you think that money will come from?

So WHO should be demonized when you feel that pain at the pump?

On the decision to send human assets rather than bombing the compound from 35,000 feet, the talk has all been about knowing of a certainty that we’d gotten OBL. But could there be another ulterior motive?

Has anyone drawn a connection to the Libyan conflict? Obama’s approval on Libya has been flagging. He’s been dithering on Khadafy. He doesn’t want him killed, but wants him to go… yet Khadafy’s been holding power and even making gains against the rebels. Having committed to supporting the rebellion in Libya, yet feeling the heat from the public for his decision to get involved, what is his most graceful way out of that morass? Wouldn’t the voluntary ceding of power by Khadafy fit the bill?

Khadafy is a blusterer and a terrorist, but he’s also a coward. When Reagan rang his bell with a few cruise missiles, he shut up for decades! Remember, when Saddam Hussein was fished out of his “spider hole”? Khadafy abandoned his nuclear program, welcomed inspector and regulators, and began providing us with intelligence! Khadafy DOES NOT WANT us painting a bull’s-eye on him!

Now, with our actions against him and our official position being in support of his ouster from power, Khadafy’s been defiant up to this point, believing Obama to be a weak and impotent wuss. And maybe, to this point, he’s been right!

The actions in Pakistan to take out Bin Laden MUST give Khadafy pause! We have the intelligence and technology to locate Bin Laden and put Seals on the ground. And Obama, to his credit, had the cojones to order the strike. Is it possible Khadafy might reconsider a “peaceful transfer of power” to avoid a similar fate? Might such an eventuality provide a bump in Obama’s approval rating – and could that have factored into his decision tree on utilizing Seal Team 6?

And what if it did? Would that be a case of narcissistic self-interest causing him to stumble into what could actually be a brilliant strategic move?

Moving on to the second item for discussion; Obama spent 4 days distracting the American public’s attention away from domestic policy issues while the release of photos of the corpse of Osama Bin Laden was debated. Ultimately, the decision was made to withhold the release of the photos, citing concerns that they would incite additional violence and put our troops at elevated risk.

Others are debating the merits of release or non-release of the photos. I’m looking at a different perspective: Obama’s ostensible concern for the risk to the troops!

If the troops are REALLY Obama’s first concern, then perhaps he should revisit the policies and the Rules of Engagement that his administration has implemented, which have resulted in the loss of more of our service men and women under his watch in 2 years, than under Bush’s watch in almost 8 years! Decisions made by the Commander-in-Chief in policy setting affect day-to-day operations, strategies and tactics, and ultimately the safety of every service member in theatre. Perhaps, if their welfare is his highest priority, as he states as his justification for not releasing the OBL photos, consistency would demand a review of the administration’s policies and procedures which have so notably degraded the safety of our military men and women since the changing of the guard in the White House!

Finally, the news of the killing of Bin Laden has knocked Donald Trump and the Birther issue off the front pages; but let us roll back the calendar a few days to when it was the big news. Obama had spent around 30 months and millions of dollars avoiding the release of his birth certificate. When the questions first arose, he could have simply produced the document and ended the controversy. Instead he fanned the smoldering coals into a flame! WHY?

I don’t intend to get into the validity or veracity of the document he released. There are those who will waste the next 2 years trying to prove it is fraudulent. There are those who will use it to ridicule the birthers. I’m looking for the perspective no one is talking about. If the document IS genuine, why would Obama have spent so much effort to keep it sealed?

Because it served his purposes to do so!

Fanning the controversy was a perfect distraction. For as long as “birthers” were a fringe element, he could use them to taint the Right as loonies. The Tea Party was dismissed at first as a bunch of racists and birthers! Over time, the doubters numbers began to grow. Obama’s stonewalling caused more mainstream people to question “Where’s the Long Form?” Even Chris “Tingles” Matthews questioned it!

Obama milked the controversy to the point where it reached the tipping point. Almost half the country questioned whether Obama was born in HI. His first term was half over and he’s in campaign mode. Could there be a better time to trot out a long form document, proclaiming him to have been born in Honolulu? The release accomplished several things for the President:

1.  The majority of doubters will simply accept the document and be satisfied.
2.  Trump is made to look foolish for making all that noise about it.
3.  Those who question the document are marginalized and ridiculed.
4.  Obama gets a big “I told you so… why didn’t you believe me in the first place?” gaining a “victory” heading into campaign season.
5.  No one dares bring up his Indonesian citizenship or what passport he used to travel to Pakistan – which might have provided more effective questioning of his eligibility!

Whether the document is genuine and was always there, or was a fraudulent creation of the moment is not the topic of this article. Either way, releasing it at this particular juncture was brilliant. Obama was already cooking on the Bin Laden takedown, which would soon knock the Birth Certificate off the front page and out of people’s minds, with their last thought on the matter being that Obama had settled it. The issue is dead, and Obama won. Anyone attempting to resurrect the issue at this point looks foolish, and doing so will be a fruitless endeavor which will serve Obama’s interests by distracting some who could otherwise effectively battle his policies through the remainder of his term, and work to defeat him and his allies in 2012.

You will notice, this article offers little in the way of answers or conclusions. Its purpose was to raise awareness of fresh perspectives; a different way of looking at events. Events and life itself are 3-Dimensional. It is often interesting and frequently useful to go beyond the discussion of the obvious, and look at situations from angles other than head-on.

Our education system seems to have abandoned the purpose to encourage students to think, and to teach them how to do critical analysis. Instead of teaching HOW to think, they indoctrinate with WHAT to think. American Patriots must reawaken and cultivate the skill of critical analysis and outside-the-box thinking!

He is riding a rising tide of popularity, and he’s milking it for all its worth. America is so very disenchanted with Obama that anyone who can land a body-blow on him is a hero. Trump has been relentless in his sometimes comical, sometimes clownish criticism and skepticism of the President. This makes him something of a folk-hero, whose stock has just posted great gains after Obama blinked on the Birth Certificate staredown. Now he is calling for school records. An amusing diversion, to be sure, and it may cause further deterioration of Obama’s credibility… but it’s not doing much to cause a rise in confidence in Trump’s ability to govern!

But if I might draw an analogy, Trump is an opening act. He warms up the audience for the headliner. Someone else will close the show and take the curtain calls.

Perhaps an even better analogy is that of a bullfight. Given the close association that so many people have between “bull” and Obama, this may perhaps be the most fitting analog I can find!

In a bullfight, there is not a single human opponent to the bull. There is a TEAM. The Picador will annoy the bull and will insert lances to weaken his back. This is the role I see The Donald playing. Frustrating the bull, causing him pain and injury, confusing him, and wearing him down.

During the next phase of the bullfight, a Torreador will play the bull. Goading him to charge at his red cape, while deftly avoiding the bulls horns, he further confuses and tires the bull. This is a finesse act. Perhaps too finesse for The Donald’s cavalier manner. I expect one or more challengers of the Paul Ryan, Mike Pence, even Ron Paul variety to challenge Obama on the REAL issues. To make him answer real and reasoned questions on fiscal matters, and on the differing world views and underlying philosophies that distinguish between the Progressive Left and the Conservative Right.

But the Matador… the one who ultimately plunges the sword into the bull and ends the bullfight in victory… that person has yet to emerge. This must be a charismatic person. One who can eloquently articulate the positions, policies, platform, and plan that will set our nation on a course for prosperity and success. One whose policies are not political gamesmanship, but which come from a core belief and a personal conviction. A Reaganesque character who will unite people behind an optimistic vision and a realistic plan.

This character profile does not fit Trump, and he won’t play that role in the end. Who will? It’s too early to tell! There are several I have my eyes on, and a few I truly hope will jump into the fray – but it’s far to early to make such a prediction or endorsement!

In the meantime, suffice it to say… I’m enjoying the opening act. But Trump will have to vacate the stage so the headliner can perform.