With nary a fact in sight, Trump's carnival heads towards Cleveland

It could all be over for the Republicans tomorrow, as primary voters head to the polls in Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Illinois and Missouri

A growing majority of Republicans are hoping there will be yet another chance to “stop Trump,” but their time has almost run out as the party that created him wrings its hands as he marches to the nomination.

Several things about Trump’s campaign are clear . . . The first is that the party should have seen this coming months ago. They should have seen this crisis in their ranks, the anger that Trump has been able to fuel to the boiling point. The fear of people and countries they see as the reasons for their anger and their job loss and their perception that nobody cares about their plight except Donald Trump. He hears them clearly and has fed each and every angry, fearful note possible . . . It’s all the fault of Mexican, crappy politicians, Muslims and stupid incompetent politicians.

Trump supporters cheer their champion’s outspoken, politically incorrect rhetoric. They cheer is “difference” from the usual rubber-stamped politics they see as ruining America. They see his fire and soak up his words like an old dry sponge sitting inside the edge of a sink. They love the fact that protesters “attacked” a Trump rally. They embrace his staged anger and cheer his “punch him in the face” screeches, because that’s what they want to do. In Trump, they receive the candy they so desperately didn’t get from the Great Satan of Obama, the man they see as “ruining” America.

What rabid Trump supporters see, however, is vastly different than what others see. Others see an ego manic fueling violence, hate and divisiveness. They see a candidate who has appealed to the worst of human nature. They see someone who has yet to outline any major policy positions, instead relying on short bursts of, “We’ll make America great again” or “Mexico will pay for the wall.” Ridiculous even on the face of it.

But the simple fact is that Trump’s supporters just don’t care.

Now, the protests, some of which turned violent, will continue, as Trump fans the flames more and more, simply because any protests harden his supporters even more. This not a man, observers say, who has shown even a sliver of presidential stature. So growing protests at what Trump calls his “shows” may embolden his supporters, they are causing earthquakes within the Republican Party.

Ted Cruz, who many see as an even more “dangerous” candidate than Trump, runs in second place, his far-right views alienating voters on a national level, but proving popular among a fairly wide swath of Republican primary voters.

Rubio? If he doesn’t take Florida, his home state, he’s done, his campaign turning into not much more than a large flash in the pan that never gained the traction it needed to excite voters and push through Trump’s circus.

Kasich must take his home state of Ohio or he’s done.

Though any predictions are probably at the least a dicey endeavor, there seems to be no reason to think that Trump can unify the party, let alone the nation. If he’s the nominee each and every word he has uttered is ammo for his opponent. While his primary opponents haven’t been able to dent the Trump tank, I’m not so sure that will be the case when we’re faced with the prospect of a Trump White House. Thus not only do republicans face the prospect of losing the presidential election, but also of losing its Senate majority, and possibly the House as well. At the least, the party will be seriously wounded.

If Trump doesn’t evolve into a person willing to take responsibility for his words (Can you imagine the outcry if Obama has said, “Punch him in the face” . . . ?) and threats to build a Mexico-financed walls, ban Muslims from entering the country, deport all illegal immigrants, eliminate a free press and a warped sense of first amendment rights that Trump feels only applies to him and not those who might disagree with him. (Please note that if you’re a Muslim already here . . . and a citizen who happens to be a Muslim . . . Trump wants to take away all your Constitutional rights. That, my friends is a war on religion.)

So here we are. It’s a process, and Trump has proved time and time again that a carnival barker can capture a large crowd with his barking if he’s barking what they want to hear. That’s the way it is, and we’ll see what happens not only tomorrow, but to the Republican convention.

If Trump fails to get the delegates needed for the nomination, there will be a floor fight, from which Trump will probably not emerge the winner. It’s a numbers game . . . and Trump’s opponents are playing prevent defense, hoping they can go into the convention with some delegates and come out as the nominee after a political cage fight. It’ll be an uphill battle from there . . . 

If Trump is currently polling at 40 percent, remember that is 40 percent of a party that now claims about one-third of registered voters. That’s 40 percent of one-third. That’s not close to a majority, and despite Clinton’s high negatives, I’m not convinced that a Republican candidate can beat her, let alone Sanders, in a national contest. Part of the ammo for Democrats will be Trump’s words throughout the primary campaign as evidence of where Republicans stand on some issues.

We march on.

We need to fire politicians who want to eliminate environmental protections

I guess I'm just an ignorant dummy . . . I don't understand the inner workings of a politician's mind. I always felt that one of the first goals of politics and government is to protect people. Kind of like a doctor’s goal of “do no harm.”

How then do some politicians rationalize that by trying to eliminate laws that make polluting the air and water and the very land upon which we live?

I hear and read the arguments . . . These regulations are too restrictive . . . too costly . . . too much government over-reach . . .

But those arguments focus on the short-term, not the long term. They ignore the big picture. Often that big picture means easing regulations now, usually to help and “unencumber” businesses. Does that make sense? If we lift restrictions, say on how drilling companies handle their fracking waste water, a toxic blend of water and chemicals, and companies can dispose of it however they please, then what’s to protect people in that area from being poisoned? Often companies will take the path of least resistance if they can, and that means they’ll dispose of waste as inexpensively and quickly as possible, as an example.

That’s because companies, as they should, are supposed to make money. Doing things cheaply, without being “encumbered” by regulations, means more money can fall to the bottom line. Fine. Unfortunately, it can mean the long-term cost of those business practices may not only be costly to the company, but to the air . . . or water . . . or land. If that happens, as we’re seeing with fracking, ground water gets polluted and that means people who once lived with good water now can drink or even bathe in what’s coming out of their faucets.

So while companies should, of course, make money, they also should bear the responsibility of their actions and policies. They don’t need to be handed freebies by government, or bailed out by taxpayers when they make errors, or when their businesses cause damage. BP and Transocean could have used a better and safer pump/well safety valve, but didn’t . . . That decision cost them tens of billions of dollars and killed 11 people. The blowout preventer valve they used had failed just prior to installation on the deep water well in the Gulf.

Similar, though not as devastating, accidents or failures happen every day . . . leaks and runoffs into streams, rivers and lakes . . . waste from fracking and landfills .  . . chemical dumps . . . air pollution from plants, and even runoff from farms and private homes. It all goes into the land, air or water and that means it goes into the things we eat, drink and breathe.

So while I understand some of regulations of these things might be considered by some to be “burdensome,” history shows that is political sword rattling, and doesn’t prove to be a challenge overwhelming or damaging to most businesses and business profits. Companies predictably complain that any “restraints” on their ability to do business as they wish will create a business environment that will destroy them. Businesses adapt, and adapt quickly. They need to do that to survive and prosper. Government change tends to be glacially slow.

So why do politicians continually challenge environmental oversight? As I said, I am at something of a loss. It’s one thing to be pro-business, but not anti-people. If politicians make laws that strip people of basic protections, like clean water and air, then what’s left? What’s happening in Flint, Michigan, is an example, except this time it’s the government that made bad decisions, overlooked and trivialized complaints and concerns from residents for well over a year, poisoning thousands of residents with high levels of lead.

Keeping people safe should be a primary focus of government at all levels. There need not be a conflict between the needs of business and the safety of the population at large. When I turn on my faucet, I should expect the water coming out to be safe to drink. The plant in town should throw stuff into the air that makes it unsafe to breathe, and the factory that just cl0sed should leave a chemical footprint that lasts for decades and costs millions of dollars to clean.

If politicians can’t keep us safe, then they should find new jobs. It’s up to us to make sure they don’t stay in office.

Medicare needs nips and tucks, then a roll out to everyone

Medicare, the government’s insurance program for people 65 years old and older, as well as younger people with disabilities, sets the standards for virtually all private insurance, but there are several big challenges within the system.

With some 50 million people on Medicare, a system they paid into when they worked, it’s a huge ($200 billion-plus) program. But it is far from perfect.

First, it doesn’t cover all medical costs. It generally covers 80 percent of allowed charges, though discounts often reduce the billed amount to less than that. Some things, like dental, are not covered. Prescriptions require a separate drug plan (Plan D), which is an additional monthly cost. Perhaps most importantly, there is no limit on out-of-pocket costs, so someone in the hospital for weeks, say, could easily have to pay $20,000 on a $100,000 hospital bill . . . and up and up. Most private insurance caps out-of-pocket costs yearly, often at around $5,000.

Also, each state has a supplemental insurance lrigram, which is designed to cover (in varying amounts depending on the plan selected) that gap between what Medicare pays and what an individual pays out of pocket. Unfortunately, each state has different companies offering the supplemental insurance and different requirements,, though the plans (Plans G, N F, etc.) are virtual the same (that’s mandated). In general, when one first goes on to Medicare, he or she can sign up for supplemental insurance and not be denied that coverage (usually offered by several companies all of whom offer the same overall coverage benefits). However, if one doesn’t add the supplemental coverage right away, then each state has a different set of rules and qualifications for the added insurance, so the rules change.

Some states allow all people to buy supplemental insurance, some require an underwriting approval (which generally eliminates anyone with health issues), and some offer a combination of both. New Hampshire only has one company offering supplemental insurance without an underwriting hurdle.

It’s expensive for those of us under age 65, but drops to half the monthly cost on the most complete plan after age 65. As with many of these programs, many companies (AARP/United Healthcare for instance), is not offered. As someone who is under 65 and disabled following an amputation (which is why I qualified for Medicare), it’s virtually impossible to make it through the underwriting process.

 

A national program would eliminate these state-to-state-differences, which would be a good thing for many reasons. First, it would offer the widest selection of supplemental insurance to the widest number of people and eliminate states that waffle on trying to legislate health care options within their borders. It would also prevent insurance companies from cherry picking from the 50 states and ignoring some states. So a national program would level the playing field.

If everyone was offered the same supplemental insurance programs no matter where they lived, it would level costs and slow increases.

Medicare for all?

Talk of a national health insurance program, often referred to as “Medicare for all” is clearly where we are headed, and it is, with slightly different approaches, where the rest of the world is as well. While we have the world’s most expensive health care system, our overall care falls somewhere in the middle of the pack.

National health care coverage without a state by state process would eliminate companies from cherry picking some states and ignoring others. (New Hampshire has stumbled since the beginning, initially launching a state insurance exchange with just one company, trying to move Medicaid to private companies and then killing that system before it got off the ground but well after people had signed up.) Make supplemental insurance options with coverage similar to what it is now.  Some people might not need the supplemental insurance, for instance higher-income people who can afford the 20 percent uncovered by standard Medicare.

Add supplemental . . . add foreign coverage . . . add maybe long term care . . . limit of say $1 million and can add to increase that.   Add dental . . . All can be “supplemental-type” add-ons to any national coverage . . . That’s much the way people buy private insurance now and very much like the way corporate insurance and benefit programs are presented to employees.

That way people get basic coverage but can add what they want and need and can afford.

Some type of national program is coming . . . It’s inevitable because the piecemeal system we have now allows to too many care and cost variations and leaves too many people uninsured, which means they often enter the system through the emergency room, the most expensive door for “regular” care. 

We’ll see more merger in the health care industry as corporations jockey for dominant positions in their fields . . . hospitals, pharmacies, and doctors . . . but don’t buy into talk about corporations suffering through ll of this. They won’t. That talk is like a coach talking to officials about a player on the other team . . . he’s just trying to set up the game to lean towards his team a bit.

By giving people more control over their health care and leveling the field nationally, all the while mandating coverage and acceptance of pre-existing conditions (one of the most important features of the Affordable Care Act) we can all rest a bit easier that we can pay for the health care we need and that paying for it won’t bankrupt us.

Beware the politicians who claim to embrace the Constitution, but only when it's convenient for them

Beware the anti-Constitutionalists, for they shall bend the truth to suit themselves.

Our democracy is difficult. It requires us to let people with whom we disagree rise up and scream ridiculous stuff we hate. Our Constitution tells us that’s what we need to do. Our Constitution tells us that no matter what your religious beliefs (or non-beliefs), we have to respect that and our government needs to be free of religious encumbrances. Our Constitution tells us “a militia” can have guns, but does that mean we can buy as many guns as we want without any restrictions?

In today’s world, politicians love to throw around the “Constitution,” as in Obama ignores the Constitution . . . or people talking about background checks are violating our Constitution . . .

Sometimes, politicians who claim to embrace the Constitution are the first to ignore it . . . Let’s ban Muslims . . . We’ve taken God out of our government . . . Gay people should be executed, or a marriage is only between a man and a woman . . . It’s OK to discriminate against people with whom we disagree . . .

Right now . . . with the caucuses and primaries starting, we’re hearing a lot of rhetoric, much of it hateful and spiteful and fearful, but not much about how that talk is often at odds with our Constitution. I guess that shows how fast some people are to embrace tough talk even if it violates our basic rights.

Are we really willing to keep people from entering America based on their religion? Do we really want to continually monitor and surveil places of worship? Do you want your church constantly under surveillance? Again, we're talking about American citizens who happen to have a different faith than you have. Citizens . . . Citizens who should be protected from such intrusion and bigotry by our Constitution.

Turn it up a notch by saying that Mexicans entering the country (illegally) are all murderers, rapists and criminals?  What’s impact of saying that on Mexicans (or other immigrants) here legally . . . or even U.S. citizens who came from other lands? (Gee that sounds like most of us . . . though our ancestors got in pretty much without restrictions.)          

                           

The right to bear arms? The Supreme Court has ruled that the right belongs to individuals, while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices. State and local government are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. (Wiki)

In 1939, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.” (Wiki)

So any talk of “restrictions” on gun ownership as being “anti-Second Amendment” just really isn’t true, but I’m guessing that most people who shout about the Second Amendment haven’t read it or aren’t interested in finding out more about it. It always sounds better just to shout stuff nowadays and see what sticks. Fear sticks.

Our Constitution, in effect, tells us how to act as a nation. Combined with our other chief historic documents, like the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, we have a framework created by our founding fathers for a new nation emerging from under the wing of a dominant power. A power we rebelled against in our fight for independence that cost thousands of lives. But we still managed to defeat and forge a new country. Those documents don’t necessarily make things easier for us, and maybe with some things in an ever-changing world, they make it tougher.

But we can’t afford to lose sight of the bigger picture. Despite all the current political talk, we are a great nation because of our Constitution and the people that forged it. We speak freely, worship as we wish, elect people to represent us at every level of government, buy and sell property and change jobs if we wish, and even manage, at least in theory, to treat all people equally.

Some of that’s taking a beating now, and we’d best remember that, too, since it’s easy to discriminate against things and people different than we are, but we like to think nobody will ever treat us that way. Unless, of course, we feel it’s in our best interest to claim we’re victims of one sort or another.

It’s far from a perfect system and we have shown time and time again that we are anything but a perfect people. We’re all in the same boat, though, and while we sometimes like to think we’re special, everyone in that boat matters, and we all do better when we’re rowing in the same direction . . . as free, equal and thoughtful people willing to understand our history and not throw it out the window when it becomes inconvenient.

Cruz whacks Trump in Iowa, and Bernie rattles Clinton

Ted Cruz takes Iowa in what some are calling an upset, but insiders say was perfectly called by the Cruz staff based on their solid ground game and a successful campaign model tailored after Barack Obama’s 2008 run (which took much of its framework from the George W Bush run in 2000).

While Iowa is hardly reflective of the nation at large, clearly Cruz and his well-managed campaign picks up tons of momentum heading into the New Hampshire primary, where polls show Donald Trump still holds a commanding lead.

On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders locked in a virtual tie with Hillary Clinton after lagging by as much as 50 points a few months ago.

Republicans showed up in record numbers, which was supposed to help Trump, but instead turned out to benefit Cruz. Democrats didn’t pull record numbers (Obama did that in 2008), but it was enough to pull Sanders even with the establishment party favorite. While a win would have added to Sanders’ “rolling thunder” enthusiasm, one still has to wonder just how strong Clinton’s campaign is once one scrapes away the high-profile surface support.

As has been noted in the press, Iowa may be a launching pad for many campaigns, its population doesn’t reflect the nation as a whole, nor does it in any way guarantee a presidential win. Only three non-incumbent politicians won Iowa and went on the win the presidential election . . . Jimmy Carter (who actually came in second to “undecided”) in 1976, George W. Bush in 2000 and Barack Obama in 2008.

While Iowa is pretty vanilla, with a population that is 5.6 percent Hispanic, 3.4 percent black and 2.2 percent Asian (the U.S. as a whole is 17.4% Hispanic, 13.2% black and 5.4% Asian), the Cruz win will set the tone for the “extreme” conservative wing of the GOP. Whether that will play to a more diversified population remains to be seen. It hasn’t in the past. (LA Times)

Marco Rubio’s third-place finish gives some hope to the GOP establishment, but his flip-flops and dicey finances make him vulnerable to attacks both from members of his own party as well as Democrats.

Just how tough a game is politics? Remember that in 2008, Mike Huckabee took Iowa with 34 percent of the Republican caucuses (last night he got just 1 percent and ended his campaign) . . . Rick Santorum took first on the GOP side in 2008 (tied with Mitt Romney), but managed just 1 percent Monday . . . (Wiki)

I’m not sure Cruz will close the gap on Trump in New Hampshire. Trump’s WWE-like campaign (as David Brooks of The New York Times calls it) has garnered a lot of support here, but will the rise of Cruz and Rubio steal votes from him. Remember, too, that in New Hampshire, Independent (or undeclared) voters can vote in either party primary.

It’s New Hampshire, with the hot lights of massive media coverage and a Town Hall-based campaign process that will push candidates forward into upcoming primaries . . . and deliver the kill shot to other campaigns. Chris Christie and John Kasich need strong showings here to have any chance of moving up the GOP ladder.

It will all become a bit clearer February 9.

If the candidates were your family, here's who they would be . . . Drink up

If the current flock of candidates were family members, here’s who’d they’d be . . . (Fortunately, I don’t have any family like this, but I just know you do.) Gather ‘round the table for a family feast.

Donald Trump is that loud obnoxious uncle who arrives at parties 15 minutes late, wants a Scotch and soda, but only if you have J&B. “Four cubes,.”

Bernie Sanders always arrives early, asks for a sherry and then sits on the couch telling your kids stories of his wild days at Berkley, “When everyone was a hippie.”

Cousin Jeb Bush quietly sits in that corner chair talking to your college-age kid and encouraging him to study business because, “That’s where it is today. Not like when I was a kid and political science was the thing.” He’s a professor now at a small liberal arts college nestled in the hills of upstate New York.

Hillary Clinton is the aunt who never got married, never had a boyfriend or a girlfriend and you used to wonder why, until one day a couple of Thanksgivings ago she laid into your Dad for “Caring more about your old dog when you got married in 1976 than you cared about me.” She holds a grudge and is scary, so now you guess why you never met a boyfriend or a girlfriend.

Nephew Marco Rubio sips his Cosmo and brags about how he just “told off” the local selectman at a local planning and zoning hearing for complaining about a company he consulted with for wanted to building a plant in wetlands. He’s kind of the snot-nose kid who was always whining through junior high and then wondered in college why none of “his old buddies” invited him to join a frat house.

Uncle Ted Cruz says he wishes he fought in Iraq, but had to take a deferment because he had allergies. “But if I was there I sure would have set those Iraqi bastards straight.” He later served two years as a clerk for a judge and decided he’d go to law school “because then that would set the stage for my political career and look good on my resume.” “I’ll take a rye on the rocks.”

Poor aunt Carla Fiorina lost her husband 20 years ago and hasn’t forgiven him for that.

Then there’s Martin O'Malley, the friendly uncle who lets the party swirl around him, talking to your Dad and others quietly as the cocktail hour goes on, touching base with each guest and asking them how they’re doing without too much talk about himself. His second wife is 20 years younger than he is, so you figure he says all the right things.

I guess most every family has a Chris Christie . . . a boisterous first cousin who wants you to know exactly what he’s doing this week and why it’s very important. He runs an auto reclamation business and “has never let anyone get away with giving him any crap. I let them know just how stupid they are.”

You’re not sure, but you think your wife’s cousin Ben Carson may have taken a few too many drugs while in college. He’s very quiet, but makes sure to tell you the movie Predator was actually a documentary based on a book he wrote about the hottest summer ever in South America.

Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum and Rand Paul are brothers (your Mom's second cousins) who always sit at a side table drinking Merlot while they complain nobody pays any attention to them.

Your wife's uncle John Kasich wears a slightly rumpled grey jacket over a crisply pressed white Oxford tucked into well-worn jeans and seems happy drinking gin and tonics any time of year (“Could I have a little extra lime, please?”), though you have had a single malt or two with him over the years. He loves any part of the turkey that's left after everyone else has called out white or dark meat, bathes his mashed potatoes in gravy and lives near his old neighborhood in a multi-million-dollar house he had built after he sold his tech company 10 years ago. He never brags and spends every Sunday morning at a local soup kitchen feeding those who never had a tech company or live in expensive houses.

Jim Gilmore is your Dad’s half-brother, runs a construction business and can’t figure out why there are any government regulations at all. “Damn government does nothing but screw everything up.” He doesn’t know any gay people but doesn’t like them, and your Dad threw him out of the July 4 party last year because he started ranting about gay marriage. They still don’t talk much.

It sure is a gathering when they’re all here . . . Wives, husbands, kids and a bunch of friends. Mom always calls it a free-for-all, and I guess that’s pretty accurate. Personally, I love the gatherings, but I do try to spend a bit more time making sure we have plenty of booze before they all arrive . . .

My Politics: Where I stand, and 9 ways the current crop of politicians has lost me

I’m a 60-year-old white guy, former Wall Street vice president, one-time small business owner who grew up in a Republican household, raised by strong parents, including a father who ran a major corporation and a mother who gave up her professional life to raise two kids. I've voted for both Republicans and Democrats since I was 18 years old.

If there was ever a guy the Republicans should target, it’s me. But they’ve missed by a mile. I fear that a segment of the Republican Party is, in many ways, becoming dangerous as we head to the primaries. The world is changing and the dinosaurs are long gone, except in the GOP. 

The Democrats remain pretty much uninspiring as well, moving in and out of mediocre policies that seem more designed to pander to their base as much as the Republicans are pandering to theirs. The Democrats, though, have failed to fire up their base the same way Trump and Cruz have roiled theirs.

By nature, politicians lack courage, and nobody seems especially courageous here . . . just either loud or rather bland.

Here are 9 Thoughts . . .

First, I considerate myself a moderate, that dying breed of voter who feels comfortable in the middle of the road advocating lower government spending while also managing to think government does have a valuable role in America, even if politicians can’t manage to get out of their own way. I think one of the primary goals of government should be to "do no harm," so I support programs that protect people, water, air and our land.

Second, I do believe that politicians pander to the wealthy, have created and endorse an unfair tax system, are heavily influenced by money and lobbyists and often oblivious to the real-life issues facing millions of Americans. I do not believe we should move towards a “Robin Hood” tax structure where we take from the rich, but rather a tax system that honors, supports and lifts the middle class without penalizing people for their growth, success and financial well-being. That may mean tax breaks for education, increased retirement programs, better mandated health care programs and an investment tax system that favors long-term investment over short term trading (including a shift in how hedge fund companies are taxed).

Third, I think companies need to be penalized if they move operations overseas, and rewarded if they keep operations (and jobs) here. Companies are using mergers to move headquarters overseas to avoid U.S. taxes. Offer a limited time tax amnesty to bring tax money back here before eliminating offshore loopholes, then close the loopholes. Reward companies for building new plants here. 

Mandate that companies fully fund their pensions and retirement programs, eliminating those liabilities and better protecting older workers. Lower the top corporate tax rate to 25 percent (from 35 percent), but change write-off rules so companies can’t avoid paying any taxes.

Fourth, I fully support term limits for all federally elected politicians. What’s reasonable? Maybe 3 Senate terms (12 years potentially) and 5 terms for members of the House (10 years). In many cases corporations have mandatory retirement (usually at age 65) for their executives . . . Time to clear the hanger’s on out of Congress. It has been said that anyone spending more than 10 years in any given job has stayed too long. I agree.

Fifth, we need to reduce the money influence on politicians and shine a much brighter light on their contributors and the contributors to PACs (Political Action Committees) and Super PACs. We should know who gives what to whom . . . There should be no curtain hiding campaign financing or shielding contributors. Shine the light. I want to know who pours millions of dollars into political campaigns.

Sixth, I completely and unwaveringly support marriage equality. I have friends and family who are gay, and why on earth would I deny them the same rights and privileges I enjoy? Further, I believe we need to make sure all people have the same rights here . . . access to housing, medical care, non-discriminatory laws and regulations, etc.  If we continue to generate laws that purposely discriminate against certain groups of people, then that’s shame on us. (And shows our narrow-mindedness and belief that we will never be discriminated against. Put yourself in someone else’s shoes for once.)

Seventh, I do believe there is a war on women . . . both in the job marketplace and with women’s health care. Just look at the facts . . . continued failure to mandate equal pay for equal work to start, as well as the continued assault on Planned Parenthood. 

Why? I am offended that some old white guy in Washington can tell my daughters what to do with their bodies. Politicians’ never-ending attempts to put themselves between a woman and her doctor, including trying to mandate invasive fetal monitors . . . requiring patients to watch videos before considering an abortion, the closing of clinics and the constant attempts to defund Planned Parenthood, which would leave millions of people, mostly women, without access to affordable care. We need to move past these issues, and certainly older white mostly male Republicans need to move way off this issue.

Eighth, I simply don't understand why anyone would vote for fewer laws overseeing the safety of our water and air. I favor strong environmental protections, and point to the current crisis in Flint, Michigan, as a warning shot to ever bigger environmental issues. The fact that politicians changed the city water supply source, which in turn led to the lead exposure and poisoning of thousands of residents merely because they wanted to save money, and never tested the supply, is, one could reasonable argue, criminal. We have similar issues with pollution of our ground water supply in fracking areas and around mining regions. People have the right to demand their politicians keep them safe, and that includes making sure their air and water is safe. Politicians need to put their people first, before business interests that oil their political aspirations. Clean air, water and food supply.

Ninth, (and last for the time being), let’s not forget that politics is a contact sport and we need to make sure we’re part of the game. Write, talk, debate, use your brain and make sure you’re supporting someone not shouting the loudest, but who best aligns with your political beliefs. Don’t fall for easy answers and social media rants and “news,” but learn, follow, be critical and demand better.

So far, so disappointing.

Some of the Republican candidates make Barry Goldwater and George Wallace look like raging liberals, and while I might be able to warm to a couple of them, I choke on the right turn needed to make it through the bloody GOP primary gauntlet. The party is in trouble. They’ve lowered their own bar very low. These are not the "conservatives" of days past. These are fake conservatives more than willing to throw aside the Constitution while they pretend to embrace it . . . fake "conservatives" who shout a lot but offer little thought and insight. Too bad.

While Hillary Clinton is an option, her sense of entitlement, measured campaigning and inability to handle her email/server issues may overshadow her middle-of-the-road policy positions. She carries huge negative numbers. Barry Sanders is probably the only candidate, whether you agree with him on anything or not, who has steered the same course for years and years, seldom wavering in his positions and not speaking to impress and score points (though that’s always the goal when you need votes), but rather to spread his “every man” mantra. Might be interesting.

It’s “only” January, but the primaries and caucuses start soon . . . Virtually every pundit in the world thought Trump would implode well before now . . . They thought that it would happen in July . . . then August . . . It’s January and he’s not only still in the race, he’s well ahead of his competition. He hasn't said one thing that sounds like a policy, and people actually believe him when he says Mexico will pay for his wall across the southern border.

Wow.