"...This Election Is Already A Real Barnumburner..."

Do you get the feeling that something is missing from the presidential campaign this time around?

You're not alone.

The "what" in "what's missing" in a few minutes.

Latest Republican debate last night.

The campaign-long truce between Donald Trump and Texas Senator Ted Cruz ended last night (January 14th) as the gloves came off between them on the Republican debate stage in North Charleston, South Carolina, where seven candidates faced off in the Fox Business Network-hosted event. The two sparred over Trump's questions about Cruz's eligibility to be president because of his birth in Canada, and over Cruz's questioning of Trump's conservative credentials by suggesting he has, quote, "New York values." Cruz said Trump is bringing up questions about his presidential eligibility because he's catching up to Trump in the polls, while Trump said he's just concerned because Democrats will sue over the issue. And when Cruz joked about Trump's "New York values," Trump responded emotionally by talking about how New Yorkers responded after the 9/11 attacks. They weren't the only ones battling, as Florida Senator Marco Rubio also exchanged attacks with Cruz and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. And they and the other candidates -- Jeb Bush, Ben Carson and Ohio Governor John Kasich -- all warned about allowing a Democrat to succeed President Obama, who also came in for some harsh attacks along with Hillary Clinton.

I suppose, in the category of small favors, we should be grateful that Cruz attempted the smackdown on the Donald by saying New York "values" as opposed to New York "state of mind" or we'd be facing days ahead full of memes and/or mashups co-starring, and copyright violating, the music and lyrics of Billy Joel.

That said, as usual, whatever other paths the various candidates chose to try and get to their respective points, the high road was left fairly neat and tidy what with its lack of use.

Meanwhile... at the kid's table debate...

Carly Fiorina was demoted to the "undercard" Republican debate last night (January 14th) because she didn't poll high enough to qualify for the main stage. But she still wanted to make an impression, so she came out swinging against Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton in her opening statement with a remark that some believe may have gone too far. Fiorina stated: "Unlike another woman in this race, I actually love spending time with my husband." During an appearance on MSNBC after the debate, Fiorina refused to directly answer when Chris Matthews asked her repeatedly if she believes that the Clintons have a real marriage, answering each time: "They have been married for a long time."





No one over the age of, say, twenty, who has ever paid any attention at all to political campaigns in this country is unaccustomed to low blows and cheap shots being considered standard operating procedure.

Sure, it's arguably unfortunate that these wannabe office holders can't neener neener each other on a higher moral playground, but, once again, it's practically un-American to take the high road to get to high office.

In this country, it inevitably turns out that you can't get there from there.

That said, just as it is with much of what's offered us on television and in films these days, the caliber and quality of the assorted low blows and cheap shots seems to be on the wane.

I love a good zinger as much as the next guy.

Not a big fan of the ba-dum-bump.

Carly's shade throw is light on rhetoric and large on rimshot.

Meanwhile...from the "Carly practically comes off like Eleanor Roosevelt compared to" category...

A singing group of young girls called the USA Freedom Kids performed before the start of a Donald Trump rally in Pensacola, Florida, on Wednesday evening (January 13th), singing a song in honor of the presidential frontrunner along with the National Anthem. The original song, written by the father of one of the girls who manages the group, is called "The President Donald Trump Song," and has lines like: "Cowardice, are you serious? Apologies for freedom, I can't handle this! When freedom rings, answer the call!" and "President Donald Trump knows how to make America great. Deal from strength or get crushed every time." The girls performed it in red, white and blue dressed before some 15,000 people who turned out to see Trump.




First, as a songwriter of some accomplishment, a commercial composer and lyricist of some accomplishment and an unapologetic satirist and humorist, I've got no problem at all with a good humorous satire. Especially in the atmosphere of a red blooded, knock down, drag out, bitch slappin' campaign for the highest office in the land.

The key phrase there, of course, being "good humorous satire".

This one?

Not so much.

And given the quality control involved in this little production, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and offer that the "father/manager/composer" probably didn't do any due diligence whatsoever to deliver props to a certain Mr. George M. Cohan.

Look him up on the Google or the Wiki, kids.

And, then, if you're a copyright attorney, feel free to kick me whatever finder's fee you think fair for the referral.

Meanwhile...

As the sun sets and the dust settles on yet another week of the process employed in choosing our leaders that continues to fill other nations with envy and  late night comedy writers with gratitude, it's as clear as it have ever been in our long, proud history that this particular campaign deserves so much more than to be referred to as, simply, a campaign.

And is, in fact, worthy of a much more colorful, and spot on appropriate, designation.

It's a circus, baby.

Again, though, there is that nagging sense that something is missing.

You feel it, too?

Oh.

Wait.

Here's what's missing.

The peanuts.

"..Maybe The Workaround Is To Yell Out "Ooooh! That Pass Was A 'CRUZ' Missile...."

Today's " Increase Your Word Power"...

dichotomy

di·chot·o·my

dīˈkädəmē/

 

noun: dichotomy; plural noun: dichotomies

a division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different.

 Our example begins here.

 WISCONSIN BANS CERTAIN HIGH SCHOOL SPORTS CHEERS: If you're planning to attend a high school sports game in Wisconsin you'll want to be on your best behavior. In a standard that is apparently not new, but is now being more strongly enforced, the Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association (WIAA) is now banning cheers like, "Air ball!", "Fundamentals!" and "Season's over!" In a statement emailed in December, the WIAA stated, "...any action directed at opposing teams or their spectators with intent to taunt, disrespect, distract or entice an unsporting behavior in a response is not acceptable sportsmanship." The changes are not going over well with students. Twitter user @JayBilas tweeted, "WIAA acceptable chant to officials: 'Dear Sirs: We beg to differ, but thank you for your service to our game.'" What do you think? Do the new rules go too far or are they acceptable?

Meanwhile...

The presidential campaign, or what passes for it this time around, is chock-a-block full of trash talk, vicious smear talk, slander, libel and words we never heard in the Bible, transcending cheap shots and, arguably, lowering the bar to a level that makes the Mariana Trench look like as sidewalk puddle on a rainy afternoon.

Lots of talk on the radio show about the tsunami of political correctness washing over the nation. From concern about offending ethnic groups to concern about offending sexual groups to concern about offending just about anyone or anything that it is theoretically possible to offend, a country filled with people traditionally inclined to take a straight up stand on issues is now mastering the art of bending over backwards in an effort to prevent offending any and/or all of the aforementioned potential offendees.

With a couple of notable exceptions.

Apparently, it's fair game and acceptable play to degrade, denigrate and/or diminish one's political opponent(s).

And it's now standard operating procedure to insult and offend those amongst us who believe that a campaign for the Presidency of the United States should take place on a higher than average moral high ground.

Hmm.

So, young people ramped up and cheering for their respective favorite high school sports team need to refrain from any specific, or even hint of, taunt.

And all the gloves, and bets, are off when it comes to showing the world the level of statesmanship is involved when it comes to choosing a leader of the free world.

Irony?

Hard to refute that.

Especially given that, now, the area of our lives that offers us the very least in political correctness is...

...wait for it...

...politics.

There's another word that pretty much nails it, though.

The word is dichotomy.

"...State Of The Union? You've Got Another Think Comin...."

Time to think a little.

And talk a little about what we think.

Final Obama State of the Union address last night.

And it really didn't, doesn't and, ultimately, won't matter.

But not for the reason you might think.

It's actually about what you do think.

Thinking a little explanation might be helpful.

Couple of old sayings.

Politics is perception.

Perception is reality.

And your perception of last night's address will depend entirely on how you feel/felt about Barack Obama in the first place and/or where you go to read about last night's address and/or who you listen to when it comes to "analysis" of last night's address.

And nothing else anyone writes or says will make a dent on your psyche.

Because how you felt about the guy before he even walked into the House chamber last night was your already formed perception of him as a man and as a President.

And that perception is your reality.

Correct.

Or not.

Fair.

Or not.

It is, as the more basic amongst us often offer, what it is.

More often than not, we like to think of ourselves as reasonable people, people willing to listen to all points of view and make decisions based on a fair and reasoned assessment of those points of view.

Three words come to mind here.

Bwa.

Ha.

And ha.

Whatever else we think, or don't think, in this life, it's pretty obvious, when truth be forced to the surface for air, that we think pretty much of ourselves.

Because that's not at all how the whole "think" thing works.

We really aren't all that reasonable, we really aren't willing to listen to all points of view and we rarely make decisions based on "fair and reasoned" assessment.

We like what, and who, we like.

And we hate what, and who, we hate.

And there's, more often than not, very little thinking involved.

You see, the thing is that we're not really all that bright.

At least when it comes to giving issues of any depth any real deep thought.

That's what we have philosophers for.

And poets.

And Bill O'Reilly.

And there's a whole library worth of pages to read, and volumes yet to be written, about the why of that little human quirk.

But history, as well as contemporary living, offers empirical, unimpeachable evidence that we are simply simple creatures when it comes to what we think.

About things.

And people.

And Presidents.

And what they have to say to us at any given moment registers on us in a pretty basic way.

We agree. And we like.

We disagree. And we don't like.

It ain't rocket science.

I mean, think about it for a second.

If deep thought about deep issues were a standard operating procedure in the populace would either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton be currently perceived as the best and the brightest of what's available to us to replace Barack Obama come November?

And let's don't even waste any time contemplating the sorry cast of characters that make up the runners up.

Listen to any fifty of the self professed "political analysts" in this country and, thank you very much, I'll revert back to my personal favorite.

Peggy Lee.

Is that all there is?

Okay.

I think I've wandered off the point a bit.


Let me illustrate it.

A friend of mine works in broadcasting. He came to broadcasting late in life after a successful and honorable career as a postal employee. He is well known in the listening area, having lived there all his life and, as mentioned, worked for three decades for the postal service.

Within the primary area of local radio station listenership, he, very close to literally, knows everyone.

And every one knows him.

Admittedly, and he himself would be the first to tell you, he is not a polished, broadcast school trained veteran of forty years behind a microphone. And he would be a very awkward fish out of water were he to try and manage an on air gig in a medium to large sized radio market.

But this particular radio market is the textbook definition of small town and his natural warmth, combined with a diligence at getting better with his on air presentation, combined with the affection that the community feels for him pretty much guarantee that he would be an asset were he to appear daily, in some capacity, on the air in this particular market.

He is assigned very little in the way of air time.

And in the course of conversations we've had, I offered him an unfortunate, but undeniable, simple explanation as to why his abilities aren't more appreciated and, even more, more utilized.

Because he is not perceived by those who make those kinds of decisions as a charming, home town broadcaster who spent three decades working for the postal service.

He is perceived by those who make those kinds of decisions as a retired mailman.

Who they put on the air every now and then to placate him and keep him from quitting the part time job that mostly entails errand boy-ing and grunt work.

As you might imagine, it's frustrating for a guy who really has a lot to offer and is more than willing to offer it.

And it's, at the very rock bottom least, a lost opportunity for a radio station that works to generate sales revenue by way of trumpeting their "local" presentation in a broadcast world filled with faceless, cookie cutter syndicated programming.

But, you see, it doesn't matter what he is.

It only matters what people think he is.

That's why what Barack Obama had to say last night didn't, doesn't and, ultimately, won't matter.

Because who he is or what he aspires to be or what he does or what he aspires to do doesn't matter.

All that matters is what people think.

It's probably frustrating for a guy who has a lot to offer.

And, at the very rock bottom least, it's a lost opportunity.

If you like Obama, you think likewise.

If you don't like him....

...you think not.

Either way, it's worth some thought.

Don't you think?














 

"...Ground Control to Major Don...."

One might assume any discussion, even mention, of David Bowie would be out of place in a posting on a politically oriented blog site.

One would be mistaken.

Watch how I do this.

Courtesy of a very old fashioned and long lived comedy technique.

Donald Trump....and David Bowie.

One man...an eccentric; an often misunderstood celebrity whose contributions to the culture provoked, at the very least, considerable conversation, even disagreement and, at worst, passionate opinions on both sides of the love/hate line; a one of a kind artist whose presentation incited as much as inspired; a cultural phenomenon whose popularity mystified many, angered some, but inexplicably rallied hundreds of thousands; a unique individual, some say freak, some even say alien, whose name will be remembered and both revered and reviled long after the names and/or contributions of his generational peers have faded into dust.

Or, perhaps, stardust.

Even stardust of the ziggy variety.

Oh...

And the other man?

David Bowie.

See how I did that?

Wham.

Bam.

Thank you, David.

May God's love be with you.

"...Tommy....And Dickie.....And Donnie...."

Choosy mothers used to choose Jif,

Now, apparently, they've got a pretty good grip on the can of worms we affectionately refer to as the American presidential race.

 

Donald Trump appeared on Thursday’s Jimmy Kimmel Live to defend his call for a “complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

“The word is temporarily,” Trump said to host Jimmy Kimmel. “I have many, many friends who are Muslim. They’re great people. Some of them, not all of them – I will tell you, some of them aren’t thrilled with what I said – but many of them called me and said, ‘You know Donald, you’re right. We have a problem.’”

Trump’s remarks came in the wake of terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, California. 

“Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension,” Trump said in a statement on Dec. 7. “Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.”

Speaking to Kimmel, the Republican presidential hopeful reiterated that stance. “We have people coming into our country who are looking to do tremendous harm. Look at Paris, look at what happened in Paris. These people, they did not come from Sweden,” Trump said. “We have a real problem. There’s a tremendous hatred out there. You can’t solve a problem until you find a root cause.”

According to Trump, many people have called him to say “thank you.” (To which Kimmel replied that maybe they were prank calls.)

As for whether his comments will “radicalize more terrorists,” as Nobel Peace Prize winner Malala Yousafzai recently suggested, Trump scoffed at the notion. “I really – this has come up, two days ago, a couple of people bought this up. I don’t buy it,” he said after Kimmel asked about the possibility that his Muslim ban comments could backfire. “I don’t buy that argument.”



One assumes, in that case, that Donald could pretty quickly come up with some folks who "have called him to tell him they don't buy that argument, either."

Some random thoughts.....

.....I readily admit to no university accredited degree(s) in psychology, but I feel confident one need not be a PhD to recognize one familiar, and constant, quirk of Donald's presentations. Like anyone whose bottom line confidence in their own presentation(s) and/or courage of their convictions is less than bedrock solid, Trump is constantly "backing up" his positions, proposals and/or posturings with the tried and true "people tell me that I'm right" brand of endorsement.

“I have many, many friends who are Muslim. They’re great people. Some of them, not all of them – I will tell you, some of them aren’t thrilled with what I said – but many of them called me and said, ‘You know Donald, you’re right. 

 According to Trump, many people have called him to say “thank you.”

And so on.

Predictably.

And perpetually.

One imagines that if his mother were still alive, we'd likely be getting a fair amount of "my mom likes this idea"s thrown into Donald's rhetorical NutriBullet, as well.

All of which inevitably coats whatever merit, or lack, that any given position, proposal or posture has with the unmistakable scent of, at best, uncertainty and, at worst, desperation.

Not an appealing aroma in one who will be sharing space, and breathing air, with some of the world's more cocksure captains of state.

.....The sizable mass audience availability aside, there's another Jr. Shrink clue to be found in the repeated appearances on shows like Kimmel, Fallon, et al. (and, yes, Hillary does it, too...shut up, we're not dissing Hillary right now, we're dissing Donald)

Although the "tradition" of candidates for political office appearing on late night talk/comedy shows to plead their case goes, at least, all the way back to the 1960's (I personally recall a somewhat fish out of water guesting by Bobby Kennedy on the Merv Griffin Show), there's something to be, at least, lamented if not outwardly lampooned,  about the contemporary Presidential election process including large doses of "heeeeeeeeere's Donald! (and, yes, alright, for Christ's sake, "heeeeeeere's Hillary!...happy now?)

 For the sake of validating my own point, though, let's put my number two random thought aside.

And go with number one.

The number one in the polls who is also number one on my list of "hmmmm" here.

To paraphrase John Lennon....

maybe I'm / just a dreamer / but I'm not the only one.....

I'd like to witness a campaign for the Presidency of the United States that doesn't include, amongst the platitudes, slogans, catch phrases and bumper sticker fodder a modern day spin on that oldie but, brotherly, goodie....

"Mom always liked me best".

"...The Only Thing We Have To Fear...Is Those Who Fill Us With Fear Itself...."

At this writing, the next (2nd) Republican "debate" is twelve, or so, hours away.

And the election itself is one year and thirteen days away.

Determining who will win and become the next President of the United States is, likewise, one year and thirteen days away.

Determining who will lose?

Already a done deal.

More on that momentito.

What follows is a "pre-game" two cents from a political reporter at CNN.com  listing "things to watch for" in tonight's gathering of the contenders. This excerpt focuses specifically on the precedent making case of Trump V. Carson.

From his perch at the top of the Republican field, Trump had largely declined to go after Ben Carson, training his fire instead on other more seasoned politicians like Bush, Marco Rubio and Rand Paul. Referring to Carson as a "good" person who he admires personally, Trump has even fueled speculation the retired neurosurgeon could be on his vice presidential short list.

But those days of playing nice are over.

An abrupt shift in tone came after a series of consecutive polls showed Carson had overtaken Trump in Iowa, relegating the businessman to second place. Then, on Tuesday, Trump even lost his first place spot in a national poll, trailing Carson 26% to 22%, according to Tuesday's CBS/New York Times poll.

If the last week offers any indication, Trump is expected to throw multiple punches at Carson on the debate stage. The attacks could get personal. The real estate mogul appeared to suggest over the weekend that Carson's religious affiliation — he's a Seventh-day Adventist — was extreme.

But it will take a whole lot more to get Carson firing back. Known for his reserved and calm demeanor, the candidate has repeatedly said he has no interest in becoming an attack dog.

"Ben has said he's going to stay who he is and he wouldn't want to get elected being somebody else," said Ryan Rhodes, Carson's Iowa state director. "He does not need to tear someone else down to build himself up."

One recurring theme/thought that repeats itself ad nauseum on my weekly radio show (SEP Nighttime---Sunday nights at 7P Eastern on Delaware 105.9FM News/Talk) is the POV that the considerable block of voters pontifically known as "the American people" who have lined up behind the Donald aren't necessarily so much attracted to the deal maker as they are to the deal that the maker wants to make.

Put in big, block letters...people are energized, even mesmerized, by the message.

The messenger is expendable.

And the message, more than at any other time in contemporary times, is as clear as clear can be.

Certainly as crystal as it was when it became a mantra for a few years following it's reading by Oscar winning actor Peter Finch in the seventies film "Network".

"We're mad as hell...and we're not gonna take it anymore..."

"We", of course, in the 2015/2016 spin of it being defined as the considerable block of voters pontifically known as "the American people."

And a case could easily be made that this accounts for all of the "who's on top (first)?" plot twists in the G.O.P. episodes of the ratings busting dramedy known as "Election 2016"

• Trump's original, almost inexplicable rise to the top of the pile.
• His even more inexplicable failure to, at least, to date, flame out as a "serious" candidate.
• Carson's tortoise-esque journey from soft spoken, intellectual, albeit borderline eccentric, physician to soft spoken, intellectual, albeit borderline eccentric number two contender nipping ever so inexplicably at the heels of the hare (or the Hair, as the case may be)
• Carson's almost "too unbelievable to be salable as a script" arrival as the numero uno on some poll's contender list

 It doesn't require a political science degree, or even a rudimentary understanding of basic eighth grade civics, for that matter, to understand the primary emotion flowing front and center in this particular election cycle.

Frustration. With a splash of anger and/or a little dollop of disgust.

And who better, or more savvy, at tapping into that frustration than a guy who has made it his lifetime ambition to recognize, and capitalize, on opportunities when and where they present themselves.

Tapping into the frustrations of a nation ready to do some serious up-heaving.

The perfect storm of a time to practice "the art of the deal" if ever there was one.

Meanwhile, Carson, in his soft spoken, intellectual, albeit borderline eccentric, physician way is the Trump for those who prefer their Trumps less blunt, less coarse, less "Crazy Eddie Says EVERYTHING MUST GO!"

Upheaval with a pinky finger extended from the cup of kool aid.

Just one very key thing missing from all of this raucous rousing of the rabble.

Even just a few precious drops of inspiration.

Replaced, this time around, with a disaster flick sized tsunami of inciting.

Thin, almost invisible, line between "throw the bums out" and "storm the village and lynch the monster."

And pouring fuel on the fires of frustration may be the way to lead the pack in the rush to be the next tenant at 1600 Pennsylvania.

But a fire is really hard to contain once it becomes wild.

And appealing to the fear in us only brings out the worst in us.

Ultimately making it a very real possibility that while the winners of this race to "revolution" may, as yet, remain "to be determined".

The losers are as obvious as the smoke spewing forth from the flames.

That would be us.

"the American people".

"We're Not Only Not In Kansas Anymore...We Haven't Even Been To Iowa, Yet..."

Democratic debate day after.

Can't swing a dead cat and not hit an "expert".

Actually, these days, thanks to PETA and the SPCA and the ACLU and E-I-E-I-O, you can't even swing a dead cat.

This writer claims no expertise.

I do, though, have a little experience with this kind of thing.

So, allow me to sum up the status of the presidential campaign, current as of the writing of this piece, some twelve hours after the end of Dem Debate I.

Those who believed their candidate is the answer to every prayer they can pray still believes their candidate is the answer to every prayer they can pray.

Those who believe that all the other candidates are anti-Christs and/or Muslims still believe that all the other candidates are anti-Christs and/or Muslims.

Those who haven't yet made up their mind were mostly likely watching "N.C.I.S." last night and waiting until, say, March of next year when the herd has thinned sufficiently to see the "actual" candidates as opposed to the Osmonds meet the Von Trapps crowd of contenders currently taking part in the process and sucking the oxygen and air time out of the room.

As far as "expert" analysis, insight, cogent perspective and/or prescient pundit-ing as to where the American electorate stands at this point, I ignore CNN, FOX, MSNBC, any and all "commentators" associated with same, any and all online sages, any and all print media waxers politic and simply, for the time being, refer to the one political observer I have found, through the years, to have the most consistently, almost unfailingly, accurate take on mindset of the American voter at any given time in the American electoral process...

Ray Bolger.