Why A Third Party Is Unlikely To Win.

I have long wished for a third US political party. Although I mostly agree with the Democratic Party on issues, in my view, the party’s unelected leadership is largely incompetent and strategically clueless. On the other hand, I believe the Republican Party is just flat-out crazy!

With a third party in Congress, it’s unlikely that a single party could hold a majority. That means that, in order to govern, the majority party would have to rely on votes from the other parties. It could permanently end ideological stand-offs. Congressional representatives might have to actually do what they were elected to do…to represent their constituents.

Unfortunately, I believe the chances of a viable third party are slim and none.

It’s not enough for a third party to field candidates for president and Congress. To be truly viable, a third party would need to field candidates for governors, legislators, county commissioners, sheriffs and even school boards. Even more important, it would take organization at every level. It would take volunteers to help get the candidates’ names on the ballots and volunteers to help turn out the votes. It would take extensive, and expensive, media campaigns. And it would take donations – not just from activists – from lobbyists, organizations, corporations, PACs, and billionaires.

It’s impossible to imagine that a third party can accomplish all of that over one or two voting cycles. Or even over a period of one or two decades.
Until a third party can claw its way up to an equal footing with the two major parties, votes for third party presidential candidates tend to benefit those candidates who are most ideologically opposed to the beliefs of third-party voters.

For example, the votes recorded for the Green Party (environmental) candidate in 2016, Jill Stein, likely came from voters more aligned with the beliefs of Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump. In reality, by withholding their votes from Clinton, the Stein voters helped elect an administration that is methodically destroying environmental protections of all kinds.

Another obstacle for a third party is the difficulty in creating a policy platform broad enough to appeal to a large group of voters. Too many voters are focused on a single issue – the environment, education, immigration, taxes, abortion, limited government, etc. Even the two major parties have struggled with that.

For many years, the GOP was merely the opposition party until the billionaires and multinational corporations who benefit from the party’s economic policies were able to coalesce voters (primarily Southern and rural voters) around social issues such as abortion and fear of the “other” (blacks, immigrants, and Muslims).

Likewise, the Democrats have struggled to maintain and inspire their diverse base of voters fighting for civil rights, women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, abortion rights, education, health care, and economic fairness. Depending upon the candidate, the party has a difficult time turning out its supporters for many elections – in effect, handing those elections to Republicans.

In reality, it is more likely that we can enact real change by dropping the dream of a third party and work to change the existing parties from within. That means getting involved and making our voices heard. It means speaking up for the issues that are important to you. It means donating to a party and its candidates. It means holding the party accountable. It means voting – not just in the general elections, but in the primary elections, too. And, most of all, it means a willingness to compromise – to not make the perfect the enemy of the good.

Without the involvement of a large majority of eligible voters, it’s all too likely that we’ll continue to be governed by oligarchs, ideologues, the unqualified and the unprepared.

#MeTooLate? #MeTooLittle? Or #MeTooFar?

The #MeToo movement represents a welcome change for our culture. It has drawn attention to a problem that has been allowed to continue for far too long. But it also raises a number of questions.

Should an accusation of unwanted touching be treated in the same way as an accusation of sexual assault or rape? What should be the required burden of proof? What should be the statute of limitations? Do we want to punish those who committed despicable acts decades ago? If so, for what types of actions? Is a single, unsubstantiated accusation enough to destroy a career? Have we suspended the presumption of innocence? What can a person do to reinstate trust?

Senator Al Franken was forced to resign over a photo taken years before he was elected to office. Does the accusation that he rehearsed a kiss and the accusations of inappropriately touching others rise to the same level as the accusations of rape and pussy-grabbing by President Trump? If so, why shouldn’t Trump also be forced to resign? Why was he elected to office in the first place?

I’ve personally witnessed “hands on” management. When I asked my female co-workers about it, I was told not to worry – that the man was harmless. What should I have done? Should I have continued to question his actions? (I was nearly fired for calling attention to the issue.) Should I have reported him to authorities when his victims wouldn’t?

I also worked with two men who were later proven to be sexual predators. I suspected these men of inappropriate behavior. Should I have accused them without evidence? And, if I had, what would have been the consequences?

When I was in a position to hire, I was offered sex by young women who wanted a job. Should I have reported them? A few of my female clients made it clear to me that they wanted a sexual relationship. Should I have reported them? If I did, would anyone listen to me?

These are all serious questions. They deserve serious consideration.

The unfortunate reality is that sexual improprieties are commonplace. We – both men and women – have witnessed them for decades. We have all heard about the “casting couch.” Many of us have made jokes about it. Doesn’t that make us all a little guilty – at least guilty of indifference?

Now that the issue has finally been brought to the forefront, what happens now? Will there be real change? If so, will that change extend, as it should, to all industries? Or will we quickly tire of the issue, pronounce it fixed as we have with other important issues then turn our attention elsewhere?

On The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, Jodie Foster made an excellent point when asked, “What next?” In response, she suggested that, if we are to make real progress toward equality, we need to have a serious conversation about the issue. We need to listen to each other and make a serious attempt to understand all of the issues involved. That’s excellent advice!

False Equivalencies.

For many years, the media, pressured by Republicans, have continued to compare the activities of Democrats with those of Republicans – even when there was no true comparison. For example, most accused the two parties of being equally divisive. (They are not.) And most equated MSNBC with Fox News Channel even though Fox received daily talking points from the RNC. But MSNBC had no such direct ties to the DNC.

During the run-up to the 2016 elections, many in the media equated the allegations against Hillary with the proven transgressions of Trump. What was lost in the conversations was the context. For example, Benghazi, Emailgate, and Pizzagate were all unproven accusations made by highly partisan political opponents while many of the accusations against Trump were actually proven. He had been found to have cheated many suppliers. He had been found to have made fraudulent claims about Trump University. And he had been found to have misused the charitable contributions to his foundation. There was also credible evidence that Trump laundered money for Russian oligarchs, that he was unethically profiting from his campaign contributors and that his campaign was using information stolen from his opponents.

Now the same kinds of false equivalencies are being applied to the men accused of sexual assault.

The long overdue avalanche of such accusations began when Bill Cosby was charged with raping dozens of women who were willing to step forward and publicly tell their stories. The Cosby accusations were followed by news of the many sexcapades of Harvey Weinstein. (Is anyone really surprised that the jokes and stories about Hollywood casting couches are true?)

In the wake of those revelations, we have seen predators such as Roger Ailes and Bill O’Reilly forced out of their positions at Fox. We have heard credible stories of sexual assaults by celebrities such as Louis C.K., Kevin Spacey, Matt Lauer and Charlie Rose. And we have heard accusations of sexual improprieties by politicians such as President Donald Trump, President H.W. Bush, Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore, Rep. John Conyers, and Sen. Al Franken.

In addition, we have heard accusations leveled against a host of former presidents and politicians, such as President Bill Clinton, President John F. Kennedy, President Dwight Eisenhower and President Franklin Roosevelt.

Unfortunately, we are now in the midst of a media feeding frenzy. And far too many people are caught up in a sensational rush to judgment. But, I ask you, are these men all equally guilty? Are the accusations proven? Are the men being afforded a fair hearing?

I submit that they are not.

To start, I see no value in trashing the legacy of someone already dead and unable to defend themselves. Second, there is a great disparity in seriousness of the accusations against these men. For example, in the cases of Cosby, Ailes, O’Reilly, Lauer, Rose, Spacey, Louis C.K., Roy Moore and Donald Trump, multiple individuals willing to be identified have come forward with credible stories of abuse.

Now let’s examine the cases against Roy Moore and Donald Trump.

At least 9 women have told their stories about Moore. We also know that he was banned from a shopping mall for harassing underage women. Yet he is likely to be elected to the US Senate. And at least 16 women have come forward to tell their stories about Donald Trump. These stories range from groping to lurking in beauty pageant dressing rooms among naked – in some cases underage – women to child rape. He was caught on tape bragging about grabbing women by the pussy. Yet he now sits behind the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office.

At the opposite end of the spectrum are the accusations against President Bill Clinton and Senator Al Franken.

President Clinton was proven to have received consensual oral sex from a 22-year-old White House intern. The key word is “consensual.” So, though his actions may have been unethical, they do not rank alongside the accusations that have been leveled against the others mentioned.

As for Sen. Al Franken, he was accused of sexual harassment during a USO trip to entertain the troops. There was a photo of questionable humor showing him with his hands poised over the accuser’s breasts as she slept. Yet there was no contact since she was still wearing a flak jacket. He was also accused of sticking his tongue down her throat during a rehearsed kiss. But this accusation loses some credibility after it has become clear that she did the same thing – and more – to soldiers on stage. And she loses even more credibility when you realize that she is a “shock jock” and a right-wing political ideologue who is a regular guest on the Sean Hannity Show.

A second woman claims that Franken grabbed her buttocks while posing for a photo with him at the Minnesota State Fair. Really? The photo was being taken by her husband standing just a few feet away! And they were in the midst of a crowd of tens of thousands of people! It’s very difficult to believe that, if he did touch her butt, it was intentional.

Finally, several anonymous women have accused Franken of inappropriately touching them while posing for photos with him at other public events, such as book signings. The key word here is “anonymous.” It’s difficult to believe an accusation from someone who is unwilling to be named. Nevertheless, Franken publicly apologized to his accusers and called for a Senate ethics investigation of himself. Yet many people, including Democratic senators and representatives, are already calling for Franken to resign without waiting for the hearing.

In no way am I condoning sexual assault by anyone, including Franken. But are we really willing to throw someone – especially someone who has been an admired public servant and a staunch defender of women’s rights – under the bus without due process? Without looking at the evidence? Without hearing his side of the story? If so, where do we stop? How much, or how little, evidence is enough to ruin someone’s career or someone’s life?

If Franken is forced to resign, the reality is that we could be replacing a senator accused of inappropriately, and possibly inadvertently, touching one or two women with a senator who has been accused of sexually assaulting women, including at least one woman who was underage at the time!

The offenses are not equal!

Moreover, if we’re willing to demand the resignation of someone – anyone – who has done something deemed sexually inappropriate, why are we willing to overlook the many accusations against der gropenfuhrer – Donald Trump?

The Unholy Marriage Between Evangelicals, Billionaires And Trump.

There’s a long history between the GOP and evangelicals dating back to the late 1800’s. In the book The Family, you’ll read about wealthy industrialists and evangelicals joining forces to keep labor unions from gaining power. In the 1950’s, Eisenhower was put in office with the help of evangelicals. He rewarded them by agreeing to create the National Prayer Breakfast, by agreeing to the addition of “Under God” to our Pledge of Allegiance and by changing the national motto from “E Pluribus Unum” (Out of many, one) to “In God We Trust.”

It was evangelicals who supported Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s abuses in the blacklisting of virtually anyone accused of socialist or communist leanings. It was evangelicals who became an integral part of the GOP’s Southern Strategy after the passage of the Civil Rights Act. And it was evangelicals and Jerry Falwell’s “Moral Majority” who used the anti-abortion movement to help Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush gain office.

All of that is reason enough to question the beliefs of most evangelicals. But, in 2016, these same evangelicals…the purported followers of Jesus…helped a greedy, narcissistic, unqualified billionaire who bragged about his sexual assaults to gain the White House. Why? They were willing to compromise every tenet of their supposed faith based on the promise that Trump would appoint federal judges and Supreme Court justices willing to overturn Roe v Wade to ban abortion.

And that’s only the beginning.

In a number of radio interviews, Jane Mayer has spoken about the wedding of evangelicals and anti-government libertarian billionaires with failed congressman, failed governor and current vice-president, Mike Pence, as the ring bearer.

The billionaires in question are the Koch brothers who have created a large network of dark money groups to fund candidates who support their anti-government philosophies, the Robert Mercer family who bankrolled Steve Bannon’s Breitbart News and the Trump campaign, and the combined families of Erik Prince and Betsy Devos who have used their combined fortunes to fund attempts to privatize our military and our education system.

As Jane Mayer points out, these billionaires essentially share the same belief – that the federal government should do only three things: Provide for the national defense, maintain stability, and provide for law and order. They view social issues, such as abortion and immigration, as mere tools that can be used to divide and influence voters to support their candidates. Focused on such issues, people vote for their candidates unaware of the billionaires’ plans to eliminate Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and all other social safety nets.

Similarly, many voters are oblivious to billionaires’ plans to rewrite the US Constitution to incorporate their narrow-minded beliefs. Indeed, they are just a few states short of the required two-thirds needed to hold a Constitutional Convention.

Having been placed in office as a result of dark money donations from the billionaires, Trump and the GOP congressional leaders are well on their way to cutting taxes for corporations and billionaires. If they succeed, the government will run large deficits until the resulting debt will generate draconian cuts to the safety nets that the billionaires despise. And should Trump be removed from office leaving Pence to replace him, be afraid…very afraid. Though Trump is a willing participant in the billionaires’ plans, his oversized ego makes him highly unpredictable.

The evangelical Pence, on the other hand, is a willing puppet guided as much by his billionaire sponsers as he is by his narrow and hateful interpretation of the Bible.

What’s Really Behind America’s Gun Deaths?

Following the most lethal mass shooting in US history, it’s once again time to take a serious look at the cause. By all accounts, the Las Vegas shooter was not a terrorist – at least not in the traditional sense. He was no Osama bin Laden. He was not a member of ISIS. Moreover, he had no criminal record. He had no history of mental illness. And he had no history of domestic abuse.

What he did have was a penchant for collecting a large number of military-style weapons and an enormous amount of ammunition. The shooter was one of a tiny minority of Americans with such stockpiles. According to a study by Northeastern University and Harvard University reported by the Guardian, 130 million of America’s guns are in the hands of just 3 percent of American adults. That means each of these Americans, mostly men, own an average of 19 guns!

For what purpose? Why do these people feel the need to own such an arsenal?

Certainly, a small percentage of these people are collectors of war memorabilia and antique weaponry. But what about the others? What drives them? 19 guns are 18 more than necessary for self-protection. 19 guns are at least a dozen more than necessary for the most avid hunter of game large or small. And 19 is many times the number of guns needed for target shooting.

So how do we explain the rest?

I believe these owners are driven by a combination of anti-government paranoia and a fascination with all things military. In other words, we have a number of apparent Seal team wannabes who have become convinced – likely by the NRA and right-wing conspiracy theorists – that the government is coming for their weapons; people who fear that the US will be taken over by the United Nations; who believe that immigrants – especially those of color – are coming for their jobs and wealth.

These are also men who were militarized from an early age; from the endless displays of military might; from the military flyovers before football games and other large events. Maybe they are motivated by the plethora of TV shows, movies and video games based on the military. If so, they aren’t be alone. Far too many Americans can only define patriotism in military terms.

Have you ever asked yourself why? Is there really no other way to share our love of country than to display weapons of war? To superficially thank veterans for their service? To adorn our homes with flags?

More to the point, why are military-style weapons in high demand when they are of little use for hunting or self-defense? Who but an assassin needs a .50 caliber sniper rifle? Who but a mass shooter or a criminal needs a device to make a semi-automatic weapon mimic the rate of fire of fully-automatic military assault rifles? Who but a law enforcement officer or a bodyguard would feel the need to carry a concealed gun? And what civilian other than a bully or someone with a very small penis would want to strap a gun over his shoulder or onto his hip to intimidate those around him?

Why do so many of our citizens think education and health care are too expensive for our government to afford, yet think nothing of spending many times more money on new military weapons systems? Have we become so affected by right-wing propaganda that we think the military is the answer to every conflict? Horrifyingly, a large percentage of our population – mostly Republicans – now believe a military takeover of our government could be a good thing in certain circumstances.

Can you imagine the reaction of our founders if they were alive to see that?

Admittedly, there are far more questions than answers; questions that everyone should be asking of themselves and those around them.

If we are to ever end the outrageous number of gun deaths in the US, we need to regulate the number of guns and limit their firepower. But that alone won’t end the shootings. We need to transform our collective psyche from one that celebrates violence and war to one that celebrates life and accomplishments. That doesn’t require our nation to weaken our military. It simply means that we put violence in perspective as a last resort…a necessary evil that is only rarely necessary for survival. Not as something to be used whenever it serves our purposes; to bully others into deferring to our wishes.

The reality is that guns aren’t the cause of our mass shootings. They’re the means. They’re also a symptom of a much larger problem.

Now Is Exactly The Time To Talk About Guns.

Each time there’s another mass shooting event, the GOP is quick to say, “Now is not the time to talk about politics.” In other words, “Let’s address the symptoms, but not the cause.” That happened after Columbine, after Sandy Hook, after Charleston, after Orlando…after every single mass shooting.

The motive, of course, is to delay discussion until memories of the event become faded – only to be replaced with the trauma of the next shooting.

It is precisely the result of this strategy that more than 15,000 people died in 2016 as the result of gun violence; a figure that does not even include suicides. And that’s why 2016 saw more than one mass shooting per day (a mass shooting defined as events during which at least 4 people are injured or killed).*

Republicans must not be allowed to get away with it this time!

And it’s not just the inaction of Republicans that has allowed the gun violence to continue. It’s also their collusion with the gun lobby which has resulted in easy access to weapons of ever-increasing lethality. Thanks to the GOP and the NRA, people have been allowed to purchase weapons of war. They have made it legal for virtually anyone to carry a semi-automatic handgun without obtaining a license. They have made it legal to purchase .50 caliber sniper rifles that can blast a hole through a vehicle’s engine block at a distance of hundreds of yards.

The GOP made it illegal for the Centers for Disease Control to track gun deaths. The GOP made it illegal for physicians to discuss gun safety with parents. And the GOP made it illegal for the gun registry to create an electronic database for guns. That means the registry will have to sort through hundreds of thousands of paper documents to track the sale of the guns used by the Vegas shooter.

More recently, Trump repealed a rule designed to prevent certain mentally ill from buying guns. After all, who would want to deny the mentally ill their 2nd Amendment rights?

Even as the shooting in Las Vegas was unfolding, the GOP Congress was preparing to vote on a bill that would legalize the sale of silencers and armor-piercing ammunition! For what purpose?

Imagine if the shooter holed up in the Mandalay Bay Hotel had access to silencers. Instead of taking 15 minutes to locate and disrupt the shooter, it may have taken 2-3 times as long. How many more people would he have been able to kill in that time? How many of the SWAT team would have died as the result of the ammo penetrating their body armor?

The GOP and its NRA sponsors must not be allowed to ignore the impact of their actions any longer. They must not be allowed to continue to place profits above lives. It’s long past time for common sense gun legislation for universal background checks; to implement a one-week waiting period for all gun purchases; to create an electronic gun registry; to ban large capacity magazines; to limit the quantity and type of ammunition; to ban the open carry of guns.

This mass shooting is the fault of the shooter, the NRA and the GOP. If we do nothing, the next mass shooting will be our fault.

*Statistics from the Gun Violence Archive

Eulogy For The “King Of Fake News.”

This week, comedian Paul Horner died at the way-too-early age of 38. Though most Americans won’t recognize the name, Mr. Horner, in addition to being a successful stand-up comedian, founded a charity called Sock It Forward which gives socks to homeless people.

He was also largely responsible for calling attention to fake news.

No, I’m not referring to The Donald’s false characterizations of CNN, The New York Times, ABC, CBS, NBC, and other mainstream news organizations. I’m referring to hundreds of phony “news” websites and the thousands of fraudulent stories and memes circulated on social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter.

You see, during the 2016 elections, Paul Horner was one of the most prolific originators of satirical “news” stories which he posted on his Facebook page, on a variety of Internet domains, and on his website National Report. Many of his stories went viral. Some were even picked up by Fox News Channel and other national media.

For example, under the byline Jimmy Rustling, Horner posted a story that claimed protesters were being recruited and paid $3,500 to disrupt Trump rallies. He also claimed that white people with fighting skills were being paid to attend the same rallies. Even after labeling the stories with a disclaimer that this story is not real, they were shared more than 50,000 times. He authored another story which detailed how the Amish were locking up the victory for Trump. Yet another of his stories claimed Twitter was about to delete Donald Trump’s account over his obvious racism.

During an interview on Democratic Perspective radio, we asked him to explain his motivation. He responded by saying that his pranks, Internet hoaxes and satirical “news” articles were intended to poke fun at the real news media and to draw attention to their lack of objectivity. He also made money when the stories went viral.

Asked why so many of the stories seemed to focus on Trump, he said that he originally wrote stories aimed at both Democrats and Republicans; liberals and conservatives. But he quickly discovered that Democrats and liberals were more inclined to fact-check his stories. As a result, those stories seldom went viral. Republicans and conservatives, on the other hand, seemed to have less desire to learn the truth. So, if a story aligned with their beliefs, it was accepted as fact.

Following the election, Horner was vilified – crowned the “King of Fake News” and credited with helping to elect Trump. As a result, he was interviewed by more than 500 news media….even by the European Union Parliament.

As I mentioned during our own interview with Mr. Horner, I believe he did us all a great favor. By calling attention to fake news, he not only helped expose the hidden agendas of many of the news media, especially the right-wing media, he helped expose the problems with social media. During his interviews, he called out Facebook, in particular, for permitting so many fake news stories to be shared.

More important, the attention eventually led to the exposure of Russian trolls who created fake news stories with a much more sinister motive – to undermine Hillary Clinton’s election chances, to further divide US citizens and to sow chaos in democracies throughout the world. Without the attention focused on the King of Fake News, we likely wouldn’t know about Putin’s troll farms and the $100,000 worth of Russian-placed ads to benefit Trump and other right-wing politicians. And that’s only scratching the surface. We are now learning that Russian trolls, posing as Americans, used social media to divide US citizens in a variety of ways – by claiming that Clinton and Sen. John McCain created and funded ISIS; by impersonating a US-based Muslim rights group; by impersonating Black Lives Matter; by verbally attacking refugees and immigrants.

So thank you, Paul Horner. May you rest in peace. Perhaps your family and friends will take comfort in the fact that your death has been reported by virtually all of the mainstream media – both nationally and internationally. I’m certain that, in life, the attention would have given you much pleasure.

My Trump Obsession.

Many of my friends and acquaintances have raised questions regarding my near constant blog posts, Facebook posts and Tweets about Trump. I’ve been told, “Hillary lost. Get over it.” That they had to “put up” with Obama for 8 years so “Why can’t I just shut up and give Trump a chance?” I’ve been asked, “Don’t you have something else to worry about?” I’ve been called a “libtard,” a “snowflake” and a “loser.”

Some have questioned my patriotism. Others have even questioned my sanity. Many would prefer that I ignore the current state of our democracy and go back to posting family and travel photos on Facebook.

Here’s my response: Trump and his followers are unlike anything seen in our country since the end of the Civil War. Their hatred has further divided an already broken political system. They have not only turned Democrat against Republican. They have turned Republican against Republican, state against state, friend against friend, man against woman, brother against brother, Christian against Muslim, Christian against Christian, heterosexual against homosexual…and the world against the US.

In order for others to truly understand my obsession, I need to delve into a bit of history – some of which you probably already know.

When I first became aware of “The Donald” in the eighties, he was considered a small-time developer in New York City. His few properties made a statement only in regard to their gaudy decor and the many lawsuits against his company for racial discrimination and failure to pay suppliers. It soon became known, at least in Manhattan, that he had ties to organized crime. Those rumors were soon confirmed when he dived into the gambling industry…an industry long connected to organized crime. Yet, in a telling display of his business acumen, he was one of the few casino owners to ever go bankrupt.

His only success was his ability to call attention to himself and his “glamorous” lifestyle. That led to his role as a business mogul on “The Apprentice” in which he reveled in the opportunity to unleash his inner bully. Had it not been for that reality show (more precisely, an un-reality show) and an accomplished ghost writer who wrote “The Art of The Deal,” Trump likely would have faded into obscurity long ago, especially when the real estate crash of 2008 made him financially toxic to virtually every lender – except to the Russians and a German bank involved in Russian money-laundering.

How did he rise from those ashes to the White House? That is a question that will be debated for generations.

The reality is that, in an attempt to become relevant, he led the “birther” movement, claiming Obama was an illegitimate president. When Obama responded at the White House Correspondents Dinner, Trump was humiliated and infuriated. As a longtime racist and bully, he felt the need to strike back. So he began his presidential campaign based on racist attacks on Mexicans, refugees, Muslims, and women.

The heart of his campaign was to push aside political correctness, encouraging like-minded racists and misogynists to say and do what they had long felt, but were afraid to say. This quickly became apparent at all of his political rallies with chants of “lock her up” as well as verbal and physical attacks on protesters who were Latino or black. Of course, there were also relentless verbal attacks on the news media.

At any other time in our nation’s history, his fomenting of violence, his bullying tactics and his name-calling of other candidates, would have repulsed the majority of Americans and permanently ended his political aspirations. Instead, the more despicable his words and actions became, the more his popularity grew among white people who somehow felt oppressed by their white privilege and majority religion.

Not even a video of him bragging about grabbing women by the pussy harmed his popularity. Many even applauded his verbal attack of a Gold Star family – likely because of their skin color and their religion.

In a move that far exceeded Nixon’s Watergate transgressions, he unethically and illegally encouraged Russia to hack his political opponent’s emails. And it is now abundantly clear that his election night win was illegitimate. He obviously took office as the result of the interference of our nation’s greatest rival. Worse, given the dozens of connections between Trump’s campaign and Russia, it appears increasingly likely that his campaign colluded with Russia in order to win.

There has been no greater assault on our democracy since WWII.

If his lack of character and the illegitimacy of his position weren’t enough, Trump has made no effort to bridge the political divide. Instead, he has gone out of his way to further divide us. And his nomination of unqualified and lunatic fringe people to his cabinet and heads of federal agencies has turned our nation into a Kakistocracy – a government run by the worst, least qualified and most unscrupulous citizens – people like Betsy Devos, Ben Carson, Scott Pruitt, Tom Price, and Jeff Sessions.

Trump and his administration have taken every opportunity to enrich themselves and their families. He has emboldened the worst among us – racists, white supremacists and neo-Nazis. His administration has not only tried to cut access to healthcare and withdrawn from the Paris accords on climate change. It has rolled back regulations protecting clean air, clean water and endangered species. It has plans to reduce the size of national monuments in order to sell drilling and mining rights to extraction industries. It has plans to cut funding for Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, even food programs for needy children in order to give tax breaks to the wealthy and large corporations.

Most problematic of all is the fact that Trump has essentially replaced our State Department and traditional diplomacy with his Twitter rants. His name-calling and cyber-bullying have led our nation to the brink of war with a nation led by a similar man-child – a war that would lead to the deaths of millions.

Am I obsessed with Trump? Damn right I am! As should be anyone in their right mind.

Dear Democrats:

I am writing this open letter to the Democratic Party’s leadership in hopes that they might better understand the obstacles they face.

Every day, I receive a series of emails, tweets and Facebook posts asking me to sign the petition du jour. I don’t mean to demean the issues the petitions are intended to address. They are real. And they are important. But I must question their intent. Because, after I sign them, I immediately receive a request for money. Such requests make me question the party’s intentions. Are you serious about the issues? Or are you merely using the issues to raise campaign funds for the next election?

I suspect the answer is both. I also expect that the priority is money.

Whatever your answer, the mere fact that anyone has to ask the question points to the weakness of your communications (or, as political insiders refer to it, “messaging”). To be blunt, your messaging sucks. (“A Republican said or did something stupid, send us money” is not a winning communications strategy.) Compared to Republicans – even during the Trump era – your messaging is intermittent and incoherent. That’s because there is no cohesive leadership. And that’s because there is no single entity that can be called the Democratic Party.

There are many.

There is the Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren wing that passionately fights for the little guy. There is the Barack Obama wing that is more thoughtful and sees national politics through the lens of international issues. And there is the Bill Clinton wing that is so centrist it would strike a bargain with the devil (i.e. right-wing Republicans) if it led to another “win.”

In reality, there are dozens of factions within the Democratic Party – each focused on specific issues which include civil rights, LGBTQ rights, abortion rights, veteran’s rights, environment, economic equality, labor unions, education…the list is very, very long. Each of these factions wants to make its issue the party’s priority. And, too often, if the members of a particular faction don’t get their way, they effectively boycott the election.

That’s why, for as long as I have been a registered Democrat, I have heard others quote Will Rogers: “I am not a member of an organized political party. I’m a Democrat.” If it’s not already obvious to you, this is a significant problem.

It’s why, even though she won 3 million more votes, Hillary Clinton lost the presidential election. And it’s why despite the fact that a significant majority of Americans support Democratic positions on most of the issues, Republicans now control the House of Representatives, the Senate and a majority of statehouses.

Yes, it’s true that Republican control is also the result of a number of other factors such as gerrymandering, voter suppression, right-wing radio, Fox News Channel, the Kochtopus of dark money organizations, and voter turnout – especially during mid-term elections. This latter issue is a direct result of the Democratic Party’s fractionalization and lack of coherent messaging.

Your own registered voters aren’t motivated enough to vote!

Is There A Difference Between The Right And The Alt-Right?

Last year, with the help of Breitbart editor Steve Bannon, white supremacists rebranded themselves as the “alt-right” – an attempt to portray themselves as part of the mainstream. In many ways, the effort succeeded, since most of the media now use the term in referring to Nazis, the KKK and other white supremacists. I’ve even found myself using the term.

But despite the name change, they are the same ugly racists as before.

In reality, the only thing that has changed is that they now have the son of KKK parents in the White House who has appointed like-minded people to his cabinet, including a well-known racist who serves as the US Attorney General.

He was put there by a Republican Party that, with the help of Russia, cobbled together just enough electoral votes to allow him to take office. Trump’s supporters could not have been surprised by his racist leanings. After all, he was the de facto leader of the “birther” movement. And he began his campaign with the promise to build a wall and have Mexico pay for it. His voters had to know full well that Trump intended to target minorities, such as Latinos, Muslims, African-Americans and the LGBTQ community.

Republican voters also had to know that Trump’s positions were shared by many, if not most, of the Republican congressional and senate candidates. That fact was made clear by their hateful political campaigns and the legislation they supported.

For example, throughout the country, Republicans passed restrictive voter ID laws to suppress minority votes. In minority areas, they shortened early voting periods and reduced the number of polling sites. They used Gerrymandering to reduce the number and power of minorities in Congress and state legislatures. They passed so-called religious freedom laws making it legal for employers to discriminate against non-Christians and others. They blocked increases in the minimum wage that would disproportionately help minorities. And they refused to provide funding to clean up water in Flint, Michigan and on Native American lands.

Since 1986, Republicans in Congress have refused to vote on a comprehensive immigration bill. They refused to protect the Dreamers, forcing President Obama to create DACA via presidential order. Worse, they turned their backs on refugees whose only crime is to attempt to escape violence and poverty in their own countries…conditions that are often the result of US policies.

Just this year, the Trump administration has banned travel from several Muslim nations. It has begun breaking up families and harming employers by deporting undocumented immigrants. It has returned mothers and children to Central America where they are almost certain to become victims of widespread violence. The administration has banned transgender people from serving in the military. It has announced the end of DAPA and DACA. And it has targeted affirmative action programs that help high-achieving minority students gain entrance to universities.

All of this has happened with the support, or acquiescence, of the Republican-controlled Congress. Even when Trump refused to hold white supremacists accountable for the violence in Charlottesville, few Republicans were willing to speak up and denounce their party’s leader.

So tell me: What is the difference between the alt-right and the right? What is the difference between rank-and-file Republicans and white supremacists?

Looking at their actions, it seems clear that they all support racist policies. The only real difference is that one group waves Nazi and Confederate flags while the others hide behind their desks or their Twitter and Facebook accounts.