Kavanagh's Appointment to Supreme Court a Sad Day for Democracy

Picture: SAUL LOEB/AFP Via the Independent

Fifty-one senators representing a minority of US citizens have appointed a 53-year-old justice to the Supreme Court, where he may influence decisions for the rest of his life. With a solid conservative majority, the Supreme Court can now prevent progressive legislation from moving forward no matter what happens in the electoral bodies for the foreseeable future.

The legacy of Donald Trump is, as much as it is chaos, a legacy of moving forward the agendas of various factions who have supported his presidency. Trump is surrounded by sycophants and opportunists. He is enabled by those who claim to "curb his worst impulses" but permit the wholesale deconstruction of protections that represent the work of the last half century of public administration.

I wondered why any rational person would stand by and let this clown continue to operate.

It's exactly because he's a fool that that he attracts carpet-baggers who can spot an opportunity to personally enrich themselves or push some right-wing agenda. Thus, we get the ideologically-driven Betsy deVos or Scott Pruit busily dismantling the legacies of their departments while enriching themselves. In addition, there are the political rewards given to such incompetents as Ben Carson, and Rick Perry ("winning against climate scientists").

Kavanagh comes courtesy of the Federalist Society, a conservative group dedicated to infiltrating and placing like-minded individuals on the nation's highest courts. Just as the Koch network supports and promotes conservative candidates in elected capacities, so too the Federalist Society uses these allies to appoint judges.

Not since the dismantling of the Soviet Union have so few benefited so much from destroying the public assets of so many.

The last hope for Republicans is to rig the electoral system to disenfranchise minorities and young people. The Kavanagh appointment makes the Supreme Court clearly a political body that will prevent future legislative wins from being incorporated into law. Watch for regressive decisions on voting rights, healthcare, women's rights, and immigration. It's a sad day for democracy.

Trump is the leader we've been waiting for

The rise of Donald Trump has been a long time coming. His ascension in 2016 has roots going back decades, and is the perfect storm of the growth of anti-intellectualism, an economy that disproportionately rewards the upper classes, mistrust of government, and the growth of celebrity culture.

Donald Trump loves the poorly educated. His support is greatest among those with high school diplomas or less. Pundits assume this is because his incoherent policies are not critically analyzed by people not trained on New York Times rhetoric. In fact, his attacks on political correctness resonate with people who don't understand why it's inappropriate to call a 30-year-old woman a "girl." They resonate with people who are confused as our language is undergoing a series of rapid shifts away from the language that reinforced social, racial and sexist stereotypes. And they resonate with people who have vaguely racist feelings that they no longer have words to express.

It's a complex world. Politics are complex because the interests of many different groups of citizens must be negotiated. Countries around the world have different interests and goals, and (sorry U.S.A., you are only one of many) countries must compromise. What Trump promises is simple solutions to complex problems (without details). Sounds great, but on analysis not workable. However, too many people lack the skills to really understand why not.

But our culture has been catering to the poorly educated for decades. We disparage college professors as "eggheads." We mythologize successful people who "drop out" of some college and then become successful. Richard Branson dropped out of high school. Now he's a multi-billionaire. Therefore high school is not necessary. The truth is that Richard Branson dropped out because he had a successful business going already. I'm sure he's also highly intelligent and a quick learner.

Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard. Ha! Who needs Harvard? Actually Bill Gates scored 1590 out of 1600 on the SAT. Before entering Harvard he attended a prestigious prep school. At Harvard he won a prize for a computing algorithm. Maybe he didn't need Harvard, but there's no doubt this is a highly educated, intellectual man.

Our anti-intellectual bias is also shown in the growth of the anti-education sector. I'm talking about buying essays, cheating on exams and selling education as a ticket to economic success. When education is not valued for its own sake--to have a deeper understanding of the world--it becomes a commodity, no different from real estate. The decline in liberal arts education and the rise of job-oriented education--business, STEM and vocational--explain why Trump's appeal even extends into many of the college-educated population. They didn't go to college to learn how to think better; they went to get a bigger income.

Teachers are no longer respected. Teachers' unions are blamed for declining education. But without respect for teachers, classrooms are unmanageable and education is impossible.

But the path of education to wealth is a scam, too. Yes, a good education from a quality university can open the doors to better jobs, but the American class system is rigged against the concept of meritocracy. Too many people borrow too much money and end up in poorly regulated private colleges that are churning out degrees not worth the paper they are printed on. All college diplomas are not equal. The statistics that show a college diploma is worth much more than a high school diploma are inflated by the effect of the top-tier colleges.

The biggest factor that fuels the rise of the "anti-establishment" candidate in 2016 is the economy. Wages have been stagnant for the majority of people for decades, while the top earners have grown in wealth by a phenomenal factor. People are struggling. Even people who are not currently in poverty know that a turn in the economy could cost them everything. Some of these people support Bernie Saunders (42.5% of Democrats in a poll I just looked at). And some support Donald Trump (39% nationally according to Real Clear Politics). If nothing else changes after this election, the fact that so many people have been so clear about the fact that they are being shut out of the benefits of economic growth, must mean a big shift is happening.

What's happened to the economy over the last few decades is that it's become global. Despite the US having the largest economy in the world, it is subject to global forces like never before. This is not due to bad trade deals (although the deals could be much better, taking into account working conditions, environmental concerns and political freedom). It's because human labor in the US can't compete with human labor in developing countries. As long as there is an imbalance in economies, Americans are going to see job stagnation. What the US really needs is more taxes at the top to fund infrastructure, public works, public education, public health, and other projects. If this sounds a bit like socialism, well it probably is. It's not taxation for handouts, but taxation to create jobs and redistribute wealth. Oh yeah, and everybody benefits from better roads, bridges, schools and healthcare.

Since the Reagan years, there has been a growing distrust of government. The Republicans, in particular have pushed the idea that government is inefficient. Public employees are lazy and in particular, public sector unions are sucking the taxpayer dry with gold-plated contracts and pension schemes. This has fuelled a distrust of government in all areas and ultimately resulted in several government shut-downs. However, reduction in government regulation resulted in the housing crisis in which tens of thousands of middle-class families lost their life savings. Throughout the US, public schools have been underfunded, resulting in the rise of the quasi-private charter school. In many ways, the inherent racism of the economic system has caused the pain to be felt more by people of color, but throughout the country, people are suffering because government is the people's voice and the people are being silenced.

Many pundits have remarked on how this Republican tactic has come full circle to deny the Republican establishment its chosen candidate, Jeb Bush. But I worry that it's a lot deeper than that. Yes, Trump has tapped into a great vein of unrest. But when (if) he is defeated, will this mass go back under the rocks whence they came? Or will there be a new movement of rabble to contend with? An armed, pissed off, and nothing to lose rabble.

Finally, Trump's rise is, though not due to, but lubricated by, celebrity culture. What Trump has achieved masterfully is to turn the Presidential election into a reality TV show episode. I thought he would collapse at one of the early debates, lacking policy substance and fundamentally incoherent.
How wrong I was. Trump weathered all attacks. The look on his face said it all. He treated it exactly as a reality show performance. Everybody else in the Republican field was treating it like a Presidential election. Only Trump treated it like an entertainment spectacle. But because there has been a shift from real news to entertainment over the last few decades, Trump was able to pull it off. People can't tell the difference between news and entertainment anymore.

This is why I really fear what will happen in the general election. Although polls right now favor Clinton (or even Saunders) over Trump, Trump hasn't even begun to campaign for the general. Clinton has said she doesn't feel like a natural politician; how is she as a reality show contestant? She must avoid a debate at all costs. Getting on a stage with Trump would be humiliating for her. Clinton's only hope is to get on the high road and stay as far away from Trump as possible, focusing on policy. That is, if she doesn't get indicted on the way.

Is 2016 an anomaly? I think it's more like a tipping point. The path to the Presidency is no longer through the political ranks; it's through the media. Celebrity counts more than policy. Be afraid my friend, be very afraid.

Watch Christie in Tuesday's debate

In a couple of days the Republican hopefuls will again assemble on a stage to ostensibly compare policy strengths and weaknesses in a rational debate.

As if.

More likely it will be battle, the likes of which has not been seen on a debate stage this primary season. Let's see why.

First, the frontrunner, Donald Trump has seen a number of opponents creeping up on his numbers. First Carson, now Cruz.

Remember when he called Jeb "low key"? That was when conventional wisdom was that the outsiders would fade fast, as they did in past primary seasons. But as in a warming world, the seasons ain't what they used to be. Trump has had to fight to defend his position.

Lately he's been trying to claim the evangelical territory from Cruz. Now I don't know anything about real estate mogul Trump's Presbyterian credentials, but I'm sure a Bible belting Iowan can see more evangelical bona fides in Cruz, the son of a preacher man, than in Trump, who couldn't quote his favorite Bible phrase earlier in the contest. Trump may not be able to fight the Battle of Jericho with Cruz, but he will likely try to paint him as soft on Muslims.

Speaking of Muslims, if any Republican on Tuesday takes a stand to denounce the rabid Islamophobia of the last few weeks, I'll convert to Islam on Wednesday because that will be a sure sign of a miracle.

Let's take a look at the candidates on the main stage to see what each has to do.

Trump

As stated, The Donald needs to hang on to his lead. In the last debate, he was pretty low key himself. I think his advisors told him to try keep it down to avoid a major gaffe. But low key doesn't work for him. Coming out of that debate, he started to fire up the rhetoric. The Paris attacks gave him a place to aim at. Since Muslims constitute only 1% of the population of the U.S. it's not a big chunk of the electorate to alienate. It was a successful strategy. Everyone hates ISIS. Why not turn that hatred onto the innocent victims of ISIS and law abiding Americans who happened to be Muslim? Why should Freedom of Religion be sacred?

Trump is likely to face attacks by Bush, but especially by Christie. Can he respond without saying something over the top? Is it possible to go over the top in this race?
Prediction: Poll numbers hold steady.

Carson

Carson's star is falling. This is his last shot and the nice guy strategy will not last. His lack of foreign policy knowledge has weakened him despite a trip to the Middle East. His attack of Obamacare no longer resonates as this contest turns into a foreign policy war. We know where nice guys finish.
Prediction: Poll numbers drop. Carson will do so badly in Iowa, followed by a defeat in New Hampshire that he will be out of the race by Super Tuesday.

Cruz

Having been attacked by Trump as not sufficiently evangelical, Cruz might be willing to come out swinging. Not sure. Cruz's strategy to stand near Trump and wait for Trump's collapse has worked. He could weather some Trump criticism and let the others go after Trump. Or he could see Trump having a moment of weakness and seize the moment. Et tu Brute!
Prediction: Numbers rise. He's the likely winner of Iowa, but if Trump gets forced out early, Rubio will be the backroom boys' favorite in a brokered convention.

Rubio

It's crunch time for the Republican Obama. We saw him acquit himself well with attacks from Bush, but can he position himself as the candidate that can unite the non-Trump majority? The only hope for the GOP is if they can get behind a single candidate soon. Rubio has the youth, charisma and intelligence. But with too many candidates hanging on through the first several primaries or caucuses, Trump may be able to nail down quite a few delegates before he's toppled. Rubio needs to hang in without saying or doing anything that will be held against him for years to come. He may need to be looking at 2020 for his day in the sun.
Prediction: numbers improve slightly. Third place in Iowa caucuses, but first in New Hampshire.

Bush

Jeb! should be getting ready to play some golf in Florida since his campaigning days are drawing to a close. Unless he scores a knockout punch on Trump, his backroom sponsors will be pushing him to retire from politics. Bush has enough money in his war chest to continue on well into the primaries, but the pressure will be on to get out for the good of the party.
Prediction: Numbers fall. Exit mid-March.

Kasich

I had to look up how to spell this guy's name. He's hoping to be the voice of reason in a part that's abandoned all  hope of reason. May try to hang in until the primaries in the more liberal states, but likely to exit soon.
Prediction: Last appearance on the main stage. Exit after New Hampshire.

Christie

Chris Christie is the man to watch on the stage on Tuesday. Need a drinking game? Take a drink every time he makes a reference to being a former prosecutor. If you're still standing at the end of the first hour, my hat's off to you. He has just fought his way back up from the kiddie table and he's the only one with the fire in the belly to take on Trump. He's looking to pick up support from the law and order Republicans. Since his bid is still a long-shot, he needs to make a mark, and there's no doubt he's a fighter. He'll come out swinging for Trump, possibly in defense of Muslims (since the alleged "thousands cheering" on 911 were supposed to be in Jersey City), but more likely claiming ground as the only one who understands how to use legitimate law enforcement to track down and convict terrorists. Some intrepid journalist should dig up Christie's prosecutorial record and see if he actually did prosecute any real terrorists.
Prediction: numbers up, but poor showing in Iowa. Second place in New Hampshire. Out after Super Tuesday.

Fiorina

Say goodbye to Carly. Her numbers have been falling since her moment in the sun. She might come out with something outrageous again, but she has been cowed by Trump in the past. She can't compete as the business expert, nor as the outsider. Some people might like her as an alternative to Hillary, but not enough. This will be her last showing on the main stage.
Prediction: She will be out after New Hampshire.

Paul

At this point it's not sure if Rand Paul is on the main stage or the warm up event. In any case his days as a presidential candidate in this race are numbered. It's unfortunate, as he's a smart guy and he is the only Republican who is as opposed to corporate welfare for the defence industry as he is to welfare for poor people.
Prediction: Out in time to spend Christmas with his family.

Application Letter to Donald Trump

In the not too distant future, Donald Trump may be returning to business from campaigning. For you up and coming executives, here's a possible letter of application to work for him. Feel free to copy and modify as necessary.

Dear Mr. Trump,

You don't know me, but I'm a terrific candidate for any executive position in your business. I know you must have hundreds of applicants for such positions but you should choose me. I know people who are applying to you and I love these guys (and women--who can be fantastic executives, most of the time) but let me tell you, they are losers. Don't hire them; hire me. I'm a winner.

First, let me give you my qualifications. I'm really smart. I went to university and graduated. I never got caught cheating or plagiarizing. I'm just sick of hearing about losers who are getting into trouble. We never win any more. I will change that. I will show your loser competitors how great Trump is. You won't believe what a good job I'll do for you. You'll make so much money from me that you won't know what to do with it. You have gold plated toilets on your plane now? You'll have gold-foil toilet paper when I work for you. You'll have gold plates that you throw in the trash instead of washing them when I work for you. Illegal immigrants will be going through your trash and taking it home to their countries--solving both the illegal immigrant problem and the trash disposal problem--when I work for you.

I have a fabulous resume. It's so fabulous that you don't want to read it. Let me tell you the highlights. I know how to buy and sell stuff. I've bought and sold lots of stuff. I've used cash and credit cards, barter and cheques. I know that, in principle, one should buy low and sell high. But the market rules. I love the market. It's fantastic. Winners understand the market. Like you. And I'm a winner, which is why you should hire me.

I know how to use the legal system to avoid consequences. Criminal, civil, bankruptcy...you name it, I know some terrific lawyers who can fix problems. People who get convictions are losers! Nothing has ever been proven against me. I'm a winner. They say winners should stick together. That's why I should be working for you.

We both know that this Presidential thing is going to get old for you pretty soon. You are going to want to exit the campaign as a winner, but before one of the primary or caucus states supports one of your loser opponents. I can help you put together an exit strategy that maintains your position as a winner. How about this: "Politics are for losers!" That could be your exit slogan. Or "I made American great again just by campaigning for six months!" Job done! You can get back to what you do best: firing losers!

It's important to plan in advance. No one wants to hear that you were drunk in a Des Moines bar after the Iowa caucuses mumbling racial epithets at Ben Carson (How do we even know he was born in the US? Has anyone seen his birth certificate? I can't hear a freaking thing he says!). No you won't be doing that. That's what a loser would do. And you're a winner. Hire me. I'm a winner, too. I will make Trump great again!

Sincerely,

 YOUR NAME HERE

Rubio will the the GOP nominee

OK, you heard it here first! I'm calling Marco Rubio as the winner of the GOP nomination marathon.

Yes, it's early days and gaffes, pitfalls and unexpected blowback are still to be experienced, but I think Rubio's the logical choice.

Let's look at my track record. I said the second debate would be Trump's downfall. OK, I was a little off on that. But Trump's failure to stand up to Fiorina's attack showed that he could be wounded. Fiorina has soared since then. Carson has been coming on strong since the first debate. But neither of these outsider candidates will survive the media scrutiny and organizational rigors of the next few months.

Last cycle we had a number of "front runners" over the early part of the process. Voters are trying out different things and anyone could be the flavor of the month.

Going toward Iowa, Carson is loved by evangelicals. But eventually his "nice guy" demeanor will rub off a little and people will see that his lack of experience in anything like running a large complex organization will make him unsuitable for the job. Already he's had to retract statements about Muslims. Carson makes conservatives feel good about themselves because they can support a black man.

On the other hand Fiorina, whatever her record at HP, has the leadership skills to not only run a campaign, but possibly hold elected office. Fiorina appeals to the conservatives who hate women. Of all the candidates' attacks on Planned Parenthood, hers is the most appealing to the conservative base precisely  because it is coming from a woman, who should know better. She appeals to people who see her being able to siphon support from Clinton in the general election.  Unlike Trump, she has detailed proposals. However, her proposals are not really rational or effective, and now she's going to have to spend time defending herself.

Anyway, Trump still tops the polls, but he's falling. According to the Washington Post, both Fiorina and Carson are gaining on him. So if neither of them are going to last who will?

Cruz would like to take Trump's supporters when he comes to his inevitable end. I think most of those people will crawl back under the rocks that they came from.

The party will have to appeal to people who have been alienated by the xenophobic rhetoric whipped up by Trump. That's where Rubio comes in. Now tied for third with Fiorina, he's perfectly positioned to be the party's go-to guy when the freak show comes to an end.

Trump will drop out after Iowa or New Hampshire, likely finishing below third in both. Carson may win Iowa, but can't sustain a front-runner status long. The establishment needs someone to get behind, and although that position should naturally be Bush's, he's not been able to campaign like a winner.

That's why I'm calling it for Rubio.

Debate could be Trump's Waterloo

Although the New York Times reports candidates are not looking to knock Trump out of the race, I think Trump may be heading for a fall. Conservative commentator Hugh Hewitt will be on hand to ask foreign policy questions, and he has already roused The Donald's ire over such questions.

Asked about certain leaders in the Middle East (I won't name them because I don't know them myself, but then again, I'm not running for POTUS) Trump stumbled. What is telling about this misstep is not that he didn't know the names of some long-time Middle Eastern leaders, but that he is not spending his time with advisors studying actual foreign affairs. Of course it would have been worse if he didn't know the name of the President of Mexico or the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

Of course Trump responded in typical fashion with ad hominem attacks, calling Hewitt a second-rate journalist. Again, we see Trump's weakness. Although his base might lap it up for a while, sooner or later most rational people will realize that Trump has no solid policy knowledge. Or am I overestimating the intelligence of the American electorate?

What I think this tells us is that Trump is flying on ego. He makes speeches that are short on detail and the public laps it up. But veteran journalists should not be fooled by this rhetoric. That's what Hugh Hewitt shows us. Anyone running for President should have a good grasp on the state of the world and how the US political system actually works.

We saw a little of this in the first debate when Trump was asked for more details on his border wall proposal. He was asked how he "knows" that "criminals and rapists" are being sent by Mexico to the US. His answer is revealing of his typical tactic. He began by saying he visited the border and spoke to border agents. But instead of giving specifics detailing even one instance of an individual being sent by the Mexican government into the US illegally, he swerved into generalities and bombast. A good journalist would have gone back to the original question: "How do you know the Mexican government is sending people across the border?" But the Fox anchor dropped the ball. I have a sense that CNN will do a little better.

This may expose the weakness of the other candidates as well. I don't think any of the "outsiders" have the background knowledge to provide details about foreign policy, domestic policy, or any other policy. Possibly Fiorina has a team helping her getting up to speed, but I get no sense of that deep understanding of the job from Carson.

This may well be the turning point that Bush has been waiting for. No doubt, as the establishment candidate (not to mention brother and son of former Presidents), he has the deep understanding of the state of the world needed to lead the US. Rubio, also, is supposed to be strong on foreign policy.

It takes more than policy to lead a country, but leadership without knowledge is dangerous. It's about time the Republican Party separated the wheat from the chaff and moved toward the primaries with a much smaller field of candidates who are actually competent on policy.

I stand with Trump: To hell with political correctness!

You know, the one thing I like about Donald Trump is that he speaks his mind. You can see him clearly for the asshole he really is. He's not afraid to offend anyone he disagrees with.

But the point about political correctness should be examined. To my mind political correctness is a superficial way of expressing yourself designed to use language you don't agree with. But that's to take a position that the expressions you prefer are actually OK. In fact, we need to continually adapt our language to an evolving sense of humanity. We didn't stop using the N word because of political correctness; we stopped using it because of an evolving (yes, we are still working on it) sense of racial respect.

As this writer states, politically correct is really just respect.

Here are what some dictionaries say. Wikipedia defines it as "an ordinarily pejorative term used to criticize language, actions, or policies seen as being excessively calculated to not offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society." Merriam Webster calls it "agreeing with the idea that people should be careful to not use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people." Notice that Merriam Webster takes away the sense of pejorative. I have to disagree with that. I don't think anyone uses that term without a sense that it's kowtowing to someone else's standards.

Megyn Kelly's segue from challenging Trump on disrespecting women to challenging other candidates on not being strict enough abortion opponents boggles the mind. To Republicans, being politically correct means being so strongly pro-life that they would deny a woman an abortion at the cost of her life. They would force a rape victim to live that pain out through nine months of pregnancy and all of its complications afterwards. I don't have time for political correctness should mean "let's talk about the truth about what happens to unplanned, unwanted, poorly cared for children." Let's talk about how we were led into a war based on lies and propaganda that killed and maimed thousands of men and women who were unnecessarily sent into battle. Let's talk about how the country is divided along racial lines and young men and women are constantly subjected to police harassment up to and including murder!

Political correctness is not doing us any good. Calling women "women" instead of "girls" and respecting minorities, disabled people, and anyone different than we are is not political correctness. It's respect.

We need more respect.

GOP's challenge is to manage Trump

Now that the GOP mob mentality has it turning on Trump, it may find its nightmare scenario is shaping up: Trump as an independent candidate.

What the GOP needs is for Trump to remain in the race for many more months, draining his financial assets. If he were to decide to run as a third party or independent candidate next spring, he would have to build an organization state by state, wending its way through various rules to get him on the state ballots. But in the meantime, he'd be spending his millions fighting for the GOP nomination.

If he drops out of the GOP race now, he can play golf for the next six months, while his team works on the details of getting on the various state ballots. He could even wait until after the conventions, all the while taking potshots at the other candidates. The cost for Trump would be minimized.

No doubt the other candidates would say his sniping doesn't warrant a response; when in fact, they quail under his attacks. Trump's style cannot be fought with normal politics. That's the source of his teflon. You either lower yourself to his level or you have to let him throw his insults without penalty.

He's already shown that his ability to garner free media attention is greater than ever seen before. Even if Fox doesn't pump him as it has done for the last month, he can get lots of attention.

This is the legacy of the current political climate. For decades it has drifted away from policy and substance toward ideology and style. Crowing on stage about who is a real conservative, rather than presenting real concrete plans is just part of it.

Trump is absolutely right that he was attacked from the get-go at the debate. The question about loyalty to the ultimate candidate and disavowing a third party run was only designed to call out Trump. He had to hold up his hand. Not to do so would have been capitulation, which is not in Trump's vocabulary.

The current feeding frenzy, if it drives Trump out of the GOP race, is just what he needs to continue to disrupt the process without bankrupting (excuse me, using the laws of the United States) himself.

And the GOP will be left without the knuckle-dragging, uninformed rabble that it depends on to swing the vote.

Trump's rise was inevitable

No one doubts that Trump will fail to become President of the United States. The most likely trajectory is that some time between now and November 2016, Trump will begin to perceive both dwindling support and rising expenses and realize that he'd rather remain a billionaire than bet it all on a losing proposition. My guess is that this will happen sometime in February or March of 2016, but it could be much sooner, if polls change.

What Trump needs to maintain his lead is a huge field of Republican candidates. As long as the 75-80% of Americans who don't support him are divided 17 ways, then Trump can triumphantly crow about winning. But eventually some of the smaller candidates, who aren't self-funding, will begin to run out of money. Their donors will pull back and they will read the writing on the wall. Once the field narrows down to a reasonable 7 or 8 candidates, support will move to one or two who will begin to overshadow Trump.

That requires neither great insight nor knowledge. What I think this particular election cycle teaches us is that there is no longer a difference between entertainment and political leadership. When Trump was challenged on his misogynistic comments, he interrupted timed exactly as it would be on a TV game show, drawing the same laughs. Trump played his part. Despite their attempts to challenge Trump (and other candidates) on issues, the Fox media could not escape its main role as entertainment. Trump is ahead right now because he is the only candidate running who has made a career out of being in the spotlight. He is bulletproof because he understands that there is no bad publicity.

Challenged about asking a woman on Celebrity Apprentice to get down on her knees (I thought this was a reference to oral sex, but apparently it was a reference to her begging to keep her job), Trump failed to give what I thought was the obvious answer: "We do things on the TV show to play for ratings, to create a character, you can no more attach those statements to me than you can use lines that Reagan might have said in Bedtime for Bonzo." But I was wrong. There is no line between entertainment and political life any more.

As I write this, I'm still waiting for new polls to reveal how the debates have shifted the standings among GOP candidates, but I'm sure Trump has not gone down. In fact, his presence dampened all other candidates. No one dared take a shot at him. That was left to the moderators, and look how they fared. No one could say out loud, this is a contest for leadership of the United States of America, not Celebrity Apprentice.

Coming from the left, this gives me no glee. Trump, either as an independent, a GOP candidate or merely a failed candidate will help the Democrats hold the White House. But the march of style of substance continues.

How many people on the left rely (relied) on Jon Stewart for their news? What a farce! (And I mean this both literally and metaphorically.) Stewart's whole schtick was to take snippets of news stories and make fun of whoever was involved. He presented no in-depth analysis. He gave no new data. He did not provide reportage of issues ignored by mainstream media. He couldn't. He relied on people having at least a little knowledge of the issue. And then he made you laugh. And he made me laugh. But he didn't teach anything new. All he did was entertain us. And people turn off their TV sets at night believing they are knowledgeable about world affairs but without any new knowledge.

Reading the Gettysburg Address, I don't see any place where Lincoln paused for a joke. I don't see humor in Dr. King's I have a Dream speech. But politicians for the last 30 years have had to show their lighter side. Obama is great at self-deprecating jokes. But democracy has become some kind of sitcom. We need our laugh track along with our ballot boxes. And who gets the biggest laugh wins.

And that's the saddest part of all.