John DeProspo

There Was An MSNBC Democratic Debate Last Night?

February 5, 2016 By John DeProspo 3 Comments

MSNBC hosted a one-on-one Democratic presidential debate last night that I doubt many people watched. It was added to the debate schedule at the last minute, no thanks to Democratic National Committee chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

With Martin O’Malley having withdrawn from the race only a few days before, we finally got the match-up we had hoped for: Clinton v. Sanders … mano-a-mano … may the best man (woman) win.

The DNC originally refused to sanction the debate but later relented when both candidates agreed to attend the debate moderated by MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and Chuck Todd. The debate was held at the University of New Hampshire in Durham, New Hampshire.

If you did watch the debate, you were treated to what a presidential debate should look like. Substantive issues were discussed without any acrimony or name-calling. The evening was more like Masterpiece Theater than the Jerry Springer show offered by Republicans.

The question after any debate is always “Who won?” In last night’s debate both candidates won. They each showed a deep understanding of the issues and communicated their answers effectively. Some pundits thought Clinton needed a knock-out punch because of her poor poll numbers heading into the New Hampshire primary this coming Tuesday, February 9. Time will tell.

Each candidate got rousing rounds of applause during the debate but the loudest came towards the end of the evening when Bernie said of himself, and Hillary, “On our worst days, I think it is fair to say we are 100 times better than any Republican candidate.”

Truer words were never spoken.

Democrats are blessed with two candidates who are both presidential material. Some progressives have stated they will only vote if Bernie gets the nomination. I say to those ardent Sanders supporters, listen to Bernie. If you’re a Democrat, the bottom line needs to be this: vote for your party’s nominee whoever that may be.

For those who are going through Republican-reality-show-withdrawal, their next debate is this Saturday, February, 6, at Saint Anselm College, Manchester, New Hampshire.

Why Marco Rubio Will Never Be President

February 3, 2016 By John DeProspo 6 Comments

Following his resounding third place finish in the Iowa caucus, things are looking up for Marco Rubio. In fact, Rubio was so giddy after the election one might have thought he was the winner.

“So this is the moment they said would never happen,” Rubio said in a speech after the results became clear. “For months, they told us that because we offer too much optimism in a time of anger we had no chance… I will be back in October and September of this year, because when I am our nominee we are going to win Iowa, and we are going to win the election for this country.”

As awesome as his third place finish was, Rubio will not be able to parlay his Iowa success into securing the Republican nomination.

There are a number of reasons why Marco Rubio will never be president. Some roadblocks are already known. His flip-flop on immigration is probably his greatest liability. The man who cosponsored the Senate bill creating a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants now claims he was never for amnesty… or as he now tries to define it, “blanket amnesty.”

Rubio’s Senate attendance record is also a big problem. According to a recent report conducted by vocativ.org and GovTrack.us, Rubio is the senator “least likely to show up for work” – missing 99 of 1,198 votes over four years. That gives him an absentee rate of 8.2%. By comparison, the Senate average is 2.01%.

On climate change, Rubio is what’s best described as an equivocator. He still believes there is reasonable doubt on the issue even though 97.1% of scientists have “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming”

As bad as these well-known hurdles are for Rubio, there is one small, personal, previously un-reported fact that will surely disqualify him in the minds of Republican voters.

While a struggling law student at the University of Miami School of Law, in order to make ends meet, Rubio worked as a male dancer at a local Chippendales.

Knowing that someday he might enter politics, Rubio, always the cleaver one, performed under the pseudonym “Buck Naked.”

Photo | fusion.net

Now don’t get your panties in a bunch, it’s satire folks!

Iowa Republicans Pick Another Loser

February 2, 2016 By John DeProspo 8 Comments

Unlike the Democrats, Iowa Republicans picked a clear winner in last night’s state caucus: Ted Cruz. But should the word “winner” be used to describe Cruz?

If history is any guide, Rafael Edward Cruz will not be the Republican nominee for president. Lest we forget, the last two Republican primary winners in Iowa were Rick Santorum (2012) and Mike Huckabee (2008). Enough said.

Do you see a pattern here? If you look at the last three Iowa “winners,” you see a common thread: the candidates’ religiosity. Santorum is well known for his deep Christian beliefs and has even questioned the separation of church and state. Before entering politics, Mike Huckabee was a pastor who preached for 12 years from Arkansas pulpits. Ted Cruz has been quoted as saying any candidate who doesn’t start “every day on his knees” in prayer isn’t fit to be president.

Evangelical Christians make up a large portion of the Iowa Republican base. By picking Cruz, they are following in the tradition of choosing the most religious candidate they could find; a candidate who will be shunned by other Republicans in less evangelical states.

Too bad for Cruz … and the Democrats. Cruz is the one candidate most Democrats want to see get the Republican nomination. It is a toss up as to who detests Cruz more: establishment Republicans or Democrats.

The next primary state is New Hampshire. Ted Cruz is stuck in a statistical tie for second place along with Kasich, Bush and Rubio with roughly 11% of the vote. Donald Trump comfortably leads in New Hampshire with 34% of the vote according to the latest statistics.

Pundits, analysts and the media, in general, like to place great emphasis on the Iowa caucus winners. But with the state’s history of picking Republican “winners,” we ironically have the first loser of 2016… Ted Cruz.

Photo | AP/ChrisCarlson

Pay No Attention To The Man Behind The Curtain

January 29, 2016 By John DeProspo 4 Comments

You have to hand it to Republicans; they are a fearless bunch. They refuse to be intimidated by facts. They will stubbornly defend their statements no matter how patently false they may be.

In last night’s Fox News presidential debate, Ted Cruz was confronted with a video showing his support for a pathway to legalization of undocumented immigrants. This video was from very early in his political career. But now, in a deliberate and dishonest effort, he maintains he never held such a position.

It doesn’t seem to matter to Cruz that the amendment to the immigration bill calling for legalization (i.e. legal status as opposed to citizenship) was his own! He maintains his amendment was meant to be a “poison pill” designed to kill the immigration bill.

But this is what Cruz is seen saying in the video:

“I don’t want immigration reform to fail. I want immigration reform to pass. I believe if this amendment were to pass, the chances of this bill passing into law would increase dramatically. … I believe if the amendments I introduced were adopted that the bill would pass and my effort in introducing them was to find a solution that reflected common ground and that fixed the problem. … If the proponents of this bill actually demonstrate a commitment not to politics, not to campaigning all the time, but to actually fixing this problem, to finding a middle ground—that would fix the problem and also allow for those 11 million people who are here illegally a legal status with citizenship off the table.”

Of course, Ted Cruz is not the only Republican candidate who is trying to walk away from policy positions he once advocated and championed. For Marco Rubio, his current anti-amnesty position flies in the face of his having co-sponsored the Senate immigration bill calling for a pathway to citizenship.

It was extremely satisfying to see Fox News play old clips of both Cruz and Rubio making statements that directly contradict their current claims. But it is doubtful such lying (flip-floppery) will make any difference to the loyal Republican voters who support the two amigos. For in the GOP world these days, facts or anything that even smacks of truth, are just part of a large liberal media conspiracy.

For Republicans, it is: are you going to believe me or your lying ears and eyes? Just pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Photo | telegraph.co.uk

When It Comes To Trump, Evangelicals Will Forgo Usual Litmus Test

January 27, 2016 By John DeProspo 4 Comments

I just finished reading a Huffington Post article entailed, “Evangelical Voters Don’t Care That Trump’s Not Religious.” At first I thought it was satire. Yea right, I said to myself!

But no, the group that normally applies a religious “litmus test” to any political candidate is cutting Donald Trump some major slack. Talk about unconditional love! (For Trump Supporters, It’s Unconditional Love).

According to a new report from Pew Research, Trump is viewed as the least religious of all the GOP presidential candidates — but evangelical voters don’t really care!

Despite his low marks on religiosity, 56 percent of Republicans say Trump would make a good or great president. That proportion rises to 59 percent among white evangelical Protestant Republican voters. How can this be, I keep asking myself?

Could it be because Trump has stated the Bible is his favorite book? Is it because Trump has said, if elected president, he would mandate the saying of “Merry Christmas? Is it because he believes there is a war against Christians? Is it the endorsement he just received from Liberty University president Jerry Falwell jr.?

Or could it just be that evangelicals are a bunch of simple-minded hypocrites like those defenders of the Constitution who pick and chose which parts of the document they will follow?

What is most ironic about all this is that the anti-immigrant, family values evangelicals have no clue that if Trump becomes president, we would have the first immigrant First Lady … and the first First Lady to have posed nude for a spread in GQ. (Why “The Donald” Will Not Be President).

I wonder how that will go down with the patriotic, good-Christian, American-as-apple-pie bible toters?

Photo | alanrudnick.org

Jeb Goes For “Hail Mary” Pass … Literally

January 26, 2016 By John DeProspo 2 Comments

Jeb Bush’s campaign, and super PAC, has so far spent nearly $50M on campaign ads. No other Republican presidential candidate even comes close. The fact is Jeb’s eye-popping spending exceeds the amount spent by all campaigns at this point in 2012 by $10 million.

And what has all that money gotten Jeb? A paltry 5% voter support in the polls.

It seems nothing has worked for the Bush campaign. Jeb has tried both positive ads and negative ads, each to no avail. In what many called an act of desperation, Jeb convinced his 90-year-old mother to do an ad for him. The ad backfired and was widely mocked when Mama Bush said in the commercial, “Of all the running, he seems to be the one who can solve the problems.”

And now we have learned from an anonymous Bush campaign source, Jeb is seeking the endorsement of none other than the Vicar of Christ, Pope Francis. Campaign staffers are referring to this attempted coup as their “Hail Mary” pass.

Said the campaign source, “No doubt this would be a game changer. It could resurrect his campaign. The Pope is beloved by all. How many people do you know have a 90% approval rating?”

While the odds are slim that the Holy Father would agree to endorse any American presidential candidate, let alone Jeb Bush, the campaign source said that the Bush camp has let the Vatican know that they are prepared to make a generous contribution to the Church’s “collection plate.”

This Thursday, the next Republican presidential debate will be held in Des Moines, Iowa, hosted by Fox News. It will be another make or break moment for Jeb, the establishment favorite.

If somehow Jeb is able to snag the Pontiff’s endorsement before the debate, look for the other candidates to cry foul and label the endorsement just another desperate stunt by a desperate candidate.

Seems as if Jeb can’t win for losing.

Photo | (AP/Sue Ogrocki)

Jeb, The Smarter Bush?

January 24, 2016 By John DeProspo 2 Comments

I have always given Jeb the benefit of the doubt. My take on George W’s younger brother has always been that he is a decent, intelligent man; just a bad politician. I bought into the myth of “George the bumbler, Jeb the thinker.” After watching Jeb self-destruct over the course of his presidential campaign, I’ve now come to believe he is no smarter than his dim-witted older brother; just another Forest Gump, you know, “I’m not a smart man.” (Yes, I’ll admit, he may know what love is.)

After one of the worst governmental actions ever taken by a state governor, Jeb has come out in praise of Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder. This is the man who, through his appointed “emergency manager” for the city of Flint, is ultimately responsible for poisoning the city of nearly 100,000.

As governor, Snyder named an “emergency manager” to run the city of Flint. This non-elected czar is granted powers to disband unions, corporatize city services, abolish school districts, and dissolve local elected governments.

In a cost-cutting move, Snyder’s appointee decided the clean and safe drinking water Flint was getting from nearby Lake Huron did not fit the corporate financial model. Snyder approved the manager’s decision to switch Flint’s water source to the well-documented and historically toxic waters of the Flint River. For nearly two years, this “man-made catastrophe” forced residents, including small children, to ingest filthy, corrosive and lead-poisoned water.

“I admire Rick Snyder for stepping up right now,” Bush said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “He’s going to the challenge. He’s fired people and accepted responsibility to fix this.”

Jed’s ludicrous and insensitive statement shows he “is not a smart man.” Many are calling for Snyder to resign as governor; some are calling for his arrest. Jed’s defense of Snyder is like praising your kid for the way he picks up shattered pieces of glass from the vase he just broke.

For me, this latest head-scratching, head-shaking statement is the straw that broke the camel’s back. Yes, there is no doubt Jed is surrounded by the most incompetent campaign advisors money can buy. But even a candidate with half a brain would know not to play loyal partisan politics with such a serious man-made fiasco. An entire generation of kids is now suffering from IQ-reducing, permanent lead poisoning.

Snyder’s decision to approve the switch of Flint’s drinking water source to the polluted Flint River was aimed at saving $5 million but now, almost two years later, the cost to treat the water supply carries a tag of $45 million and climbing. And that is only the financial toll; the human toll will not be known for years.

My advice to you, John Ellis Bush, is to save whatever honor and credibility you still have left and exit the race. You have proven yourself totally unqualified for any public office. All that donor money being spent on useless ads (Mama Bush To The Rescue … Sort Of) could be used for better purposes … like helping the people of Flint recover from Snyder’s Katrina.

Photo | freedom works.org

Mama Bush To The Rescue! … Sort Of

January 23, 2016 By John DeProspo 4 Comments

In an effort to breathe life into his moribund campaign, Jeb Bush has convinced his mother to make an ad for him. If you remember, it was not too long ago she famously advised Jeb not to run for office, saying, “We’ve had enough Bushes” in the White House.

Viewing the ad, you can tell Mama Bush’s heart isn’t really into it. Here endorsement is less than stirring:

BARBARA BUSH: Jeb has been a very good father, a wonderful son, a hard worker. His heart is big. When push comes to shove, people are going to realize Jeb has real solutions. Rather than talking about how popular they are, how great they are. He’s doing it because he sees a huge need and it’s not being filled by anybody. Of all the people running, he seems to be the one who could solve the problems. I think he’ll be a great president.

Why is it that politicians think voters have such short memories? I mean, really!

A better ad would have looked something like this:

BARBARA BUSH: Before the start of the Republican presidential campaign season, I advised my son not to run for office. I thought the country had had enough Bushes in the White House. That was before I saw the current crop of Republican candidates. Oh my! A divisive reality TV star, with no experience, is the leading Republican candidate, followed by a sitting Senator who helped engineer the shutting down of our government? I can tell you this, my son is a good father, a wonderful son and a hard worker. Of all the people running, I know he is the one who can solve our problems. I think he’ll be a great president.

I doubt there has ever been a more poorly run, incompetent presidential campaign than that of Jeb Bush. And while he may be a good man. I can’t imagine a worse campaigner than Jeb.

The bottom line is that no amount of money … no amount of advertising … can cure Jeb Bush’s most fatal flaw, his name. There is perhaps nothing more toxic in the political world than the “Bush” brand.

Photo | usatoday.com

“Dumbing Down” Of America Most Evident In Our Politics

January 22, 2016 By John DeProspo 6 Comments

Below is an article that appeared in Psychology Today on July 7, 2014. It is written by Ray Williams, Wired For Success.

Anti-Intellectualism and the “Dumbing Down” of America

There is a growing and disturbing trend of anti-intellectual elitism in American culture. It’s the dismissal of science, the arts, and humanities and their replacement by entertainment, self-righteousness, ignorance, and deliberate gullibility.

Susan Jacoby, author of The Age of American Unreason, says in an article in the Washington Post, “Dumbness, to paraphrase the late senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, has been steadily defined downward for several decades, by a combination of heretofore irresistible forces. These include the triumph of video culture over print culture; a disjunction between Americans’ rising level of formal education and their shaky grasp of basic geography, science and history; and the fusion of anti-rationalism with anti-intellectualism.”

There has been a long tradition of anti-intellectualism in America, unlike most other Western countries. Richard Hofstadter, who won a Pulitzer Prize in 1964 for his book, Anti-Intellectualism In American Life, describes how the vast underlying foundations of anti-elite, anti-reason and anti-science have been infused into America’s political and social fabric. Famous science fiction writer Isaac Asimov once said: “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

Mark Bauerlein, in his book, The Dumbest Generation, reveals how a whole generation of youth is being dumbed down by their aversion to reading anything of substance and their addiction to digital “crap” via social media.

Journalist Charles Pierce, author of Idiot America, adds another perspective: “The rise of idiot America today represents–for profit mainly, but also and more cynically, for political advantage in the pursuit of power–the breakdown of a consensus that the pursuit of knowledge is a good. It also represents the ascendancy of the notion that the people whom we should trust the least are the people who best know what they are talking about. In the new media age, everybody is an expert.”

“There’s a pervasive suspicion of rights, privileges, knowledge and specialization,” says Catherine Liu, the author of American Idyll: Academic Antielitism as Cultural Critique and a film and media studies professor at University of California. The very mission of universities has changed, argues Liu. “We don’t educate people anymore. We train them to get jobs.”

Part of the reason for the rising anti-intellectualism can be found in the declining state of education in the U.S. compared to other advanced countries:

*After leading the world for decades in 25-34 year olds with university degrees, the U.S. is now in 12th place. The World Economic Forum ranked the U.S. at 52nd among 139 nations in the quality of its university math and science instruction in 2010. Nearly 50% of all graduate students in the sciences in the U.S. are foreigners, most of whom are returning to their home countries;
*The Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs commissioned a civic education poll among public school students. A surprising 77% didn’t know that George Washington was the first President; couldn’t name Thomas Jefferson as the author of the Declaration of Independence; and only 2.8% of the students actually passed the citizenship test. Along similar lines, the Goldwater Institute of Phoenix did the same survey and only 3.5% of students passed the civics test;
*According to the National Research Council report, only 28% of high school science teachers consistently follow the National Research Council guidelines on teaching evolution, and 13% of those teachers explicitly advocate creationism or “intelligent design;”
*18% of Americans still believe that the sun revolves around the earth, according to a Gallup poll;
*The American Association of State Colleges and Universities report on education shows that the U.S. ranks second among all nations in the proportion of the population aged 35-64 with a college degree, but 19th in the percentage of those aged 25-34 with an associate or high school diploma, which means that for the first time, the educational attainment of young people will be lower than their parents;
*74% of Republicans in the U.S. Senate and 53% in the House of Representatives deny the validity of climate change despite the findings of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and every other significant scientific organization in the world;
*According to the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress, 68% of public school children in the U.S. do not read proficiently by the time they finish third grade. And the U.S. News & World reported that barely 50% of students are ready for college level reading when they graduate;
*According to a 2006 survey by National Geographic-Roper, nearly half of Americans between ages 18 and 24 do not think it necessary to know the location of other countries in which important news is being made. More than a third consider it “not at all important” to know a foreign language, and only 14 percent consider it “very important;”
*According to the National Endowment for the Arts report in 1982, 82% of college graduates read novels or poems for pleasure; two decades later only 67% did. And more than 40% of Americans under 44 did not read a single book–fiction or nonfiction–over the course of a year. The proportion of 17 year olds who read nothing (unless required by school ) has doubled between 1984-2004;
*Gallup released a poll indicating 42 percent of Americans still believe God created human beings in their present form less than 10,000 years ago;
*A 2008 University of Texas study found that 25 percent of public school biology teachers believe that humans and dinosaurs inhabited the earth simultaneously.

In American schools, the culture exalts the athlete and good-looking cheerleader. Well-educated and intellectual students are commonly referred to in public schools and the media as “nerds,” “dweebs,” “dorks,” and “geeks,” and are relentlessly harassed and even assaulted by the more popular “jocks” for openly displaying any intellect. These anti-intellectual attitudes are not reflected in students in most European or Asian countries, whose educational levels have now equaled and and will surpass that of the U.S. And most TV shows or movies such as The Big Bang Theory depict intellectuals as being geeks if not effeminate.

John W. Traphagan,Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Texas, argues the problem is that Asian countries have core cultural values that are more akin to a cult of intelligence and education than a cult of ignorance and anti-intellectualism. In Japan, for example, teachers are held in high esteem and normally viewed as among the most important members of a community. There is suspicion and even disdain for the work of teachers that occurs in the U.S. Teachers in Japan typically are paid significantly more than their peers in the U.S. The profession of teaching is one that is seen as being of central value in Japanese society and those who choose that profession are well compensated in terms of salary, pension, and respect for their knowledge and their efforts on behalf of children.

In addition, we do not see in Japan significant numbers of the types of religious schools that are designed to shield children from knowledge about basic tenets of science and accepted understandings of history–such as evolutionary theory or the religious views of the Founding Fathers, who were largely deists–which are essential to having a fundamental understanding of the world, Traphagan contends. The reason for this is because in general Japanese value education, value the work of intellectuals, and see a well-educated public with a basic common knowledge in areas of scientific fact, math, history, literature, etc. as being an essential foundation to a successful democracy.

We’re creating a world of dummies. Angry dummies who feel they have the right, the authority and the need not only to comment on everything, but to make sure their voice is heard above the rest, and to drag down any opposing views through personal attacks, loud repetition and confrontation.

Bill Keller, writing in the New York Times argues that the anti-intellectual elitism is not an elitism of wisdom, education, experience or knowledge. The new elite are the angry social media posters, those who can shout loudest and more often, a clique of bullies and malcontents baying together like dogs cornering a fox. Too often it’s a combined elite of the anti-intellectuals and the conspiracy followers – not those who can voice the most cogent, most coherent response. Together they forment a rabid culture of anti-rationalism where every fact is suspect; every shadow holds a secret conspiracy. Rational thought is the enemy. Critical thinking is the devil’s tool.

Keller also notes that the herd mentality takes over online; the anti-intellectuals become the metaphorical equivalent of an angry lynch mob when anyone either challenges one of the mob beliefs or posts anything outside the mob’s self-limiting set of values.

Keller blames this in part to the online universe that “skews young, educated and attentive to fashions.” Fashion, entertainment, spectacle, voyeurism – we’re directed towards trivia, towards the inconsequential, towards unquestioning and blatant consumerism. This results in intellectual complacency. People accept without questioning, believe without weighing the choices, join the pack because in a culture where convenience rules, real individualism is too hard work. Thinking takes too much time: it gets in the way of the immediacy of the online experience.

Reality TV and pop culture presented in magazines and online sites claim to provide useful information about the importance of The Housewives of [you name the city] that can somehow enrich our lives. After all, how else can one explain the insipid and pointless stories that tout divorces, cheating and weight gain? How else can we explain how the Kardashians,or Paris Hilton are known for being famous for being famous without actually contributing anything worth discussion? The artificial events of their lives become the mainstay of populist media to distract people from the real issues and concerns facing us.

The current trend of increasing anti-intellectualism now establishing itself in politics and business leadership, and supported by a declining education system should be a cause for concern for leaders and the general population,one that needs to be addressed now.

Everybody Hates Ted

January 21, 2016 By John DeProspo 4 Comments

The GOP establishment has made it clear for months they can’t stand Donald Trump. Their hope that he would have his 15 minutes of fame and then fade into the sunset has turned into wishful thinking. Trump is the Republican presidential frontrunner and it does not appear he will relinquish that title anytime soon.

Trump, to everyone’s utter amazement, has been able to singlehandedly kidnap the party of Lincoln, Eisenhower and Reagan. Fellow Republicans have called him a buffoon, loudmouth, loose cannon … and those are some of nicer things said about him!

But it appears as much as the GOP brass hates Trump, their hatred for Ted Cruz runs even deeper. They viscerally, resoundingly loathe the man.

And so it has come to pass that the Republican Party is beginning to view the celebrity billionaire in a new light. While he is the still the embodiment of everything they hate, at least he is not Cruz.

“Cruz has rubbed a lot of people the wrong way in D.C., whereas Trump hasn’t, and Trump up until this year was pretty much a player,” said Craig Shirley, a longtime GOP strategist and charter member of the establishment. “Ultimately, the Washington establishment deep down — although they find Trump tacky or distasteful — they think that they ultimately can work with him. Deep down, a lot of people think it is an act.”

Cruz looks at the universal hatred of him as a badge of courage: proof that he is doing something right. He is taking a page out of FDR’s playbook, when he famously said of bankers, “They are unanimous in their hate for me — and I welcome their hatred.” In Cruz’s case, just substitute Republicans for bankers (irony alert… Cruz is married to a Goldman Sachs banker.)

The latest Iowa polling has Trump and Cruz in a statistical death heat. But nationally, Trump remains the probative favorite to win the Republican nomination. If all goes according to Hoyle, the Republican establishment, as much as they will be thrown into a panic, may have to live with their new darling … the lying, racist, sexist, xenophobic Trump.

It is often said that elections come down to choosing the lesser of two evils. With the Republican establishment these days, it may come down to the lesser of two psychopaths.

(AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)