John DeProspo

Hillary, Martin And Bernie Hold A Spirited, But Civil, Debate

January 18, 2016 By John DeProspo 4 Comments

Last night’s Democratic debate promised to produce sparks, as it was the last debate before primary voting begins with the Iowa caucuses in a few weeks. The debate lived up to its billing. It certainly was the liveliest, most spirited debate up to this point in the campaign season. The question asked after any debate is always the same: who won, who lost?

My question after watching the NBC debate is, “How many people, besides political geeks like myself, actually watched the debate? Sunday, after all, was a long day of NFL playoff football. There is only so much TV watching a person can take.

As with past Democratic debates, I thought the winner was the Democratic Party. Unlike the circus performances that have become the hallmark of Republican presidential debates, real issues were discussed in a civil and respectful manner. You did not hear any candidate accuse another of having a mother who wears army boots.

Yes, the candidates tried to distinguish themselves from one another but basically what you got were core Democratic principles framed in different ways. Hillary tried to paint Bernie Sanders as having a weak voting record on gun control, accusing him of voting, on some bills, with the NRA. Sanders reminded Clinton that he has a D+ rating with the NRA, hardly the ranking of someone who is loved by the gun advocacy group.

Clinton and Sanders also clashed on healthcare. While Sanders asked voters to think big (i.e. true universal healthcare), Clinton praised the president’s historic Obamacare and simply suggested it needed to be improved, not scrapped. Sanders, of course, retorted that he did not advocate for the elimination of Obamacare but that “single payer” is his goal.

I doubt many minds were swayed after last night’s performances. If you were for Bernie, you still are for Bernie. If you were a Hillary fan, she is still your woman. And for the 5-6 O’Malley supporters, I doubt any lost faith in their candidate.

Personally, I believe Bernie Sanders needs to win both in Iowa and New Hampshire to have any chance at becoming the Party’s nominee. Bernie’s other path to the nomination would be a new Hillary scandal or the worsening of one already out there. With the Clintons, you never know.

The next Democratic presidential debate will be on February 11, hosted by PBS … two days after the second primary voting in New Hampshire!

Great work DNC chair, Debbie “Madusa” Wasserman Schultz! (Debbie “Madusa” Wasserman Schultz May Have Done Bernie A Favor)

Photo | REUTERS/Randall Hill

Equal Justice Under The Law – Yea Right!

January 16, 2016 By John DeProspo 6 Comments

Equal justice under law is a phrase engraved on the front of the Supreme Court building in our nation’s capital. The words are a paraphrase of an expression coined in 1891 by the Supreme Court in the case Caldwell v. Texas. Chief Justice Melville Fuller wrote on behalf of a unanimous Court as follows, regarding the Fourteenth Amendment: “the powers of the States in dealing with crime within their borders are not limited, but no State can deprive particular persons or classes of persons of equal and impartial justice under the law.”

Today comes news that the lofty words proudly displayed on the Supreme Court building’s facade are just that: a facade, a societal ideal, at best.

The conservative Supreme Court of Chief Justice Roberts has agreed to hear the appeal of disgraced former Virginia Governor, Bob McDonnell (R). You may recall this was the man who was convicted on 11 counts of corruption under various statutes criminalizing improper “official action” taken on behalf of someone in exchange for political favors. You know, plain old bribery.

An appeals court upheld McDonnell’s convictions but his lawyers are now arguing the appeals court’s interpretation of what “official action” means is too broad and risks granting federal authorities too much power to go after “ordinary politics” (i.e. normal political corruption!)

It is akin to the old defense of saying to a police officer who pulls you over for speeding, “But officer, everyone was speeding. I was just keeping up with the traffic!”

The Supreme Court justices, strong defenders of states rights, are weighing in to potentially override the findings of a state court. Just as they did in Bush v. Gore.

While most convicts file an appeal while serving their time, McDonnell has yet to see the inside of a prison. In August 2015, the justices granted him an “extraordinary reprieve from prison” (get out of jail free card) – something that is rarely done.

Yes, the well-connected, well-backed McDonnell has hit the jackpot. He is a handsome white criminal with lots of money backing him up.

There is no good reason for the Supreme Court to hear this case other than to let Governor “Gifty” escape equal justice under the law. Don’t be surprised if the Court overturns his conviction.

Yet another perfect example that the concept of “equal justice under the law” is nothing but a nice platitude, signifying nothing. We as a nation, no doubt, have the best justice money can buy.

Photo | nomblog.com

GOP Candidates Attack Democratic Non-Candidate

January 15, 2016 By John DeProspo 6 Comments

If you knew nothing about Constitutional law and were watching last night’s Republican presidential “debate,” it would be perfectly reasonable to think Obama was pulling an FDR and running for a third term.

Of course, the 22^nd amendment to the Constitution limits a president from being elected more than twice. But you would never guess that from the many attacks leveled against the President by almost every Republican candidate on the “debate” stage.

Obama is weak on ISIS; Obama doesn’t know how to negotiate; Obama doesn’t understand foreign policy; Obama doesn’t want our country to succeed… blah, blah, blah.

Gov. “Bridgegate,” Chris Christie, launched the night’s best assault on non-candidate Obama. Speaking of our president, at the end of a long tirade, he said, “… and we are going to kick your rear-end out of office this fall.” Of course the conservative, Obama-hating South Carolinian crowd roared with approval at the ludicrous remark.

There were a few moments when Hillary Clinton’s name popped up, but mostly when it was connected to Obama.

For anyone who watched the entire two and one half Fox “debate,” like me, I can only describe it as the closest thing to “cruel and unusual” punishment outside a prison setting. But leave it to Fox to churn out as much ad revenue as possible from what has now become the best, most lucrative realty show on TV.

Many will talk about who won, who lost. It really doesn’t matter at this point. The first primary voting will take place in Iowa on February 1, and the voters will finally have their say; not the pollsters.

I don’t know if President Obama watched the “debate.” Hopefully he had better things to do with his time. But if he caught any of the shameful spectacle, he not doubt had a good laugh or two watching a group of dimwits, none of whom will ever see the inside of the White House, embarrass themselves.

For Republican kingmaker, Rupert Murdoch, he was laughing also… all the way to the bank.

Photo | jamaicatakeout.com

GOP: “Now Obama Wants To Take Away Your Cancer!”

January 14, 2016 By John DeProspo 2 Comments

Obama is at it again! First he took away your right to go without health insurance. Then it was talk of taking away your guns. Now he wants to take away your cancer!

At his final State of the Union address this week, Obama announced a “moonshot” to cure cancer.

“For the loved ones we’ve all lost, for the family we can still save, let’s make America the country that cures cancer once and for all,” said the lame-duck president. Vice-president Joe Biden, whose son Beau died of brain cancer last year, will lead the effort.

Proving once again that Republicans will reflexively oppose any Obama proposal, their criticism was swift and unrelenting.

Presidential candidate, Mike Huckabee, blamed the president for wanting to play god. “If someone is afflicted with cancer, it is God’s will. How dare the president think he can thwart the will of the Almighty!”

Businessman and Republican presidential frontrunner, Donald Trump, attacked Obama’s proposal as a jobs killer. “Do you know how many people rely on cancer for their livelihood? Oncologists, lab technicians, nurses, drug companies, just to name a few. They would be devastated. Republican’s just won’t stand for another Obama power grab.”

One might have thought Obama would have learned his lesson by now. Anything he proposes is verboten. The GOP will simply not agree with, or support, anything that might add to the Obama legacy of significant accomplishments.

“Treating cancer is a business,” said Ted Cruz, echoing Trump’s criticism. “We Republicans are, and will always be, job creators, not job destroyers like those socialist Democrats. We’re not going to let Obama destroy the cancer business like be did healthcare with his disasterous Obamacare.”

Yes, President Obama should have expected the backlash. But this being the final year of his presidency, he is not concerned. Said the president,“I don’t give a …!”

It appears the only proposal Obama could make that might garner Republican support would be a pay raise for Congress.

Sorry Sir, But On This One, You’re Dead Wrong

January 13, 2016 By John DeProspo 6 Comments

In his final State of the Union address last night, President Obama revealed “one of the few regrets” of his time in office.

Having made healing the divisions in Washington a major campaign theme in 2008, the President told the joint session of Congress, “It’s one of the few regrets of my presidency that the rancor and suspicion between the parties has gotten worse instead of better. There’s no doubt a president with the gifts of Lincoln or Roosevelt might have better bridged the divide, and I guarantee I’ll keep trying to be better so long as I hold this office.”

Sorry, Sir, but you are being a bit too hard on yourself. There is no other president I can recall who entered office with the deck so stacked against him. Yes the rancor and vitriol in Washington has gotten much worse since you entered the White House but it is not for your lack of trying. It is simply due to the fact that you are you.

On the same day you were sworn into office, the Republican leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell, bragged about how making your failure would be the Republicans’ primary goal … not creating jobs, or fixing the economy. Said the Minority Leader, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

The blowhard king of conservative talk radio, Rush Limbaugh, speaking of your presidency, told his audience, “I hope he fails.” Of course this helped stir hatred against you from the get go. It didn’t matter that what the faux patriot was saying, in effect,, was that he hoped America failed.

Then you had the official propaganda machine for the Republican Party, Fox News, joining in the battle to portray you as an enemy; an outsider; a loser. Any policy initiative you proposed, they were against… even if Republicans themselves, at one time, had pushed for the same policy proposal. It didn’t matter; if you were for it, Fox and company was against it. It is beyond ironic that the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was a Republican creation!

You had to endure, and still are, the whole “birther” movement against you. You were not eligible to be our president, said the “birthers,” because you were not “one of us.” You were a Kenyan Muslim secretively trying to undermine our great country. It is now more than clear that the whole “birther” nonsense was nothing but a racist reaction to your status as the first African American president of the United States.

No Sir, you need not regret nor blame yourself for the increased animosity in Washington. You had no chance. I dare say not even a Lincoln or FDR could have done better or handled the situation with any more of the calm or grace you’ve exhibited.(The Amazing Grace Of Barack Obama)

You are truly an amazing man. In spite of all the roadblocks, all the hatred, all the malice, you have been able to accomplish so many things for the American people; great things that the visceral hatred of so many will not allow them to see.

Sir, it takes two to tango and your partner (Republicans) refused to dance from the moment the music started playing.

Enjoy your final year in office, Sir. We look forward to many more great things from you.

It’s On To Round Six … The Fun Resumes!

January 12, 2016 By John DeProspo Leave a Comment

The sixth Republican debate and first presidential primary debate of 2016 is scheduled for this Thursday, Jan. 14 in South Carolina at the North Charleston Coliseum and Performing Arts Center. It couldn’t have come soon enough. The country is antsy to resume the good old-fashioned entertainment provided by the Republican lineup of candidates.

It is sad to learn that one of the regulars, Rand Paul, will not make it to the prime time stage, having been relegated to the kids’ table by Fox Business Network. But we did get some excitement from Dr. Paul when he threw a tantrum and announced he would rather skip the debate altogether than share the debate stage with also-rans Huckabee, Fiorina and Santorum. (Rand Paul To GOP … Take Your Kids’ Table And …”)

This is going to be fun! Look for some sparks to fly now that we are actually into the election year. The candidates will be jockeying for position with the first primary contest in Iowa only a few weeks away.

Will any candidate, or moderator for that matter, have the guts to bring up the “birther” issue concerning Cruz? Yes, Fox Business Network is hosting the debate and the questions will most likely revolve around economic, domestic and international policy issues… but what the heck! Why not put Senor Rafael Edward Cruz on the spot?

Once again, it will be a make or break moment for the establishment favorite, Jed Bush. Will he disappoint his donor class … again? You can pretty much bet on it. This year’s angry Republican base wants nothing to do with Bush or any candidate who reeks of experience or even shows a hint of moderation.

Can the insider, Marco Rubio, successfully paint himself as a Washington outsider? With as little time as he spends inside the Beltway, the answer could be “yes!”

Look for Chris Christie to remind us that he was a Federal prosecutor during 9-11 … for the umpteenth time. The fact that Bush didn’t actually nominate him until December 7, 2001, and he did not assume office until early 2002 be damned!

John Kasich will try to bring common sense to the debate stage, but will have little luck. He will, no doubt, get on the moderators for not giving him equal time.

We all hope the good Dr. Carson manages to stay awake for the entire debate. His campaign is sinking faster than the collective IQ of the Republican base.

Did I forget anyone? Oops, Trump and Cruz! Yes, they may go at it, but with the feigned earnestness that comes from their mutual admiration.

Enjoy the show … until the next installment of this long-running comedy series on January 28, in Iowa.

Image by DonkeyHotey via Flickr Creative Commons.

Rand Paul To GOP… “Take Your Kids’ Table And …”

January 12, 2016 By John DeProspo 4 Comments

After being left out of this Thursday night’s prime-time lineup by Fox Business Network, Rand Paul announced he will boycott the debate. He said, as a “top-tier” candidate, he was not going to be relegated to the undercard (kids’ table) debate featuring such also-rans as Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum.

“I won’t debate anything that’s not first-tier, because we have a first-tier campaign,” Paul told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Monday. “What, all of a sudden I’m chopped liver? I’m’ 100% USDA prime, Wolf.”

“This is an absolute travesty,” a Paul campaign spokesman said. “By any reasonable criteria Senator Paul has a top tier campaign. He will not let the media decide the tiers of this race and will instead take his message directly to the voters of New Hampshire and Iowa,”

So, while Fox airs the next Republican debate, Paul will be out on the hustings in an attempt to lift his slumping poll numbers. “He is determined not to be sent to the ‘kids’ table’ for the next debate, scheduled for January 18, in all-important Iowa,” said the campaign spokesman.

When asked if it were a good idea to skip the Thursday debate, even if it meant being placed with the second-tier candidates, Paul said, “This is all bogus, man, no way would I get between Fiorina, Huckabee or Santorum. I blame RNC chair, Reince Priebus, for this travesty.”

Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus said on Fox News that Paul’s anger was misplaced and that he had not even heard from Paul that he would skip the debate. “Rand Paul is ‘a varsity candidate’ that has done very well,” said Priebus,” No one around here considers him a water boy.”

If only more Republican voters felt the same way as Reince then, perhaps, Paul would not be averaging slightly over 2% in Republican national polls.

Photo | thedailybeast.com

My One Question For Each Republican Candidate

January 11, 2016 By John DeProspo 4 Comments

The next Republican presidential debate, hosted by Fox Business Network, will be held this Thursday in North Charleston, South Carolina. Fox has not yet announced it’s field of prime-time “debaters.” While the focus will be on economic, domestic and international policy issues, here are the questions I would ask the likely adult-table candidates:

Donald Trump – “Not much is known about your wife, Melania. How do you think your supporters, especially evangelicals, would react knowing that if you were elected, she would be the first First Lady to have posed nude?”

Ted Cruz – “Why does everyone hate you? Even your old college roommate, Craig Mazin, said,“I would rather have anybody else be the president of the United States. Anyone. I would rather pick somebody from the phone book.”

Ben Carson – “You have said God directed you to run for office. How was this communicated to you; in a dream, phone call or email?

Jeb Bush – “Do you regret not having listened to the words of your mother when her advice to you about running for president was: don’t?”

Marco Rubio – “It has been reported that while in elementary school, you were such a fan of the Osmonds that you formed a tribute singing group with your sister and cousin to entertain relatives. True?”

Chris Christie – “ You have been quoted as saying ‘Yes, I’m a Catholic and I believe in the teachings of the Church, but I’ve used birth control, and not just the rhythm method.’ Have you and Mary Pat used other types of birth control?”

While articles on this site are often satirical, my proposed questions for each of the candidates are based on actual, verifiable facts.

Sometimes it’s just enough to let the facts speak for themselves!

Breaking News – Fox has just announced the lineup for the upcoming debate. John Kasich has made the cut. The full slate of “debaters” will be: Trump, Cruz, Carson Rubio, Christie and Kasich.

Here is my Kasich question:

Kasich – “You’ve often mentioned, in speeches and interviews, you are a good friend of Bono. Would that be Sonny?”

Fox News … National Security Threat?

January 9, 2016 By John DeProspo 4 Comments

A group of concerned citizens has petitioned the FCC to require Fox News Channel to include a warning label on all its TV broadcasts.

“We view Fox News as a national security threat many times greater than ISIS. “ said group leader Jason Banks. “Over the past seventeen years, all that the network has done is distort, misinform, and lie to its viewers. We now have a significant portion of our population suffering brain injury. They live in an alternate universe.”

“Fox News is the number one cause for all the division and fear in our country,” added group member Linda Schmidt. “Fox News is not, and never has been, a legitimate news channel.”

The group has accused Fox News of being nothing more than a project by right-wing propagandist Rupert Murdoch and Republican media strategist Roger Ailes to spread disinformation and promote GOP politicians. And they have carried out that mission with a roster of rabidly partisan hosts broadcasting provable lies.

“The reason we have such a sorry group of Republican politicians these days is all because of Fox. Without Fox News there would be no Trump. That a significant group of Americans hate their government and are arming themselves is due to Fox. Yes, Fox is a threat to our national security. They are the preferred news outlet for gun-carrying, paranoid white racists.”

Jason Banks observed, “Fox’s motto, “fair and balanced,” is pure Orwellian genius. A new Gallup poll exposed Fox News for the fraud that it is by finding that instead of being “fair and balanced,” the cable news leader caters to a viewership that is 94% Republican (Fair and balanced exposed). A more truthful slogan, said Banks, would be “misinformation for the unbalanced.”

While the FCC is the watchdog for consumer deception and fraud, the group admits their chances of getting the agency to force Fox News to display a warning label on all its broadcasts are slim. But they refuse to let the network continue to call itself “news.” Said Banks, “They are entertainment, pure and simple. If this isn’t false advertising, then what is?

Here is the proposed warning label:

Fox News is not a news channel. They are registered as an entertainment network. Any correlation between what is said on its “news programs” and the truth is purely coincidental and unintentional. Watching Fox News over an extended period of time can cause a significant loss in IQ points and can turn you into a government-hating, gun-toting, uniformed bigot. Watch Fox at your peril.

Photo | collegehumor.com

But Wasn’t Obama’s Mother An American Citizen?

January 8, 2016 By John DeProspo 7 Comments

This coming Thursday, January 14, the Fox Business Network will air the next Republican presidential debate, focusing on economic, domestic and international policy issues. I am holding out hope, however, that one of the moderators asks Donald Trump the following question:

“Mr. Trump, some people have raised the issue of Ted Cruz’s eligibility to seek the presidency, most recently Ann Coulter, a supporter of yours. Most legal scholars agree that Mr. Cruz would be eligible to run for president because his mother was an American citizen at the time of his birth in Canada. Do you agree? And if yes, how is Mr. Cruz’s situation any different from that of President Obama whose mother was also an American citizen born in Kansas?”

Trump needs to be put on the spot. If he disagrees, then why hasn’t he, the “king of the birthers,” aggressively gone after Ted Cruz as he did with our President? If he agrees, then why did he push so hard for the President to produce his long form birth certificate? If a candidate’s birth place is not the deciding factor, then President Obama was always eligible for the office … even if he had been born out of the country (which is clearly not the case), like Ted Cruz?

The constitutional requirements for a presidential candidate created by the Founding Fathers are concise but not very clear. Two provisions are obvious: The candidate must be 35 years of age and a resident of the United States for 14 years. The third qualification: He or she must be a “natural born citizen.”

But what does “natural born citizen” mean?

The Supreme Court — the ultimate arbiter of constitutional questions — has never directly ruled on the citizenship provision for presidential office seekers. And that means a note of uncertainty exists. Legal experts agree that a child becomes a “natural born citizen” if either parent is an American citizen, regardless of where the birth takes place.

There have been a number of unsuccessful citizen lawsuits filed over the years on this issue but they have all been dismissed due to lack of standing. About the only way a court would get involved in this “constitutional ambiguity” is if a state, citing Cruz’s Canadian birthplace, tries to exclude him from the ballot, or another presidential candidate challenges Cruz’s eligibility.

Both highly unlikely!

Getting back to Trump, a question such as the one I propose would be very revealing. If he truly thinks Cruz’s Canadian birth disqualifies him from office, why has he not championed this issue as he did with Obama? If he agrees with the accepted legal understanding that Cruz is a “natural born citizen” because his mother was an American citizen, why did he fight so hard for Obama to prove he was born in the United States… if it doesn’t matter?

It is more than obvious to most people with at least half a brain that the whole “birther” movement was, and is, nothing but a racist reaction to Obama’s status as the first African American president of the United States.

Now if old Jeb wanted to do something useful, he as a plaintiff with standing, should ask a court to weigh in on this important issue, once and for all.