It’s time to Break It Down!

Believe it or not, I really am going to go beyond what must appear to be my inexplicable fascination with the kudzu of a phenomenon that is D.J. Trump and his seemingly Svengali-like master mining and domination of Republican Party Presidential politics. Honest. But not before I take one more peek behind the curtain at the new and improved Wizard…and this is not of Oz, if you know what I mean.

Things became so bad that last week Mitt Romney delivered a planned (pre-released to the media) statement under the general heading of Trump is a fraud, annotated with a host of historical facts and implications referencing the Donald’s failed enterprises, his bait and switch initiative that appears tailor-made to hoodwink a gullible American electorate, and of course a notion that has emerged as a staple if not favorite GOP Establishment go-to chorus, Donald Trump is not a conservative.

Pause. Stop laughing. Cease rolling around on the floor. Pick my azz up and get back to my keyboard. On its face, this may not equate to Reefer Madness, but it is some of the funniest schiznit I have heard in…well, forever.

Why is that you may ask. There are too many reasons to articulate in this post alone, but I’ll share enough for you to get the general point.

Oh my, where do I begin? Let me start with the end. Consider that Willard “Mitt” Romney took to a podium in the official capacity of GOP (Establishment) Spokesman. Say what?

All things considered, that in and of itself is one heck-of-a mouthful. Considering Mitt was the architect of the GOP’s last failed attempt to wrest the White House away from those “dastardly” Democrats, doubling down, even to seek advice and counsel from him seems more than a little odd. Perhaps the only thing imaginable that would be stranger, not to add funnier, and borderline pathetic, would be for Mitt to have delivered his statement jointly with John McCain, President Obama’s other vanquished foe. But I digress.

Now back to Mitt, the emerging Elder Statesman of the Grand Old Party. The candidate of 47%, of Binders of women, of Corporations are people, of Romneycare (that was Obamacare…before Obamacare), and most notably the candidate who lost a plethora of critical voting demographics; so many that his loss to President Obama was virtually signed, sealed, and delivered. How bad was Mr. Romney’s showing? It was so bad that Team GOP conducted a post election audit, and in doing so found that the Party needed to fundamentally re-invent its approach to Presidential election politics.

As we enter the sunset of the Obama era Presidency, it is worth revisiting the areas in which President Obama bested business mogul and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

Source: Exit polls conducted by Edison Research of Somerville, New Jersey, for the National Election Pool, a consortium of ABC News, Associated Press, CBS News, CNN, Fox News,^[139] and NBC News.^[140] Total vote and results by region are based on the “Votes by state” section of this article.

Taking a look at the categories above, let’s zero in on a number of specific categories:

Total Vote – Obama 51%                                Romney – 47

Liberals – Obama 86%                                             Romney – 11

Moderates – Obama 56%                               Romney – 41

Democrats – Obama 93%                               Romney – 7%

Women – Obama 55%                                             Romney – 44%

Non-Married Men – Obama 56%                     Romney – 40%

Non-Married Women – Obama 67%               Romney – 31%

Black – Obama 93%                                       Romney – 6%

Asian – Obama 73%                                       Romney – 26%

Hispanic – Obama 71%                                   Romney – 27%

Other – Obama 58%                                       Romney – 38%

Catholic – Obama 50%                                            Romney – 48%

Jewish – Obama 69%                                     Romney – 30%

Other Religion – Obama 74%                         Romney – 23%

No Religion – Obama 70%                             Romney – 26%

Few Times/Month – Obama 55%                    Romney – 44%

Few Times/Year – Obama 56%                       Romney – 42%

Never – Obama 62%                                       Romney – 34%

Non-White Evangel. – Obama 60%                 Romney – 37%

18-24 Years Old – Obama 60%                      Romney – 36%

25-29 Years Old – Obama 60%                      Romney – 38%

30-39 Years Old – Obama 55%                      Romney – 42%

Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual – Obama 76%              Romney – 22%

Heterosexual – Obama 49%                                    Romney – 49%

Non High School Grads – Obama 64%                   Romney – 35%

High School Graduate – Obama 51%             Romney – 48%

Some College Education – Obama 49%                 Romney – 48%

Postgraduate Education – Obama – 55%       Romney – 42%

Under $30,000 – Obama 63%                         Romney – 35%

30K – $49,999 – Obama 57%                          Romney – 42%

Northeast – Obama 59%                                 Romney – 39%

Midwest – Obama 51%                                   Romney – 47%

West – Obama 54%                                        Romney – 43%

Big Cities (500K+) – Obama 69%                    Romney – 29%

Mid-Sized Cities (50K to 500K) – Obama 58%         Romney – 40%

Keep in mind this (2012) was a Presidential Election in which Mr. Romney endeavored to paint the Obama economy as trenchantly slow to improve, to frame the Affordable Care Act (Romneycare before it was Obamacare) as failed and costly government intervention, to characterize American Foreign Policy as feckless and ineffective, to describe the administration’s immigration policy as both costly and pandering, to suggest the President’s Same-sex marriage initiative as a tack that would destroy the American Culture, and to propose eliminating the minimum wage (which President Obama campaigned to increase). There were other issues of note, to be sure, but those items above include a litany of items that Team Romney attempted to use as a club with which to batter the Obama Administration/Campaign on a daily basis. It didn’t work; hence the Republican National Committee’s audit and recommendations to reinvent itself ahead of the 2016 Election.

To cast Mitt Romney in the role of the long arm of the GOP law, tasked with brandishing his Light Saber and coming to the rescue in order to rid the political Galaxy of the Darth Vader that is Trump, no matter your political affiliation or ideology, that is just bordering on the jagged edges of sheer disbelief. Yet, that is the space in which the GOP Establishment finds itself, for all practical purposes, desperate for the Establishment Empire to Strike Back.

Despite the perceived strange nature of the individual selected to deliver the message, there is evidence that the effort has some degree of resonance. Of the four states up for grabs in GOP balloting this past weekend, Ted Cruz bagged Kansas and Maine, while Donald Trump claimed Louisiana and Kentucky. Both declared victory, and in fact, were winners, of sorts. Cruz was able to continue claiming he is the only candidate poised to trump Trump (as Rubio and Kasich trail badly, and Carson conceded he sees no path forward), while Trump continued to amass delegates and hold on to his overall lead.

Last night, the battle continued. Mississippi, Michigan, Idaho, and Hawaii voted yesterday. At the time this post was released, Trump had secured victories in Mississippi and Michigan; Idaho went to Ted Cruz.  Trump, Rubio, and Kasich (in that order) trailed.  Hawaii’s returns came in late due to its Time Zone.  For the Keepers of the Flame (of the ranks of the GOP Establishment), more bad news. Trump won easily!

So to summarize the theme of the day, dismiss the all the protest messaging of the GOP that suggests that everything is OK. The Party may not be in disarray; that’s true. But there is every reason to believe, based upon ample evidence, the panic button has been pressed. Any argument to the contrary is pure unadulterated wishful thinking…or worse…read that falsifying the facts. The bottom line here is the Party handlers and message makers do not want Donald Trump to represent the GOP in this fall’s general election. At this point, that is exactly what at least a plurality of those voting are making perfectly clear, more often than not. To wit, what we are witnessing is, “The (GOP) Empire Strikes Back, or…Developing a Systematic, if Late-to-the-Party, Strategy to Contain Donald J. Trump!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com.

Find a new post each Wednesday.

To subscribe, click on Follow in the bottom right hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.” Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.

 Consult the links below for more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-35717888

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012

http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/03/07/mitt-romney-files-fec-paperwork-to-run-in-2016-election/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/seeing-trump-as-vulnerable-gop-elites-now-eye-a-contested-convention/2016/03/07/976d2c62-e487-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_headlines

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/video/mitt-romney-to-gop-dont-pick-donald-trump/vi-BBqiMSK

http://www.gallup.com/poll/154559/US-Presidential-Election-Center.aspx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney

http://www.ontheissues.org/Mitt_Romney.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/08/politics/primary-election-results-live-updates/index.html

It’s time to Break It Down!

For all practical purposes, Team GOP has become the Party of Trump. If you believe the voters rather than the oft-rehearsed lines of the Party apparatus, numerous operatives, the still-in-denial Party Establishment, and the voices of the Right Wing chattering class, all of whom have much to lose by being too closely identified with the angry (his word, not mine) New York billionaire, Donald J. Trump, you believe, as I do, that Mr. Trump is towering over the remainder of the Republican field of candidates seeking to secure the Party’s nomination for President. He did so when there was a crowded field of 17 candidates, and despite the arbiters of conventional wisdom who argued enthusiastically that he and his energetic movement would dissolve like the Wicked Witch of the West when doused by water if only the field would thin out, and he does now. That was 12 suspended campaigns ago, or more than two-thirds of the candidates in the original field. I’m sure I don’t need to tell you, with only 5 candidates remaining in contention for the GOP Nomination, DJ Trump is still kicking asterisks and taking names.

Yesterday was Super Tuesday, a day in which 11 states conducted Primary Elections or Caucuses. They include:

• Alabama (Trump)
• Georgia (Trump)
• Massachusetts (Trump)
• Tennessee (Trump)
• Virginia (Trump)
• Arkansas (Trump)
• Vermont (Trump)
• Alaska (Expected Trump)
• Texas (Cruz)
• Oklahoma (Cruz)
• Minnesota (Rubio)

Of those states, Donald Trump was projected the winner as soon as the polls closed in Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, and Massachusetts; Virginia was quickly added, Arkansas and Vermont were declared in his category by 11:00-11:30 p.m. Eastern. At that time Senator Ted Cruz had claimed his home state of Texas, and neighboring Oklahoma. Around the same time, Senator Marco Rubio claimed victory in Minnesota; his first win of the campaign season.  The last state to be decided, Alaska, was still counting ballots as this post went to press.

A month or two ago, Trump, full of confidence and the swagger borne of his own success opined that his mojo was so robust he could stand in the middle of 5^th Avenue (NYC) and shoot someone, and he would not lose votes. He repeated this forebodingly braggadocios boast again in recent weeks. Of course, no one but no one ever mistook Donald Trump for a shrinking violet. He’s been and remains the one candidate who never ducks a hot mic. He has also “almost” never been found lacking for answers, regardless of the question…or the factually verifiable nature of his replies.

This weekend however, the Donald, mystifyingly, broke his own protocol. In an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper this past Sunday, Trump “blinked.” When asked if he would disavow white supremacist David Duke, who endorsed Mr. Trump, the New Yorker lost his normal bravado and claimed not to be familiar with Duke, and said he’d have to research the question in order to provide an informed response. Aside from the fact no one ever recalls such a non-response response from Trump, he had, on several instances in the past, distanced himself from Mr. Duke. The more cynical among us deduced that the fact the question was posed just two days prior to Super Tuesday when 7 Southern States, many of which have a significant Duke following, would be voting had a lot, if not everything to do with Trump’s tightly crafted and sanitized answer. I’m not saying that’s my opinion. I’ll leave it to you to draw your own conclusion. I will however suggest if a smell test were applied, the odds of that reply passing would be slim.

A day later, Mr. Trump would endeavor to clarify his response, saying his earpiece was faulty, and he didn’t understand the question. Never mind that Mr. Trump has previously pulled excuses out of his repertoire when he flubbed a question. In September Hugh Hewitt of the Salem Radio Network in a foreign policy discussion with Trump asked a question about the Quds, and Trump answered about the Kurds. Trump cried foul and claimed it was a “Gotcha Question.” This of course totally dismisses the fact Mr. Hewitt was conducting an interview and posing questions on foreign policy to a man “who would be President.” Gotcha? I got your gotcha. GTFOOH!

But let’s not lose the lesson. As I suggested last week, Donald Trump is approaching political bulletproof status. One need go no further than recognizing that DJ Trump is an individual who has:

• Characterized most Mexicans entering the United States as rapists
• Promised to build a wall separating our two countries and “make Mexico pay for it”
• Declared John McCain is not a war hero
• Called Senator Lindsey Graham weak and ineffectual
• Dubbed Jeb Bush low energy
• Referred to Ted Cruz as the biggest liar ever
• Said Marco Rubio was “sweating like a dog”
• Suggested he would ban Muslims from entering the country and deport all illegal aliens
• Insisted he saw thousands of Muslims celebrating in New Jersey after 9/11
• Dissed Fox News analyst Megyn Kelly and attacked Carly Fiorina’s looks

While that may not be a Top 10, it is certainly a significant sample. But then, even if it were a Top 10, at least one of those items would have to be displaced by the recent David Duke row. Last night, as he gave remarks after acknowledging his 5 Primary victories (up to that time), in response to a direct question, he firmly and repeatedly disavowed David Duke and hate groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), though he never referred to either Duke or the Klan by name. It took far too long, but in bulletproof fashion, better late than never.

The GOP brain trust wants greatly to diminish and/or dismiss any thoughts that Trump will prevail, and to at nearly all costs distance itself from his brand. To all my friends and associates who happen to be Republicans, you have missed your opportunity. That is not to say with 100% certainty that Donald Trump will capture the Republican Nomination. But make no mistake about it, the closest thing the GOP has to a presumptive nominee is DJ Trump. Like it or not, it is what it is.

This is where things get interesting. In the erstwhile smoke-filled rooms (very few interior spaces permit smoking these days), and back alleyways of Republicandom, operatives, bundlers, the Party apparatus, and a host of bigwigs and muckety-mucks are huddled and feverishly conferencing and negotiating on pathways to derail the Trump Express. Party officials deny it, of course, but back channel conversations always leak the obvious. This is happening even as a number of Party moguls and celebrities, reluctantly, or strategically, you decide, are lining up to endorse Trump.

To date, that list includes former GOP Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, former Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, Liberty University President Jerry Falwell, Jr., and NASCAR Chairman and CEO, Brian France (So much for that NASCAR Diversity Initiative). It does not include the aforementioned David Duke…but he has endorsed Mr. Trump. On an aside, Jon Huntsman, Jr., former Ambassador to Singapore, and the 16^th Governor of Utah, has stated he would likely support Trump were he to become the Party’s nominee.

During his comments last night, Ted Cruz, who has won a total of 3 states (Iowa, Texas, and Oklahoma) all but urged Marco Rubio and the other candidates to get out of the race because, he is the only one who has beaten Trump 3 times, and the only one who can beat him for the nomination. Rubio, who won Minnesota last night, for his part indicated that he is continuing to accrue delegates, and intends to continue for the foreseeable future. Translation: You get out. No, you get out. Advantage Trump.

All things considered, if anyone other than Trump had amassed the metrics he has by now, the race would be declared over. To summarize, of the fifteen contests held to date, Rubio has won once, while Cruz has prevailed three times.  That means Donald Trump has amassed eleven victories, presuming Alaska holds to projected form. Of course, Given Sarah Palin’s endorsement it would be quite the irony if Donald Trump did not win the day in “The Last Frontier.” The estimated Delegate Count per candidate after yesterday’s results is, Trump – 274, Cruz – 149, Rubio – 82, Katich – 25, and Carson – 8.  The total required to clinch the Nomination is 1,237 Delegates; happy hunting.

You can believe it, or you can do your best ostrich imitation and stick your head in the sand. Alas, to do so is quite simply to fool yourself. That’s your choice; I ain’t gonna be mad atcha. When all is said and done, what you are left with is…”An Inconvenient Truth The GOP Refuses To Openly Admit!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com.

Find a new post each Wednesday.

To subscribe, click on Follow in the bottom right hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.” Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.

 Consult the links below for more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/02/29/3754695/trump-fox-news-juan-williams/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tptop3&utm_term=3&utm_content=13&elqTrackId=587e75f6ee924390873f8ec58bdd739d&elq=14cdc4ced805466abf60a8b9d2deee7d&elqaid=29325&elqat=1&elqCampaignId=5143

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/super-tuesday-states-219886

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/03/politics/donald-trump-gotcha-question-terrorist-leaders-hugh-hewitt/index.html

http://www.inquisitr.com/2655426/donald-trumps-largest-tall-tales-of-2015-republican-presidential-hopeful-named-king-of-whoppers/

http://www.cnn.com/specials/politics/super-tuesday-2016

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Hewitt

https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=A0LEVi4JUdZWdS8AKjgPxQt.;_ylu=X3oDMTBzdDByNmd0BGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNyZWw-?p=trump+on+marco+rubio+sweating+video&type=mcy_coin02_15_12_sa&param1=yhsbeacon&param2=f%3D2%26b%3DSafari%26cc%3DUS%26p%3Dmcyahoo%26cd%3D2XzuyEtN2Y1L1QzutCtDyEtBtC0DyCyEtGzztAyC0AtGyD0CzyyCtGzz0A0DtDtGzztAzztCyEyB0B0C0BtDyEtBtN1L1G1B1V1N2Y1L1Qzu0D0CyE0B0B0C0D0EtGzyzz0DyDtGyE0EyD0BtGzzyCtDtAtG0B0EtC0E0DzztCyByBtDtD0AtN1Q2Zzu0StCtCyByDtN1L2XzutAtFyDtFtDtFtCtDtN1L1Czu%26cr%3D1984512836%26a%3Dmcy_coin02_15_12_sa&hsimp=yhs-fullyhosted_011&hspart=iry&ei=UTF-8&fr2=rs-top&fr=sfp

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_candidates,_2016

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/01/politics/super-tuesday-results-live-updates/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/22/politics/jon-huntsman-donald-trump-david-axelrod/?iid=ob_article_footer_expansion&iref=obinsite

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump

http://www.nytimes.com/?action=click&contentCollection=U.S.&region=TopBar&module=HomePage-Title&pgtype=article

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/28/politics/donald-trump-jeff-sessions-endorsement/index.html

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/24/donald-trump-secures-congressional-endorsements/

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/chris-christie-endorses-donald-trump-219861

http://www.autoblog.com/2016/03/01/donald-trump-nascar-endorsements/

http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/aaron-carter-endorses-donald-trump-for-president-responds-to-fans-on-twitter-w165506

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/26/evangelical-leader-jerry-falwell-jr-endorses-trump/

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-donald-trump-endorsement-sarah-palin-20160119-story.html

It’s time to Break It Down!

As a casual observer of the American body politic, and a fascinated on-looker of what on it’s face appears to be one of the most rambunctious political seasons in recent memory, I am increasingly amazed that my initial characterization of the so-called Trump phenomenon continues to resonate as on point. In mid-June when Trump announced his Presidential Campaign and immediately began denigrating Mexicans, he was rewarded by quickly rocketing to the top of the charts so to speak, as far as GOP poll numbers are concerned. It was about that time I predicted that this guy might just shock the world and go on to capture the GOP Nomination.

That was then, and it was early. Most of my friends discounted my assessment as just my normal tendency to expect the worst of evils to prevail in political contests (because too many folks cede to apathy and opt out of voting). If my friends provided a counterbalance with a personal touch, based on their own insights about me, the professional pundit class offered the objective and expert opinion that Mr. Trump’s soaring arc of popularity was just a fleeting matter that would soon come to an end.

That is what they said after he deemed Mexicans raping marauders. They were wrong. That is what they said when he said Senator John McCain was not a war hero. They were wrong. That is what they said when he broadcast Senator Lindsey Graham’s cell phone number on live TV. They were wrong. That is what they said when he, without documentation or authentication, claimed he saw thousands of Muslims cheering in New Jersey after 9/11. They were wrong. That is what they said when he had a Hispanic journalist removed from one of his rallies. They were wrong. That is what they said when he placed second in the Iowa Caucuses after having led in the polls right up to the day of the Caucuses. They were wrong.

I could go on, but I think you get the point. After failing to win the Iowa Caucuses, where he finished second, Donald Trump has rebounded by winning the next three states, including two Primaries, and one set of Caucuses. There are many ways to frame this, and the candidates undoubtedly do that more creatively than I ever could.

In Iowa, Marco Rubio, who finished third, responded with a series of news conferences and media spots that led Ted Cruz to point out the misplaced self-promotion and ensuing media adulation bestowed upon the third place finisher, while, in his view, ignoring the winner (himself). But this GOP-i-fied new math was not only a factor in Iowa. Last night Ted Cruz finished third in Nevada and all but declared victory. He boasted that his campaign is the only campaign to beat Donald Trump in the first four contests, and he further asserted that his campaign is the only campaign than can beat Donald Trump. that is true, but, so what?  On this particular night, he did not beat Donald Trump.  In fact, he is now on a three contest losing streak, finishing third in each case, twice behind Rubio, and once behind Kasich.  I suppose turnabout really is fair play.  LOL!

An interesting thing has happened as the GOP contest unfolds. All those folks who have been so consistently wrong about the projection of a soon to be faltering Donald Trump includes the Party Establishment. I’m not a Republican, and while I may not be the most astute of political observers…I am still a political observer.

What have I observed? Alexander Pope said, “Hope springs eternal in the human breast.” I have seen Republicans hope against hope that Trump’s star would fade. Time marches on; now there are those whom, no longer content to merely hope, are poised to take matters into their own hands and try to alter the operational dynamics of the Party’s multiple campaigns. For weeks now, there have been rumblings that the field must narrow in order to promote a redistribution of voters to candidates other than DJ Trump. A large swath of conventional wisdom has held for some time, that if candidates drop out, their votes will go to one of the establishment candidates, e.g., Bush, Cruz, Kasich, or Rubio.

The problem with conventional wisdom frequently is, very often it proves not to be particularly wise. Take this conversation for example. In the last couple of weeks, several GOP candidates have dropped out of the race, including Carly Fiorina, Chris Christie, and Jeb Bush. Conventional wisdom, at least as practiced by all those folks who urged those candidates to get out so the remaining candidates could contain Trump, got an unceremonious comeuppance last night. The GOP field, which stands at just more than a third of its original number, was greeted by some stunning metrics last night.

Absent roughly 10 candidates, Trump’s numbers didn’t weaken; they strengthened. The punditry has loudly and frequently repeated the trope that Trump was only able to garner 25% to 30% of the vote. They insisted that when the field narrowed, the traditional candidates would emerge stronger and Trump would subsequently fade.

Earlier this week, Trump scoffed at that notion and declared that he would get his share of those voters. Score one for the Donald. Nevada may or may not be like anywhere else, but it’s fair to say, they showed Donald Trump the love. In the Nevada Caucuses, he earned roughly 45% of the vote. So much for 25% to 30%. In fact, he didn’t just outperform the artificial ceiling placed upon him by the pundit class, he smashed the measuring stick. His numbers, well over 40%, approached those of Rubio and Cruz combined, both of whom finished in the 20’s.

Let me be clear, the race for the GOP Presidential Nomination is by no means over. While I’m giving them a fair amount of grief, the pundits and experts still have an opportunity to be right. But make no mistake about it, the clock is running and Trump continues to defy the odds. The next plank in the conventional wisdom theories holds that for Trump to be slowed or stopped, either Cruz or Rubio must exit the race. Key races are approaching. There is reason to believe Cruz could, if not should, win Texas, where he is a sitting Senator. Likewise, Rubio has a shot in Florida, where he serves as a Senator. Super Tuesday is around the corner, just six days away. The GOP Establishment appears to be leaning toward Rubio, instead of the often irascible, even to his own Party, Cruz.

I write all that to say, the fun is just getting started. However, if the GOP Establishment doesn’t get a handle on it’s Trump “problem,” which admittedly, his supporters view in a quite different light, they will have to come to grips with an undeniably victorious Donald Trump, whose best quote from last night’s speech was, as he noted the demographics he won, said, “We won with the poorly educated; I love the poorly educated.”

I bet he does! But I’m going to leave that right there, because as easy as it may be to take off on that, he won lots of demographics, including the well educated, but perhaps most notably, the Latino population. I’m just gonna leave that there for you to cogitate upon.  But it did not end there either.  Trump won every major demographic except for voters under 30…which accounted for less than 8% of the turnout.

That’s about it. Four contests are in the books. “Act IV, Scene I: Nevadans Bet Big on Trump!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com.

Find a new post each Wednesday.

To subscribe, click on Follow in the bottom right hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.” Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.

 Consult the links below for more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_candidates,_2016

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/23/politics/nevada-republican-caucuses-live-updates/index.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/23/politics/nevada-republican-caucus-results/index.html?section=money_news_international

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/23/politics/nevada-caucus-republican-problems/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/22/politics/marco-rubio-nevada-caucus-strategy/index.html

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/primaries/results/nevada

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/24/us/politics/nevada-caucus-gop.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

http://news.yahoo.com/trump-wins-nevada-gop-caucuses-050435455.html;_ylt=A0LEVvJcXs1WXUgAnXQPxQt.;_ylu=X3oDMTByMDgyYjJiBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw–

http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_29554062/nevada-gop-caucuses-trump-notches-another-win-rubio-bids-elbow-past-cruz?source=rss

http://fox59.com/2016/02/24/trump-wins-nevada-caucus-cnn-projects/

It’s time to Break It Down!

Saturday, February 13, 2016 may be a day that will reverberate throughout the entire 2016 Presidential Election Season. It was on that day that an official in Presidio County, Texas, Cinderela Guevara, declared Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dead of natural causes. Shortly after that pronouncement, a cacophony of Republican voices emerged suggesting, subtly in some cases, emphatically in others, that the Senate would not consider any nominee that President Obama might put forward to fill the seat formerly held by the late Justice.

The Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, said the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next justice, (and oh, by the way, he implied electing President Obama twice did not qualify to meet that standard); he added the vacancy should not be filled until after a new President is elected. The Majority Leader’s opining was swift and sure, coming about an hour after the Justice’s death was confirmed.

The timing was propitious in that it occurred prior to last Saturday evening’s GOP Debate in Greenville, South Carolina. Following the cues of the Senate Leader, each of the last six men standing in the GOP race (some would argue, to the bottom) for the Presidential nomination opted to protest even the idea of President Obama selecting another nominee for the High Court.

But it did not stop with them. The siren, or if you prefer, dog whistle call circulated around and throughout the GOP universe, especially in the all-important realm of the Senate. A number of Republican Senators weighed in on the subject, including:

Senator Orrin Hatch, Utah – A member of the Judiciary Committee, and potential candidate for The Supreme Court (presumably by a Republican President). Yesterday he said, “There’s no need to bring forth a nominee to succeed Justice Scalia in the politically charged environment of a presidential election year.” He further argued that “The Constitution doesn’t say that you have to do this in a certain constraint,” in comments made to CNN.

Senator Rob Portman, Ohio – He said, “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the court for generations.” (Again, I note, the people have spoken, twice!)

Senator Pat Toomey, Pennsylvania – Mr. Toomey said, “Obama insists that he will nominate someone for the court. He certainly has the authority to do so. But let’s be clear – his nominee will be rejected by the Senate.”  Alrighty then!

Senator Ted Cruz, Texas – One of the GOP’s leading Presidential Candidates elevated filling Scalia’s vacant seat the centerpiece of his campaign.  I guess it’s on now.

On paper, this is a battle the GOP is positioned to win. Their role in considering Supreme Court nominations is advice and consent. Of course, they do not have to approve the nominee. The Senate Judiciary Committee is currently composed of 20 members. Of that number, 11 are Republicans, 9 are Democrats. This is the Committee charged with holding confirmation hearings, and voting whether to send the nominee to the full Senate. The GOP also holds an overall Senate majority, 54-46. As such, Democrats have the unenviable, conceivably impossible task of persuading 14 Republicans to join them in breaking what is sure to be a filibuster.

The math is actually the simple part of the looming decisions on this question. The political calculus is also significant. Control of the Senate will be determined by the outcome of November’s elections. Democrats view Ohio (Portman), Pennsylvania (Toomey), New Hampshire (Kelly Ayotte), and Wisconsin (Ron Johnson) as states the Party can possibly flip in November. As a result, they are highlighting the GOP Senator’s call to wait until next year…and the next President. For example, Ted Strickland, an Ohio Democrat has produced a funding appeal that emphasizes Senator Portman’s position. In it he said:

Senator Portman “has a clear choice to make: He can look out for his Party and D.C. special interests by holding back President Obama’s nominee, or he can do his job for the people of Ohio.

On the other side of the aisle, Democrats had their own observations and tacks. They unfolded a little something like this:

Governor Maggie Hassan, New Hampshire – She criticized Senator Ayotte, arguing that President Obama’s Constitutional right to nominating a replacement is not suspended in his last year in office.

Three Pennsylvania Democrats challenged Toomey and railed against partisanship over Senatorial responsibility. It is clear we face another example of the partisan divide that has shadowed the Obama Presidency.

Senator Dick Durbin, Illinois, Number 2 Democrat in the Senate – Durban notes, “Senate Republicans continue to think that governing is as simple as being against President Obama at every turn. It’s not, and the American people deserve better leadership than they’re getting with this Congress.”

As the early days in the wake of Justice Scalia’s demise pass, Democrats appear to be intent upon trying to pressure the Senate Majority Leader to allow a nominee to move forward. Thus far Senator McConnell has shown no evidence he is likely to relent from his initial position, expressed shortly after the death of Justice Scalia was announced.

A number of the conservative groups that exulted in satisfaction at having had a hand in forcing GOP Speaker of the House John Boehner to step down have questioned Senator McConnell’s loyalty, and insisted that he remain firm in his commitment.  We will see.

Michael Needham, Heritage Action – “Senator McConnell is right. Under no circumstance should the Republican Senate majority confirm a Supreme Court nominee as Americans are in the midst of picking the next president. Republican rhetoric condemning President Obama’s willful disregard for the rule of law will ring hollow if they do confirm a nominee.”

In the overarching picture, Republicans and Democrats have argued over the Senate’s production, or lack thereof this year. Any potential action on trade and/or criminal justice reform looks more unlikely than ever. However, the President’s allies are endeavoring to make it clear that if the GOP chooses to ignore or delay the President’s nominee, they will accuse the GOP majority of obstruction, thus framing a salient argument in their case to retake the Senate. It’s safe to say, this will be chess, not checkers.

For his part, President Obama has lifted Justice Scalia’s legal philosophy and injected it squarely into the debate. The Constitutional scholar committed to follow the words and “original intent” of the Constitution by choosing an indisputably qualified nominee. He is flatly rejecting the calls of the GOP to leave the selection to his successor.

The President said he was amused by those members of the GOP who call themselves strict interpreters of the Constitution, and who were citing unwritten precedent about not confirming justices during an election year…in order to justify their position. He went on to say:

“It’s pretty hard to find that in the Constitution. The Constitution is pretty clear about what is supposed to happen now.” To put a finer point on the conversation, the President said, “I expect there to be hearings. I expect there to be a vote. Full stop.” The President made those comments yesterday shortly after two key Senate Republicans expressed some level of doubt about the Majority Leader’s suggestion that there should be no nomination process during an election year.

Some experts noted GOP leaders might have made a tactical error that could incite a public backlash. Republican Senator Charles Grassley, Iowa, head of the Judiciary Committee indicated he might be open to holding hearings on an Obama nominee. He added he’d wait until after the nominee is revealed before deciding on the ultimate course of action.

Thom Tillis, Republican, North Carolina, warned his GOP colleagues that if they rejected the President’s nominee, sight unseen, they might actually be rightly called obstructionist. I suppose time is an arbiter of perspective, even for Republicans.

On Saturday evening Grassley had said it was “standard practice” to not confirm new Supreme Court justices in an election year. He said:

“It only makes sense that we defer to the American people who will elect a new president” in November. I’m sure it is more than somewhat significant that legal experts have cited over half a dozen instances since 1900 in which justices were confirmed during an election year.

Ironically, Senator Grassley was one of the 97 Senators who voted unanimously to confirm Justice Anthony M. Kennedy in February 1988, which just happened to be the last year of the Reagan Presidency. There is considerable speculation not just on whom the President will nominate, but on whether the individual will be a moderate or a liberal. Quite naturally, neither the current Judiciary Committee, nor the Senate would confirm a liberal. However, refusal to confirm the President’s nominee might be used to create a spike in Democratic voters this fall. There may actually be some motivation to take this route because the truth is, the GOP, even if they hold hearings is not likely to approve an Obama nominee, on GP, even if that person were deemed a moderate.  IJS!

So, what has already been shaping up as an unpredictable election season just received an added wrinkle. We knew the Executive Branch was up for grabs and there would be a new President next January. Now it looks likely the Legislative Branch may get caught up in the winds of change, as the Senate appears to be in play. Finally, whether this year or next, there will be a new Justice added to the Supreme Court. In the super unlikely event President Obama prevails and his nominee is confirmed, or if not, but a Democrat is elected in November, the majority on the High Court will change hands from Right leaning to Centrist or Left leaning. We have truly reached “Another Level: All Three Branches of Government in Play!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com.

Find a new post each Wednesday.

To subscribe, click on Follow in the bottom right hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.” Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.

 Consult the links below for more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin_Scalia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_McConnell

http://www.mprnews.org/story/2016/02/13/mcconnel-obama-scalia-replacement

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/16/politics/barack-obama-antonin-scalia-replacement/index.html

http://www.sltrib.com/home/3543422-155/senate-gop-to-obama-dont-bother

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/15/us/politics/gop-debate-highlights.html?_r=0

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/mitch-mcconnell-antonin-scalia-supreme-court-nomination-219248

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/13/10987814/obama-republicans-scalia

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/13/10987112/scalia-replacement-republicans

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2016/02/14/bush-on-blocking-a-potential-replacement-for-justice-scalia-its-up-to-mitch-mcconnell-it-is-not-important-to-me/

It’s time to Break It Down!

Another week, another election; we are now in full swing. Yesterday the state of New Hampshire held the first Primary of the Election Season. Last week’s voting in Iowa comprised a series of Caucuses for both Parties. During those Caucuses the favorites were challenged, and upset in one case, winning by fractions of a percentage in the other.

Donald Trump led in the polling in Iowa right up to Election Day last Monday. Ted Cruz eclipsed him in an upset, winning by 4 percentage points. Hillary Clinton led Bernie Sanders, but given the margin of error, was in a statistical tie. The results mirrored the polls, as Clinton won by mere hundreds of a percentage point, both candidates garnering over 49% of the vote.

Last night, the polling favorites not only held their serve, they dominated the election results. In a race that still includes numerous candidates in New Hampshire (28 candidates on the Democratic side, 30 on the Republican side), Bernie Sanders was leading his primary rival, Hillary Clinton, by 20 percentage points, 59% to 39%, with 39% of precincts reporting. On the GOP side, Trump, who has a greater number of serious rivals compiled an even more substantial lead, more than doubling second place finisher John Kasich, and nearly tripling third place finisher Ted Cruz, 34%, 16%, and 12%.

If before the Election Season ensued, anyone had suggested that a political neophyte and an Independent running as a Democratic Socialist would capture a second place finish and a first place finish for the two major political party’s first two elections of the Season, no savvy political observer would have believed the person suggesting that was sane, and certainly not correct. Yet, here we are; that is precisely what has happened.

So all of a sudden, summer and fall have given way to winter, and the time for hollow speculating is over; we are now taking names and counting votes. The notion of those “wild and crazy” guys, Sanders and Trump, falling by the wayside has been vanquished.

Mr. Trump who boasts that he is self-funded, but who benefits daily from free media, undoubtedly valued at more than most candidates could afford to purchase, has the wherewithal to stay in the fray as long as he chooses. Senator Sanders, who early on drew very little notoriety, and very long odds, has grown his campaign immeasurably, and sparked a national fundraising apparatus that rivals or exceeds at this point in time that of former Senator Barack Obama in 2008. His millions of donors have enabled him to take funding the campaign off the list of things he needs to be concerned about in the near term. These two upstarts will not be exiting the field of candidates anytime soon.

Senator Clinton, who was the odds on favorite on the Democratic side, and who still leads in national polling, though by a much slimmer margin than at the outset, knows that she is in a race that could unfold much differently than she had anticipated. Without question, her campaign feels that the demographic dynamics are about to shift in their favor, and they may well do so.

Next on the list of Primary States is South Carolina, a state where 50% or more of the voting population may be comprised of minorities. This traditionally has been the meat and potatoes of the Clinton campaign machinery. However, Senator Sanders has been upping his game, as it were, in his pursuit of key demographic components of the Obama Coalition, including young voters, women, and yes, African Americans. While I am not convinced that he will win the African American demographic, he clearly has made major inroads with women and young voters. This has to be a major concern to Team Clinton, and you can believe it has them going back to the drawing board.

The phenomenon that is Trump has proved to be a major disruption in GOP establishment circles. It is necessary to consider though, that if you read the tea leaves associated with GOP polling and elections, the establishment is currently considered a big part of, if not the problem itself. So as candidates like Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich hone their individual campaign strategy for handling/dealing with Donald Trump, they must also scramble to ascertain their place in the Party Scrum, better known as the GOP Debates.

In the last debate, Chris Christie excoriated Rubio, in an effort to weaken the Senator, while strengthening his own cred. By all accounts it seemed to have had a boomerang effect. Rubio, who was aglow after Iowa, where he finished third, and practically declared himself the winner, lost ground with New Hampshire voters and appears to be looking at no better than a fifth place finish. He found this sorely disappointing, blamed his low finish on his poor debate performance, and promised his supporters, “It will never happen again.” We’ll see. The boomerang part of the analogy is the screed, worse case, came back to haunt him, best case, provided absolutely no lift as he finished an even more disappointing sixth (out of eight).

Last week, I framed part of the discussion in terms of winners and losers. Today, in my view, there is a tie for the biggest winner label. Both Sanders and Trump take home the Gold in yesterday’s contests. Sanders had long held a lead in New Hampshire, and he was expected to win big there. The Clinton Campaign had hoped to narrow the margin. It does not appear they succeeded. Congratulations Senator Sanders.

Trump had led for most of the time in Iowa. In the end he faltered. Whether it was because he skipped a Fox News GOP Debate is, well debatable. Regardless of the contributing factors, his brand (winning) was tarnished. That he rebounded in New Hampshire was part redemption, and part historical moment. It was the first election victory for Team Trump.

On the flip side, since the Democrats have only two candidates left, it’s quite simple; either you win, or you lose. Mrs. Clinton did not win. If there is anything positive to derive from this for Secretary Clinton, it is that she can exhale and put Iowa, a virtual tie, and New Hampshire, a thumping of a loss, behind her. Bring on the Palmetto State, at least that is what she hopes.

Back to the Republicans, John Kasich, an establishment candidate, and outlier at once, also won. He was not the biggest winner; that was Trump, but he won nonetheless. His establishment bona fides accrue from being Ohio’s Governor. However, he has chosen to take, from a GOP perspective, an outlier’s stance. He is the only Republican who sounds, most of the time anyway, as though he has no personal vendetta against the government as an operational entity. A second place finish for him must be seen as even more impressive than Senator Rubio’s third place finish last week. Also, Senator Cruz and Governor Bush, the likely third and fourth place finishers, respectively, won last night. That’s half the GOP field, and half the Democrats main candidates on the winning side of the ledger, by my reckoning.

The rest of the field, Senator Rubio, Governor Christie, Mrs. Fiorina, and Dr. Carson all lost. I will not be surprised to see any among Christie, Fiorina and Carson call it a wrap. They may opt to continue a while longer, but for all practical purposes…they are done. Marco Rubio, on the other hand, while disappointed, still has life, at least for now. With 11% of the vote, he will get some number of delegates. The other three, finishing less than 10% will get none.

With 75% of the votes counted, the voting percentages for GOP candidate looked like this:

Trump – 34%

Kasich – 16%

Cruz – 11%

Bush – 11%

Rubio – 11%

Christie – 8%

Fiorina – 4%

Carson – 2%

With 75% of the votes counted, the voting percentages for Democratic candidates looked like this:

Sanders – 60%

Clinton – 39%

The candidates are bidding New Hampshire adieu and polishing up their messages to go and spread their version of the political Gospel in the Palmetto State. The lines spouted by Trump and Sanders will likely highlight the themes that have gotten them to this point. Mr. Trump will assure the voters that he and he alone will make America great again. Senator Sanders promises a revolution, including, Universal Healthcare, free college, more taxes on the super rich, tighter reins on financial institutions, and a $15 minimum wage, among other things. Mrs. Clinton has already found religion, and has begun reciting/claiming a litany of items from President Obama’s tenure as the centerpieces of the administration that she would lead. By contrast, every Republican, save Kasich, promises to hit the undo key on all things Obama. Governor Kasich will speak about climate control, and retaining elements of, rather than destroying Obamacare, among other things.

There you have it, “Sanders & Trump Soar to Victory: Establishment Candidates Revise Strategy!” I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com.

Find a new post each Wednesday.

To subscribe, click on Follow in the bottom right hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.” Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.

Consult the links below for more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/09/politics/new-hampshire-primary-highlights/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/states/nh/Dem

https://www.washingtonpost.com/2016-election-results/new-hampshire/

http://time.com/4213889/new-hampshire-primary-results-donald-trump-bernie-sanders/?xid=time_socialflow_twitter

http://news.yahoo.com/results-2016-hampshire-primary-235200941.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/hampshire-primary-results-36826021

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kasich

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeb_Bush

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Rubio

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Christie

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carly_Fiorina

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Carson

It’s time to Break It Down!

Monday’s first in the nation Iowa Caucuses officially kicked off the transition of the 2016 Presidential Election Season from simply campaigning, debating, and polling to actual voting; the crux of any election. Moving forward between now and November I will almost certainly not frame every weekly post around politics, or the campaigns. I will, however, write about it regularly, probably at least once a month, sometimes more.

It is still early, so I will not overwhelm with today’s blog. I do want to establish some broad strokes. I’ve touched upon most of the key players, including all the candidates in each Party, on more than one occasion. Today I want to talk a little bit about winners and losers, and note a few anecdotes that I’ve seen and/or heard in the wake of the first wave of voting.

First, politics is a bottom line kind of game. While there may be several rounds before the grand finale, when you get to the bottom line, especially in Presidential Primaries, wherein there is only one winner per each of the two primary parties, bottom line translates into win…or go home.

Under those broadly stated guidelines, without question, the biggest loser Monday evening was Democrat Martin O’Malley. Despite spending more time in Iowa than his competitors, he failed to garner even 1% of the votes cast. Based upon his failure to build and grow a candidacy that resonated with Democratic voters, Mr. O’Malley, Maryland’s 61^st Governor, and always the odd man out since the race on the Democratic side winnowed down into a 3-person slate, cashed in his chips, suspended his Campaign, and went home. For him, winning, if he chooses to fight again, will have to wait for another day, time and place. I wish you all the best Governor O’Malley.

Next in the arena of biggest losers, in my humble opinion, of course, is Mike Huckabee, Arkansas’ 44^th Governor. Huckabee actually won the GOP Iowa Caucuses in 2008. Perhaps his tepid showing by comparison in 2016 makes him the biggest loser. However, that was eight years ago, which is an eternity in political years. Given his almost unimaginably low votes, I’m still content to give the Title to O’Malley. But don’t be misled; Governor Huckabee did not make any enormous waves. He amassed a whopping 1.8% of Republican Caucus voters. That was, however 3 times the percentage Governor O’Malley attracted.

I’m not going to profile all twelve GOP candidates. However, since I’m talking about losers, I feel compelled to mention briefly that Chris Christie, Rick Santorum, and Jim Gilmore are all still in the race, though they actually captured fewer votes than Governor Huckabee. Without making any predictions, I’ll just say that factoid does not bode well for the prospects of their longevity on the campaign trail. Check back after New Hampshire.

After Martin O’Malley and Mike Huckabee, there is one other candidate that has to be mentioned in any discussion of biggest political losers following the first voting of the season. A year ago, or even this past summer, most so-called experts everywhere would have insisted that any conversation about GOP favorites to claim the Party’s nomination would have to include Jeb Bush. While I’m not sure anyone went so far as to plan a Coronation for the legatee of the Bush political legacy, surely many, if not most thought it.

In sports metaphors, there is a well-worn phrase; “That’s why you play the games.” Without question, the 2016 Campaign, up to and including the Iowa Caucuses proved to be the classic exemplar of why polling and subsequent voting are critical in establishing the contemporary pecking order for candidates. Mr. Bush, the son of President George Herbert Walker Bush, and the brother of President George W. Bush, was thought before the season ensued to be head and shoulders above the competition. On paper he was ”ginormous,” reportedly amassing more than $100 million for his campaign. It is growing more likely each day, political historians will look back on Bush’s campaign and say why…or at least how…in the world did that happen?

This story really boils down to five candidates, three Republicans and two Democrats…or, as technocrats will insist, one Democrat, and one Democratic Socialist. On the GOP side, Ted Cruz won, followed by Donald Trump, who was closely followed by Marco Rubio. On the Democratic side Hillary Clinton emerged ever so slightly ahead, in what many in the media, and Bernie Sanders refer to as a virtual tie. Not surprisingly, Mrs. Clinton calls it a win. They both have a point.

According to the latest figures available, provided by the New York Times, Clinton led Sanders by 4 votes, which translates to a difference of two Delegates. They split the voting percentage-wise 49.9 – 49.6, advantage Clinton. Be advised, however, as I was writing this piece last night, Senator Sanders had yet to concede. He reportedly expressed concerns about how compiling and reporting voting was handled in some Precincts. Without trying to read the tealeaves on the question of where this matter will stand when all the dust settles, I will suggest that on the opposite end of the spectrum from the aforementioned biggest losers, Bernie Sanders was the biggest winner.

The self-avowed Democratic Socialist from Vermont has, in the early going, positioned himself to shock the world. He started with little money, sparse name recognition, and according to virtually all the so-called experts, little chance against the high profile well funded Clinton machine. His non-traditional approach to politics, serving as an Independent, and describing himself as a Democratic Socialist, did not help.

But, to steal a page from Van Jones, “Thanks Fox News.” The media outlet, a path light for the fervent right, inveighed daily for the last seven years and counting, against President Obama calling him a Socialist. In a sense, Fox News has anesthetized an entire generation of Millennials to the negative connotation they intend to impute to the term Socialist. Who knew that Sanders would own the youth vote? Moreover, his supporters that I know all emphasize that their guy is not accurately categorized unless you place Democratic before Socialist. By way of clarifying what he stands for, the Senator asserts he supports the following items as the central thrust of his agenda:

1. Rebuilding Our Crumbling Infrastructure
2. Reversing Climate Change
3. Creating Worker Co-ops
4. Growing the Trade Union Movement
5. Raising the Minimum Wage
6. Pay Equity for Women Workers
7. Trade Policies that Benefit American Workers
8. Making College Affordable for All
9. Taking on Wall Street
10. Health Care as a Right for All
11. Protecting the Most Vulnerable Americans
12. Real Tax Reform

By the slimmest of Margins, Secretary Clinton won the Democratic Iowa Caucuses. While Senator Sanders and his supporters may not like or accept that, the Democratic Party machinery of the State of Iowa has spoken…at least for now. Clinton it is. While she was not the biggest winner, she won, and I’m sure she’ll take it. She now moves on to New Hampshire, where according to the polls she trails by as much as 23 points. There are lots of reasons, including proximity to Vermont, the home turf factor, to believe that Sanders will win there, whether his huge lead holds or not. The test for Mrs. Clinton, and in a real sense for Mr. Sanders will come as the contests move to more diverse states.

Both candidates have strengths and weaknesses. Clinton is expected to do better with certain segments of the Obama coalition, particularly minorities. Sanders appears to have a lock on the youth vote. While there are certainly others, those are two of their biggest individual strengths. On the down side, the GOP will certainly try to use the continuing email probe to suggest HRC is in jeopardy of going down under the weight of an FBI investigation. Meanwhile many in the Republican Party salivate at the thought of running against Sanders the Socialist. As with plusses, there will be others, but those are two of their most readily visible negatives.

Back on the GOP side, Cruz finished in first place, but at least by most media accounts, Rubio was the biggest winner.   The Senator from Florida made up a lot of ground, and as the highest establishment finisher in Monday’s voting, his third place finish, one point behind Trump renders him emerging Golden Boy status…that is, if you presume the GOP will actually come to its senses and default to an establishment candidate as the Party’s nominee.

Donald J. Trump, D.J. Trump, as I like to refer to him, finished second. There was a great deal of irony in the self-proclaimed winner finishing second. As a guy who dismissively spoke of finishing second not that long ago, his having to embrace his place, at least in the ultimate Iowa scheme of things was anything but cathartic for him, and undoubtedly totally refreshing for a host of his detractors. In big picture terms, just because of his own narrative, he was a loser Monday night. Not the biggest loser, but a loser nonetheless.

Finally, Rafael Cruz won. He overcame trailing in the polls, and in addition to trumping Trump’s lead in the polls, and pushing back all the establishment candidates, he gets to breathe a sigh of relief heading into New Hampshire. He did not do so without invoking some level of controversy. He sent out at least two sets of mailers to voters, one designed to shame individuals who didn’t plan to vote, and another intimidating prospective voters with an official looking form with the words Voting Violation included. His campaign staff also reportedly told groups that Ben Carson was planning to leave the race, ahead of the Caucuses. These acts amount to dirty tricks in the best case, and potentially fraudulent behavior at worse. This, ladies and gentlemen, represents action by the campaign of your GOP winner, which he defends, I might add.

Today, the Democrats still standing, Clinton and Sanders meet in a Town Hall Meeting in New Hampshire…it’s about to get jiggy. “And They’re Off: One Down!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com.

Find a new post each Wednesday.

To subscribe, click on Follow in the bottom right hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.” Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.

 Consult the links below for more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_O%27Malley

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/martin-omalley-is-suspending-his-presidential-031031742.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Huckabee

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/primaries/iowa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Christie

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Gilmore

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeb_Bush

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/jeb-bushs-war-chest-far-outpacing-field-of-gop-contenders/2015/02/13/1fd3c076-b2f1-11e4-886b-c22184f27c35_story.html

http://news.yahoo.com/campaigning-style-jeb-bush-blew-warchest-112051485.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Rubio

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

http://caveviews.blogs.com/cave_news/2016/01/ted-cruz-sent-controversial-voting-violation-notices-to-iowa-voters.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3390961/posts?page=245

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/10027580274

It’s time to Break It Down!

As I’ve often noted, my mantra regarding this blog is to remain nimble. I seldom decide in advance what the topic of the day will be. As Tuesday unfolded my attention began to drift toward crafting a piece on guns. Over the course of the day I saw stories about two instances that inflamed my sensibilities on the topic.

In one instance a 45-year-old security guard was sleeping with a pistol under her pillow in her home in New Orleans. During the course of the night the gun inadvertently fired, killing her 3-year-old grandson last Wednesday. What a dreadful occurrence; I can’t imagine the emotional pain and suffering that grandmother is experiencing. Multiply that exponentially for the parents.

In the second case, last Thursday in Renton, Washington, 10 miles South of Seattle, a man went to a theater. Ostensibly to prevent a mass shooting, he took his gun with him. He smuggled it into a Cinema that prohibits guns. As it turns out, the man was high on anxiety pills and intoxicated from beer. According to witnesses at the scene, while fumbling with his gun, he shot, most likely accidentally, a woman patron, who was watching “13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi” The shooter then fled the scene. The victim was in stable condition after having been shot in the torso. Police arrested the suspect after his father called and reported the shooting.

This was another absolutely horrible, and so unnecessary, outcome. The good news in this case is, at least no one died. Still, there is no denying, accidental gun violence is still violence, and still a function of the preponderance of guns in our society. An even more significant point is, chances are, without breaking a sweat, anyone could recite new cases, accidental or intentional, by the time Wednesday rolls around next week.  That’s wack!

But I digress. As the title makes clear, this post is intended to frame a discussion about the bombastic, self-proclaimed high-energy, billionaire GOP frontrunner for the Party’s nomination to seek the Presidency…Donald John Trump. He is perennially loquacious, and never meets a superlative too large to embrace, or to repeat. Mr. Trump grabbed the Republican race for President by the proverbial short hairs, almost from onset of his June 16, 2015 Announcement at Trump Tower in New York.

The Donald drew a picture of an America in peril, regularly “getting beat” by a number of other nations, including China, Japan, Mexico, and even the terrorist group, ISIS. He declared that America is in trouble, the American Dream is dead, and he…is running to “Make America Great Again.” Along the way he disparaged Fox News Anchor Megyn Kelly, threw shade on former Presidential Candidate and Arizona Senator John McCain, insisting he was not a war hero, and belittled Senator Lindsey Graham in his home state of South Carolina. First he spoke dismissively of him, then he revealed Graham’s cell phone to the media and the public during an appearance in the Palmetto State. He was just getting started.

Almost immediately an interesting phenomenon began emerging. While the media and the professional political class on both sides of the aisle predicted that the New Yorker would be a fleeting item on the political landscape, Mr. Trump defied the odds and consistently put his GOP competitors on their heels. Each time one of what has increasingly become a member of the GOP also-rans brandished the cheeky temerity to challenge him, he has responded by issuing a series of tweets and/or verbal jabs, always conveniently covered by the media, to push them into or near irrelevancy. So much so, until some of them, most notably, former Texas Governor Rick Perry, and the aforementioned South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, were among the first wave to issue statements of no mas, raise White Flags of surrender, and sheepishly exit the campaign.

The list of used-to-be relevant icons deserves a note of special comment. On it are such political luminaries as South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, former Utah Governor/former U.S. Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, now former Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, former New York Governor George Pataki, and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. All are a part of the GOP’s mainline establishment heritage. This list, it should be mentioned, is significant for who is on it, as well as for who is not.

The list of folks still competing includes Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, and of course, the Major Domo of Elephants in the room, Donald J. Trump. Yes, there are still candidates representing the so-called establishment of the Party, including Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, John Kasich, Mike Huckabee, Marco Rubio, Jim Gilmore, and Chris Christie. Then there is Mr. Trump’s apparent nemesis, at the moment anyway, Ted Cruz. More about him later.

Real Clear Politics produces a compendium of Polls, including data from ABC News/Washington Post, CNN/ORC, Fox News, Monmouth, NBC News/Wall Street Journal, and CBC/New York Times. Polling from January 21 – January 24 shows Trump leading second place Ted Cruz nationally in every poll…by double digits, from a low of 13 percentage points (33%-20%) in the NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll to 22% (41%-19%) in the CNN/ORC Poll.

Marco Rubio is the only other candidate averaging double figure polling, with double digits in all but the CNN/ORC Poll. Ben Carson, who briefly led the field, is the only other candidate breaking double digits in any of the polls, reaching 12% in the NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll.

The numbers reflect the schism that has characterized the essence of the entire race for the GOP side. In many ways the 2016 Campaign has been, for the group formerly known as the Party of Lincoln, an anti-establishmentarian campaign. In a metaphoric flourish, the candidates who did not make the cut were akin to students who flunked out in the first semester. They were, by and large, representatives of what was heretofore the establishment, principally Republican Governors and Senators. Staying with the metaphor, the folks moving on to the second semester includes three individuals who have not only never held public office previously, but who are committed to challenge the efficacy of traditional politics, even traditional Republican politics, at its very core.

Of the remaining candidates, the top two contenders appear to be Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. Trump has never held office, but promises to “Make Our Country Great Again.” Cruz has been a member of the Senate since 2013, but entered Congress as a Tea Party devotee, intent upon reformatting the politics of Washington from the ground up. He is still best known for his pivotal role in the Fall 2013 Government Shutdown. Trump and Ted; this is the vibe the contemporary GOP seems content to roll with. The previously mentioned vanquished Lindsey Graham, when asked if he had to choose between the two had this to say:

“It’s like being shot or poisoned,” the South Carolina Republican said. “What does it really matter?”

As the Iowa Caucuses approach on Monday, the GOP candidates are scheduled to engage in their last Televised Debate before matters get real as the voting commences. This particular event will be hosted by Fox News and will feature noted Trump foil, Megyn Kelly. Ms. Kelly managed to place herself firmly on Trump’s bad side last year when Fox hosted a debate and she asked him a question to which he took exception. The relationship between the two has been sporadically rocky since then.

A series of exchanges between Fox News and Trump yesterday steadily escalated. Trump polled his Twitter feed asking whether he should participate in the Debate. In a simultaneous Instagram video, he said:

“Megyn Kelly’s really biased against me. She knows that, I know that, everybody knows that. Do you really think she can be fair at a debate?”

In response, Fox concocted a tongue-in-cheek reply in the form of a public statement from the Network:

“We learned from a secret back channel that the Ayatollah and Putin both intend to treat Donald Trump unfairly when they meet with him if he becomes president — a nefarious source tells us that Trump has his own secret plan to replace the Cabinet with his Twitter followers to see if he should even go to those meetings,” the statement said.

At this point, as they say, “It was on like Donkey Kong!” First Trump issued a tweet. He referred to Fox’s statement as:

“A pathetic attempt by Fox News to try and build up ratings for the #GOPDebate.” He went on to say, “Without me they’d have no ratings!”

As the day progressed, Trump said he would probably not attend the Debate. He indicated he would likely create a separate event at the same time and give the funds raised by the event to veterans groups. As the evening progressed, CNN reported a spokesperson said he would definitely skip the event:

“We’ll have an event here in Iowa, with potentially another network, to raise money for wounded warriors,” campaign manager Corey Lewandowski said. “And Fox will go from probably having 24 million viewers to about 2 million.”

This semi-chaotic breakdown of the normal order was predictable. It is just one aspect of the illogical conclusions that are sure to result from individuals and a Party that pride themselves in eschewing convention at every imaginable step. Remember this is a scenario born in the mind a guy who within the past week boasted that he could stand in the middle of 5^th Avenue and shoot someone and not lose any votes from his supporters. Clearly, he does not believe that conventions of any sort apply to him. Ted Cruz may have shut down the Government, but Donald Trump blew off Roger Ailes and Fox News. At least that’s what he has said he will do. In a “What have you done for me lately” world, “Donald Plays The Trump Card; Drops Mic!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com.

Find a new post each Wednesday.

To subscribe, click on Follow in the bottom right hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.” Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.

Consult the links below for more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post:

http://blacklikemoi.com/2016/01/a-little-boys-life-is-taken-while-asleep-by-grandmothers-gun/?utm_source=iContact&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Your%20Black%20World%20-%20News%20Updates&utm_content=1.26.16+-+afternoon+

http://www.wwltv.com/story/news/2016/01/20/toddler-killed-after-grandmothers-gun-discharges/79046818/

http://www.theneworleansadvocate.com/news/14626983-75/3-year-old-boy-shot-killed-while-sleeping-after-grandmothers-gun-discharges-in-new-orleans-east

http://www.reuters.com/video/2016/01/22/mans-gun-goes-off-in-theater-injures-wom?videoId=367141518&videoChannel=1

http://guncarrier.com/man-shoots-woman-in-theater-flees-scene/

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/22/us/washington-movie-theater-shooting/index.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/transcript-donald-trump-announces-his-presidential-candidacy/

http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/26/media/donald-trump-poll-debate-fox/index.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Rubio

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Carson

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carly_Fiorina

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeb_Bush

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kasich

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Huckabee

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Gilmore

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Christie

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Huntsman,_Jr.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsey_Graham

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Jindal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Pataki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Walker

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell,_Jr.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Ditka

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulk_Hogan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Rodman

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Nugent

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Tyson

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/politics/lindsey-graham-donald-trump-ted-cruz-poison-or-shot/index.html

It’s time to Break It Down!

Four years ago I wrote a post entitled “The Newtonian Code: An Evening of Satire on MLK Day!” (http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com/2012/01/newtonian-code-evening-of-satire-on-mlk.html). In the event you’d like to peruse it, click the preceding link. FYI, it appears on BlogSpot, my former platform, not WordPress.

The post includes a brief discourse recalling key elements of that Monday evening’s GOP Debate, which most notably featured a series of electrifying exchanges between GOP Candidate Newt (hence Newtonian) Gingrich and Fox News (the Network sponsoring the Debate) Anchor Juan Williams.

The Debate, took place on the evening of the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday. It was held at the Myrtle Beach Convention Center in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Frankly, I viewed this as a huge irony, primarily based upon some of Mr. Gingrich’s responses, unfolding on the occasion of The MLK, Jr. Holiday. When Williams posed a question about whether some of Mr. Gingrich’s remarks during the Campaign were insulting to blacks, the former Speaker haughtily dismissed him, engendering wild applause from an audience, apparently in perfect synchronicity with Newt.

Williams soldiered on, attempting to reframe the exchange by referencing a black woman who had questioned Gingrich about referring to President Obama as a Food Stamp President. At this point, the audience not only cheered the candidate, they booed the questioner (Williams).

In a bygone yesteryear, GOP candidates fashioned a strategic policy initiative loosely known as the Southern Strategy. The policy featured a pattern of behaviors and practices designed to appeal to Southern white voters by exploiting racism and whites’ irrational fear of lawlessness by blacks.

As I noted at the time, I’m not a mind reader; I cannot even begin to say what resided in Mr. Gingrich’s heart, or anyone else’s for that matter. Then, as now however, I can say with great certitude that when Mr. Gingrich then, and others in his Party now, make such blanket acrimonious assertions as Mr. Obama is the Food Stamp President, black high school students should seek jobs as janitors, and African American adults should eschew Food Stamps and instead pursue paychecks, despite the fact most Food Stamp recipients are white, regardless of intent, such commentary will inflame a significant portion of the black community.

Fast-forward four years and January 2016 presents us with the next round of politicking, fundraising, polling, voting, and yes, debating. We have yet another edition of prickly GOP candidates, several of whom are doing their dead-level best to raise the ante to even higher levels than we saw in the toxic environment that was prevalent in 2012.

We now have an entire subset of candidates who seem committed to outdo one another in terms of which one can establish themselves as the most hostile to immigrants in general, and Mexicans and Muslims in particular.   Donald Trump has pledged to build the biggest, most bodacious wall ever, separating the United States from Mexico. He has proposed sending up to 11 million illegal aliens back to Mexico, denying entry to all Muslims, apparently including the leaders of Muslim countries, requiring Muslims who are already here legally to wear ID bracelets (akin to Jews in the Hitler era), and shutting down Mosques.

He has suggested ending the practice known as Anchor Babies, which would have conceivably eliminated two of his competitors (Rubio and Jindal), and once again raised the specter of Birtherism, which threatens the candidacy of another competitor (Cruz). Oh, did I mention he promises to carpet bomb Muslim countries until the sand glows in the dark? The most interesting thing about all of this is, one or more of his fellow GOP candidates has agreed with and co-signed each of the aforementioned gambits.

While all of the above patently reflect both the trademark over-the-top nature of the Trump approach to campaigning, and his appeal to many of his supporters, it doesn’t even begin to touch upon his and his Party’s tenuous relationship with black voters. The Black Lives Movement emerged from a series of incidents in which blacks have been shot and or killed, usually by police officers. The group has taken a number of steps to protest this seeming unchecked, and frequently unpunished violence on black folks. Protest is a typical staple of their repertoire. Mr. Trump, especially, has dissed the movement, refused to engage their representatives, and had representatives of the group brusquely, if not violently, removed from his rallies.

I understand that, Herman Cain in 2012, and now and Ben Carson, notwithstanding, the GOP regularly writes off black voters. Both, in their own way, have suggested that blacks are brain washed. Neither the Hermanator, nor Dr. Gifted hands is here to defend himself. Still, I suggest that black voters are not brain washed, and thankfully, neither are they brain dead. In fact, given all the points cited above, such a relentless stream of abusive rhetoric is bound to temper any likelihood that African Americans, Latinos in general, Mexicans in particular, and Muslims would think twice, at the very least, before voting for Mr. Trump. Curiously, that has not prevented him, when handicapping himself, from asserting that he will not only do very well with these groups, but that he will win the Latino/Mexican and African American vote. Moreover, he insists that we “love” him.

Last night Trump took another controversial step in his quest to win in Iowa, and ultimately the Presidency. Party insiders will likely debate the virtue of this move for some time. He added the endorsement of 2008 Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. In endorsing the Donald, the former Governor gave a rambling soliloquy in which she insisted Trump, he of the gold-plated personal jet, is not elitist. She intoned that his largess sometimes gets in the way of his quiet generosity. Say what?

A readily discernible irony about all this is there is a historical context for black folks supporting the Republican Party. After all, President Lincoln ended slavery for God’s sake. That surely positioned the Party as the odds on favorite. The Civil Rights Movement and the ensuing legislation that emerged as a result were instrumental in rewiring the political grid. In the CliffNotes version of this segment of the story, President Johnson signed fundamentally axis-tilting Civil Rights legislation, followed by President Nixon fostering and implementing the Southern Strategy. When the dust from those two mega-policy shifts, whites in the South moved in significant numbers to the GOP column, and black all across the country, by numbers at least as substantial moved to the Democratic Party. Thus it has been since the 70’s.

The Party line as recited by GOP operatives is President Obama has destroyed the country, wrecked the Presidency, killed the economy, strengthened our enemies, and made enemies or at the very least, political agnostics of our historical allies. The make this contention despite having colluded to oppose, deny, and defeat his every initiative, starting the day he was originally Sworn-in. In keeping with their commitment, they refused to approve President Obama’s jobs bills, (every single one of them) voted against his Healthcare legislation, they opposed his auto bailout, stimulus package, and bank bailouts, and of course, refused to approve immigration legislation, common sense gun reform, even after 26 elementary school children were murdered, as you recall, they shut down the government. On top of all that, they refused to extend the debt ceiling in time for the country to avoid losing for the first time ever its highest level Triple A Bond Rating.

This pervasive and insidious anti-government mindset is the ideological bent that has taken hold of the Grand Old Party and it threatens to hold our country hostage. They (the GOP-T Party rank and file whom support Trump’ and his ilk’s brutishly abrasive hectoring) wish, they say, to take “their country back.” Some folks inquire, from whom? I, alternately, am more prone to ask, “to where?”

It seems to me this effort is about turning back the clock, and taking us “back” to a period when the Stars and Bars prevailed, a time when people of color had no rights that white folks were bound to recognize, and an era in which the Confederate States of America did what they damn well pleased. During the recent debate over removing the Confederate Flag from the South Carolina Statehouse, supporters argued the flag was a symbol of heritage. I believe that is exactly what it is; a symbol of heritage, and that the heritage it represented was that of slavery and pre-Emancipation. To wit, I leave you with a single thought…”The Modern GOP: Trending Toward Legacy or Lunacy?” The jury is out, the verdict pending.

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com. Find a new post each Wednesday.

To subscribe, click on Follow in the bottom right hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.” Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.

Consult the links below for more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr._Day

http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com/2012/01/newtonian-code-evening-of-satire-on-mlk.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Carson

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/us/politics/donald-trump-sarah-palin.html?_r=0

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Rubio

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Christie

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeb_Bush

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Williams

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carly_Fiorina

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Huckabee

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kasich

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Gilmore

It’s time to Break It Down!

Last year, the day after the State of the Union, I posted a blog entitled State of the Union: Designated Survivor – (https://thesphinxofcharlotte.com/2015/01/21/state-of-the-union-designated-survivor/). The story highlighted a practice that grew out of the Cold War, in which the Administration leaves one official back at the White House, in the event that some catastrophe takes out the President, his Administration, much of Congress, and several members of the Supreme Court. Just for the record, this year’s Designated Survivor is Jeh Johnson, Department of Homeland Security Secretary. For more specifics on the practice, click the link above to review the post.

Now, moving to SOTU 2016, at 9:05 p.m. last night, Paul D. Irving, Sergeant at Arms of the United States House of Representatives, announced President Obama’s arrival to those assembled in the House Chamber for the President’s 8^th and final State of the Union (SOTU) Address. House Speaker Paul Ryan then formally introduced him to those in the Chamber. Against that backdrop, replete with pomp, circumstance, and a packed Chamber, the 44^th President of the United States went to work. For the next 60 minutes or so, as much as any President in these hyper-partisan times could, the President owned the room.

By the accounts of even a number of Republicans, he gave a great speech. Most Democrats on record appeared to characterize it as his best. I’ve seen all eight, and while I am loathe to attempt to cite chapter and verse from past addresses, I agree, he rose to the occasion in an outstanding, if cerebral, and occasionally spirited way.

Mr. Obama framed his focus not on just next year, but on the next five years, or 10 years. As he ultimately put, his remarks focused on our future. In that regard, he promised not to immerse himself in traditional listing of proposals, but on thematic directions to achieve the very best outcomes for Americans.

In talking about our collective future, the President posed four overarching questions. They were:

First, how do we give everyone a fair shot at opportunity and security in  this new economy?

Second, how do we make technology work for us, and not against us – especially when it comes to solving urgent challenges like climate change?

Third, how do we keep America safe and lead the world without becoming its policeman?

Finally, how can we make our politics reflect what’s best in us, and not what’s worst?

President Obama replied serially to the questions, but before he began addressing the issue of fully integrating American participation in a fully functioning economy, he offered his own fact check on the matter. He noted that the US has the world’s strongest and most durable economy. We are in the midst of the longest streak of private sector job creation in history, totaling more than 14 million new jobs. Most recently, we have experienced the strongest two years of job growth since the 90’s; an unemployment rate cut in half, an auto industry that just had its best year ever, and the creation of over 900,000 new manufacturing jobs over the past six years. With relish, he injected that we’ve done all this while cutting our deficits by nearly three-quarters.

In a direct jab at consistently harsh GOP rhetoric, the President noted that those who assert that our economy is in decline are peddling fiction. Mr. Obama, in further distilling the state of the economy, clarified that the economy has been changing in profound ways. This shift began long before the Great Recession hit, and it persists. By this he meant technology can and often does replace any job, not just those on the assembly line. Moreover, companies in a global economy can locate anywhere, and face tougher competition. Thusly, workers have less leverage to negotiate a raise, companies have less loyalty to communities, and fewer individuals in the upper echelon secure and control an inordinately greater share of wealth and income.

The President posited that real opportunity requires every American to get the education and training they need to land a good-paying job. He lauded No Child Left Behind, and zeroed in on the need to provide Pre-K for all in the future. Hands-on computer science and math classes will aid making students job-ready on day one, while we must also recruit and support great teachers. In making an observation that caused several of those assembled to blush, the President spoke in support of providing necessary benefits and protections, adding, “After all, it’s not much of a stretch to say that some of the only people in America who are going to work the same job, in the same place, with a health and retirement package, for 30 years, are sitting in this chamber. For everyone else, especially folks in their forties and fifties, saving for retirement or bouncing back from job loss has gotten a lot tougher.”

We know that in this new changing economy, at some point in our careers, we may have to retool. But that should not mean losing what we’ve worked hard to build. To that end Social Security and Medicare are more important than ever; we shouldn’t weaken them, we should strengthen them. And for Americans short of retirement, basic benefits should be just as mobile as everything else is today. That’s what the Affordable Care Act is all about. It’s about filling the gaps in employer-based care so that when we lose a job, or go back to school, or start that new business, we’ll still have coverage. Nearly eighteen million have gained coverage so far. Health care inflation has slowed. And our businesses have created jobs every single month since it became law.

The President pledged his belief in a thriving private sector, noting it’s the lifeblood of our economy. While conceding there are outdated regulations that need to be changed, and red tape that needs to be cut, he also observed that working families have not been the beneficiaries of years of record corporate profits. Those families do not get bigger paychecks by letting big banks or big oil or hedge funds make their own rules at everyone else’s’ expense; or by allowing attacks on collective bargaining to go unanswered.

The President argued that “Food Stamp recipients didn’t cause the financial crisis; recklessness on Wall Street did. Immigrants aren’t the reason wages haven’t gone up enough; those decisions are made in the boardrooms that too often put quarterly earnings over long-term returns. It’s sure not the average family watching tonight that avoids paying taxes through offshore accounts.”

The second question was, “How do we reignite that spirit of innovation to meet our biggest challenges?”

Mr. Obama referenced the Vice President, saying, “Last year, Vice President Biden said that with a new moonshot, America can cure cancer. Last month, he worked with this Congress to give scientists at the National Institutes of Health the strongest resources they’ve had in over a decade. Tonight, I’m announcing a new national effort to get it done. And because he’s gone to the mat for all of us, on so many issues over the past forty years, I’m putting Joe in charge of Mission Control. 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.”

He mentioned the science resistant strain of Americans that still dispute climate change, citing their apparent loneliness. He advised that folks on that island are “debating our military, most of America’s business leaders, the majority of the American people, almost the entire scientific community, and 200 nations around the world who agree it’s a problem and intend to solve it.” He would end that element of the conversation by challenging American businesses to produce and sell the energy of the future.

This brings us to question 3, “How do we keep America safe and strong without either isolating ourselves or trying to nation-build everywhere there’s a problem?”

He began with a robust repudiation of the baseline notion of “our enemies getting stronger and America getting weaker,” a notion he characterized as “political hot air,” just as he did the idea of our economic decline. He went on to frame it thusly:

“The United States of America is the most powerful nation on Earth. Period. It’s not even close. We spend more on our military than the next eight nations combined. Our troops are the finest fighting force in the history of the world. No nation dares to attack us or our allies because they know that’s the path to ruin. Surveys show our standing around the world is higher than when I was elected to this office, and when it comes to every important international issue, people of the world do not look to Beijing or Moscow to lead – they call us.

As someone who begins every day with an intelligence briefing, I know this is a dangerous time. But that’s not because of diminished American strength or some looming superpower. In today’s world, we’re threatened less by evil empires and more by failing states. The Middle East is going through a transformation that will play out for a generation, rooted in conflicts that date back millennia. Economic headwinds blow from a Chinese economy in transition. Even as their economy contracts, Russia is pouring resources to prop up Ukraine and Syria – states they see slipping away from their orbit. And the international system we built after World War II is now struggling to keep pace with this new reality.

It’s up to us to help remake that system. And that means we have to set priorities.”

At the top of the list of priorities he placed protecting the American people and going after terrorist networks. He recognized that both al Qaeda and now ISIL pose a direct threat to our people. They use the Internet to poison the minds of individuals inside our country and they undermine our allies.

However, we are addressing the problem directly. The U.S. leads a coalition of over 60 countries to cut off ISIL’s financing, disrupt their plots, stop the flow of terrorist fighters, and stamp out this vicious ideology. As a result of over 10,000 air strikes we are eliminating their leadership, their oil, their training camps, and their weapons. We are also training, arming, and supporting forces who are reclaiming territory in Iraq and Syria.

Finally, on this score, he challenged Congress. “If this Congress is serious about winning this war, and wants to send a message to our troops and the world, you should finally authorize the use of military force against ISIL.”

Question 4, was “How can we make our politics reflect what’s best in us, and not what’s worst?”

President Obama reminded all that our Constitution begins with three simple words, “We the People.” He injected that this means all the people.   He declared that the future we want, which includes opportunity and security for our families, a rising standard of living and a sustainable, peaceful planet for our kids – all are attainable, but only if all of us engage. And we will only achieve it if we fix our politics.

Mr. Obama clarified by adding, a better politics doesn’t mean we must agree on everything. However, democracy does require basic bonds of trust between its citizens. It breaks down when the average person feels their voice doesn’t matter; that the system is rigged in favor of the rich or the powerful or some narrow interest. Too many Americans feel that way right now.

After laying down the challenge, he added, “This cannot be my task – or any President’s – alone. It will only happen when the American people demand it. It will depend on you. That’s what’s meant by a government of, by, and for the people.”

Mr. Obama admitted that what he’s asking for is hard. “It’s easier to be cynical. But if we give up now, then we forsake a better future.”

In closing, the President put the onus squarely on the American people. He said:

“So, my fellow Americans, whatever you may believe, whether you prefer one party or no party, our collective future depends on your willingness to uphold your obligations as a citizen.”

At 10:11 p.m., the President, in bidding adieu to the assembly announced firmly,

“That’s why I stand here confident that the State of our Union is strong.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.”

At 10:19 p.m., Speaker Paul Ryan adjourned the House until 9 a.m. this morning.

That’s the story of “SOTU #8: President Obama’s Last Stand!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com. Find a new post each Wednesday.

To subscribe, click on Follow in the bottom right hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.” Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.

Consult the links below for more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_Union

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-transcript-president-obama-2016-state-of-union-20160112-story.html

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/12/politics/state-of-the-union-2016-transcript-full-text/index.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/state-union-jeh-johnson-named-designated-survivor/story?id=36235856

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/meet-special-guests-president-obamas-final-state-union/story?id=36197559

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/08/politics/obama-state-of-the-union-empty-seat-guns/index.html?eref=rss_politics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_D._Irving

http://www.snappytv.com/snaps/about-the-state-of-the-union-and-republican-response-on-cnngo_wl

http://www.cfr.org/united-states/issue-guide-2016-state-union-address/p37430

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sotu

It’s time to Break It Down!

On January 23, 2007 the Rapper Mims released a track, MIMS – This Is Why I’m Hot (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwyE3WJ4AWo). It’s a catchy tune that detailed and contrasted why the artist was hot, with why some other, more hyped performers were not. Hot in this context means cool, relevant, or “what’s happening now.”

As it relates to the title above, “Hot” means angry, perturbed, and vehement. To that end it is critical, in my view, to elevate and discuss the actions of the self-labeled militiamen (that is citizens carrying firearms, to be clear) who came to Oregon, and who have broken into and taken control of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge facility near Burns, Oregon.

The Fish and Wildlife Service and The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) have received reports that an unknown number of individuals broke into the facility over the weekend.  In their reporting the Wildlife Service and BLM (not to be confused with Black Lives Matter; ironic though) noted while the situation is ongoing, the main concern is employee safety. The agencies confirmed that no federal staff members were in the building at the time of the initial incident. Authorities pledged to continue monitoring the situation for additional developments.

The aforementioned irony in the usage of the acronym BLM revolves around the contentious & suspicious way in which the Black Lives Matter movement has been discussed by numerous media outlets. It is fair to say there is an uproar stemming from some corners anytime the group is mentioned. Much of that ado has to do with the arms’ length nature in which BLM deals with black-on-black violence. Yet, BLM does not promote arming African Americans; rather it promotes sacred nature and value proposition of black and brown lives, which too often are prematurely ended by gun violence perpetrated by operatives of the state, most often police officers. It must also be noted, that many of these victims are unarmed.

At the Wildlife Refuge, the occupying “militiamen” were heavily armed, and boldly asserted that they will be staying as long as it takes to achieve their objective. Moreover, they added that while they do not intend to use violence, (they are armed and) they would defend themselves. The leaders of this so-called militia come from a family familiar with takeovers and standoffs with the government. Ammon and Ryan Bundy are the sons of Cliven Bundy, who led the 2014 standoff with government officials in Nevada in 2014 over his cattle’s grazing access. That conflict included firearms as well.

So the questions that troubles many African Americans about this situation is why are these men not characterized as terrorists? Why are media and officials not bandying about words such as insurrection, revolt, or anti-government insurgents?

Considering this is a group of unknown size and undefined firepower that has taken over a federal building with plans and quite possibly supporting equipment to facilitate a years-long occupation – and when the group’s representative articulates that they would prefer to avoid violence but…are prepared to die – the notion that officials are choosing to employ such nuanced language is, for lack of better phrasing, astoundingly enlightening. After all, given the apparent nationwide trend of law enforcement officers fearing for their lives, even when the black suspects they happen to be dealing with are unarmed, and their being forced, as a result, to escalate the response continuum to maximum deadly force, this fearless, convivial mode of associating with the Bundy’s armed alliance is perplexing, at the very least.

It is virtually unfathomable that none of the major media outlets, or any of the local officials has opted to use the words insurrection or revolt. If for instance, a group of black Americans took possession of a federal or state courthouse to protest the police, what are the odds such a sober, balanced, and unemotional tone would carry the day? Black Americans outraged about the death of Tamir Rice at the hands of police or concerned about the absence of a conviction in the George Zimmerman case have been frequently and inaccurately lumped in with criminals and looters, described as “thugs,” or marauding wolf packs where drugs are obviously in use, according to one national cable anchor.

Suppose a group of armed Muslims took possession of a federal building to protest calls to surveil the entire group? Would they not be likely to endure even harsher consequences and repercussions?

Yes, it is appropriate to note that there have been no reports of violence, injury, or anyone being held inside of the facility against their will. Yet. Some experts are theorizing that the strategy federal and local officials are using is one designed to let the media storm die before taking action. This ostensibly will permit some of the intensity around the issue to recede, and for calmer heads to prevail. I’m willing to wager that Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Jonathan Ferrell, and Jonathan Ferrell, just to name a handful, would all have appreciated such a state sponsored decompression period before their fateful encounters with authority became fatal.

I can appreciate the need to avoid inflaming the situation through the use of irresponsible language. That sort of judiciousness is appropriate always. Still, it is equally justifiable to remember the event that led to this takeover. A number of folks reacted to the decision to charge a father and son rancher duo, Dwight Hammond, Jr., and son Steven Hammond with arson under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. The charge, for which they both were convicted, carries a 5-year jail term. I reiterate they were convicted!

Acquaintances of the Hammonds may very well disagree with the government’s decision to charge and prosecute the pair, accordingly. But what of the outrage that inures from black Americans being far more likely than whites to face serious charges and jail time rather than misdemeanor penalties for resisting arrest? Where has the lock-step adherence to careful and delicate language been during all of 2015 when unarmed black Americans were disproportionately more likely to be killed by police officers than others?

But let us also note, in addition to the apparent incongruity prominently displayed in this situation, the Hammonds are not numbered among the Bundy’s armed alliance. Both Hammond men have surrendered to authorities so that they may serve the balance of their 5-year terms. Ammon Bundy, one of Cliven son’s, and the occupation organizer, has repeated two themes. The occupiers are armed and prepared to die, and they anticipate holding the facility indefinitely.

The precisely limited and incredibly soft language choices of media and governmental officials seem to extend beyond simply deliberate phrasing. The characterization of the events in Oregon reflect the business as usual shape of our collective assumptions about the relationship between race and guilt – or religion and violent extremism – in the United States.

If one is white, his activities and ideas are thought to stem from a font of principled and committed individuals. Because this is deemed the baseline presumption, group suspicion and presumed guilt are readily perceived and described as unjust, unreasonable and unethical. I’m sure you have noted, the occupiers in Oregon are assuredly all or nearly all white. Yet, that has scarcely been mentioned in media reports. You may also have noted that nothing close to similar can be said about coverage of events in Missouri, Maryland, New York, Illinois, Ohio, or any other place where questions about policing have devolved into protests or riots.

In Charleston, there was extended debate about whether to indicate that shooter Dylann Roof’s racially motivate shooting spree was an act of terrorism or even violent racism?

In San Bernardino, a number of news organizations rapidly hinted at and then began using the term Islamic extremism to describe the mass shooting in that city. It appeared almost reflexive.

The sometimes coded but increasing overt ways that some Americans are presumed guilty and violence-prone while others are presumed to be principled and peaceable unless and until provoked – even when armed – is remarkable. That is the story of…”The Oregon Standoff: This Is Why We’re Hot!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com. Find a new post each Wednesday.

To subscribe, click on Follow in the bottom right hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.” Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.

Consult the links below for more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/03/why-arent-we-calling-the-oregon-militia-terrorists/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_headlines

http://www.attn.com/stories/4981/oregon-takeover-terrorism-label?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=internal

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/04/us/armed-group-vows-to-hold-federal-wildlife-office-in-oregon-for-years.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/03/what-that-militia-in-oregon-really-wants-in-1-paragraph/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/who-are-the-bundys-the-family-at-the-center-of-the-oregon-occupation/2016/01/03/5582f698-b272-11e5-a76a-0b5145e8679a_story.html?tid=sm_fb

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2016/01/ammon-bundy-oregon-protest-sba-loan

http://gizmodo.com/oregon-was-founded-as-a-racist-utopia-1539567040

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-whites-and-republicans-rank-angriest-americans

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/05/politics/obama-executive-action-gun-control/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/05/politics/obama-executive-action-gun-control/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/05/politics/obama-guns-legal-challenge/index.html