Tuesday, January 15, 2019

"Peaches" (Not the Stripper- we think)

Anybody else out there wonder why the Democrats have not yet figured out how to deal with Trump and the government shutdown? It's pretty simple, really: all the House Democrats have to do is vote on a bill and send it to the Senate, that will:

(1) Provide TWICE what Trump has demanded- , instead of the $5 billion he requested, appropriate $10 billion for a border wall. But the wall will be a steel slatted fence. And it's name will be "Peaches." (quick aside: it would be rude to name it "Stormy." But ya gotta wonder: when Trump came up with the idea of calling the wall "Peaches," was that the name of the last stripper he slept with?)

(2) The bill will provide that anybody who is in this country illegally or any DACA recipient will be eligible to work for any of the contractors who gets a contract to build the wall. The contractors will be required to hire at least 25% of their work force from persons here illegally. And while they are so employed, they- and their families- will be immune from deportation.

(3) Anybody here illegally who works on the wall for a year can then apply for American citizenship, which will then also be granted to their family members.

(4) Every contractor working on the wall will be required to pay a minimum of $15.00 per hour for all hourly employees, and....

(5) The wall will be paid for by repealing all tax cuts for corporations, treating all earnings (dividends, interest, capital gains) the same as earned income, and repealing the 2017 tax breaks for those earning more than a million dollars a year. Any money raised over and above the $10 billion needed for the wall will be applied to pay premiums for Medicare for All for those most in need.

Simple. Go for it, Democrats!

Sunday, October 28, 2018


There can be no debate about whether or not President Trump "caused" an anti-Semite to open fire and murder 11 Jews in a synagogue not far from where I grew up, in the only big city I knew as a child (we visited the Carnegie Museum, the Buhl Planetarium, saw the Pirates at Forbes Field, flew out of the airport on our long trips). Even if the bastard claimed he didn't like Trump and wasn't inspired by him, the links are easy to follow (see below).

There can be less doubt about whether he inspired the pipe bomber who targeted almost every one of Trump's enemies- in politics, in the media, and private persons. Because if you throw lit matches into a room with a number of cans in it, and a few of those cans contain gasoline, odds are good that one of them is going to ignite.

No, the debate has to be about how best to remove that president from his office, and how to do it in such a fashion as to chasten his would be successors who would otherwise engage in incendiary race baiting, xenophobic, bigoted demagoguery- either because that's who they are (Trump), or because they are intelligent but deeply flawed and cynical (i.e., Ted Cruz) and think it's a winning strategy.

I don't want straight impeachment as my first choice, unless it is preceded by indictment and a pending trial that can end in a conviction or a guilty plea or a deal that includes resignation. I want Trump to actually serve prison time for any crimes for which he can be lawfully convicted.

Because until we strongly uphold the principle that no one is above the law (and I blame Barack Obama for whiffing on that opportunity when it was handed to him January 20, 2009, when he declined to prosecute his predecessor and others in the Bush administration for kidnapping, torture, and murder), we won't have a Constitutional Democratic Republic.

Until we recognize that the media have a responsibility which goes beyond "he said, she said" or "both sides" or the absurd calls for "bipartisanship" (Them: "we want to take 20 million off health insurance, causing 10,000 deaths annually"- the bipartisan solution: we'll meet you half way: "how about only taking 10 million off, causing 5,000 deaths annually?" How's that for a "bipartisan compromise?"), until the media start reporting the obvious truth (John McCain did not "defeat President Trump" when he put thumbs down on a straight repeal of the Affordable Care Act- he saved thousands of lives of people who would have been denied health insurance by the "skinny repeal" that never had a "replace"), we're going to be stuck in this quagmire.

So when someone like Trump says "put armed guards in the Temple" as a solution- just ask him how many mass shootings there were in Australia, which has had none since they legislated sensible gun control after their last one more than 20 years ago? Then report on the number of mass shooting deaths the last 20 years in every other civilized country that has gun control (none). Put that front and center when running his remarks. When he says "we need the death penalty" ask him how that deters the mass shooters killed at the scene or who immediately suicide? Then report the impact on the murder rate in states that have the death penalty (higher) than those that don't.

And when the president and his cult followers continuously attack George Soros, a Hungarian Jew who survived the Holocaust, immediately ask him (or them): "Other than being a Jew- what has George Soros actually DONE that offends you?" None of this delusional right wing bullshit that he "funded the Caravan" and other absurd accusations leveled at Mr. Soros in recent years: demand proof of everything. And when they can't produce it? Tell them that they are either anti-Semites or seeking the support of anti-Semites.

Then report how the right wing attacks by Trump and Fox et al. on Soros were a basis for a pipe bomb being mailed to him and a mass shooting in a Pittsburgh synagogue and the rise in white wing anti-Semitism. And do point out, media, Trump's support for nationalist figures in other countries who are more openly anti-Semitic and whose nationalist (yes, it is a dirty word, Mr. Trump!) don't have to bother to use code words or to attack straw men like Mr. Soros.

What do we do, we ask? Vote for Democrats, because until they control both houses of Congress, you won't have any gun control legislation, sensible or not. Call out anybody who uses code words or who attacks prominent liberals but who can't actually explain what they are attacking (like the recent post about conservatives who complained that they "suffered" under 8 years of Barack Obama, while listing all of the significant economic and foreign policy successes (and he got Bin Ladin) of his tenure). Don't let anybody in the media get away from calling somebody a "conservative" without asking: "conserve what? For whom? White power? Wealth for the rich? The ability to poison the environment or deprive employees of the right to organize or have decent health insurance?"

Don't let them get away with calling a Democrat a "socialist" (every attack ad against Stacey Abrams contains the word as an epithet) without asking them to define that word, explain what policies the Democrat proposes that fit the definition (expanding Medicaid and Medicare appear to be about it), then how that would hurt the people of that State or the country? Hold their feet to the fire when they say their bullshit: in debates, on Meet the Press, at press conferences, the camera blowbys outside the House or Senate chambers. Everywhere.

And never, never, never, forget. And never let the fucking, lying, bastards get away with it. Stand up to the bullies, always. That's what I've done my whole life and my whole career. It's actually very rewarding.

Sunday, October 07, 2018


There are two places I do some of my best thinking. One is in the shower, and if I have an upcoming trial or hearing, sometimes my best ideas are created there. The other is on what used to be (and I hope will be again soon) my daily 3.4 mile walk to and around (twice!) Lake Loretta. Today, on my way to Lake Loretta, I pondered how best the Democrats should govern when (not if) they retake both houses of Congress and the Presidency. My first idea is that process matters more than substance, because without a fair process, nothing else is possible- or will last.

First idea is to reverse the effects of the Citizens United decision, super political action committees (PAC's), and "dark money," without doing any damage to the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. Because television is central to political campaigns and the millions of dollars poured into attack ads, my suggestion is that Congress should recognize that because the airwaves are owned by the public, and every station has to receive its license from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Congress should pass a law requiring that any political ad which attacks a candidate for political office (State or Federal) must first be previewed by the person being attacked, who will then be allowed to record a rebuttal which will be twice as long, will air immediately following every broadcast of the attack ad, free of charge, but will include as a speaker only the candidate being attacked. This idea is akin to the central concept of judo- turning the attacker's strength and momentum against him. This law in no way infringes on the First Amendment rights of the entity or person which airs the attack ad, but will so defang the attack- in fact, providing a positive boost to the attackee- as to make those ads useless.

Second idea is complete ban on all money contributions to candidates and all solicitation of campaign contributions, designating all of them as what they actually are- bribes. Instead, all federal elections will be publicly financed, and all candidates' ads on television and radio will run free of charge- because the public owns the airwaves- limited to a specific number, specific length of each ad, and a deadline before the election (say 90 days) when they can start running.

Third idea is an anti-trust type break up of any mass ownership of local broadcast stations, as the Sinclair Company is attempting to do. Local stations should be locally owned, and not owned by a few huge corporations which can mandate mass reading of political editorials and slant on how news is covered. https://www.seattletimes.com/entertainment/tv/turmoil-inside-komo-news-as-conservative-owner-sinclair-mandates-talking-points/

This can actually be accomplished rather easily, as local stations must periodically have their FCC broadcast licenses renewed every eight years, and the solution is to only renew licenses of locally owned stations, which will effectively force divestiture by the large corporations which otherwise will have a useless asset.

And this morning, I discovered that some great minds think alike, as I found from this essay in Washington Monthly by David Atkins: " Bipartisanship is Dead. Time for Democrats to Embrace Their Inner McConnell."

"Among these fixes would include but not be limited to:

1) Making election day a federal holiday, and perhaps moving it from Tuesday to a weekend.

2) Pushing a majority of states to sign onto the National Popular Vote compact.

2) Securing statehood for Washington DC and Puerto Rico, thereby securing representation for those citizens while limiting the overrepresentation of rural white conservative states in the Senate.

3) Limiting gerrymandering and voter suppression by states in whatever ways are constitutionally possible, including by pressing for non-partisan districting commissions, automatic voter registration, full vote by mail systems, paper ballots with paper trails and more.

4) Securing responsible immigration reform and a rapid pathway to citizenship.

5) Adding more justices to both the appellate courts and Supreme Court."

Saturday, August 25, 2018

Ask a "Conservative" just exactly what is it that they are trying to "conserve?"

I've lived in Georgia for a while now, and it always confounds me that every single Republican running for office in this State desperately seeks the mantle of being a "Conservative," while no one running against them ever seems to want to own the label of "Liberal." As anyone who owns a dictionary or has access to the internet knows, being a liberal should not just be a good thing- it should be a remarkable, commendable appellation. Here's just a few of the definitions:

"marked by generosity: openhanded a liberal giver"

"broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms"

"the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties."

"favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs."

"a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom,"

So what's wrong with any of that? Answer: nothing.

By contrast, self described Conservatives in the 21st century don't appear to want to "conserve" anything except political power and monetary wealth among self selected elites- typically white, Christian, already wealthy, descended from western European ancestors.

They don't want to conserve the environment- they want to open up public lands for mining, drilling, clear cutting, and use by the wealthy and large corporations. They want to allow air pollution and water pollution by fossil fuel energy companies.

They want to gut social programs that provide sustenance to the poor, the sick, the elderly. They want to gut public education and transfer taxpayer dollars to private schools attended by the wealthy. They want to increase abortions by killing Planned Parenthood while pretending to oppose abortion rights-- that's one battle they never want to win- they want the issue to rouse their supporters to the polls, because if they ever manage to ban abortion throughout the country, that will leave them exactly one single issue block of voters- the gun rights fanatics.

So in 2018 the word "conservative" no longer means resisting change. Instead, it typically means instituting radical changes to our government and our culture- and only changes that will hurt the maximum number of people who don't look like them, talk like them, and worship like them. It means subscribing to a leader whose style includes nothing but gross insults and personally disgusting behavior, coupled with a spectacular amount of ignorance of science, history, geography, spelling, and grammar.

I propose we rename "Conservatives" and call them what they are in actuality: "Radical Christian Jihadists bent on destroying American values and weakening this country." Or "RCJ's" for short. Or just "Trumpers."

Saturday, August 11, 2018


What do these two eastern U.S. governors have in common? Republican John Kasich of Ohio and Democrat Andrew Cuomo of New York have both observed in national broadcasts (Kasich on ABC with George Stephanopoulos and Cuomo on MSNBC with Chris Hayes) that the Democratic party has no positive agenda and no message. Here's my solution- if only someone running for office will pay attention. Otherwise, Democrats may well once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, as they so often have before.

THIS LETTER, addressed to both House and Senate Candidates, including incumbents, is being mailed out to every Democrat running for Congress this year:

The Honorable &&&
Member, House of Representatives/ United States Senate

Washington, DC 20515

RE: The Democratic Party, the 2018 midterm elections

Dear Congressman/Senator/candidate/Committee &&&:

I am writing this letter in the hopes that some of the suggestions contained in it will assist the Democratic Party in retaking the House and Senate in the 2018 mid term elections. I very much realize I have no “cachet,” but I would also hope that you would recognize good ideas on their merits and take advantage of them. I’ll start with this observation: It's an ugly truth that is also no secret, and I heard it most recently from the Governor of Ohio, Republican John Kasich, on ABC's This Week on February 25, 2018:

"Let me tell you something about Democrats: I have no clue what they stand for."

If you have any doubt that his statement is true of the general population, then the next time you go home, stop 10 random strangers and ask them one simple question: "Putting aside for the moment what the Democratic Party opposes, what does the Party stand for?"

In the 2018 mid term elections, we can not allow the opposition to define us as we have in prior losing campaigns when we refused to come forward with a positive platform that was effectively communicated to the voters. That is one of the main reasons why, in spite of every numerical, ideological, and moral advantage the Party has, it has managed too often managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. In 2010, it was running away from the Affordable Care Act (ACA) instead of running on the most popular parts in it, such as the prohibitions on insurance companies denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, the ban on life time caps, and extending coverage of children through age 26. Democrats then lost both houses of Congress.

Seven years later when repeal of the ACA was on the table in Congress, that same Act proved to be more popular- once voters knew what was actually in it and what it did- than Democratic incumbents themselves had ever believed. In 2016 the lack of information about a simple platform that Democrats would try to legislate if elected cost the presidency and both houses of Congress, as too many voters felt they knew what they were getting with Donald Trump or else believed the lies about what they would be getting with Hillary Clinton. Ms. Clinton, unlike Bernie Sanders who stood for health care as a right and free college tuition, never made positive points the centerpiece of her campaign. She let the opponent define her and her positions, and suffered accordingly.

So here is my challenge to the Party: come up with a platform. It needs to be short, simple, effective, and based on proposals that Republicans will automatically oppose or else risk alienating their base. This agenda should be a list of things that every Democrat running for office or in office stands for and promises to do his or her best to enact into legislation if the party regains control of any or all branches of the government. And every voter should know what they are.

We have to come up with three (that's the magic number, as every accomplished public speaker knows) simple, large, doable ideas, each of which has the following characteristics: they are popular; they are easy to understand; they can be quickly and easily accomplished (so putting a colony on Mars isn't going to be on the list); they will make this a better country and help people; they can be put in a 15 second campaign commercial. And they all have to be things that will put Republican opponents in a straitjacket: damned by their rabid base if they accept them, and damned by voters in a general election if they oppose them.

Here are my best ideas. Feel free to borrow, modify, or ignore them- but if you ignore them, you've got to come up with something just as good:


Democrats need only propose a Full Employment for all Americans Act. This law would guarantee (see the 1993 Kevin Kline movie "Dave") that any person who wants to work, can work, at a livable hourly wage rate which would be significantly higher than the current minimum wage. The jobs would be public works or public service type jobs. This Act would also include provisions for retraining and re-educating people who have lost jobs due to off shoring, robotics, downsizing, and environmental policies, and paying them a living wage while they are in school. It would include separate provisions that would provide a job for any person who lost his or her position to an illegal immigrant- but at twice the annual salary or wage (this would come from a fund from employers' fines who have illegally employed illegal immigrants). In one fell swoop, the current batch of xenophobic, nationalist oriented Americans (the flyover people, or Trump's base) would be converted from hostility and irrational fear of illegal immigrants to feeling like they've won the lottery if they can point to a job they lost to an illegal immigrant. Providing a cash bounty (say $10,000 or more to any American displaced by an illegal immigrant) would increase the lottery winner feeling.

This is a two for one. The Republicans manage to say the word "jobs" in connection with every proposal that they endorse (tax cuts for billionaires and corporations!) or everything they opposed that Democrats support (remember the phrase "the job killing Obamacare?") If they oppose DACA, illegal immigration, or legal immigration, they pound on two things: public safety and jobs. If they claim that tax cuts for the super wealthy are a good thing, it's because they claim some of the money will "trickle down" in the form of job creation by corporations ever so grateful that they are saving billions in taxes.

I say this is a "two for one" because full employment would make this a better country, improve the lives of the unemployed, and rip away the biggest reason that Trump won the middle American states (Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia) that he did in 2016. Actually, this proposal is a three for one, as full employment would decrease crime as well.

(2) COMPLETE ACCESS TO HEALTH INSURANCE: Three words: "Medicare for All." We don't have to start out by subsidizing Medicare for everyone under 65, but we can certainly have a revenue neutral law that allows any person under 65 to buy into Medicare at the incremental cost. Immediately this does away with numerous faux arguments of Republicans, including how Obamacare (the ACA) is "failing" because premiums are going up, or that health insurance is unavailable in many rural areas. Another plus: with this proposal, there will be no reason to reinstitute the mandate which was repealed in the 2017 tax bill. That mandate existed for one reason- to make the law palatable to insurance companies by providing them with a profit motive to continuing selling health insurance. Allowing Medicare for All (the public option) means that private companies can continue selling insurance if they want to, and it will also mean that they will have to compete with the lower cost (much lower administrative overhead) of Medicare. Eventually, Americans under 65 will be subsidized as are Americans over 65, but this can be done gradually over time.

Coupled with this will be some medical cost cutting measures- my favorite is a complete elimination of the need for medical providers to have malpractice insurance by creating a no-fault program to compensate any person injured in any medical procedure or by any legally taken drug If nothing else, this proposal would turn a heretofore rock solid Republican constituency (physicians, pharmaceutical companies, major hospital holding corporations) into fans of the Democratic Party. More importantly, this is one of the major pieces of low hanging fruit to knock down overall medical costs. (I've written extensively on this idea before; one article appeared in Atlanta's Fulton County Daily Report in 2004. The physicians who heard me speak about it during a 2004 Senate campaign were very enthusiastic.)


TAKE THE ESTATE TAX AND USE 100% OF THE PROCEEDS FOR WOUNDED VETERANS AND THEIR FAMILIES: The act will be "DISABLED VETERANS' FAMILIES COLLEGE AND HEALTH CARE BENEFITS ACT." I'd love to see any Republican candidate argue against taxing money from dead billionaires- the operative words being "dead" and “billionaires”- and giving it to help support wounded veterans and their families. Put every child and spouse of every disabled veteran through college for free. Provide free health insurance for every child and every spouse of every disabled veteran, for life. This is one so obvious that it needs no further explanation. Every time the Republicans use their euphemism "death tax" the Democrats need only counter with "dead billionaires" helping children and spouses of disabled veterans. The picture paints itself.


There needs to be a nationally coordinated ad campaign that makes clear that this election is about one thing: putting into place elected officials who will be a check on Donald Trump, and not his cheerleaders and enablers. A smart ad campaign- feel free to borrow writers from Colbert's Late Night show and The Daily Show- can pack far more emotional punch than any number of brilliant and effective policy initiatives. Make Trump's own words the anchor around Republican candidates' campaigns. Use video of the worst of Trump (the pussy grabbing comments, the mocking of disabled person, encouraging violence at his rallies, his overt and easily disprovable lies) and juxtapose persons who are inherently likable and trustworthy. Every state, every community has at least one or two very notable, well liked, persons. Michael Jordan in Chicago. Lebron James in Cleveland. Tom Hanks everywhere. Have an athlete appear alongside of video of Trump saying that "grabbing women by the pussy" is "locker room talk" and have that athlete- a Dwayne Johnson (former Miami football player), a Derek Jeter, and so forth, simply say: "that language was never used in any locker room I've ever been in, and if anybody had talked that way, we would have shut that person down in an instant. We're talking about women- my mother, my sisters, my daughters- and we don't allow anyone to talk about them that way."

I'm not an ad man or a professional campaign adviser. But I know what works for me and for most people: ads that feature real human beings, obviously sincere, and real anecdotal stories. There's no limit to the possibilities, and have a nationally coordinated ad campaign that links every local Republican to Donald Trump (they'll either have to repudiate him or explain how they can possibly support him). And tailor every ad to local races by using people that constituency knows and trusts, even if it's local high school or college athletes or celebrities (like country music singer Luke Bryan from Leesburg, Georgia, or Herschel Walker, Georgia's all time favorite football player).

Thank you for your time and your attention. If anyone desires to contact me, I’m available pretty much anytime (when I’m not in a courtroom) if you want to discuss this further....

If you want to know who I am or why I do what I do, you can go to a blog my campaign manager suggested I create in the Fall of 2004 (after a losing but spirited campaign) at http://buildabettermousetrap.blogspot.com/, or you can ask Georgia Congressman Sanford Bishop. I'm sure Sanford will be happy to share.

Thank you for your time and your attention.

Saturday, July 07, 2018

How to play Chicken with a Blowhard Bully

The modern Democratic Party is a lot like the lovable high school doofus nerd who gets pantsed by the school bully in Back to the Future. Wanting desperately to respond, the doofus can only clench his fist in frustration, as Crispin Glover does in the role of Michael J. Fox's dad when faced with Biff the overbearing (and orange haired!) bully.

So as a public service, I am here to help. The other night, the inimitable and utterly predictable bully Donald Trump attempted to Mock Elizabeth Warren. Incapable of self consciousness or irony, Trump challenged a potential lie by Warren, who had allegedly claimed Native American heritage in a Harvard faculty application years earlier. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/elizabeth-warren-wealthy-native-american/ Trump, a fabulist (that means serial liar) like no one before in the history of American politics, is incapable of going a day- or even 5 minutes- without telling a whopper. Whether it was claiming that he had the largest crowds in history at his inauguration (pictures showed the lie) or contending that millions of illegals voted in the 2016 election, explaining Hillary Clinton's popular vote margin, he just can't help himself. So when he appears at a Montana Senate campaign rally and goes off script like this:

"In a freewheeling speech in Montana, Trump cycled through many of his favorite themes but repeatedly returned to vigorous campaign-year attacks on Democrats, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.

He again referred to Warren of Massachusetts as “Pocahontas” to ridicule her claims of Native American ancestry. Warren is among the Democrats considered a potential 2020 candidate.

Trump said Thursday that he would give her a DNA test in the middle of a debate and say: “I’ll give you a million dollars for your favorite charity, paid for by Trump, if you take the test and it shows you’re an Indian.”

“We will take that little kit and say – but we have to do it gently. Because we’re in the #MeToo generation so we have to be very gentle – and we will very gently take that kit, and we will slowly toss it, hoping it doesn’t hit her and injure her arm,” Trump said.

Here was Warren's actual response, on Twitter:

"Elizabeth Warren

Hey, @realDonaldTrump: While you obsess over my genes, your Admin is conducting DNA tests on little kids because you ripped them from their mamas & you are too incompetent to reunite them in time to meet a court order. Maybe you should focus on fixing the lives you're destroying."

But she missed a great opportunity, although it's still there for the taking if she wants it. Here is how she should have responded:

"Mr. Trump, you are challenging me to take a DNA test to prove that I have Native American ancestry. I accept your challenge..... but only if you will agree to take a polygraph (lie detector) on live television to prove your claim that you never sexually harassed or attacked any of the 19 women who have accused you so far, and your claim that you never had sex with a porn star, Stormy Daniels, or a Playboy Playmate, Karen McDougal, while your wife Melania was home taking care of your infant son. We'll have each woman appear, tell her story, while you are hooked up to a lie detector. After each one tells her story, you will be asked a few yes or no questions, such as "did you ever attempt to have sex with this woman," and "is she telling the truth." If I fail the DNA test, I will resign my Senate seat.... if, and only if, you fail any one of the lie detector exams for any of the women's accusations, you will resign the presidency. Deal? Oh yeah, and just for good measure, we'll throw in a question or two about whether your presidential campaign committed a felony by receiving stolen e-mails that you used to attack Hillary Clinton."

The beauty of this response is that it attacks the serial liar where it hurts the most: with his base. By challenging the bully straight up, Warren can show that he is all hot air, and that he'll collapse and retreat when challenged on his own turf. To really spice it up, Warren should deliver this speech in Montana at a campaign rally for incumbent Democratic Senator Jon Tester. Imagine the ratings for the rally- and imagine the ratings for a live television appearance by Trump hooked up to a lie detector.

Sunday, July 01, 2018


One of the pluses of being a student of history is that it's easier not to suffer undue anxiety over the current state of affairs of the United States of America. Having recently finished biographies and historical novels covering the period of the founding of our country (Alexander Hamilton, by Ron Chernow, c. 2004) and of the Civil War and aftermath (Grant, by Jean Edward Smith, c. 2001), I have a better perspective on how dire our straits are right now and how important the next two elections (2018 midterms and 2020 presidential) are to the continuation of this democracy.

My response to people who think if we don't impeach Donald Trump that we will sink into Fascism is that we need to look at the reverse: where would we be with a president just as awful on policy grounds but who is not so vulgar, narcissistic, abusive, and offensive- say, a Mike Pence. Or worse, a president just as cruel and abusive as Trump, but who was cunning and intelligent and who had an actual agenda (say, a Ted Cruz, whom I thought in early 2016 was the worse of the two remaining candidates).

My hope is that Trump can manage to stay in office at least through the first Tuesday in November to continue to motivate people to go to the polls, because there are more of us (the decent people who don't want to use power to abuse minority groups) then there are of them (the bad guys- although they don't see themselves that way when they look in the mirror- right, Jay Brimberry?). So, just to lend a bit of historical perspective, on this 155th anniversary of the battle at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, between Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia and George Meade's Army of the Potomac, a brief look back at true dire straits is helpful. This was the battle that decided the war, and the greatest speech by an American president, now written in stone at his memorial in Washington, might give us some hope:

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."