“I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters,” said Donald Trump recently.

Fasten your seat belts, America. We’re in for a bumpy ride. The meanest kid on the block just took off the kid gloves and pulled out all the stops. Republican front runner Donald Trump’s recent boast at a campaign rally in Iowa that even if he were to shoot someone he wouldn’t lose the loyalty of his idiot supporters just exploded any remaining pretense of civil discourse this election season.

Let’s take a closer look for a moment at Trump’s despicable claim. How convenient for the candidate to choose Fifth Avenue for his fantasy shootout. After all, if you’re going to randomly murder someone, why not do it on your own turf – right outside your own front door? Grab your firepower and a latte. Ride the private elevator down from your $100 million penthouse. Imagine the silhouette of your unsuspecting victim navigating the crowd down on the street below moments before they have the privilege of losing their life by your gilded hand. No need to take time out from your busy schedule to climb into the Escalade and have your chauffeur drive you to one of your other forty New York City houses and apartments on a less high-profile street. What a waste of time and gas. Besides, the photo op will be so much more dramatic when the body falls in a pool of blood on the sidewalk beneath the gold letters that proclaim your name.

Oh, the wiliness. Oh, the disdain for decency and the sanctity of life. Trump’s brand of sneering chutzpah is beyond belief.

Allow me the indulgence of delving a bit deeper into the appeal of Trump’s outrageously violent but psychologically clever fantasy. Unfortunately, Trump has the con man’s killer instinct for the power of subliminal suggestion. Trump’s choice of Fifth Avenue as the crime scene and his appeal to his supporters’ dislike of New Yorkers and what their city symbolizes is beyond brilliant. (Forget for the moment the inconvenient truth that this newly anointed populist hero is an examplar of New York’s wealthy super class.) That scary, multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-cultural, leftie, Jewish, Muslim, black, gay, transsexual, Latino, anti-gun, socialist brew provides the perfect target for Trump and his supporters. Giving a wink and a nod to the gun toters’ belief that guns are the sine qua non of what it means to be a patriotic American doesn’t hurt either. And don’t forget the scariest thing of all. Trump is a (serious?) candidate for the presidency who wants us to believe that his supporters are so fanatically enamored with the man and his hate-filled words that even if he’s a murderer they’ll overlook the loss of life and continue to give him their support.

This is dangerous stuff, folks.

A satirical view

To read another writer’s take on Trump’s latest bombshell—and laugh, rather than cry—here’s satirist Andy Borowitz from The Borowitz Report of The New Yorker.

“Trump’s Plan to Randomly Shoot People Lacks Details, Random Shooters Say”

One day after Donald Trump claimed that he could shoot people on New York’s Fifth Avenue and not lose support, a leading member of the random-shooting community complained that the billionaire’s random-shooting plan lacks specifics.

Harland Dorrinson, who heads the largest association of random shooters in the nation, said that Trump’s Fifth Avenue plan “lacked many of the key ingredients necessary for a credible random shooting.”

“There’s no weapons cache, no twisted manifesto to be found later by authorities,” Dorrinson said. “To anyone in the random-shooting world, Trump’s plan fails on so many levels.”

Moreover, he said, Trump has not put in the many years of solitary seething that most random shooters deem mandatory.

“Before you do a random shooting, you’re supposed to be quiet and keep to yourself,” he said. “Trump is always shouting at thousands of people.”
Dorrinson added that although many random shooters have been in the Trump camp thus far, the candidate’s vague random-shooting “plan” is now giving them pause.

“Donald Trump made it sound like a random shooting is just the easiest thing in the world,” he said. “At the end of the day, random shooters find that hurtful.”

The post Trump’s 5th-Avenue-shootout fantasy appeared first on Occasional Planet.

You’ve heard it a thousand times; a likely candidate for political office announces that he or she has chosen to not to run. Usually the candidate references family considerations as why he or she is not running.

How do we in the public react? Often we first wipe that smirk off our face and then say something like, “Oh yea, I really believe that one.” We smell a rat and dismiss what the presumed candidate said.

Recently a candidate, not to be named now, said the following:

This has been a difficult, personal decision, and I am very grateful to my family for their total support of my going forward, had that been what I decided.

A candidate for president today is embracing a ten-year commitment to an all-consuming effort, to the virtual exclusion of all else. His (or her) supporters expect and deserve no less than absolute fire in the belly from their candidate,” he added. “I cannot offer that with certainty, and total certainty is required.”

A frequent response to a statement such as this, particularly if it comes from someone from a political party other than our own, is, “That’s a bunch of B.S. He/she clearly is covering up dirt and is afraid that it will come out in the light of day that the campaign will shine on it. Furthermore, a politician couldn’t really care that much about his or her family to place their well-being ahead of his or her own ambition.”

It is true that many individuals testing the waters announce their withdrawals through code language when what they really mean is (a) I have little or no chance of winning, or (b) there’s no way that I can keep the dirt from coming out.

However, there is considerable truth to what the candidate mentioned above said. “Supporters expect and deserve no less than absolute fire in the belly from their candidate ….I cannot offer that with certainty, and total certainty is required.”

If an individual wants to run for president, he or she will inevitably think of two terms and that will mean ten years of unimaginable intensity and scrutiny. Barack Obama announced his candidacy in February, 2007 and if he wins reelection will serve until January 20, 2017 – ten years.

Any candidate who takes the plunge is saying that he or she will live on pins and needles for years to come. At the very least, this can be an extremely unpleasant way to live one’s life. At its worst, it can do serious psychological and moral damage to that individual.

One of the questions raised about Richard Nixon when he was running for president was, “Would you buy a used car from this man?” I would have done so immediately if I knew that it would keep him on the used car lot and out of politics. From his earliest days in Congress in 1946 it was clear that this was not a man to be trusted. However, this was apparently not of concern to a great number of Americans. He served just four years in the House of Representatives and two in the Senate before moving on to two terms as Vice-President, and one and a half terms as president. Through his political career, he evolved from not just someone of questionable integrity to someone who clearly had serious psychological issues. This culminated when he was president of the United States and had his finger on the nuclear weapons button.

What if in early 1946 Richard Nixon had said words to the effect of, “I have chosen to not run for Congress because with young children I cannot guarantee the electorate that I can fulfill the expectations that they would place on me.” Perhaps he really felt that way but did not back off from running because he thought such a decision would not be believed.

Four decades before Nixon, Woodrow Wilson spoke of the “making the world safe for democracy” when he reluctantly lead the United States into World War I. On a less global level, democracy would be safer if we made it easier for those who would not serve us to walk away without being mocked. Why do they have to justify that they don’t want to spend years in a fishbowl in which any mistakes that they make would be greatly magnified over mistakes they would have made in private life.

So who made the “I cannot offer that with certainty, and total certainty is required” statement above? It was not a progressive; not anyone close. It was Mississippi Governor and former Republican National Committee Chairman Haley Barbour.

Indeed there are good reasons to be skeptical of his statement. In recent months he has embarrassed himself and even the Republican Party by heaping praise on the pro-segregation Citizens Council. He diminished the seriousness of past discrimination against African-Americans. He has a shelf-full of other gaffes.

However, he was right when he spoke of the demands of running for and serving in office, particularly the presidency. Those words are so true that it would serve us well to have serious questions about the motivation of anyone who wants to go through the travails of a campaign that never ends. When a candidate gives the usual platitudes form not running, we might harbor suspicions that there are other reasons, but we should not demean the inherent truth embedded in the platitudes.

If we want better candidates, citizens need to minimize the pressure on candidates that makes running and serving potentially so unpleasant. We can demand shorter and less intense campaigns. We can be less judgmental of every decision a president makes. How many times have you heard someone say, “Who would possibly want that job?” This will remain a fair question until we address the real issues embedded in the platitudes. As is the case with so many of our political problems, the solution begins with us as citizens.

Post Script: Convincing article about why Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels is not going to run for president in 2012 because of obviously real family issues.

The post No need to mock those who bow out of running for office appeared first on Occasional Planet.

During the 2010 election cycle, Arthur Lieber ran for Congress in Missouri’s 2^nd Congressional district.  By percentages, Lieber lost badly to the heavily favored incumbent Todd Akin.  But the final vote tally is not as compelling as the story behind the numbers.  In a year when Democrats were positioning themselves as centrists, Lieber was openly progressive.  In a year when candidates of all parties chased donor money more frantically than ever, Lieber ran his campaign on a tiny budget and accepted no monetary donations.   And in a year when mud-slinging and smears were far more common than reasoned dialogue, Lieber’s campaign was relentlessly civil.  In fact, Lieber’s run for office was the most principled, unconventional campaign that most Missourians never heard of.  In his book, An Unlikely Candidate: Reflections on My Run for Congress, we find out why.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should begin by saying that I have known Arthur Lieber for over half my life.  Many years ago I met him when I was a high school student participating in Civitas’ Model United Nations program, and in my more adult incarnation I actually coordinate middle school programs for Civitas.  I am not an unbiased reviewer.  That said, I think anyone who picks up his book will find it a compelling read.  At its core it’s the tale of a thoughtful human being attempting to navigate the all-too-often inhumane process of campaigning for elected office.

Part one of Lieber’s book is a narrative of the congressional campaign itself.   Upon reading this section, one immediately is struck by how draining (physically, mentally, interpersonally) a political campaign is.  Canvassing, candidate forums, phone calls, candidate questionaires…and Lieber readily admits that by refusing monetary contributions he avoided the hugely time-consuming (and soul crushing task) of fundraising.  To maintain one’s sense of self in the face of such a process is a daunting task, it seems, and one that requires the sense of humor and irony that Lieber evidences again and again in the first section of the book.

Impressively, Lieber manages to give readers a true “insider” look at the campaign without engaging in petty character slams against those who slighted his candidacy or were less than genuine in their interactions with him.  In reading the book you gain insight into local media figures and politicos, but you never feel like Lieber was simply using his book to settle scores.  He is as quick to lavish praise as he is to level reasoned criticism.  Whether discussing Don Marsh, Bill McClellan, or Jack Danforth, he paints portraits of local personalities in a way that feels insightful but not exploitive or gossipy.

Furthermore, there are no sacred cows in Lieber’s book.   In one of the most powerful passages, he recounts his long standing respect (and financial support) of Planned Parenthood, and how he ultimately lost some of his esteem for the organization once he saw the process by which the organization endorsed—or didn’t endorse–candidates.  Leading and narrowly designed candidate questionaires, frustrating communication difficulties with the Planned Parenthood office, and an unwillingness to endorse a candidate unless they looked like they would win, all forced Lieber to look more critically at an organization he has long supported (and may well continue to support).

Part two of Lieber’s book focuses more on policy than narrative and attempts to layout concrete steps that could be taken to improve the political process.  In this section, Lieber is brave enough to offer unorthodox policy suggestions but also humble enough to admit that he doesn’t have all the answers.  His chapter on the need for schools that prepare students for democracy is particularly strong.  Does Lieber tilt at a few windmills here, suggesting changes to our current political and education system that seem to be highly unlikely at best?  Definitely.  But if more candidates were willing to engage in such thoughtful, unconventional problem solving, our political discourse would certainly be richer and more fruitful.

Upon finishing  An Unlikely Candidate, one can’t help but wonder how our country would be different if those who ran for office approached it more like Lieber.  Impossible?  Given our current system of funding campaigns and educating the electorate, it probably is.  But it’s exciting to imagine nevertheless.

The post “An Unlikely Candidate” reflects on an unusual campaign appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Taking the recent Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance to its logical extreme, a corporation–Murray Hill, Inc.,–has filed as a Republican candidate for Congress in Maryland’s 8th District. This is political theatre and satire at its best, and we should all thank the smart-aleck who did it.

Read it here, on The Raw Story, and watch the hilarious video on YouTube.

The post Corporation runs for Congress appeared first on Occasional Planet.