All American with an ethical conscience ask the same political question? How did our nation get to this terrible place?

In "Who Speaks for Us?" (March 2026), Marilynne Robinson argues in The New York Review of Books that true democracy, not "populism," is the essential response to corruption and the abuse of power. She emphasizes the dignity and authority of the people, warning against the degradation caused by arrogance and avarice.

An echo essay published in New York Review of Books:

The political leaders and elected representatives of our two-party system have made it into a weapon that works against the people.

• Core Argument: Robinson contends that modern two-party politics often weaponizes systems against the people.
• The Solution: She advocates for a return to genuine democratic principles and warns that populist movements often merely reflect the "inchoate" - not yet fully developed or in the process of becoming- resentments of a subordinated class.
• Perspective: As a novelist and essayist known for her Christian, Calvinist-influenced perspective (e.g., Gilead), she often critiques contemporary political culture from a moral and intellectual standpoint.
  
  When Donald Trump was first elected to the presidency, a British friend asked me if his authoritarian tendencies were a real threat to America. No, I said, because the country had so many autonomous centers of power to constrain him—the press, the unions and professions, the universities, the courts, the states, and, of course, various types and sources of political opposition. Not all these supposed checks on his power have capitulated absolutely, but enough of them have capitulated to raise fundamental questions about the country we thought we had and the country we have now. It will always be true that we have seen the Constitution effectively brushed aside by a superannuated game show host who galvanizes his base with talk of showerheads and windmills and the demonic nastiness of the other party. All this is so strange that it is hard to imagine how history will take any lessons from it. It would seem grossly improbable that a billionaire—rich from birth and repeatedly bankrupt yet still a billionaire—could lead a movement of angry “populism.” But here we are.
  
  There are too many answers to the question “What went wrong❓I turn to the two-party system because, although it is at present its own worst enemy, there is still hope that it can allow the great public to make decisions about the course of government. It has gone wrong, too, but it can change, almost passively, if it happens to channel the decisions of an impassioned electorate. 

Insofar as it gives voters power, it is imperiled. It can thwart the intentions of very powerful interests and individuals. This is an assertion of democracy, wonderful or regrettable and benighted, but in any case essential if the historical character of the country is to be preserved.

Our elections have been based on there being two great factions that alternate in roles of power without much conflict. The problems of the system have been largely manageable. Three or more parties lead to the rule of a minority able to provide or deny the numbers necessary to produce a ruling plurality. Government by a group few people actually voted for, that can always threaten to withdraw their support if its interests are not looked after, is not an improvement. One-party government is synonymous with dictatorship.

Any free election is, in effect, a referendum. Our binary system can be taken to express either a Yes or a No. More granular interpretations are left to commentators or the opinion polls, or the parties themselves. This leaves the public voice vulnerable to being misread, or to being tendentiously misinterpreted. To the extent that this takes effect, the public has been denied its voice.

Recently there was a Democratic sweep of a series of special elections. What did this mean? In a moment as fraught as this one, it would be good to know what the people are thinking. An issue that supposedly decided these various contests was settled upon immediately—affordability❗

This six syllable word assumes that the problem is not that income has stagnated but that certain grocery items, lettuce and eggs, are too expensive. Higher wages would transform the economy. It would be a redistribution of wealth, however modest. Fiddling around with the price of a few groceries would be cheap and easy. An added, much more significant advantage, it would preempt and dismiss the possibility that the great, sovereign electorate might have anything serious, anything relevant to the well-being of their country, anything generous, on their minds.

• billfold and 
• kitchen table.

These are the two terms used to express the condescension that entraps the voting public, in the way they are addressed by politicians and campaigns, and in the way they and their views are understood and brought to bear on public life. I was instructed by a Democratic candidate for state office on the mesmeric power of the word “affordability,” recently demonstrated so effectively. So the meaningfulness of a solid No to the present regime is reduced to an issue Trump can neuter by waving his (the Treasury Department’s) checkbook.

At one time, the two-party system fit fairly nicely within the structure of our government. The U.S. House and the Senate were deliberative bodies with important constitutional authority, which meant that there were differences within the parties as well as between them. 

Then came Newt Gingrich, a Roman Catholic convert and the creation of GOP party discipline. Republicans discovered the wrongminded power that came with sticking to the party line, however this tactic disempowered individual lawmakers and their constituencies, not to mention the institution of Congress itself. Constitutional obligations lost out to partisan power. Then came the next evil inspiration. They could change the constitutional order by simply playing dead. When they controlled the House, they could refuse to govern, leaving it to the president to fill the void, to do by executive order what should be done by legislation. This strengthens the president, weakens the law by circumvention, and defeats the intentions of the Founders with consequences they insistently predicted. And, it excludes opposition influences and radically minimizes public discussion.

So, now we have a grotesquely 🤢empowered Donald Trump. 

Because of Trump's hubris, great institutions are diminished and humiliated, the House of Representatives being first. 

The No available to the people in our binary system is associated with the Democratic Party, whoever they are. 

The great issues of these days must be confronted by the people. Whatever their (our) shortcomings are, we are figures of shining integrity compared with those who now presume to govern. 

A braver press would educate us better, certainly, but we know enough to be appalled at the grave threats to freedom and justice we see in our streets.

Only consider: Donald Trump claims that many billions of dollars have come in as a result of his tariffs. He speaks of this as a sort of slush fund that he can use as he sees fit, maybe reducing taxes or just mailing out checks to the public, benevolently repairing injuries done by his government to those he thinks will vote for him. But the fact is,  Americans are paying the cost of those tariffs. 

So, it is Americans’ money💲 that is being siphoned into this vast pool, with inevitable consequences for “affordability.” They never voted for tariffs, and in the recent special elections they might well have voted against them. If all this money were collected by taxation, at least the public might have some input into the use of it, especially if they had a functioning House. If Trump extracts $10 billion from his suit against the IRS, where will that money go? This bizarre super-economy of ultra-wealth can create self-protective arrangements neither the laws nor the Founders anticipated, together with a culture of cynicism ready to exploit its worst possibilities.

Money and power corrupt. The proper response to this ancient truth is not “populism,” which expresses the inchoate resentments of a subordinated class, and which has shown itself to be helpless against gross abuses. The one thing needed is democracy. We have seen the people speak and act from a deep awareness of their uniquely legitimate authority. We have seen their humanity, their dignity, and their wisdom. At the same time we have also seen the degradations that follow from arrogance, avarice and impunity. The contrast is as stark and instructive as any moral fable.

Add radical right wing Rep. Mat Gaetz to the Republican cult culture.

Echo Opinion: Newt Gingrich: Republicans must expel Matt Gaetz, published in The Washington Post by (gulp!) Newt Gingrich. 😃

Broken clock award of the day to Newt Gingrich!

Newt Gingrich, a Republican from Georgia, was speaker of the House of Representatives from 1995 to 1999.

Echo❗ Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) is an anti-Republican who has become actively destructive to the conservative movement.

Drama has filled the halls of Congress for 234 years. Bringing together a group of 435 strong-willed personalities guarantees conflict, and it has always been a tumultuous body. But some behavior crosses the line — and when it does, there has to be consequences.

Gaetz obviously hates House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) — and that’s fine. If Gaetz were simply a loudmouthed junior member who attacked McCarthy every day, that would be fine, too. (❓- 😕😒😏 )He would just be isolated with a small group of lawmakers who can’t figure out how to get things done. They’d huddle together seeking warmth and reassurance from their fellow incompetents.

But, instead, Gaetz has gone beyond regular drama. He is destroying the House GOP’s ability to govern and draw a sharp contrast with the policy (ugh...FakeNews 😩) disasters of the Biden administration.

Former (brilliant!⭐🌟) House speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), a (competent 😇) liberal Democrat (with whom I disagree 😢on almost everything), perfectly captured Gaetz’s childish behavior in an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper on Sunday.  Gaetz “has no sway” or influence in Congress, Pelosi said, “except to get on TV and to raise money on the internet.” Pelosi told Tapper he was “wasting [his] time on that guy.”

Meanwhile, (out of control😡) Gaetz egocentrically went from TV show to TV show and attacked his own GOP party by repeatedly threatening to bring a motion to oust McCarthy as the speaker, which he did late Monday.

Furthermore, Gaetz violated the House Republican Conference rule that states the motion to vacate “should only be available with the agreement of the Republican Conference so as to not allow Democrats to choose the Speaker.” The agreement made when McCarthy became speaker doesn’t supersede the conference rules. Gaetz still needs a majority of the conference.

Obviously, (radical right wing 😧 ) Gaetz knows he can’t possibly get a majority of the House GOP conference to his side. He is simply violating the rules in the pursuit of personal attention and fundraising — just like Pelosi said.

I served 20 years in the House, including four as speaker. On occasion, I fought against the GOP establishment. I led the fight against President George H.W. Bush’s 1990 tax increase after he had broken his word about “no new taxes.” I felt bound to stay with my commitment to the American voters.

Unlike Gaetz, though, when I rebelled, I represented the majority view of the caucus at the time.

Gaetz’s motion to remove McCarthy should have been swiftly defeated, but it wasn’t; he should still be expelled from the House Republican Conference. House Republicans have far more important things to do than entertain one member’s ego.

Republican confusion is the hallmark of the "chaos caucus": No message, no reason, no vision and no plan

Amid GOP confusion, U.S. braces for ‘first-ever shutdown about nothing’ What’s the deal with this government shutdown? 

Echo essay published in The Washington Post by Jeff Stein.

In a standoff even Republicans are comparing to ‘Seinfeld,’ because it’s hard to tell.

Message to #GOP: What's it about?  It's about "nothing"!

In 1995, and 1996, the federal government shut down as House Republicans and the Clinton administration clashed over spending cuts. In 2013, the government shut down because of a partisan disagreement over President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act.

(Meanwhile, since President Barack Obama's "Obamacare" passed, the result has been to provide affordable health care coverage. As of early 2023, the report finds that more than 40 million Americans have coverage under the ACA, the highest total on record.)

In 2018, Democrats bucked President Donald Trump’s demands to fund a U.S.-Mexico border wall, leading to the longest shutdown in U.S. history.

Jerry Seinfeld "It's about nothing!"

“We are truly heading for the first-ever shutdown about nothing,” said Michael Strain, director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning think tank. Strain has started referring to the current GOP House-led impasse as “the ‘Seinfeld’ shutdown,” a reference to the popular sitcom widely known as “a show about nothing.” “The weirdest thing about it is that the Republicans don’t have any demands. What do they want? What is it that they’re going to shut the government down for? We simply don’t know.”

Lawmakers have until 12:01 a.m. Sunday to pass a new law to extend government funding, or a wide range of critical federal services will come to a halt. On Friday, House Republicans voted down their own proposal to approve a short-term spending bill to fund the government, as well as a separate effort that would have cut numerous essential government services by at least 30 percent. The failure left House GOP’s leadership path forward unclear.

Typically, funding showdowns in divided government between Congress and the White House have featured pitched battles over specific policies, such as Trump’s border wall or Obamacare. But budget experts and historians say the current impasse stands out for its lack of a clear policy disagreement.

House Republican leaders had already worked out an agreement with President Biden in May on government spending levels for the next fiscal year, but they’re working on legislation that would spend far less than the agreed amounts. The House has no plans yet for a temporary extension to government funding, which means there haven’t been significant negotiations with the Democratic Senate and White House. As long as House Republicans cannot find consensus on their demands, Democratic policymakers — largely backed in this fight by Senate Republicans — have declined to offer concessions, because they don’t know which ones would suffice.

Asked by reporters what could be done to avoid a shutdown, Biden responded, “If I knew that, I would’ve already done it.”

Compounding the confusion is that it is not clear how or when House Republicans can forge consensus. (Failure❗) Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has for weeks tried to unify his caucus around a set of spending demands, but his efforts have been stymied in part because a handful of far-right insurgents keep changing their own demands. And so, the legislative leaders tasked with funding the government appear to be stuck.

House Republican appropriators have advanced legislation that would dramatically slash the safety net and other domestic programs, including gutting some education subsidies by 80 percent. 

Those bills, however, are not only doomed in the Senate but also have failed to pass the House, leaving the lower chamber’s policy priorities unclear.

“I frankly don’t understand it — I think it’s sort of nuts. There are times people vote yes one day, and then they come back and vote no the next day, and can’t explain why they switched,” ❓😟😞 said Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker and a McCarthy ally.

Gingrich led House Republicans through two different shutdowns nearly 30 years ago, a brief one in late 1995 and a longer one weeks later. “I find it hard to understand what they want, too, because they change constantly — that’s a big part of the problem.”

Asked if he has a hard time tracking the insurgents’ demands of McCarthy, Gingrich said yes, adding, “(and...) 'So do they'.”

Even Grover Norquist, the president of the conservative Americans for Tax Reform, has tormented generations of GOP officials by organizing House backbenchers against their leaders. But he chastised the current group of House insurgents for failing to coalesce around an intelligible set of demands. The shutdowns in 1995 and 1996 eventually pushed Clinton and the GOP-led Congress to agree on balanced-budget legislation and other federal changes. Now, Norquist said, far-right members throw out so many different demands — an end to Ukraine funding, tougher immigration restrictions, dramatic spending cuts, changes to House procedures — that it is impossible to know what they want.

“You can’t have seven reasons, and a different one each week, (❗) and expect American people to understand what your point was. In prior fights, there was a focus on why you were doing this. 

But right now, what would someone watching this on TV be taking away? It’s about too many things, which makes this about nothing,” Norquist said.

If this weekend truly does bring the “Seinfeld” shutdown, Norquist said, it will in part reflect the lack of clarity about what the holdouts in the House are demanding.

“One of the rules of ‘Seinfeld’ was: ‘No learning takes place,’” he said. “And one of the rules from that show is the case here — there’s no attempt here to learn from previous episodes.”

Back to the political future: Prescient dangerous Trumpziism!

Opinion echo seems frozen in time. Worth the re-read!

"Trump is not an outlier; he is a culmination, a logical conclusion of the (racist) rhetoric and tactics of the Republican Party for the past ten, fifteen, twenty years"

While browsing through back issues of The New Yorker, I found this 2017, essay by editor David Remnick.  In highbrow literary prose, this essay can be labeled as "prescient", defined as "having or showing knowledge of events before they take place, ie., "a prescient warning"

In “The Divider,” David Remnick writes about Trump and the far (racist) right.

Early November, in 2016, just before the presidential Election Day, Barack Obama was driven through the crisp late-night gloom of the outskirts of Charlotte, as he barnstormed the state of North Carolina on behalf of Hillary Clinton's campaign. 

But, he was in no measure serene or confident. The polls, the “analytics,” remained in Clinton’s favor, yet Obama, with the unique vantage point of being the first African-American President, had watched as, night after night, immense (aka "beer hall style) crowds cheered and hooted for the demagogue who had launched a business career with blacks-need-not-apply housing developments in Queens and a political career with a racist conspiracy theory known as (evil!) birtherism. 

OMG! Birtherism redux!

During his speech in Charlotte that night, Obama warned that no one really changes in the Presidency; rather, the office “magnifies” who you already are. So if you “accept the support of Klan sympathizers before you’re President, or you’re kind of slow in disowning it, saying, ‘Well, I don’t know,’ then that’s how you’ll be as President.”

Donald Trump’s ascent was hardly the first sign that Americans had not uniformly regarded Obama’s election as an inspiring chapter in the country’s fitful progress toward equality. 

Newt Gingrich, the former (Maine Writer: now the Mr. Roman Catholic!) Speaker of the House, had branded him the “food-stamp President.” In the right-wing and white-nationalist media, Obama was, variously, a socialist, a Muslim, the Antichrist, a “liberal fascist,” who was assembling his own Hitler Youth. A high-speed train from Las Vegas to Anaheim that was part of the economic-stimulus package was a secret effort to connect the brothels of Nevada to the innocents at Disneyland. He was, by nature, suspect. “You just look at the body language, and there’s something going on,” Trump said, last summer. In the meantime, beginning on the day of Obama’s first inaugural, the Secret Service fielded an unprecedented number of threats against the President’s person.

And so, speeding toward yet another airport last November, Obama seemed like a weary man who harbored a burning seed of apprehension. “We’ve seen this coming,” he said. “Donald Trump is not an outlier; he is a culmination, a logical conclusion of the rhetoric and tactics of the Republican Party for the past ten, fifteen, twenty years. What surprised me was the degree to which those tactics and rhetoric completely jumped the rails.”

For half a century, in fact, the leaders of the G.O.P. have fanned the lingering embers of racial resentment in the United States. Through shrewd political calculation and rhetoric, from Richard Nixon’s “Southern strategy” to the latest charges of voter fraud in majority-African-American districts, doing so has paid off at the ballot box. “There were no governing principles,” Obama said. “There was no one to say, ‘No, this is going too far, this isn’t what we stand for.’ ”

In fact, (prescient!) the world witnessed Obama’s successor in the White House, unbound and unhinged, acting more or less as Obama had predicted. In 2015, a week after Trump had declared his candidacy, he spoke in favor of removing the Confederate flag from South Carolina’s capitol: “Put it in the museum and let it go.” But, (you can't trust anything #TFG says!) he abandoned the customary dog whistle of previous Republican culture warriors, Instead, Trump made plain his indulgent sympathy for neo-Nazis, Klan members, and unaffiliated white supremacists, who marched with torches, assault rifles, clubs, and racist and anti-Semitic slogans through the streets of Charlottesville, Virginia. One participant even adopted an isis terror tactic, driving straight into a crowd of people peaceably demonstrating against the racists. Trump had declared an “America First” culture war in his Inaugural Address, and now—as his poll numbers dropped, as he lost again and again in the courts and in Congress, as the Mueller investigation delved into his miserable business history, as more and more aides leaked their dismay—he had cast his lot with the basest of his base. There were some “very fine people” (aka, evil racists) among the white nationalists, he said, and their “culture” should not be threatened.

Who could have predicted it? (Prescient!) Well, anyone, really. 

Two years ago, the Daily Stormer, the foremost neo-Nazi news site in the country, called on white men to “vote for the first time in our lives for the one man who actually represents our interests.” 

Trump never spurned this current of his support. He invited it, exploited it. With Stephen Bannon, white nationalism won prime real estate in the West Wing. Bannon (a passed over US junior Naval officer!) wrote much of the inaugural speech, and was branded “The Great Manipulator” in a Time cover story that bruised the Presidential ego. But Bannon has been marginalized for months. 

In the wake of Charlottesville, Trump finally pushed Bannon out. He is headed back to Breitbart (barfcart!) News. But, he was staff; his departure is hardly decisive. The culture of this White House was, and remains, Trump’s (cult!).

When Trump was elected, there were those who considered his history and insisted that this was a kind of national emergency, and that to normalize this Presidency was a dangerous illusion. At the same time, there were those who, in the spirit of patience and national comity, held that Trump was “our President,” and that “he must be given a chance.” Has he had enough of a chance yet? After his press conference in the lobby of Trump Tower last Tuesday, when he ignored the scripted attempts to regulate his impulses and revealed his true allegiances, there can be no doubt about who he is. This is the inescapable fact: on November 9th, the United States elected a dishonest, inept, unbalanced, and immoral human being as its President and Commander-in-Chief. Trump has daily proven unyielding to appeals of decency, unity, moderation, or fact. He is willing to imperil the civil peace and the social fabric of his country simply to satisfy his narcissism and to excite the worst inclinations of his core followers.

This latest outrage has disheartened Trump’s circle somewhat; business executives, generals and security officials, advisers, and even family members have semaphored their private despair. One of the more lasting images from Trump’s squalid appearance on Tuesday was that of his chief of staff, John Kelly, who stood listening to him with a hangdog look of shame. But Trump still retains the support of roughly a third of the country, and of the majority of the Republican electorate. The political figure Obama saw as a “logical conclusion of the rhetoric and tactics of the Republican Party” has not yet come unmoored from the Party’s (right wing racist) base.

The most important resistance to Trump has to come from civil society, from institutions, and from individuals who, despite their differences, believe in constitutional norms and have a fundamental respect for the values of honesty, equality, and justice. The imperative is to find ways to counteract and diminish his malignant influence not only in the overtly political realm but also in the social and cultural one. To fail in that would allow the death rattle of an old racist order to take hold as a deafening revival. 

Published in the print edition of the August 28, 2017, issue, with the headline “The Divider.”

Canaries in the "Trump coal mine"

In my experience, the political transition of Donald Trump to Washington DC is a saga of stomach turning power grabs. Surely, it will backfire, but not before people wake up to the "canaries in the political Trumpzi coal mine".
When Donald Trump appealed to coal miners who believed his pledge about "making American great again" and the intent to save their jobs, its likely they were not remembering the old "canary" test once used to detect noxious gases inside their dangerous work zones. Well, now Donald Trump may have his own human versions of "canaries". Namely, Newt Gingrich, Rudolf Giuliani and even General Barry McCaffrey.

For those who might need a metaphor refresh:

The idea of placing a canary or other warm blooded animals in a mine to detect carbon monoxide was first proposed by John Scott Haldane, in 1913 or later. Well into the 20th century, coal miners brought canaries into coal mines as an early-warning signal for toxic gases, primarily carbon monoxide. Often, this metaphor is used to establish the symbol of an "early warning" symptom.

So, here're the "canaries" who we know about:  Newt Gingrich says he "doesn't want" to be Secretary of State in the Trump administration, even after months of being one of the few surrogates willing to go out on a limb for the Trump regime.  Rudolph Giuliani now says he "withdrew his name" from being considered for a cabinet position in the Trumpzi administration even though he was reported to be an "insider".  General Barry McCaffrey once said he would support Donald Trump's decision to appoint a former colleage to be National Security Advisor, but has recently changed his mind. These are the "canary people" who we know about. Obviously, there are others.

DailyKos reports by Jen Hayden
Gen. Barry McCaffrey withdraws support of Trump national security advisor, calls for investigation

General Barry McCaffrey tells NBC News that he was initially supportive of Donald Trump’s decision to name Lt. General Michael Flynn as his national security advisor.  Nevertheless, a closer look at Flynn’s social media use shows that he sent out at least 16 different fake (propaganda) news stories via social media and General McCaffrey pulled no punches, bluntly calling the tweets and stories “demented.”

The Trump transition team is also rightly getting criticism for allowing Lt. General Flynn’s son, Michael G. Flynn, to not only take part in the transition team, but to seek out security clearance for him when his own social media has shown him to be prolifically disseminating utterly false and outrageous politically motivated news. (You can watch a smarmy Mike Pence evade Jake Tapper's pointed questions about Flynn, Jr.'s security clearance six different times by clicking here.) (As far as I'm concerned, everything Mike Pence says when interviewed is "smarmy"- ever since the Vice Presidential debate, he has perfected the art of "Christian lying".)

One of those fake stories prompted a man to walk into a pizza place and fire his high-powered gun to personally “investigate” the child sex trafficking ring run by Hillary Clinton that Flynn was tweeting about to his followers. Which, of course, wasn’t happening.

General Barry McCaffrey went on to say that “we need to aggressively examine what was going on” with Lt. General Michael Flynn and his son. Hear, hear!

In short, Lt. General Flynn’s outrageous peddling of fake news and/or propaganda should be disqualifying. Period. End story.
Meanwhile, 

Philip Mudd called Trump’s security transition a “clown show”:
Mudd, a counter-terrorism analyst for CNN, denounced retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn for leading calls to imprison Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton during the presidential campaign and for past incendiary remarks about Muslims. The former CIA and FBI official also contrasted the Trump transition with that of former GOP presidents.

“We have a history of remarkable servants in the Oval Office and in the Situation Room under Republican presidents,” Mudd told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on "The Situation Room." “We transition now to a national security adviser in a political realm who argues that an opponent on the stump should be locked up in prison and who argues that a billion-plus Muslims should be grouped together."

Americans still have time to heed the warning signs we are witnessing in the Trump transition.  We have been duly forewarned to stay away from Donald Trump because his erratic behavior and weird appointments are creating a dangerous nation.

What Republican will run for the 2016 nomination?

Clearly, the Republican party can't support a presidential candidate who is unqualified to be elected the leader of the free world. Donald Trump has proven that he is unqualified to be nominated for president. As Hillary Clinton aptly stated, "Donald Trump is dangerously incoherent". 

In "To Kill a Mockingbird", Atticus Finch said, "One thing that doesn't abide by majority rule is a person's conscience".

Therefore, who will be the GOP standard bearer and lead the party during the election?

I submit two names for my nomination. Both men have tried in the past but failed to appeal to voters.  Congressman Newt Gingrich (okay Democrats, just take an antacid Tums and deal with this potential) and Mayor Rudy Guiliani.

Suck it up Democrats because, at least, Gingrich is qualified to be nominated!

Mayor Rudy Guiliani

Of course, stupid Donald Trump is lashing out at Newt Gingrich, because the former Congressman and Speaker of the House has criticized the "Trumponian" bigotry expressed against Judge Gonzolo Curiel, who is overseeing the case against fraudulent "Trump University".

Donald Trump is increasingly behaving like a mad man:

FoxNews reports;
Donald Trump bristled Monday at supporter Newt Gingrich joining the chorus of criticism over his comments about the Mexican heritage of a federal judge -- saying it was "inappropriate" for Gingrich to weigh in, while once again defending his remarks.

For days, stupid Trump has defended claims that American-born District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, whose parents are from Mexico, has a conflict of interest as he considers lawsuits against Trump University.

Gingrich, speaking on "Fox News Sunday," called the remarks “inexcusable.”

Trump, though, pushed back during an interview Monday with "Fox & Friends."

“I saw Newt and I was surprised at Newt. I thought it was inappropriate, what he said,” Trump said.

Gingrich, though, is far from the only Republican challenging Trump's claims that the judge is biased against him because of his plans to build a wall along the Southern border. (Excuse me???? Why hasn't the media challenged this? America isn't supposed to build this idiotic wall. Does stupid Donald Trump realize, or did he forget, he said it was Mexico that was supposed to build this ridiculous anti immigration wall!)
The top two Republican congressional leaders have scolded Trump, and Ohio Gov. John Kasich -- who recently suspended his presidential campaign -- on Monday urged Trump to apologize.

Gingrich's criticism was especially pointed, coming from a figure thought to be a potential running mate prospect for Trump.
“It was one of the worst mistakes Trump has made. Inexcusable,” the former GOP House speaker, who has become one of Trump’s closest advisers, told “Fox News Sunday.”

Although Newt Gingrich is ambitious, it's doubtful he desires to be a president of "vice" with Donald Trump. Rather, it makes more sense for Gingrich to run for the leadership office himself, rather than be sucked into the wake of the doomed 2016 Republican equivilent of the Titanic.

Newt Gingrich Endorsement is Second Strike in Ryan Roll Out- Iowa State Fair is Third

You must know you're in trouble when the first national endorsement for Ryan's pick as Romney's Vice-Presidential candidate comes from Newt Gingrich.

But there was another clue. 

On May 3rd 2012, The Weekly Standard reported on Congressman Paul Ryan's Kenosha, Wis. town hall meeting where about 20 constituents expresses snickers and jeers during his budget cutting presentation. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/man-plan_648570.html 

Obviously, Mitt Romney's vetting staff didn't read this particular article.  If someone had read it, the campaign would have thought twice about sending Ryan, solo, to the Iowa State Fair, where he was also heckled. Iowa's popular state fair was a poor entrance place for Ryan to begin his national tour. His stand up solo was scheduled immediately after the "foiled by mis-steps" roll out of his pick as Romney's vice-presidential running mate, the announcement made on a Saturday, at a staged for TV venue, in government rich Norfolk, Virginia.http://oneturkeyrun.blogspot.com/2012/08/foiled-ryan-roll-out-whats-this-about.html

So, Ryan's first week on the job as a vice-presidential candidate hasn't gone well and the harbinger for this rough take off began with the Newt Gingrich endorsement.  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79606.html

“[Ryan] has grown into one of the great intellectual leaders in this country, his work on the budget is extraordinary. It is a real decision by Gov. Romney..." (Gingrich)

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79606.html#ixzz23W5LI5iF

Certainly, we can't disagree about the second sentence. Indeed, the Ryan choice for his running mate is a "real" decision by Romney, but it's a bad choice.

Ryan is an anti-intellectual.  He's a concrete thinker who made a name for himself by putting his by-line on a report called the Ryan Budget.  His plan is to destroy progressives who have supported sensible public policies whereby our Capitalist economic system shares the wealth through taxation with the middle class.  His regressive policies have turned on the middle class, those of us who pay his Congressional salary.

Ryan's endorsement by Newt Gingrich is hypocritical cronyism. The two men are a mutual admiration society.

But where's the Ryan endorsement by real GOP leaders like Jeb Bush, George W. Bush, Sarah Palin or even Dick Cheney?

Mitt Romney calls Paul Ryan a "great leader", but only if we believe in leadership that disenfranchises the middle class.

Strategically, Newt Gingrich is not the first person who should have endorsed Ryan's candidacy.  Frankly, the first media endorsement, should have come from New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.

Ryan needs to "charm" hard to become a campaign "darling", as some past VP candidates have managed to endear the public, like Al Gore or Ed Musky in campaign's past.

Although Democrats, like me, smile about the foiled Ryan roll-out, ground down by the Gingrich endorsement, the danger of a right-wing Romney-Ryan administration is, nevertheless, frighteningly real.  Americans must understand the risks of giving the Romney-Ryan political team control over our government.

Romney-Ryan's election team wanted to hit a home run with the VP roll out announcement. Instead, it's three strikes for the batter- a foiled roll out event, the Gingrich endorsement and the Iowa State Fair heckling. But, before we think the team is on their way out, we know it's only the first inning.

Newt Gingrich on Meet the Press Now "Trumps" all GOP 2012 Candidates

Please don't misunderstand me, I don't mean trump as a noun.

I mean to say, the Meet the Press interview by David Gregory on May 15, with 2012 presidential candidate Newt Gingrich created a trump of Republican candidates.

Gingrich and his non-defensive answers to Gregory threw Newt's "flame thrower" style political personality into the limelight. During the interview, Gingrich effectively sucked the oxygen out of Sarah Palin and all the other Republican who I cannot remember.  In other words, he's a captivating personality.

Therein is the usefulness of Newt Gingrich.  By officially entering the presidential race, he finally ignited some energy into a ho-hum Republican presidential race, enough so that news programs can put substance into their campaign hype. Otherwise, without Newt, the campaign coverage was (yawn) lackluster, at best. News viewers, pre-Newt, were no doubt switching cchannels to the shopping stations where electronic mattresses and garden statues were more interesting to watch.

Therein is the danger of Newt Gingrich.  He cannot be taken for granted despite his personal and political failures.  Thankfully, Mr. Gregory was completely blunt with Gingrich, asking him about his adulterous affair (maybe affairs) and three marriages.  Newt didn't get defensive.  He's ready for the heat. As a matter of fact, as a flame thrower, he seemed poised for a boomerang.  Poor Mrs. Gingrich (if that's her name). What woman would want to hear her husband admit to adultery on national television? Nobody!  Even President Clinton had the good sense to deny infidelity.  Call it a lie, sure, but think about the wife, "hello"?

Therein is the slyness of Newt Gingrich.  He believes people will forgive him his sexual hypocrisy because he asked to be forgiven, but where's the penance for past sins?  Forgiveness, as he asks for it, begs penance and Newt still has lots of explaining to do, as far as I'm concerned.  I wish he'd work as a social worker in Detroit for a year before announcing his intention to be President.  I'd consider voting for a repentant sinner. But, vote for somebody who simply asks for forgiveness with no penance attached? President Clinton had plenty of public penance and we don't even know what torture Hilary put him through.

Therein is the attraction of Newt Gingrich.  He can be a sympathetic person. But watch out! Gingrich has yet to be truthful with the American people.  He speaks in sound bites without substance.  When asked if he intended racist comments against President Obama in some recent remarks he made, Mr. Gingrich brought up the subject of Detroit.  "Are we in favor of food stamps in Detroit or jobs?"  Rhetorical questions with racist overtones are unbecoming a man who asks to be forgiven. Of course, he understands the value of sound bites, doesn't he? 

But the overall value of New Gingrich for President 2012 is his ability to trump Sarah Palin and all the rest of those wanna-be candidates who people cannot remember.  Gingrich will ignite interest in an otherwise emotionally sagging Republican party.  He knows his sound bites are unsustainable as far as being intellectually accurate, but given the right set of circumstances, with a stroke of luck, he could well become the candidate of choice for Republicans and Independents who are tired of paying over $4 a gallon for gas.

And therein is the problem.  What would Mr. Gingrich do to bring down the price of gasoline?  Would he insist the people in Detroit finally produce more fuel efficient cars?  Will they even listen to him as President if he labels them as food stamp abusers? 

Newt Gingrich is like the cliche Ground Hog Day political candidate who could one day see his shadow.  Therein is the real problem.  Newt might be a political flame thrower but he can also ignite a deja-vu era of irresponsible sound bite politics.