Texas Senator Ted Cruz was heading for front-runner status in the race for the Republican nomination for president back in December, until he referred to Donald Trump's "New York values" in one of the interminable presidential debates, this one hosted by FOX.

Cruz made the point that New Yorkers, which most thinking people understand means residents of New York City, not necessarily the rest of the state, are liberal in their thoughts and actions. Trump parried Cruz's comment not with a defense of his liberal positions on a variety of matters, but by bringing up the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 when the twin towers of the World Trade Center were hit by aircraft that had been hijacked by Muslim extremists and more than 2,000 people died.

Since then it has been rough going for Cruz, not out in the rest of the country, that also lost people and buildings on that day, but with the New York/Washington media cartel, which has spared no effort in painting Cruz as highly disagreeable and inappropriate to be President of the United States. This is remarkable in the sense that until Cruz uttered that phrase – which Cruz has plenty of statements from Trump himself to back him up – the very media that now is savage in its attacks on him, led by the FOX News Channel, had been equally vicious in its attacks on Trump.

Now, however, Trump, who boycotted the last FOX debate for GOP candidates ostensibly because he doesn’t like Megyn Kelly, one of the 'moderators,' (but more likely because he didn't want to lose support that close to caucus voting due to attacks from his rivals,) is solidly a New York/D.C media favorite. Even, or perhaps especially, FOX goes out of its way to paint Cruz in the worst possible light while giving Trump a pass on virtually everything.

We expect this of the Washington Post, New York Times – or any New York newspaper for that matter – and the television networks, not to mention MSNBC and CNN. But FOX claims to be Fair, Balanced and Unafraid. Unfair, definitely Unbalanced, and Job Scared should be its logo. (I should note that the Times endorsed Ohio Governor John Kasich, but frankly, I believe that was just for cover. They can't be serious.)

Take for instance Special Report on Friday night, when anchor Bret Baier did an interview with Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, in which Cruz's objection to government subsidies for ethanol arose. Although Baier briefly hit on the fact that Branstad's son is a highly paid lobbyist for ethanol, he allowed the governor to outright lie when he used the term "refineries" when referring to jobs involving the production of ethanol. Then the governor claimed that ethanol is cheaper than gasoline, and that objections to ethanol come from "Big Oil."

I say lie because Branstad knows that ethanol is not a fuel that is refined. It is moonshine corn liquor that is distilled, the same as any other spirits like bourbon, whiskey, sour mash or vodka, and only becomes ethanol when gasoline is mixed with it. And since the US Congress has mandated that "Big Oil" use no less than 32 billion gallons of ethanol domestically by 2020 – meaning a ready-made before-market outlet just in mixing gas with the moonshine – I don’t see how they can possibly have a problem with a government induced and government mandated and supported market.

In fact, the law requires that the moonshine (corn liquor) have gasoline added to it so the people who distill it won't be able to drink it between the distillery and the pump; not that there is any worry of that happening in a state where the Evangelical Christian vote is all powerful and FOX claims that more than half of the evangelicals are voting for Trump.

Then on FOX News Sunday, host Chris Wallace did an abominable interview with Cruz, repeatedly interrupting him when he was trying to answer Wallace's questions, and baiting him with false employment and job "statistics." Fortunately for journalism, Wallace came out on the short end of that stick.

That was followed by an incredibly fawning interview with Trump in which he was allowed to make several baseless and unchallenged attacks on Cruz. Wallace even let Trump get away with saying he didn't know where his money was going when he donated $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation, even though he has only donated $57,000 to veterans' causes prior to his run for president.

I thought Trump was the ultimate businessman. Yet he gives away a quarter-million dollars without knowing where it is going and for what purpose? Sounds like a classic Washington/Manhattan insider to me. Trump even brought up Cruz's citizenship again without mentioning that he is considering a lawsuit against Cruz! Without a peep from Wallace.

Wallace's one-two interview frankly was one of the most unprofessional I have ever seen despite working four decades in the media and related industries. It reminded me of disgraced CBS News anchor Dan Rather's self-promoting attacks on President Richard Nixon back in the 1970's – before Nixon resigned.

But worse, Wallace's 'panel of experts' which supposedly is comprised of media professionals with superior insight into the issues of the day, included none other than Branstad! And again he was allowed to bash Cruz unchecked – although he has lots of nice things to say about Trump – and again portrayed the ethanol industry as a boon to his state while falsely claiming Cruz is against renewable energy – with no challenge from Wallace or the panel.

Wallace, who also "moderated" the most recent debate in which his lack of professionalism was at its height – "This is a debate sir, and we'll set the rules" – knew that Cruz had answered that criticism by noting that he favors all forms of renewable energy but not government subsidies for any of them. Yet Wallace remained silent on Sunday then and again when Branstad referred to ethanol distilleries as "plants" instead of distilleries.

Which brings me to the question, are Iowa's evangelical Christians, as well as other voters, all that gullible? Are they so uninformed on ethanol that they don't know that half of their state's corn crop goes to making moonshine that then is mixed with gasoline to make a dirty, expensive and ineffective "biofuel" that American drivers are forced to buy to support their "industry?"

Do they not know that Donald Trump and Marco Rubio have been mostly silent on their new-found Christianity until they started running last-minute campaign ads hoping to influence the evangelical vote? Do they not know that many of Trump's positions are diametrically opposite of their professed beliefs?

I guess we'll find out Monday night after the caucus vote comes in.

Oh, and I have been a loyal viewer of FOX News and FOX News Sunday in particular since the late Tony Snow was the host. But after seeing the gross lack of professionalism on view this week in Iowa, building on plenty of previous instances, I will now be getting my news elsewhere. And, while one viewer may not matter, you can bet that if a loyal person like me has had it with FOX, plenty of others have too.

Say goodnight FOX; One America News Network seems like a good place to relocate.

Prior to last week's blizzard I was more than confident that I could dig out without too much trouble, since my relatively new snowblower is in the words of one reviewer "a beast" that makes short work of even really heavy snowfalls.

Not to mention that right after the first heavy frost last fall put an end to lawn mowing, I moved the snowblower from the back of the garage to the front, changed the oil, cleaned the spark plug and started it to make sure it would run when I needed it. But that was in October and we didn't have a real snow storm until Saturday, January 23.

Nonetheless, on Friday afternoon I brought the 'beast' outside to start it just to make sure. But it didn't start. It didn't start when I primed it and pulled the starting cord a bunch of times, it didn’t start no matter how I adjusted the choke, it didn’t start when I used the electric start, and it didn’t start even after I cleaned the spark plug again.

By the time I was finished ruling out all the other factors it was dark and I knew that the issue was the fuel. Why?

Because small engine fuel across the US is the same fuel we put into our cars and it is laced with ETHANOL a corn/carbon based bio-fuel additive that the government requires because it is supposed to give us a cleaner alternative to refined gasoline at no reduction in performance. Which is BULL! Ethanol is dirty, creates pollution while being processed, does nothing for performance, and gums up our engines.[1]

Ethanol, which actually is distilled corn, which actually is moonshine, or 'corn likker' depending on where you live, is not the cure-all that the government and Iowa corn growers and distillers claim. Worse, if left unused too long it requires another additive to "stabilize" the gasoline/ethanol mixture so seasonal appliances such as lawn mowers or snowblowers will start even if they have not been used for several months.

Except, as I found out last weekend, the stabilizer additive breaks down over time too, especially if it is exposed to the heat of summer! This happens to most snowblowers because they aren’t used in most summers.

So Saturday morning I ended up outside on the frozen lawn, taking my snowblower apart as the snow was beginning to really come down on my head, ultimately draining a half-gallon of what had been perfectly good gasoline, and replacing it with gas I purchased that morning. All because since 1978, during the jimmy carter administration, the US government has been paying farmers and distillers – not refiners, distillers – through subsidies and tax breaks, to produce more and more of this crap, to gum up our engines and fuel lines, causing us to spend more to buy additives, all the while we are being taxed for each gallon of modified moonshine. (Distillers are required to mix the end product with gasoline before shipping to discourage people from drinking it.)[2]

The outright subsidies to this colossal rip-off ended in 2011, but Congress was sly enough to eliminate one tax and replace it with a sneakier means of getting our money. In 2005 Congress passed the Energy Policy Act, which requires the use of renewable motor fuel under a new mandate, the Renewable Fuel Standard.

The next year Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act which requires that by 2022, 36 billion gallons of renewable oil, which basically means ethanol, be added to US gasoline supplies each year.

Even though federal subsidies for ethanol were eliminated in 2011, the Renewable Fuel Standard remains in place, ensuring that each year the amount of ethanol produced increases, meaning that farmers who raise corn for ethanol and distillers who produce the moonshine that becomes ethanol will have a steady market, through government intervention, regardless of the viability of the product. Oh, and foreign ethanol is hit by a tariff the second it reaches US soil, so there is no foreign competition.[3]

Thus, when Ted Cruz says he is not in favor of ethanol subsidies, he is doing all American taxpayers a big favor. That is especially true if he is elected president and follows through by eliminating government support for this unnecessary product, which literally creates another welfare class, this time of corn farmers and ethanol distillers.

In my mind there is only one degree of separation between farmers who put their acreage into corn for ethanol, rather than using it to produce food, and an inner city hoodlum who collects food stamps to trade for drugs and alcohol. And while there may be jobs at the hundreds of distilleries that have sprung up in America's Corn Belt since 1978, those jobs wouldn’t be there if there was a real market for ethanol.

There is a ton of information on the Internet regarding ethanol, including how it creates more pollution to make it than it saves as a gasoline additive. Did you know that a by-product of ethanol production is carbon dioxide, which producers then sell? If there is a market for carbon dioxide why don't they just recover some of what is already in the atmosphere instead of creating more?

In fact, since Donald Trump bashed Cruz for not supporting ethanol subsidies, and since Iowa also is a state where the Christian Evangelical vote is huge, and Trump obviously believes he can squash Cruz both on trade and religion, I guess we have a question to ask the Evangelicals.

Do you believe that creating job revenue by supporting government subsidized production of the Devil's Brew, especially since it in turn is being used to support massive taxes on individual drivers through a false claim that it is beneficial to the environment, is a true testament to your faith?

If you do, then you are a hypocrite and God help you. If not, then you should rise up against those who spout false prophecies and flush that unused ethanol down the drain – if it can be done without polluting the earth. Up with hydrogen!

---

[1] http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/alternative-fuels/ethanol-facts1.htm

[2] http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/ib_32.pdf

[3] http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/ib_32.pdf

Virtually since he announced his candidacy for President of the United States, Donald Trump has been subjected to a stream of demands that he issue specific plans on subjects ranging from national defense to immigration to tax reform.

With the exception of his economic plan, a field in which he has more than a passing acquaintance, Trump generally has avoided getting into "the weeds" as pundits and political operatives refer to the fine print, preferring to work in generalizations.

The media obsession with specifics was obvious on a recent broadcast of the O'Reilly Factor, hosted by FOX News political commentator Bill O'Reilly. Trump was being quizzed on his approach to the quickly unraveling situation in the Middle East where Saudi Arabia, ostensibly our ally, and Iran, definitely not an ally, are becoming increasingly belligerent toward each other.

O'Reilly wanted to know whether Trump would send troops to Saudi Arabia to help in case of war, and Trump would not give O'Reilly a definite yes or no, despite the host's insistence. "The American people want some unpredictability," Trump said several times, to O'Reilly's obvious displeasure.

Trump is taking the smart road in his response to the media and other candidates' incessant demands for specifics which, if he obliged them, would then be torn apart and ridiculed even if they are the best plans ever seen on the political stage. It is obvious that American leaders should not be announcing their plans for military action, as has been the case since the Johnson Administration gave our enemies in Vietnam a near daily security briefing on what we would and would not be doing.

Donald Trump

In fact, being specific on what you will or won't do in certain situations when you don't have access to all the background information, is pretty stupid. Trying to look like the class genius by having all the answers when you can't possibly have all the intelligence needed to make an informed decision actually makes you look like the class clown, or the class know-it-all. And candidates who do get specific on all manner of issues when they don't have the facts, not only look stupid, but they are playing right into the media's hands, as well as that of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

It is no secret that the media, including most commentators on FOX, don't like Trump and would love to see him knocked out of the box. Failing to get Jeb Bush to the top of the heap, the media, through use of phony polls, has attempted to help one or another of the other GOP hopefuls upset Trump, only to see them all fall. The most recent media darling on the GOP side – a grudging replacement for Bush – is Marco Rubio, a 2^nd tier selection of the GOP establishment, who is faring no better than those who preceded him.

But so far Trump, and to a lesser degree Ted Cruz, are avoiding the trip wires and pitfalls. By not getting into specifics on what course of action he would take in the Middle East, Trump is leaving all options on the table and leaving our enemy, in this case Iran, which barely missed hitting one of our aircraft carriers in the Strait of Hormuz with a missile last week, unsure of what we will do if they keep jerking our chains under a Trump presidency.

President Obama by contrast, tells our enemies not only what we will or won't do in current situations, but broadcasts his intentions for weeks, months and years into the future; which is why America has become a laughingstock among the nations of the world.

Nonetheless, pundits regularly mock Trump, using his refusal to get specific as proof that he doesn't know what he is talking about. But it is the pundits who are lacking, not Trump.

He is well aware, through a lifetime of successful business dealings that you don't telegraph your punches and you don't show your cards. You don't do it in military situations, you don't do it in diplomatic situations and you don't do it when you are the president of what used to be the most successful country in the world. Period.

The aforementioned polls also are used as evidence that once past the primaries, voters will flock to Hillary Clinton if Trump is the GOP nominee. Aside from the fact that there still are a dozen GOP contenders for the nomination and no poll is immune from loyalties to other candidates swaying the opinions of respondents, the polls themselves are ridiculous in that many of them involve fewer people than the number of sycophants who turn out for a Clinton campaign appearance.

Mike Huckabee made that point on FOX recently, asking why he should care about the results of a poll that has only a couple of hundred respondents, or the opinions of myriad pundits who have been dead wrong about Trump every single time.

Trump is on the right track by keeping to generalities. He will rebuild the military, he will attack illegal immigration, he will rebuild the economy, he will restore greatness to America, and all he needs to convince most voters than he can do it, is a lifetime of doing, not talking.

And frankly, based on the rabid attacks on Trump from the full spectrum of the mainstream media, including FOX, and the massive turnouts at his campaign events, contrasted to the meager showings at Clinton's, I believe that if he is the GOP nominee he will trounce Clinton in the manner of Reagan vs. Mondale. And I believe that most in the media know that too, and are scared to death that it will happen.

A week after the terrorist slaughter of 130 mostly French civilians and the wounding of another 350 in Paris, the French are still reeling and making pilgrimages to the sites of the shootings and bombings.

It would be uncivilized to deny the French their time of mourning or to pass judgment on what may or may not constitute responsibility for the murderous rampage that hasn't been seen in that magnitude since World War II. But at some point there has to be an analysis of the killings, how they occurred and why they occurred.

And I don't mean from the standpoint of the liberal whine "What did we do to them? Why don't they like us?"

One of the most shocking revelations concerning the orgy of slaughter in Paris was that it was carried out by only 8 Islamic terrorists, and most of the killing was done by psychopaths carrying AK-47 semi-automatic rifles. Also, according to eyewitness accounts from survivors of the horror inside the Bataclan concert venue, each of the gunmen had to stop shooting on occasion to reload.

Survivors and news reports are thus far silent on whether any of the approximately 1,500 patrons inside the Bataclan made an effort to rush the terrorists, who were calmly and precisely shooting their targets. Only when police forces finally charged the hall, where hundreds were still being held as hostages or playing dead while bleeding from their wounds, did the attackers die, one by blowing himself to bits.

Francophiles, those who devote their lives to all things French and have a reputation for disdaining anyone who does not believe that the US lags far behind Europe in cultural matters, have long bashed Americans for our "cowboy" mentality. But I can't conceive of an attack on a concert hall anywhere in the United States, packed with people rocking to the sounds of a heavy metal band of all genres, where the patrons would simply stampede for the exits or hide until the police arrived.

Even without weapons there would be a rush to tackle the shooters, similar to what occurred on Flight 93 on September 11, 2001, or on a high-speed train from Amsterdam to Paris last August when three American passengers took out a terrorist armed with a Kalashnikov, a pistol and a box cutter. Many, if not most, Americans have an ingrained sense of responsibility to do something in the face of certain death, even if that something means to die with honor while thwarting their attackers.

I realize that there are soft targets in the US where a terrorist attack would be more likely to succeed; cities such as New Orleans, Washington, D.C., New York or Chicago for instance. Those cities have extraordinarily tough gun control laws which have effectively disarmed the citizenry leading to out-of-control murder rates. They are sitting ducks for terrorist attacks.

But even in those cities it would not likely end well for terrorists to attack a concert by an emerging rap star for instance, if hordes of Chicago gang-bangers had decided their night out would include a few hours of live music.

Without question there are many people in France who love the United States and strongly believe in our centuries old alliance. But many also believe that most of us are of the Ugly American variety, and don't know the difference between a brasserie and a brassiere.

The point here is not to be snarky or to gloat, but simply to note that there are many philosophies in the world and sometimes it takes a blend to get things right. Take for instance the news report late last week where a French father was talking to his young son in front of a makeshift memorial piled high with floral arrangements.

The boy said, "The bad men have guns."

"But we have flowers," the dad responded.

Beautiful sentiment. Just the kind of peace-at-all-costs sentiment that will get both of them murdered by unrepentant Islamic extremists who see killing "infidels" as a holy calling. Unless the next group of victims is trained to defend itself.

There are ways to blend our national philosophies to the good of all. Perhaps if the Francophiles get down off their high horses, so to speak, and look at the good in America for a change, they can see how it can be applied to the betterment of the average Frenchman.

Perhaps the French educational system can add some foreign flavor to its philosophy curriculum in the future. Let the boys study philosophers such as Jean-Paul Sartre to understand existentialism, but throw in a little Wyatt Earp, Wild Bill Hickok and Billy the Kid for realism.

And if the typical French family includes a jeune fille who is enthralled with the lifestyle of Simone de Beauvoir, even the stories of her occasional ménage a trois, why not throw in a little Belle Starr and Annie Oakley for balance. At least they could shoot, n'est-ce pas?

Voters who tuned in to the Republican presidential debate on CNBC last week were treated to an unabashed display of media bias as interrogator after interrogator asked questions that were condescending, inaccurate, belittling and rude.

Until, that is, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz used his allotted time for one in a series of really stupid questions to go on the offensive rather than meekly submit to the attacks. Following the example set by Cruz the candidates rose up and called out the CNBC hacks for what they were. The backlash against the network ranged from the audience booing the questioners to the Republican National Committee severing its ties for further "debates."

But you don't have to wait for another national political event to see examples of media bias; it is all around us and in myriad formats.

Take for instance the race for First Selectman in Stonington, Connecticut where former Congressman Rob Simmons is the Republican candidate, facing incumbent Democrat George Crouse. Simmons, who has decided to continue his lifetime commitment to public service by serving his hometown, was endorsed by The Day newspaper as a man who can get things done locally and in the state Capitol.

But after receiving the endorsement from the largest newspaper in the area, Simmons was subjected to a scathing commentary from a reader in the newspaper's digital edition, which lead off by accusing Simmons of war crimes when he served in Vietnam a half century ago. Aside from the obvious veteran bashing, the accusation is a rehashed attack that was launched at Simmons by then incumbent Congressman Sam Gejdenson back in 2000, when Simmons successfully challenged Gejdenson for Connecticut's 2^nd Congressional District seat.

At that time Gejdenson initially claimed his campaign had no connection to the attack on Simmons' credibility, but ultimately had to publicly apologize. Simmons served two tours in Vietnam, and then returned as an operative for the Central Intelligence Agency for an additional two years. He ultimately retired from the US Army Reserves as a Colonel in Military Intelligence.

Simmons has amassed a distinguished military and political career, and has been a lecturer at Yale University and the University of Connecticut as well. He was never accused of war crimes in any forum outside of gutter politics, yet the libel that was aimed at him remains in the commentary section of The Days digital edition.

Although most reputable news outlets require that readers identify themselves and refrain from launching unsubstantiated attacks on candidates in the last campaign days leading up to the election, The Day appears to have made no effort to remove the libelous commentary.

Apparently, racist, sexist, profane or otherwise unsavory commentaries are scrubbed from the website, but scurrilous libelous attacks on distinguished veterans are allowed to stand. The commentary was signed by the pseudonym R. O. Thornhill, who the Simmons campaign believes is actually a close adviser to the Crouse campaign.

Meanwhile, the town of East Hampton, Connecticut, home of the late Gov. Bill O'Neill saw its own version of media bias erupt this past week. The weekly newspaper Rivereast ran a front-page article on the local school board chairman, a Democrat, deciding to prohibit any town official from doing business with the school system.

This after the chairman "discovered" that nearly 18 months ago, Republican Mark Philhower, a member of the local Town Council who owns a Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning firm called Tech Unlimited, had done some work for the schools. The sudden announcement came in the form of a motion that was not part of the regular agenda for last week's school board meeting, just a week before the election.

The reason for the hasty action is, according to the chairman, because he had only just discovered this egregious violation of … something, although we're not sure exactly what … and had to act immediately lest it be repeated.

The problem with the coverage hits many buttons. First the chairman's point of view dominated much of the article, before Philhower's response is noted in the final graphs, half of which were on the jump page. More important, after contacting Philhower, I learned that two essential matters he had told the paper's editor were left out.

First, he isn't the only office holder who has done work for the town, especially for a department over which he has no control. For instance, the owner of a school bus company which has held millions of dollars worth of contracts with the town, also served on the local zoning board. Philhower could not recall the local democrats raising any issue about the propriety of this arrangement, especially in the days just before an election.

Second, the work Philhower did for the schools was of an urgent nature, amounted to about $6,000 and took place in February, March and May of 2014, mostly in the coldest part of the winter. Both of these items should have been noted, and Philhower's response should have been much higher in the story, rather than the supportive but not especially detailed comments from school board Republicans.

Obviously, on-line commentaries, libelous though they may be, and cheap political shots by small town politicians don't rise to the level of national news personalities attempting to sway a presidential election. But the principle is the same.

Our system of government springs from local politics and the people who take the time to serve on local boards and commissions deserve just as much consideration as should be given to national level office seekers. The local media has just as much responsibility to act ethically as the national and international media should … regardless of the less than stellar example set by what is called the Mainstream Media.

Otherwise, as Philhower noted, the cheap attack on his credibility and his business, exemplifies "why good people don't want to run for office."

Or, as Sen. Cruz said during CNBC's political debacle, ""The questions asked in this debate illustrate why the American people don't trust the media."

If you believe some polls and the news media, Donald Trump's campaign is on a downslide in Iowa, the first state to hold a Republican caucus where a convoluted process begins to select a grand total of up to 30 delegates, just over one percent of the total.

The impact of the Iowa caucus is negligible for a number of reasons, but, because it is the first such vote in the nation, the media believes it should set the agenda for all the rest of the states. That obviously is not the case, yet, two polls, neither of which can actually claim to know for sure exactly who they allegedly interviewed, have concluded that Dr. Ben Carson, whom I respect, has leaped ahead of Trump.

The genesis of this astounding turnaround in the current race for the GOP presidential nomination is in a poll from Quinnipiac University and another from the "highly respected" Des Moines Register newspaper. Actually, the polling method is so shallow in each instance that the number quoted by the media, that is salivating to drive a stake through Trump's heart, could actually be the reverse of what is reported.

In the Register's own words, "The Iowa Poll, conducted October 16-19 … is based on telephone interviews with 401 registered Iowa voters who say they definitely or probably will attend the 2016 Republican caucuses … .

"Questions based on the subsamples of 401 likely Republican caucus attendees each have a maximum margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points. This means that if this survey were repeated using the same questions and the same methodology, 19 times out of 20, the findings would not vary from the percentages shown here by more than plus or minus 4.9 percentage points." [1]

In other words, besides the fact that the sampling is pitifully small, these polls were conducted over the phone with people who may or may not have been who they say they are. Similarly, the poll from Quinnipiac University poll has some questionable conclusions.

Quinnipiac says that Carson leads Trump 28 - 20 percent among Iowa likely Republican Caucus participants. A news release on the poll also says, "This compares to the results of a September 11 survey showing Trump at 27 percent with Carson at 21 percent."

But again, check out the methodology. "This RDD telephone survey was conducted from October 14 - 20, 2015 throughout the state of Iowa. Responses are reported for 574 likely Iowa Republican Caucus participants …. This subset of likely Republican caucus -goers has a margin of sampling error of +/ - 4.1 percentage points."[2]

But here is the part I like best. The poll is done on phones and when someone answers a landline, "Interviewers ask to speak with the adult member of the household having the next birthday."

Well that is a foolproof method of determining voter identifications if I ever saw one. Suppose that an interviewer calls my house and asks to speak to the adult who has the next birthday. That would be my wife, but hell will freeze over before she ever answers a poll, so I would just say, "Oh, that's me. Fire away." See how that works?

Meanwhile, Dr. Carson did some Sunday media work, basking in the glow of "front-runner" status, and on Fox News Sunday had an extraordinarily difficult time explaining his proposed changes to Obamacare and Medicare. Carson has said he will repeal Obamacare, as have most Republicans, but adds that he will give wage earners a choice of having their own health insurance account as opposed to letting government bureaucrats determine their future health care.

FOX moderator Chris Wallace seemed unable to get his head around that concept and repeatedly asked Carson to explain how this proposal would work and how it is different from earlier incarnations of Carson's health plans. Carson tried very patiently to explain his plan but Wallace simply was having none of it.

I don't know whether Carson has suddenly lost his communication skills or if Wallace was just have a rough Sunday morning, but the interview went badly for Carson who seemed to be struggling through most of it. Remember when I wrote in my last column, that Carson is next to feel the full weight of negative media? Looks like it started Sunday.

Oddly, the Iowa caucuses are virtually irrelevant. The results of the caucus are reported to the media which then deserts Iowa usually without explaining that there then will be county, district and state conventions that actually select the Iowa delegates, and they aren't bound in the least to the results of the original caucuses!

Last time around Rick Santorum won the Iowa caucus, for instance, but the media declared Mitt Romney to be the winner, regardless of what the votes showed, and by the time the record was corrected, any momentum Santorum may have garnered dissipated.

As noted previously, the Register poll notes that if the same questions were asked of the same people 20 times, the answers would change by plus or minus 4.9 percent in 19 of those times. The 20^th round of questioning apparently is a wild card.

So, does that mean that one time out of 20, people who may or may not plan on attending an Iowa GOP caucus, and may or may not be eligible to vote in said caucus, and may or may not actually vote, could declare by a wide margin, say 85 percent, that they are forever bound to Alfred E. Neuman? Plus or minus 4.9 percent of course. But their votes aren't binding.

---

[1] http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/caucus/2015/10/23/ben-carson-charges-9-points-ahead-of-donald-trump-iowa-poll-gop/74278414/ 

[2] http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/ia/ia10222015_demos_igv72sh.pdf

It is no secret that the establishment media wants Jeb Bush to be the Republican nominee for president, preferably matched against Hillary Clinton so the establishment wins, no matter who gets elected.

Standing in the way of that goal is Donald Trump who thus far has managed to deflect virtually every attack on his candidacy and still sits atop all the so-called 'polls' – including those published after contacting fewer people than the average attendance at a Clinton campaign event.

Donald Trump

The media was agog last month after Carly Fiorina proved herself to be a competent debater, especially after she is handed softball questions that a third-grader could have anticipated. Yet, despite a quick bump in the 'polls' she began a slow, steady decline into campaign trivia oblivion, right alongside Bush.

This should come as no surprise as it appears to be an intended result. Fiorina makes a good personal impression and has sufficient wit and intelligence to prevail for an hour or two. But the expected result of pushing one candidate to the top, or near it, is that people will start looking closely at this week's version of "The Chosen One."

When voters started taking a closer look at Fiorina they didn't like what they saw. Fiorina got an early boost because Trump made fun of her looks, a faux pas that she rode right into the GOP debate. That proved to be just enough to move the people who actually are contacted for the 'polls,' roughly 400 or so of those nebulous "leaning Republican" type people, to say Fiorina when asked for their first choice.

Fiorina also was touted as a business expert who had broken the glass ceiling and worked miracles that rivaled Trump's status as a giant of business acumen. Then voters discovered that Fiorina not only was a walking disaster in the business world, but that she also had mocked California Senator Barbara Boxer in Fiorina's wildly unsuccessful campaign to be US Senator, in a manner akin to Trump's mocking of Fiorina.

Carly Fiorina

The more people looked, the less they liked and down went Fiorina. Which was exactly what the media wanted. Why? Because her demise is just one step toward the eventual elevation of Bush, and is tied to the yet-to-be released campaign strategy of showing Bush as a fighter who is in for the long haul.

But Trump, against all establishment expectations, is still atop the 'polls,' even brushing back a vigorous surge by neurosurgeon Ben Carson, and the steady presence of Sen. Ted Cruz, who would be this season's anti-establishment favorite were it not for Trump. Carson was supposed to be knocked out of the race, right along with Fiorina after he made some supposedly politically fatal comments, including one that devout Muslims shouldn't be president unless they are willing to denounce Sharia law and really mean it when they swear an oath to uphold the US Constitution.

But instead of driving Carson down, his honesty and forthrightness rocketed him out of the pack to a place virtually on Trump's heels, if you believe the 'polls.' Remember, these supposedly scientific surveys have a margin of error of about 5 percent, which renders them meaningless. If, for instance, the poll says Trump has 25 percent and Carson has 24 percent, it really could mean that Trump has 30 percent and Carson has 19.

Or that Trump has 20 and Carson has 29, or any combination of numbers in between. Bush, who garners 6 or 7 percentage points, could actually be the favorite of as few as 1 or 2 percent of the "leaning Republican" respondents. In other words these 'polls' are irrelevant with the exception that Trump, Carson and Cruz consistently are at the top despite the flaws in the methodology. But that should soon change.

Ben Carson

Bush's campaign is starting to get really, really nervous. First you have Bush claiming that he has enough money to last out the primaries right through Super Tuesday – the date when enough states hold primaries to allow a clear front runner, or runners, to emerge – March 1 this year. That statement is intended to quell the big donors' butterflies.

Then you have the Bush campaign mocking Trump – the latest oh, so clever, bon mot, came from a Bush campaign official who referred to Trump as a Zombie. What wit, what a display of elitist intelligence over the crude, blue-collar worker dressed in a Sunday-go-to-meeting suit. Just the kind of comment to drive more voters to Trump.

In the Bush world, upstarts like Trump, Carson, Cruz and whomever may still be hanging around, should be knocked out of contention on March 1. (Cruz's stubborn refusal to fade away already has been noticed, with Jeb's brother, ex-President George, publicly opining that he doesn't like Cruz. More on that issue in another column.) Bush will then emerge as the knight in shining armor who shall sally forth and slay the Clinton dragon. Just like Mitt Romney did to Barack Obama. Or not.

But Trump keeps hanging in there and even though the media reported that he had slipped in their 'polls,' they now are reporting that he is again on the rise. The explanation is that Trump is rising because after looking over his competition the voters still like Trump better. Better than Carson, or even Cruz.

Ted Cruz

Meaning, Carson, who enjoys the 2^nd place standing in the 'polls' is next to feel the full weight of negative media on top of his campaign. I mean, after all, we can't have a surgeon as President of the United States can we? He hasn't even held elective office!

So look for a series of "revelations" about Carson, or 'gotcha' questions in the next debate, that are intended to drive out yet another strong contender. Cruz is already on the hot seat, and once he and Carson are eliminated, Bush will then unleash $100 million in negative ads against Trump. The ultimate goal is to render Trump, Carson, and Cruz totally ineffective by March 2.

However, there is one flaw in this strategy. It is called the voters. They seem to be a bit restless this season, eh what! Oh, and Trump has more money than Bush. And he is a better street fighter, by a long shot. Just anticipating the political battles to come should keep us upbeat and engaged long after the Super Bowl this winter. Oh yeah!

Following up on the 2012 CNN "gotcha" debate when Candy Crowley took Barack Obama's side – inaccurately – against Mitt Romney, a CNN team presided over a spectacle Wednesday night that had only a shadow of resemblance to "a contention by words or arguments."

The three-hour ordeal appeared to have but one goal, the disparagement of the entire 11-member GOP slate in the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. The only way a true winner could have emerged was if they all turned in unison and walked off the stage.

It was a setup from the start, with CNN moderator Jake Tapper asking Carly Fiorina to comment on someone else's statement that Donald Trump shouldn't have his finger on the nuclear button – a throwback to the dark days of the Cold War when contending politicians used the threat of nuclear holocaust to question opponents' mental stability.

Fiorina waded right into the fray, saying “I think Mr. Trump is a wonderful entertainer,” and then ducking the rest of the question, thankfully. Trump actually missed a terrific opportunity to parry Fiorina considering they were standing in front of an Air Force One aircraft that had flown President Reagan to his official duties, and that Reagan was an entertainer before becoming arguably the most beloved president of the modern era.

Oddly enough, Trump responded by attacking Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, whom he said “shouldn’t be on this stage” because of his low poll numbers. Paul shot back that there was “a sophomoric quality” to Trump, noting that Trump has attacked people for how they look.

Trump retorted that he had never attacked Paul's looks, adding, however, “There’s plenty of subject matter right there.”

That basically set the tone for the evening, and believe it or not, it actually went downhill from there, as question after question pitted one candidate against another on a personal rather than policy level, usually spinning off something that someone had said in an interview at some other time.

Otherwise, substantive discussions were at a minimum and usually grew out of frustration from the many candidates who seemed to be all but ignored by the CNN team as the big names on stage engaged in drawn-out thrusts and parries that had virtually nothing to do with the state of the country.

Some of the more enlightening moments came from former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee who didn't get to speak much, but when he did it was insightful and direct, hitting for instance on the Iranian deal (treaty), and Planned Parenthood harvesting body parts from living aborted fetuses. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker also got in some good points along the way, but like most other participants, they were few and far between.

Right alongside Huckabee, literally and figuratively, was Texas Senator Ted Cruz who also didn't get that much time but nonetheless was right on the money when he did speak. Florida Senator Marco Rubio and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie also tried to bring the discussion back to real issues and away from personality disputes with only partial success.

One of the more ridiculous moments of the evening came when former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush chastised Trump for singling out illegal aliens from Mexico in his immigration discussions, and told him to go out in the audience and apologize to Bush's wife, who was born in Mexico. Trump refused and tried to make the point over Bush's insistent interruptions that he was talking about criminal illegals, not law-abiding Mexicans.

Actually, Trump should have taken Bush up on his challenge. He should have called Mrs. Bush up to the stage, told her he had heard she is a wonderful person and note that his criticisms were of the Mexican government sending criminals of all sorts over the southern US border. Trump could have made his point, looked accommodating to Mrs. Bush, and probably gotten Jeb in trouble with his wife for putting her in the spotlight.

There were times during the three hours when virtually everyone got to make a salient point or two, although they usually had to fight for the time. Trump and Bush got more than double the exposure of some of the other candidates, so those on the short end of the stick had to be somewhat aggressive.

The most aggressive of all was Ohio Gov. John Kasich who at one point looked so angry that I thought his eyes were bloodshot, although that could just have been my TV. Dr. Ben Carson, who many pundits were saying needed a "breakout" night, didn't get it and often found himself on the defensive, such as when he was asked about his opposition to going to war in Afghanistan after the 9-11 terrorist attacks.

Carly Fiorina had several good moments including her statement on the Planned Parenthood debacle and certainly showed that she should be on stage. However, she still displayed far too many moments when her infamous "demeanor" was dark and foreboding. She later told a reporter that there are too many serious things at hand to smile about, which may be true, but she could at least look pleasant during the interludes.

All in all the night was an abomination and it did absolutely no good for the Republican Party. GOP National Chairman Reince Priebus might consider holding a meeting with all the candidates prior to the next debate and drum one simple point into their heads.

When you are asked if another candidate's finger should be on the nuclear button, the only response is "Anyone on this stage would be preferable to Hillary Clinton, or any other Democrat candidate." Then get back to the issues and how the GOP will keep the Congress and win the White House in 2016.

Carly Fiorina was but one of the Republican presidential candidates who last week attempted to boost their standing in the over-crowded, pre-nomination field by engaging in a verbal spat with front-runner Donald Trump.

Trump was asked a question about Fiorina's meteoric rise in the polls, all the way from 1 percent to 3 percent in a matter of just a few months. Trump, as expected, did not deflect the question but answered it in his usual blunt manner, pointing to Fiorina's often sour demeanor and asking “Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that?"

The media, predictably, reported, virtually across the board, that Trump was bashing Fiorina's looks, those she was born with not those she controls by using the muscles in her face. Fiorina quipped that she must be "getting under his skin" because of the aforementioned upwards movement in the media generated and controlled polls.

Fiorina and the media all forgot to mention that she was criticized in her 2010 Senatorial bid for bashing her opponent, Barbara Boxer's hairstyle. Fiorina later said that taking (and giving) shots about appearances "goes with the territory." That, however, was in 2010. This is 2015.

Nonetheless, Trump was forced to clarify that he was talking about Fiorina's demeanor, not her actual looks, which some media outlets trumpeted as a victory for freedom of the press and a harbinger of the soon-to-deflate Trump campaign.

Trump's poll numbers responded by going up even further.

The fact is, Fiorina often forgets that she is always in focus on someone's camera when she is out in public, and there are far too many moments when she does in fact look dour, sourpussed even. Several of these moments were during the first Republican "B" Squad debate, the one for the not-quite-there, soon-to-be-gone, never-really-had-it candidates.

Fiorina did well in that debate but often, when another candidate was answering a question and the camera momentarily focused on Fiorina, she looked like she had just bitten into something sour. I should note here that I like Fiorina and am happy that she got sufficient poll numbers to force CNN to restructure its eligibility criteria for the upcoming debate to ensure that she gets on stage.

But I said way back during the B Squad debate that she should get some media relations training that should include teaching her that she is always on camera, and she always should look pleasant, even smiling if appropriate. Looking intense just doesn't work for Carly.

However, now some pundits are saying Trump should really look out for her in this debate because she is going to put him in his place. Or not. This could easily be one of those scenarios where she is so built up by the media that anything less than a grand-slam knockout will be regarded as abject failure.

Remember, the media wants Jeb Bush to face Hillary Clinton in 2016, so no one in DC or Manhattan will lose their cushy jobs as 7-figure anchors, or sought after pundits, or Chief Correspondents of something or other. A lot of media money is at stake here and regardless of which side of the political fence they are perceived to be on, the media is in the tank for the status quo and that means JEB! and Hillary.

Trump, since he is so rich and is funding his own campaign is a fly in the media ointment and from the media standpoint he has to go, the sooner the better. Thus the coverage of anyone who makes the mistake of abandoning their campaign issues to spend time bashing Trump. It won't work for them, it probably won't hurt Trump, but it does adhere to the media agenda.

So if Fiorina, or Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal who I also like very much and who also jumped on Trump's candidacy this week as a means of getting some media coverage, can bring Trump down, then Jeb will have free reign to spend his $100-million plus of lobbyist money on buying media ads and paying media salaries.

Candidate Ben Carson got on the anti-Trump bandwagon last week as well, questioning Trump's religious faith, an issue which Trump said he keeps private, although he did open up and inform the world that he is a Presbyterian and he believes in the Bible. Carson, who previously tripped up by questioning Trump's immigration stance, ended up apologizing for calling Trump's faith into question.

Carson's status quo immigration position probably hurt him a lot more than any perceived damage he did by questioning trump's intent to deport alien criminals, gang members and others. The public likes that position and Carson's campaign could very well have plateaued by getting into the Trump bashing game plan just to please the media.

Frankly, the more the media and its anointed candidates du jour appear to be using Trump as a whipping boy for their agendas, the more the public reacts negatively to the attackers and positively for Trump. Hey, maybe it wasn't the most subtle or sensitive of comments to say what he did about Fiorina's looks, but it was accurate and it should be more of a wake up call for Fiorina than a slam at Trump.

Even Chris Wallace said on Fox News Sunday this week, when he wasn't trying to get John Kasich (who has developed an affectation for purple in  his personal wardrobe) to jump on the bash Trump bandwagon, that Jindal would have received zero press coverage if he gave a speech on a major policy initiative. But Jindal did get coverage and lots of it, for bashing Trump.

Yet Trump is the one going up in the polls, JEB! is plummeting, even in those fake 300 or 400 respondent coffee klatches with margins of error in the 5 percent range, masquerading as polls. Nonetheless, pundits are spouting their wishful thinking that if enough other candidates say enough bad things about Trump, somehow, miraculously, the public will decide they no longer like him and flock to JEB!

Whistling past the graveyard is what they're doing. Whistling past the graveyard.

Republican Presidential front-runner Donald Trump signed a pledge on September 2, saying he will not run as a third-party candidate if he fails to gain the party nomination.

Some in the media immediately hopped on his pledge as a capitulation to the GOP hierarchy, and others who really, really want the fast-fading Jeb Bush to be the nominee sharpened their hatchets and ramped up efforts to knock Trump out of the lead for good. But they all are missing a salient point.

First, Trump took the pledge because South Carolina made it a requirement to get on the ballot for the GOP primary there, and other states are saying they will do the same thing. Trump still needs to win primary and caucus votes and even he can't afford to miss being on the ballot, anywhere.

More to the point, it is generally accepted for both the Republican and Democrat parties, that the public is totally disgusted with politics as usual, and the self-anointed "ruling class" that picks and chooses the "political class" in every major election. But the "media class" is slowly coming to the belief that Hillary Clinton probably won't survive criminal investigations into her (alleged) chicanery while Secretary of State and is scrambling to decide which Democrat replacement will bend to its will.

The same media very much wants to believe that Trump will eventually begin to fade, just as other front-runners did in the recent past, so Jeb Bush can reemerge as the anointed leader. Various members of the "pundit class" have pointed to the front-runner status of Rudy Giuliani, Michelle Bachmann and Herman Cain  in previous elections as evidence that early front-runners will drop like a rock further down the road.

However. In virtually every case mentioned by the pundits, there was one common factor that negatively affected each candidate, that will have no impact on Trump whatsoever. That factor, simply put, is money.

Once the media decided that Bachmann, Cain or other candidates were close to knocking its anointed candidate out of the race, an immediate and relentless series of "gotcha" attacks was launched ridiculing them as not being of the right quality, or right knowledge level to hold the highest office in the land. In each case, the media ridicule resulted in a drop off in contributions, which prevented the candidates from buying ads or doing other communications work to offset the constant negativity.

That the attacks on Trump have already begun is evident in a dust-up that occurred on Friday, Sept. 4, when conservative radio announcer Hugh Hewitt tried to trip Trump up on his knowledge of world terrorist organizations, and their leaders of the moment. As if anyone outside the media cares at this point.

Hewitt asked Trump about the anti-American Quds, a secretive terrorist force within the Iranian Revolutionary Guard that reports directly to the Iranian Supreme Leader. But Trump thought Hewitt said Kurds, an ethnic group in Northern Iraq that is both predominately Christian and pro-American.

Trump was well aware that the Kurds have been begging the US for arms to help them fight ISIS, or ISIL if you are an Obama apologist, but he was cut off by Hewitt who said he said "Quds" not "Kurds." I heard a tape of the interview and frankly, even if you are a foreign affairs expert it would have been difficult to determine what Hewitt said.

That exchange immediately turned into an anti-Trump media frenzy about him not knowing ISIS from ISIL, Quds from Kurds, Hezbollah from Hamas, Houthis from Hutus and Tutsis, or Al Qaeda from the Haqqani Network or Boko Haram.

Trump, in his inimitable fashion, charged that Hewitt was asking loaded "gotcha" questions and is a "third-rate" journalist. He has points on both cases, especially since Hewitt interviewed GOP candidate Carly Fiorina later and asked her the same questions, which she answered, claiming meanwhile that she had not heard Trump's interview. That's her story and she's stuck with it.

Trump told Hewitt later in his interview that the terrorists and their leaders will change by the time the 2016 presidential election rolls around and he has a point. It also is assumed, however, that unlike the current occupant of the White House, the next occupant will and should have a more detailed understanding of terrorist organizations that need to be annihilated.

But all this amounts to a tempest in a teacup when you consider the media and the "elitist class" game plan. The point is to drive Trump down in the artificial polls the media is using to eliminate some candidates from debates and regular coverage, and thus eliminate his ability to buy ads etc. Should Trump drop even slightly in these phony "polls" the media will go crazy proclaiming that his support is ebbing and he no longer is a viable candidate.

But Trump has his own money. Lots of it. He merely has to use it effectively. His supporters don't care that some self-styled media elitists are playing games with his knowledge of today's players on the terrorist stage. They despise the media already and are going to respond by supporting Trump even more ardently, if that is even possible.

Trump should go to the ad departments of the news outlets and buy tons of ads – print, radio and TV. Then he should starting running them all the time, especially around the shows of people who are obviously biased against him.

By doing this he will get the ad departments, which really run the show, on his side, he will make the point that he is paying the salaries of his detractors, and for purely political reasons, he will be offsetting their commentaries every time they open their mouths. Money may not be able to buy happiness but it sure can buy ad time.

If you've watched any of Donald Trump's recent campaign speeches – and who hasn't – you may have noticed that he has some very positive things to say about veterans, and negative things to say about the way we have been treated over the past half century or so.

Trump is right, and on Bret Baier's Special Report show on FOX News last night, alleged national security "expert" KT McFarland showed exactly why Trump puts veterans high on his "to do" list. In fact, McFarland's comments do more to convince veterans to back Trump than nearly anything Trump can say himself.

During a segment on whether the White House or the Pentagon is blowing more smoke up the public's skirts on the effectiveness of the ISIS terrorist army, McFarland claimed that the Pentagon is lying about ISIS just the way it did "in Vietnam." Back then, she claimed, the military claimed the war in Vietnam was going well, when exactly the opposite was true.

Really? What an insufferably stupid, uninformed, asinine thing to say. I will repeat what I and many others have said and written over the past four decades; the US military never lost a single major battle in the entirety of the Vietnam War, twice pushed the communists to the brink of surrender, and twice US politicians bailed them out.

The communists were beaten at every juncture by US forces during the American involvement. Also, the South Vietnamese were overwhelmingly victorious when the north launched an all-out invasion in the spring of 1972, and were repelled by a combination of South Vietnam's ground forces and US air power.

Out of the 250,000 communist troops who invaded the south in 1972, an estimated 150,000 were killed in action while half of all the northern artillery and armor were destroyed. It was an impressive victory for the South Vietnamese, even if, as usual, it was not reported that way in the US.

Former Marine, senator and current presidential candidate James Webb stated recently that the former North Vietnam has finally admitted what many knew to be true long ago - that it lost an estimated 1.4 million troops in the Vietnam War. Troops, just troops. Or an average of nearly 100,000 communist troops killed in action for every year of the US involvement.

Yet within three years of scoring the biggest victory of the war, the south fell after McFarland's then boss, Henry Kissinger, convinced President Richard Nixon to force the South Vietnamese to accept the Paris Peace Accords, which supposedly guaranteed that the US would intervene on behalf of the south if the north invaded again. But right on the heels of the peace accords acceptance the US Congress passed the Case-Church Amendment in 1973, and the Foreign Assistance Act in 1974, which cut off all aid to the south, leaving them alone and defenseless against the communist invasion of 1975.

Obviously, McFarland who is supposed to be brilliant and has degrees from some of the finest colleges and universities in the nation to prove it, doesn't know a lot about history, or doesn't want to know.

Ms. McFarland started out her career doing part-time typing in the West Wing around 1970, as a college freshman, when the US presence in South Vietnam was being steadily reduced. Only a few years later she was "a key member of Henry Kissinger's National Security Council Staff" according to Wikipedia. Which says a lot about how so much got screwed up on the international stage back in the 1970s, and is so screwed up to this day.

She comes across as one of those pseudo-elitist bureaucrat-type people who make grandiose statements about world affairs, and help enact sweeping and far-reaching agreements on matters such as the despised Rules of Engagement that dictate how American troops must behave in battle. But dilettantes like McFarland are never subjected to the consequences of their actions, or find themselves fighting through a jungle, or a desert or a freezing mountain top, all the while constrained by "rules" that our enemies find laughable.

It is the servicemen and women who are defending this country who have to make split second choices that come down to "live on your feet (and possibly be sentenced to prison for surviving) or die looking through a rule book to see what you are supposed to do in this situation" that suffer from uninformed elitist pronouncements from people like McFarland.

So if Donald Trump is interested in a nickel's worth of free advice, I would suggest that he contact McFarland, convince her to go on television a couple of times a week, and each time spout her uninformed, agenda-driven claptrap about the military and veterans.

Then he can slingshot off the outrage that is sure to follow and make his point all the more forcefully that the D.C. cabal is totally out of touch with reality, and he is just the guy to replace people like her with hard-nosed pragmatists who also possess plenty of common sense. Or he can just eliminate their positions and make them go out and get real jobs for a change.