A Sincere Question

I have a sincere question for my Republican friends--I'm sure I must have one or two: When you guys think about the 2016 presidential election, what do you think of the Democratic "fringe" candidates?  Or, to put it more simply: Do you guys look at Bernie Sanders the way we look at Donald Trump?

In recent polls, Trump is receiving about 12% of the vote for the Republican presidential nomination, while Bernie Sanders is receiving about 15% of the vote for the Democratic nomination.  In other words, they seem to be roughly equal in their relative "fringeness."  They are both from the Northeast, and they both. . . um. . . well, I guess they both elicit numerous jokes about their hair.  In other words, as of this moment, Bernie Sanders is the Democratic Donald Trump.

But here's the thing: Bernie Sanders is a twice-elected United States Senator, whose "insane" ideas include things like narrowing the wealth gap among Americans and getting big money out of politics.  Donald Trump is a questionably successful businessman and television personality whose platform includes things like building a massive wall along the southern US border and calling Mexicans "rapists."  It says something about the debased state of American politics that both candidates are considered to have about the same chance of being elected president, but let that go for now.

Obviously, as a Democrat, I think Donald Trump is a joke and an embarrassment to our country--and, in fairness, I am sure that the vast majority of Republicans feel much the same way.  But I am truly, truly curious--and I come back to my earlier question: Do Republicans look at Bernie Sanders the same way?  And if so, our politics may be even more debased than I thought.

People Are Idiots

Some tidbits from the latest Times/CBS opinion poll:

"Over all, 54 percent of poll respondents believed that a president can do a lot to control gas prices, as opposed to 36 percent who believe they are beyond a president’s control. . . . 'I think just being the president of the United States of America, you would have some type of control over gas pricing,' said Jamie Haber, 39, an independent voter of Orlando."

Obviously, when Republican presidential candidates express indignation and blame President Obama for high gas prices, they are engaging in base political gamesmanship.  Whatever.  More power to 'em.  For the sake of Mr. Haber, though, I would like to point out that the president is not to blame for high gas prices and, in fact, gas prices ARE largely beyond a president's control.  Republicans will caterwaul about the need to "Drill, Baby, drill."  If pressed on the issue, however, they would have to acknowledge the fact that, even if the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and all of the Gulf of Mexico and, let's say, the entire state of Kentucky were opened to oil exploration tomorrow, it would have no immediate effect on gas prices.  There is a LITTLE bit of a lag between the start of drilling operations and an increase in the supply of oil that would lead to reduced prices at the pump.

With the vast resources at his command, of course, the President could TRY to do something to lower gas prices.  He could always try to nationalize the oil companies.  It didn't work out too well for Harry Truman and the steel industry, but that was sixty years ago--could be worth another shot.  Of course, the word "nationalization" conjures images of other countries like the Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela.  Still, the people have spoken!  The President must DO SOMETHING!

The sad thing is, many good, red-blooded Americans--who no doubt screamed "Socialism!" when "Comrade Obama" passed healthcare reform--would probably be happy about any decrease in gas prices caused by such nationalization.  Because trying to provide health insurance to millions of the uninsured is godless communism; but saving a couple of bucks when I gas up my pick-up?  God bless America!

**************************************************
By the way, this same poll also showed that, among Republican voters, Rick Santorum--the same Rick Santorum who is opposed to any kind of health mandate and particularly incensed about requiring coverage for contraception--holds a commanding lead over Mitt Romney (41% to 27%) among FEMALE voters.  As Gail Collins might say, women just can't get over that whole dog on the roof thing!

Miscellany

Last week's poll question was:

A recent survey suggested that white lab coats might--might--contribute to disease because they pick up germs. What do you think doctors should wear? The choices:

--Those white coats are so snazzy! I'll take my chances!

--Ugh, germs! Let doctors wear whatever they want, as long as its clean.

--Doctors should have a sort of "uniform," but it should be updated every year--like fashion.

--Doctors should be naked!

The results are in, and with a whopping 50% of the vote, Sloppists have declared, "Doctors should be naked!"

Now, a word about that "whopping 50%": That translates to TWO PEOPLE! What's the matter with all of you? Don't you like to take polls? Who doesn't like to take polls? Maybe we didn't make it clear enough that this was a poll, and we actually wanted your input. Get with the program, folks!

The other conclusion to draw from this is that Sloppists are a bunch of perverts. Well, either that or you all have super-hot doctors. In which case the Solipsist really needs to reconsider his health plan.

Does "Grey's Anatomy" present an accurate picture of the relative attractiveness of medical professionals? Could this be why healthcare costs are out of control: Too many Dr. McDreamy's enticing too many young ladies (and some men) to schedule unnecessary office visits? It would make sense. Hey, if our doctor looked like, say, Katherine Heigl, we might schedule a few unnecessary prostate exams. This might be something for healthcare reformers to look into.

(And next time, TAKE THE POLL!)

Too hot for Medicare?

(Image from tv.yahoo.com)

*********************************************

Also.

This morning the news reported that Michael Jackson might actually have a fourth child, a Norwegian rapper (yes) named Omer Bhatti. Now, who knows? But here's the eye-roll: The reporter made a big deal about video footage showing Jackson riding a Jet-Ski with a 13-year-old Omer; Omer is in front, and Jackson is sitting behind him. The reporter stated that this footage showed how close Jackson and Omer obviously were, thus supporting the idea of a father-son relationship.

Sure. 'Cause, why else would Michael Jackson want a 13-year-old boy scrunched up against his crotch?

Too soon?