If a prize was to be awarded for the most delusional politician in 2016, the odds-on favorite to win the gold medal would have to be Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz. Here’s a dude who has no mathematical chance of winning his party’s nomination, so what does he do? He picks a vice-presidential running mate before front-runner Donald Trump does. A Republican elected official was asked what he thought of Cruz’s choice. He said, “What, Michelle Bachmann wasn’t available?”

Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who’s the most repulsive Republican of all?

With regard to female Republicans, that honor goes to Ms. Fiorina. She and Cruz will be the most charismatically-challenged duo in political history.

Republican women are impossible to listen to because they’re even nastier than their male counterparts. Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Liz Cheney, and Mary Matalin are as bad, if not worse, than Republican male politicians and talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Bill O’Reilly. Because of this country’s sexism, they try harder to be belligerent and condescending.

But Carly Fiorina is in a class by herself. Her face is always twisted in a scowl, and she is devoid of humor. Her “fully formed fetus” alliteration about a doctored Planned Parenthood video she was conned into believing was real, and her head-bobbing like a chicken when she delivered that line, won her the prize.

I have trouble ranking the most obnoxious male Republicans. Here’s an alphabetical list: Dick Cheney, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, Mitch McConnell, George Pataki, and Rick Santorum.

If pressed I’d have to pick Chris Christie, followed by Giuliani. It’s a personal issue. I despise Italian American Republicans, and black Republicans, too (note the small “b”).

Christie ballooned up to 334 pounds and had to have his stomach stapled because he couldn’t control his eating, but he calls Obama “feckless.” He’s the only candidate who vowed, if elected, to overturn the sale of recreational marijuana in Colorado and Washington. Obviously it’s OK to get high on cheeseburgers, but not on grass.

Joe Biden destroyed Rudy in the 2008 campaign with one sentence: “Rudy Giuliani—a noun, a verb, and 9/11.”

I had to analyze why these people get on my last nerve and found the answer was the two words New York Times columnist Paul Krugman used to describe Bernie Sanders supporters: “petulant self-righteousness.”

As a devout non-believer I can’t abide Cruz, Huckabee, and Santorum who would like to turn this country into a Christian theocracy. Even John Kasich is a religious fanatic. He’s just quiet about it.

Not one of these Republicans is pro-choice. Why a woman would vote for Carly Fiorina or any male member of the GOP is mind-boggling.

Before you ask, I can’t tolerate Bernie Sanders, either. He makes my eyes glaze over with his constant moral outrage.

The funny thing is I can listen to and watch Trump. He’s completely nuts, and he knows absolutely nothing. It’s like rubber-necking at a car crash.

After eight years George W. Bush still couldn’t pronounce the word “nuclear.” On Wednesday we found out The Donald couldn’t pronounce “Tanzania.”

I’d bet $10,000 of Willard Romney’s money he can’t pronounce Zimbabwe, either.

Apparently he focused so much on Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate he ignored the rest of the continent.

What are you gonna do?

A gaffe is defined as an unintentional remark causing embarrassment to its originator; a blunder.

In Washington a gaffe occurs when somebody tells the truth. When Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) blurted out on the Fox News Sean Hannity show that the Benghazi hearings were designed solely to hurt Hillary Clinton’s chances of winning the presidency, he inadvertently shamed himself and the Republican Party. It cost him his chance to become the Speaker of the House.

Gaffes also occur when political pundits on cable networks let something slip, usually at the end of a show or prior to a commercial break. On MSNBC two pundits were talking about the Florida Republican primary, and one said Marco Rubio still had a shot at winning. Because he was so far behind in the polls, the other pundit said, “Oh, keep hope alive, right?” The first guy said, “No, keep ratings alive.”

Networks want viewers to believe political contests are close so they’ll tune in. Their dream is a brokered convention with the advertising revenue a ratings bonanza like that would bring.

The best gaffe this year, in a television discussion about primary elections, was uttered by a political consultant who said, “People really think that voters have a say in selecting the nominee.” He was still chuckling when the Cialis ad came on.

Here are some excerpts from a New York Times article by Jeremy W. Peters, April 9, 2016:

“When it comes to nominating presidential candidates, it turns out the world’s foremost democracy is not so purely democratic. As Americans flock this year to outsider candidates, they are suddenly waking up to the reality that the process for picking the parties’ nominees involves ordinary voters in only an indirect way.”

For decades both major parties have used a complicated and confusing process to pick candidates, but no one really noticed it until this year. Now it’s a glaring impediment to the campaigns of Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Bernie Sanders.

The most important point in Peters’ article is contained in this paragraph:

“If supporters of Mr. Trump and Mr. Sanders feel stymied by the delegate process, that is because it was designed years ago precisely to make it difficult for candidates like them to become their nominee — CANDIDATES WHO PARTY LEADERS BELIEVE, RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY, COULD NEVER WIN IN NOVEMBER.” (caps mine)

Supporters of Trump and Sanders are convinced these arcane rules and regulations regarding primaries were put in place to stymie their candidates, but the reality is they were instituted years ago by both parties to prevent voters from using emotion instead of reason and nominating losers.

The entire primary selection process is insanely confusing. Every state has its own rules. Some are winner-take-all. Others are winner-take-all if a candidate gets 50% of the vote. Most are proportional, whereby a candidate who wins a state may only earn a few more delegates than the second or third-place finisher. There are states that award delegates for winning congressional districts. A candidate who loses the popular vote by a wide margin can still earn delegates by winning sections of a state. A primary can be closed and limited to registered Republicans and Democrats, or it can be open to independents.

Caucuses are undemocratic because they eliminate people who don’t have the luxury of spending hours in a group grope before casting a ballot. Lower income voters with time constraints, parental responsibilities, or second jobs are effectively disenfranchised.

Early in our country’s history members of Congress selected the presidential nominees, and ordinary citizens had no say in their selection. The current system has been in place for about 150 years.

Now the Congress doesn’t select the nominee, but the system allows the delegates and superdelegates to make the choice.

If Donald Trump is one delegate shy of 1237, it’s possible he will be denied the nomination, even if he has hundreds more delegates than his runner-up opponent. Bernie Sanders will be well behind in pledged delegates and popular votes, but he will try to make a case to the superdelegates to give him the nomination.

At this point we’ve discovered that all the fund-raising donations, phone banks, door-to-door canvassing, attendance at rallies, standing in long lines to vote, and everything else American voters have done is virtually meaningless.

Trump supporters, Sanders supporters, and those interested in fair elections have four years to change the primary system to one that is fair, transparent, and with universal rules. Eliminate delegates and superdelegates. Insure that the nomination process is complete BEFORE the convention.

You say you want a revolution? This is a good place to start.

Maybe it’s the way in which my mind works, but when I heard that slave owner and white supremacist Andrew Jackson was going to be replaced on the $20 bill by abolitionist Harriet Tubman of Underground Railroad fame, the first person I thought of was former Worcester School Superintendent Dr. Melinda Boone.

You might think I’m really stretching here and wonder what the comparison could be.

It’s elementary and gives credibility to my theory that Tip O’Neill was wrong when he said “all politics is local.” That was then, but in 2016 all politics is national.

I don’t know how long the Worcester public school system has been in operation—150 years, 200 years? But from time immemorial it had white male school superintendents, mostly white male Irish-Catholic superintendents.

What happened in 2009? Worcester appointed its first female superintendent, Melinda Boone, who also happened to be Black. Two giant steps for diversity in one fell swoop.

That appointment ruffled more than a few feathers because there was a white Irish-Catholic favorite son named Stephen Mills who was expected to get the job. But the irrepressible City Councilor Konnie Lukes had a NeverMills/StopMills mindset, and the poor lad never even made the cut as a candidate.

Six years of nasty, racist comments and incidents followed the hiring of Ms. Boone (Melinda Coon, Baboone), with one school committee member in particular on a witch hunt against her. She was like Captain Ahab going after a Black Moby Dick.

Of course, all the “enlightened” members of the Worcester community assailed the superintendent’s appointment as a “politically correct” mistake.

Only two women ever appeared on American paper money, both in the late 19th century: Native American (not Indian, let’s be politically correct) Pocahontas and First Lady Martha Washington. They weren’t pictured on the currency for very long, and they disappeared over a hundred years ago.

And when it was finally decided to put a woman’s face on prominent display and standing alone on US currency again, it happened to be Harriet Tubman, a Black woman.

Boone and Tubman. Two giant steps for diversity in one fell swoop.

Predictably, front-running Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump called this “pure political correctness.” The narcoleptic Ben Carson, who’s allegedly a black man, said he wanted to keep the white racist Andrew Jackson where he is and suggested putting Harriet on the $2 bill. The Donald was also in favor of the $2 bill.

But that denomination is so rare most Americans believe it’s no longer still in circulation. When was the last time you saw one?

It’s hard to figure out what riles Republican conservatives more— women or people of color pictured on American dinero.

Women suffragists will be featured on the back of the newly-designed $10 bill: Lucretia Mott (white); Sojourner Truth (Black); Elizabeth Cady Stanton (white); Alice Paul (white); and Susan B. Anthony (white).

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (Black), opera singer Marian Anderson (Black), and former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt (white) will appear on the back of the $5 bill.

It’s clearly a year for honoring women. What other honor could a woman receive this year? (insert smiley face here)

It’s been noted historically that Harriet Tubman had to put a gun to the head of some slaves to force them to board the train on the Underground Railroad.

They were afraid to seek their freedom and content to live as three-fifths of a person.

Hillary Clinton needs some Harriet Tubman clones to put a gun to the heads of American women who won’t vote for her because they’re content to be submissive, oppressed, and inferior.

In a school system that is 66% students of color, Dr. Melinda Boone was replaced by a white Irish-Catholic superintendent.

Make no mistake about it—that, boys and girls, is the ultimate metaphor for political correctness.

Facebook has been sending me anniversary blogs I’ve posted on their site. I’m reprinting an abridged version of this one because it makes for some pretty interesting reading as we look at Worcester last April and Worcester today.

CONTROVERSIAL, INCENDIARY, AND KONNIE LUKES
Posted on April 19, 2015

Recently I was engaged in an intellectual conversation about the difference between “controversial” writing and “incendiary” writing.

CONTROVERSIAL is defined as “causing prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention

INCENDIARY is both a noun and an adjective. As a noun, an incendiary is “a person who excites factions or quarrels”

As an adjective it means “tending to stir up conflict or inflame the senses”

Here’s their use in a sentence: “The incendiary (noun) was famous for his incendiary (adj.) speeches.”

The conventional wisdom is that most people would consider “incendiary” to be worse than “controversial.” What’s incendiary is clearly a matter of opinion.

My opinion is that the controversies roiling Worcester at this time, which are totally racial in nature, were started by City Councilor Konstantina Lukes.

In response to Black Lives Matter protestors in Worcester, part of a national movement that began with the shooting of unarmed Black teen-ager Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO, the tactics and attitudes of the Worcester police department were called into question.

Ms. Lukes, in a gratuitous display that had no other purpose but to ingratiate herself with the WPD and its union, proposed a resolution by the council to support the police department. This was an incendiary proposal made by a politician who could be described as an incendiary.

It outraged Black people in the community who had complained of police misconduct. As one T&G commenter observed, Ms. Lukes “gave the finger” to the people who had experienced police discrimination.

A number of them came to the City Hall council chambers and voiced their opinions against the resolution. Members of the WPD, dressed in full body armor, sat in the audience while this was going on. A vote was delayed for a week, and the police chief, Gary Gemme, accused the people who spoke against it as “having an anti-police agenda.”

After this meaningless resolution was ultimately approved, what followed was a series of attacks on Black School Superintendent Melinda Boone over a few fights at North High School. It also gave rise to a poorly-written, potty-mouthed blog called Turtleboy Sports, whose author, Aidan Kearney, denies he writes it. The blog is extremely popular with “enlightened” groups in Worcester that want to “take their city back.”

Their goal is to elect anti-Boone candidates to the school committee and pro-police candidates to the city council who support police officers in schools and surveillance cameras in classrooms. Can anyone say “School to Prison Pipeline?”

Then last week a Worcester police officer was arrested and charged after being caught on video making racial comments and beating and kicking a Black prisoner. There are now 15 open federal civil rights lawsuits against WPD officers.

Ms. Lukes did a complete reversal and called for a Civilian Review Board to deal with complaints about police brutality. Another T&G commenter wrote she was “supporting a recommendation brought by the protestors she was berating at the same time a cop was stomping on a man in jail with other cops watching.”

The Worcester District Attorney’s office is not releasing the video because they claim it’s needed as evidence and shouldn’t be made available until after the officer’s trial. My guess would be that releasing the film would skew the narrative of the city’s color-blind right-wingers who insist the police are never wrong. It might also agitate the people of color who would view it with an entirely different perspective.

It would be incendiary.

April 19, 2016

Black Lives Matter is now the number one Black group in the country, surpassing the NAACP. Ms. Lukes was re-elected in November. She had been in office for 34 years, now going on 36, a poster child for term limits. The Repulsive Reptile still denies he writes that repugnant blog. Rumors are that Police Chief Gary Gemme will be leaving this year. Melinda Boone got a superintendent’s job in her home state of Virginia with a $30,000 raise. All’s right with the world because the new superintendent is a white Irish Catholic woman in a system with a 66% minority student population. Politics played no part in the selection (insert smiley face here).

There are now seven full-time cops assigned to Worcester public schools. Arrests of students, particularly minority students, have increased dramatically. A shortfall in the school budget means the release of 27 teachers, but at least half that number could be retained if the cops were reassigned to more important tasks, like directing traffic at manholes.

The Black man who was stomped by the Worcester cop was awarded $250,000, but the video of the stomping and the racial slurs has still not been released.

I haven’t written this for a while: What are you gonna do?

At the annual Inner Circle show in Manhattan last Saturday, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio and presidential contender Hillary Clinton performed a comical skit that dealt with why it took him so long to endorse her. His explanation was that he was on “C P Time,” which to people familiar with Black culture is an allusion to “colored people time.” It’s used by Black people and other people of color to describe habitual tardiness. The joke was that de Blasio called it “cautious politician time,” but even though it was self-deprecating it didn’t prevent Hillary haters—and de Blasio haters—from jumping all over this as “offensive” and “cringe-worthy.” The New York Daily News referred to the event in a headline that read “SKIT FOR BRAINS.”

Oh, please. Even Al Sharpton wasn’t upset. He teased the mayor about the skit, shaking his head because in today’s environment anything you say, even in jest, can be used against you.

Bill de Blasio and I have a couple of things in common. We’re both Italian Americans married to Black women for over 20 years, 22 for him and 25 for me in July. That’s a silver anniversary, and I expect the right-wing commenters who love my blog to send me 25 (not 30) pieces of silver this summer (did you get the biblical allusion?).

Mika Brzezinski, the co-host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” scratched her head when reporting this and said she’d never heard of C P Time. My wife taught me about that in the early 1990’s.

Yes, it’s a stereotype. Not all Black people are late. Some are, some aren’t. All Jews aren’t rich. Some are, some aren’t. All Irish people don’t drink to excess. Some do, some are teetotalers.

I had a Black friend I used to meet at a restaurant for lunch, and he’d always be 15-20 minutes late. I solved that by meeting him at my house or his. No problem.

I’ve had more problems with tardy white people. I also had an Irish Catholic friend who thought nothing of showing up at my house an hour or two late, and what’s more, he acted offended when I complained about it. He truly thought there was something wrong with me for expecting him to be punctual. I gave up on him. I had two family members who were so impossibly tardy I stopped socializing with them.

Before you ask, yes, I’m extremely punctual. If I were Willard Romney, I’d describe myself as “severely” punctual.

A Black writer from the New York Times assessed the controversy this way:

“Even though Bill de Blasio has an African-American wife, and they have two children who look African-American, he is not. And so the use of “C.P. Time” by a P who is not C is … problematic.”

This writer continued on with something I had never heard of:

“The point is this, even though you’re dearly loved by and even related to black people, you aren’t black. You are NBA — Negro By Association — and that gives you props for knowing the culture and lots of little intra-cultural folkways. But it doesn’t give you a get-out-of-jail card for using phrases like C.P. Time. Especially in mixed company, in public.”

It does depend on the Black person you’re talking to and the particular situation. Some have gotten a big kick out of me knowing about things like C P Time, and others have been taken aback for a minute or two until they found out I wasn’t being disrespectful. I used to ask my Black friend if he was going to meet me on C P Time or W P Time. It was a joke between us.

The Black NY Times writer concluded with this:

“To be sure, C.P. Time is nowhere near as toxic as the N-word, but similar rules apply: You don’t use it if you aren’t a person of color — at least, you don’t in public.”

That sounds reasonable. Perhaps it will help white people understand why they can’t use the N-word. They’re always complaining about that—“they call each other by that name, why can’t we use that word?”

Simple reason: it could be hazardous to your health.

It works both ways. I have a Black Facebook friend in North Carolina who’s married to an Italian woman. He had better not make any Mafia jokes.

After all, he’s only IBA.

The “designer dog” is a classic example of a concept I taught in my college class on race, ethnicity, and diversity—the social construct.

The social construct quite simply means that society decides what’s good or bad, beautiful or ugly, moral or immoral, acceptable or unacceptable. That changes with time and geographical location. For example, as late as the 1960’s divorce was unacceptable, and so was living together without benefit of marriage. Today both are so common nobody raises an eyebrow.

Years ago when two breeds of dogs mated accidentally the result was a “mixed-breed” or “mongrel,” aka a “mutt.” These animals were virtually worthless.

Then some dog breeder got the bright idea to purposely mix two dog breeds with the hope that the best characteristics of both would result in a superior animal. The breed used most often was the poodle, not only because of its extreme intelligence but also for a mundane reason—it doesn’t shed. This is why so many of these designer dogs have the suffix “poo” or “oodle” in their names.

Now that worthless mutt costs $1500 and up, because the social construct decided these mixed-breed dogs were not only acceptable but rather preferable.

The caveat is that designer dogs have to involve the mating of two different pedigree dogs to be valuable.

It started with small dogs: cockapoos (cocker spaniel and poodle) and peekapoos (Pekinese and poodle). Ultimately they started breeding bigger dogs using standard poodles: Labradoodle (Labrador retriever and poodle), Goldendoodle (Golden retriever and poodle), and Schnoodle (standard or giant schnauzer and poodle). This latter coupling is overkill because the schnauzer doesn’t shed, either.

Designer dogs recall a story about the great Irish playwright George Bernard Shaw, a confirmed bachelor. He was a guest at a cocktail party, and one of the other guests was a beautiful English actress. A journalist made the comment that if he married her their children would have his intellect and her beauty. Shaw, who was both brilliantly witty and caustically cynical replied, “The child would probably have her intellect and my looks.”

Here’s a comment I posted on my Facebook page at the end of March:

“Last night at 1 AM my standard schnauzer Stokely woke me up by putting his front paws on the bed and touching my face with his nose. He was telling me to get out of bed. I followed him down the hall to the living room and found that the strong winds had blown the French doors wide open. Only a screen separated the house from the outdoors. A standard schnauzer is bred to be a guard dog. Stokely is always on duty. This is a good reason to buy a pedigree dog from an established breeder.”

In addition to Stokely I have a female standard poodle named Zora who’s scary smart and will run all day retrieving tennis balls. Poodles were bred to retrieve water fowl.

I wouldn’t get a designer dog because I prefer the pure pedigree. With my luck if I bred Stokely and Zora the result would be a lovable Schnoodle who wouldn’t retrieve but would invite burglars into the house.

Animal rights activists not only hate the idea of designer dogs, they also hate the whole concept of breeding. If they had their way dog breeding would be outlawed.

One activist responded to my Facebook post with the comment that “any dog can be trained to guard.”

I replied, “But that’s the point. I didn’t have to train Stokely to guard. His breed has been guarding for 500 years. It’s in his genes.”

Another activist wrote, “Pedigree breeding is mostly for elitist/status symbol purpose and further exacerbates these sentient beings as commodities without rights.”

Yikes. You see, in their world if you want a dog you go to the Animal Rescue League or the pound and get a mutt that’s been abandoned. There’s no need to add more dogs to the world when so many are homeless.

Of course, everyone is entitled to his opinion, but these philosophies and principles should be explored further in relation to human animals.

(To be continued)

Last month I wrote a column titled “I THOUGHT I WAS A LIBERAL.” I had come to the conclusion, after dealing with Bernie Sanders supporters and some anti-ear cropping dog lovers, that I was a moderate Republican.

But I was being too hard on myself. I am a liberal; I’m just not an ultra liberal. Is there a difference between the two? To quote from “The Merchant of Venice,” there’s more difference “than there is between red wine and Rhenish.”

Let’s take a light-hearted look, filled with generalities, at where these two groups part ways, although my keen observation is that ultra liberals have about as much of a sense of humor as ultra conservatives, i.e., a very small amount.

Liberals frequent stores like Sam’s Club, BJ’s, and the Dollar Store. Ultra liberals shop at Target, which they pronounce “Tar-jhay.”

Liberals do their grocery shopping at Market Basket and Price Rite. Ultra liberals buy unadulterated, grass-fed, steroid-free meat and organic vegetables from Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods, aka “Whole Paycheck.”

A liberal could be a vegetarian who eats eggs, milk, butter, cheese, and similar animal products without eating the animal itself. An ultra liberal is a vegan. No part of an animal or anything coming from it ever touches his lips.

Liberals pay $1000 to a devoted breeder for a pedigree dog—like a standard poodle. They suffer from angst because the dog is smarter than they are. Ultra liberals get a rescue dog from the pound, and they often suffer equally from angst because they have to spend $1000 on a veterinarian or a dog psychologist to straighten their canine out.

If a liberal buys a Great Dane, Boxer, Doberman, or Schnauzer he has their ears docked because he thinks they look 1000% better with pointy ears. Ultra liberals consider this barbarism, which may be a wee bit of an overreaction.

A liberal watches Woody Allen, Spike Lee, and Quentin Tarantino movies. An ultra liberal views foreign movies with subtitles.

A liberal listens to Motown, Bob Marley, and Paul Simon on an I-pod. An ultra liberal plays Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart on vinyl.

Liberals go on vacation to Europe and points beyond. They stay in small hotels or B&B’s (bed and breakfasts). Ultra liberals go to national parks in America and they pitch a tent and camp out.

Liberals drink designer beers from local breweries. Ultra liberals drink pinot grigio.

A liberal will admit to being an atheist. An ultra liberal cops to being a “secular humanist.”

A liberal will declare he doesn’t believe in god. An ultra liberal will identify as “spiritual.”

A liberal might be a card-carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). An ultra liberal would support People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).

A liberal wants college costs to come down and student loans rewritten with a cap on interest rates. An ultra liberal wants free college for everyone paid for by fees on Wall Street transactions.

Finally, in the political realm, a liberal supports Hillary Clinton, the most qualified candidate to run for the presidency in history. Eight years in the White House as First Lady, two terms in the United States Senate, and four years as Secretary of State. He’s in favor of electing the first female president in our country’s history.

An ultra liberal supports a socialist from the whitest state in the country who makes wild promises he can’t possibly keep.

If anyone has more examples, I’m listening.

I wrote a couple of dozen blogs on my own website while I was on sabbatical (insert smiley face here), and though I’m certainly not going to reproduce all of them there are a few I’d like to share with Telegram & Gazette readers. This is one of them.

COMRADE BERNIE March 30, 2016

Let me begin by apologizing to my good friends who are obsessed with electing Bernie Sanders to the presidency of the United States. I know you’re not going to like what follows, but I have to do it in all good conscience.

I’ve stated repeatedly that I have no problem with Bernie’s policies, and as someone who’s traveled widely I know the rest of the world has what he wants for America.

My problem is that in my opinion he has as much chance of implementing these policies if elected president as Donald Trump has of building a 50-foot wall around the border and forcing Mexico to pay for it.

And I’m worried that if he gets the nomination he’ll lose the general election, and that would cost us three seats on the Supreme Court. A Republican president would appoint three more justices like Antonin Scalia, and that would send us back to the Dark Ages.

Bernie’s supporters, (I call them Berniacs) keep pointing to polls that show him beating potential Republican nominees—Trump, Cruz, or Kasich— by a wide margin, making him a viable alternative to Hillary Clinton.

Last Sunday on “Meet the Press” Bernie cited these polls, and it’s obvious he’s become a true believer in them. But these polls are meaningless because the GOP is so convinced that Hillary will be the nominee they haven’t attacked Bernie and have barely paid him any attention. All their firepower has been directed at Mrs. Clinton.

So what happens if Mr. Sanders gets the nomination?

Now I’m not the wittiest guy in America (maybe in the top ten, definitely the top five in terms of humility), but if I were a Republican hired to advise Donald Trump on what to say in his campaign against Senator Sanders, the first thing I’d tell him to do is refer to his opponent as “Comrade Bernie” and never stop calling him that until the November election. That would definitely stick, and the Democratic nominee in a short time would be known only by that nickname.

This is an allusion to Comrade Bernie’s self-described socialist identification. If half of America still believes that Barack Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya, how can they understand the differences between socialism, a social democracy, and communism?

Answer: it couldn’t be explained in a thousand years, let alone between July and November.

Mr. Trump would be the best at riffing on the Comrade Bernie meme. How about Fidel Sanders, Che Sanders, Chairman Bernie (after Chairman Mao), or Ho Chi Sanders? In a debate The Donald could ask Bernie if Karl Marx is Groucho’s younger or older brother.

Donald could tell Bernie to run for president of Cuba when he loses the US election. It’s the only country where the leadership is older than he is. Raul Castro is 84 and Fidel is 89.

Mr. Trump has already called Senator Sanders “my communist friend.” It would devolve into a circus with Bernie spending all his time denying this accusation. The question “when did you stop beating your wife” will become “when did you stop being a commie?” “Commie” and “pinko” will become part of the American lexicon, as it was in the 1950’s.

Democrats have much better shot at the brass ring with Hillary Clinton.

Like Jack Nicholson in “The Shining” and Arnold Schwarzenegger in “The Terminator” I’m back writing blogs for the Telegram & Gazette.

A funny thing happened to me on the return trip. For five years I wrote blogs that were highly critical of Republican conservatives. I’m sure I’ll be writing those columns again, but ironically during these last few months I’ve had occasion to question my liberal qualifications. This was caused by Facebook skirmishes with Bernie Sanders supporters because I’m a feminist who believes it’s time, after 227 years, for our first female president. For the most part these mini-wars have been good-natured. As far as I know, no one has “unfriended” me—yet (insert smiley face here).

Here’s part of a blog I wrote last month on my own website that pretty much sums up the situation:

I THOUGHT I WAS A LIBERAL March 9, 2016

One of the topics on the Jim and Margery NPR talk radio show yesterday was whether supporters of Donald Trump had to hide their feelings to avoid the wrath of friends and family members. Some of his fans are in the closet and others have been outed, often in fun, but just as often with negative outrage.
A number of callers to the show, however, said they’d been attacked by Bernie Sanders supporters, even after protesting they’d vote for whoever the Democratic candidate was in November. This was not good enough. You’re required to “feel the Bern” and to hate the “Wicked Witch of the West,” Hillary Clinton.

I can empathize with them. I thought I was a liberal until Bernie Sanders came along. Now I’m viewed as a moderate Republican because I’m not impressed by a superannuated Jewish socialist from Vermont whose nomination could result in losing the presidency in November and the Supreme Court next year.

Bernie supporters are like religious zealots. They’re loaded with faith and overloaded with enthusiasm. They’re convinced he can win the general election, even though a Gallup poll showed that America would elect an atheist before it would elect a socialist.

It’s hard to imagine how Mr. Sanders, should he be elected president, could keep any of the promises he’s making. How does he accomplish universal health care with a Congress that has voted over 60 times to overturn Obamacare? How does he convince Wall Street and everyone who buys stocks to pay a fee on every transaction so American students can have free college?

He has as much chance of getting these items passed as Donald Trump has of building a 50-foot wall around the border and making Mexico pay for it.

And if that’s not enough, a new study came out stating that Bernie Sanders was the MOST PARTISAN member of the United States Senate, one rung ahead of the abominable Ted Cruz.

How does someone like Bernie cross the aisle to get cooperation for his delusional promises when he’s worse than Cruz in dealing with those who don’t inhabit his ideological planet?

None of this makes a particle of difference to the Sanders supporters. If Hillary gets the nomination they’ll claim it was unfair and a set up. In every state she’s won, including Massachusetts, they’ve charged her campaign with cheating.

And if Bernie doesn’t get the nomination many of them have categorically stated they won’t vote for her. Their claim is they don’t want to vote for the status quo.

If she’s the nominee and she loses, they’ll get their wish. Kiss the Supreme Court good-bye. Say au revoir to Roe v. Wade, sayonara to gay marriage, arrivederci to labor unions, and auf wiedersehen to everything Sanders supporters hold dear.

They’ll long for the days of the status quo, but by then it will be too late.