"...Third and Goal, My A**..."

Genius is something, I think, anyone can admire.

Regardless of its origin, purpose or outcome.

Put another way, it's reasonable to admire, for example, a criminal's style while condoning the crime.

This particular genius occurs all over this great land of the free but it has a little personal significance for me as I lived in the area for a while.

(hometownannapolis.com) The state redistricting plan proposed by Gov. Martin O'Malley is getting mixed reviews around the state and parts of Anne Arundel County.

Some feel it could give north county residents better representation at the state level, and increase the chances for minority candidates. Others think it is unnecessary political maneuvering.

What's clear is that Del. Don Dwyer, a conservative Republican, won't run in a new, more racially diverse district centered in Glen Burnie.

The three-term delegate confirmed this week that he has moved out of his longtime home in Harundale and now lives in Pasadena.

Dwyer said he moved for "personal reasons" and declined to elaborate.

The Republican delegate also restated his intention to run for the District 31 senate seat in 2014, creating an open seat in the new subdistrict.

Dwyer, however, said in a guest column running today in the Maryland Gazette, sister paper of The Capital, that he has little doubt about the motives for the new district.

"After reviewing the new district map, it is clear that I was targeted by the Democrats to be eliminated from the State House," he wrote.

"Some might ask why was I targeted - the truth is that I have been a thorn in the side of the Democrats in Annapolis since first arriving there in 2003.

House Speaker Mike Busch, D-Annapolis, said the new districts are designed to group similar communities together. Under the proposal, the state would carve up subdistricts to ensure that more groups get a say in choosing their lawmakers, he said.

One of the more prominent changes would occur in District 31, which is comprised of Brooklyn Park, Glen Burnie and Pasadena. The district would be split in two, with northern portions making up a newly created District 31A and southern portions making up a newly created District 31B.

As of the 2010 Census, the population of the area designated as District 31A was 66.4 percent white, 22.2 percent black, 3.5 percent Asian and roughly 8 percent other races. In what would be District 31B, the population was 88.4 percent white, 5.8 percent black, 2.1 percent Asian and nearly 4 percent other races.

Dwyer's family home is in what is likely to become District 31A, where the percentage of black residents would double the 11 percent of black residents found in what is now District 31. Black residents tend to vote for Democrats.

Residents of District 31A would be guaranteed one delegate under O'Malley's proposal.

Anne Arundel County NAACP Chapter President Jacqueline Boone-Allsup, who would reside in District 31A, said she supports the plan.

"I think it's a good plan that they are putting forth," she said. "One of the things it does do is increase the (percentage) of African Americans in my district. The African-American population has increased to almost 25 percent, where it was much lower in the past. I think overall this is a really good plan. It strengthens the African-American population in my part of the county."

The Rev. Larry Lee Thomas, of Empowering Believers Church of the Apostolic Faith in Glen Burnie, said he also supports the proposal. His church and many of his congregation members are located in what would be District 31A.

Thomas hopes the redistricting, if passed, leads voters to elect a minority to the House of Delegates.

"Either way, we are encouraging minorities to continue to look for viable candidates to run that would represent our community," he said.
Opposes plan

Alan Rzepkowski, chairman of the Anne Arundel County Republican State Central Committee, opposes O'Malley's plan.

"There doesn't seem to be a reason for it, other than for political purposes," he said.

Rzepkowski said redistricting would make it more difficult for a Republican to win in District 31A, but not impossible.

"I think it's going to make it tougher, but good Republican candidates will win in Anne Arundel County," he said. "They can try to change the map as much as they want, but we will continue to put up good candidates and we'll continue to be successful."

Along with the changes planned in District 31, the proposal would include the Maryland City area in District 32, significantly enhancing the minority vote in that area. The district, the last solid Democratic district in the county, already includes Severn, Hanover, Linthicum, parts of Glen Burnie and Fort George G. Meade.

The population of District 32 would be 57.1 percent white, 29.2 percent black, 5.8 percent Asian and nearly 8 percent other races.

"District 32 is a tough district for Republicans and always has been," Rzepkowski said. "We've had some success, but they continue to make it more difficult for us."
Strong criticism

Redistricting proposals elsewhere in the state, specifically proposals to increase the number of minority-majority districts from 10 to 12, have received extensive criticism from Republicans who claim the districts were drawn to increase a Democratic stronghold on state politics.

O'Malley plans to submit his final plan to the General Assembly on Wednesday, the first day of the 90-day session in Annapolis.

Any conjecture as to what "personal reasons" Dwyer had for moving are nothing more than conjecture.

And whether or not Dwyer deserves to be brush slapped with the inevitable "all politicians are crooks, et al" tar is a matter for personal opinion and/or the voting booth and/or a court of law.

But even if he is a criminal, he is, in my humble o, deserving of props for playing the game as well and ably as those who would steal his gig out from under him by simply, and brilliantly, eliminating the gig by simply, and brilliantly, redefining the gig.

When it comes to pristine, exquisite uncomplicated genius of the evil variety, the mischievous little scamp behind these baby greens believes you can't do much better than the evil genius of this "re-districting" thing.

If the outcome of the game looks to be not exactly what you had in mind, just redraw the lines on the playing field.

Brilliant.

Genius.

And if Indianapolis had been able to figure out a way to redraw the lines, they'd be going to the Super Bowl this year.

"...Try This On, Taste This, Six Of One..."

As a man, I'm more inclined to think in terms of ice cream flavors as opposed to shoes.

But K.T McFarland's point is spot on.

(Fox News) The GOP is like the lady who goes shoe shopping. She can only buy one pair, and it's got to be shoes she can wear all year long, and in every circumstance….and can afford.

She knows what she needs is a practical pair of black leather pumps. But once she's in the shoe store she can't help but look around.

Wow! Those sure are adorable white strappy sandals, and they're on sale! So she tries them on.

What about those sexy red 4 inch spike heels! So she tries them on.

And look at those drop dead patent leather boots - so she tries them on, too.

They all look terrific. But the sandals won't keep her warm in the winter and white is tough to keep clean. And those shiny books look great with a leather miniskirt, but will look a little silly on a hot August day, plus they are WAY over budget. Those spike heels are gorgeous, and every head will turn while she's standing around at a cocktail party, but no way she can walk all the way to the parking lot in them afterwards.

They're all great shoes and every pair looks great on her. (Sigh) But she can only buy one pair of shoes, and she's got to them wear everywhere, summer, spring, winter and fall.

So what does she end up buying? Those practical, black pumps. They make not make her heart pound, but they're the only shoes that make sense.

Mitt Romney? He's the black pumps.

Sounds about right.

Again, lacking the feminine hard wiring that makes shoe shopping a near nirvana experience, here's one for the guys.

Cookies and cream. Rum raisin. Birthday cake. Moose Tracks. Chocolate Mint.

All with their own attractive qualities and all worthy of, at least, one little wooden spoon's worth of taste test.

In the end, though, it usually comes back around to vanilla.

Mitt Romney?

He's the black pumps.

That also come in vanilla.

"...You Want Real? I Gotcha Real..."

Said it before.

Will say it again.

Not a big fan of reality shows.

In deference to those who do, in fact, enjoy the genre',though, I'll offer my three cents regarding my lack of like.

First, I grew up watching a television that was a veritable smorgasbord of entertainment from prize winning dramas to cutting edge comedies to Broadway caliber variety shows and, yes, there were a lot of clinkers in the cacophany but television was, for me, a place to go to get away from the cares of the day, from the everyday backbiting, backstabbing bullshit that life parcels out in an ever ebbing and flowing ratio to the blessings afforded.

Second, I'm as curious about people and their quirks as the next guy, but not to the point where my attention span could be stretched to accommodate thirty to sixty minute chunks of time spent in what is, essentially, sitting and staring in their windows to watch them experience the everyday backbiting, backstabbing bullshit that life parcels out in an every ebbing and flowing ratio to the blessings afforded.

Not to mention the manure that's manufactured to ramp up the ratings, often making the term "reality show" oxymoronic.

Third, and more primarily, different strokes for different folks.

My own "reality" reluctance notwithstanding, though, I've noticed in the past few months that those who do enjoy the genre' are, in large measure, missing out on some of the most entertaining and cutting edge reality shows there are to be showed.

They're being showed every day on MSNBC. And Fox. Even C-Span.

WEST DES MOINES, Iowa--Chris Christie came to Iowa on Friday, not as a 2012 presidential candidate, as many Republicans in the state had hoped, but as Mitt Romney's most high-profile surrogate in the final days before Tuesday's first-in-the-nation caucuses.

More than 100 people turned out before daylight in the parking lot of a Hy-Vee supermarket, standing for more than an hour in high winds and a steady drizzle to see Romney and Christie, the governor of New Jersey.

Dressed in a pinstripe navy blue suit, Christie was greeted like a celebrity by the bundled-up masses, some of whom rushed outside to see the governor after taking refuge inside their cars against the harsh winter morning.

Christie bluntly put forth what has become Romney's main talking point: That President Obama has failed to deliver on the hope and change he promised as a candidate four years ago.

"The president is going to try to convince you somehow that he deserves to be rehired," Christie said. "Well let's be real clear, real clear: President Barack Obama came out to Iowa three years ago, and he talked to you about hope and change. Well let me tell ya, after three years of Obama, we're hopeless and changeless, and we need Mitt Romney to bring us back, to bring America back."

Playing off his persona as a New Jersey tough guy, Christie issued a mock warning.

"New Jersey's watching you … We're watching you real closely," he said. "And I want to tell you something. I want to tell you something really clearly. I'm in a good mood this morning. I'm feeling happy and upbeat. I'm happy to be with Mitt and Ann. But let me tell ya, if you people disappoint me Tuesday, if you don't do what you're supposed to do on Tuesday for Mitt Romney. I will be back, Jersey-style."

Afterward, as Christie moved through the crowd toward Romney's bus, a man called out, "I wish it were you!" Christie smiled, but did not respond.

Christie, who was elected in 2009, long insisted he wouldn't seek the presidency but briefly entertained the idea in the fall after several Republicans—including a group of top party operatives in Iowa—urged him to reconsider. But in October he again ruled out a run and endorsed Romney.


Regardless of party persuasion, I think there's not, among us, a single person who could argue convincingly against my contention that for backbiting, backstabbing bullshit you simply can't find more or better than that found floating freely through that most dramatic and comedic of mediums, the American political process.

Admittedly, these middle aged and/or senior citizen fat cats don't have the "sexy/skanky/slutty/teasy/trashy" of your standard issue Snooki, Situation, Kim, Khloe, Kourtney or any one or all of a predatory pack of "Real" housewives.

But there's plenty of the aforementioned backbiting, backstabbing bullshit.

And, now, it seems, political television has gone reality television one better by taking the first, tentative, but titillating, steps toward hybridizing the current reality format with the more traditional fictional TV concept.

J Woww warns Snook to back off or else?

Yawn.

Kim and Kourtney spit and hiss over some petty diss?

Snore.

For drama on a scale we ain't seen since the days J.R. was making deals with the devil in Dallas, you can't beat the entire state of Iowa being extorted with threats of "Jersey style" retribution.

Reality show lovers, spread the word.

There's a delightfully delicious new boo hiss villain in town.

The governor of New Jersey.

Tony Soprano.

"...Willow Weep For Me....Candidates, On The Other Hand..."

Couple of current rages I'm not too crazy about.

Reality shows.

Talking to the top of somebody's head while they continue texting during the conversation.

Full disclosure.

That last one, admittedly, is a bit of a sticky wicket.

The notion that we should not be entitled to all the facts, all the time seems like it should be endorsed wholeheartedly without hesitation.

Actually, not so much.

Des Moines, Iowa (CNN) - Newt Gingrich teared up at a campaign stop in Iowa Friday, openly weeping while talking about his mother, who suffered from bipolar disorder and depression.

The moment was sparked by a question from GOP political consultant Frank Luntz, who was moderating a forum targeted to mothers at a local coffee shop Java Joe's in downtown Des Moines.

Luntz, noting the room had a number of moms present, asked Gingrich, "What moment do you think of when you think of your mom?"

"First of all you will get me all teary-eyed. Callista will tell you I get teary eyed every time we send Christmas cards," Gingrich said, coughing back tears.

"My mother sang in the choir and loved singing in the choir. I don't know if I should admit this but when I was very young she made me sing in the choir. I identify my mother with being happy, loving life, having a sense of joy in her friends," Gingrich continued.

Gingrich said his mother, who died in 2003, played a part in his legislative interests in long-term health care and mental disease.

"Late in her life she ended up in a long-term care facility. She had bipolar disease, depression and she gradually acquired some physical ailments and that introduced me to the issue of quality, long-term care."

Gingrich continued, stalling at times to fight back tears, "My whole emphasis on brain science comes in directly from dealing – see how I'm getting emotional – from dealing with you know the real problems of real people in my family. So it is not a theory. It is in fact my mother."

Moms Matter 2012, a group that describes its mission as "moving moms from the political sidelines to the headlines," sponsored the Gingrich event. Approximately 100 people were present, including a few mothers with young children.

Gingrich's immediate family joined him on stage for the event: wife Callista, daughters Kathy Gingrich Lubbers and Jackie Gingrich Cushman, sons-in-law, and two grandchildren, Maggie and Robert.

Inevitably, two points of view, at least, result from an episode like this.

There is the "aw, he's a good guy who loved his mom and not just another scheming politician..."

And then there's the "please, he's just another scheming politician...".

I don't know the man.

And I don't trust the commentators and/or pundits on either side of the ideological fence to make up my mind for me.

So, as to whether Newt's tears are twenty four carat or crocodile, I'll take a pass on pondering.

The thing about the thing is this.

I don't really want to know.

More to the point, I don't think it does us any good to know.

That kind of emotional expression only clouds, not clears, the water as we try to figure out which lever to pull come November.

If he's not sincere, then he's a manipulative schemer who is not to be trusted.

And if he is sincere, he's not exactly the kind of guy we want sitting across the table from those zany lads from, say, Iran or, say, North Korea.

When and if.

And for all those Hallmark Card sending, Lifetime Movie Of The Week loving folks whose favorite day during the Christmas season involves nine hearts a bleeding, let me offer you this.

Given the texture and tone of the world's politics at any given time in this day and time, we don't really need a guy living at 1600 Pennsylvania who is in touch with his feelings.

We need a boy named Sue.

And he said: "Son, this world is rough
And if a man's gonna make it, he's gotta be tough
And I knew I wouldn't be there to help ya along.
So I give ya that name and I said goodbye
I knew you'd have to get tough or die
And it's the name that helped to make you strong."

I imagine that Harry Truman probably welled up a little, somewhere along the way, as he reflected on dropping atomic bombs that would kill thousands of Japanese men, women and children.

I suspect that John F. Kennedy probably got teary, at least once, at the notion that one wrong move in Cuba could send Soviet missiles flying and kill hundreds of thousands of American men, women and children.

The list, likely, goes on.

But neither of those, or any other, Presidents let us see that side of their humanity.

And with good reason.

When we climb on board an airliner and are taken to thirty thousand feet, we all want to believe, and obviously, assume that the person at the controls is a warm, loving, caring human being.

But, we really don't want, or need, to see them walk through the cabin with tears in his or her eyes.

Standard issue for Presidents of The United States needs to be big boy/girl panties.

Not crying towels.

"...For Those Who Demand Change Now And Don't Define Now As 'Someday'.."

There's only one thing we know for sure here.

More on that in a moment.

Washington (CNN) -- Are you feeling uninspired this election season? Are you sick of all the attention being slathered on a small group of die-hard partisans in Iowa and New Hampshire? Do you think the political system's broken and your voice is ignored?

If you're looking for a change from the usual left-right, liberal-conservative, Democrat-Republican dynamic, you may get your wish. There's a new group in the 2012 election, and it's aiming to redefine presidential politics by going around the major party machines and putting an alternative choice on the ballot in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Americans Elect, which has raised $22 million so far, is harnessing the power of the Internet to conduct an unprecedented national online primary next spring. If all goes according to plan, the result will be a credible, nonpartisan ticket that pushes alternative centrist solutions to the growing problems America's current political leadership seems unwilling or unable to tackle.

The theory: If you break the stranglehold that more ideologically extreme primary voters and established interests currently have over presidential nominations, you will push Washington to seriously address tough economic and other issues. Even if the group's ticket doesn't win, its impact will force Democrats and Republicans in the nation's capital to start bridging their cavernous ideological divide.

"We're not a third party. We're a second nominating process trying to create a ticket that is solutions-based, that will force the conversation to the center rather than keeping it at the extremes of either party," says Ileana Wachtel, a spokeswoman for the group.

If you think Americans Elect is nothing more than a bunch of naïve dreamers, think again. Its leadership includes former New Jersey GOP Gov. Christine Todd Whitman; former Clinton administration strategist Doug Schoen; former National Intelligence Director Adm. Dennis Blair; former FBI and CIA Director William Webster; and former U.S. Trade Representative Carla Hills, among others.

The group's CEO is Kahlil Byrd, former communications director for Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, a Democrat. Dan Winslow, a Massachusetts Republican state representative and a former chief counsel to GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney, is also on board.

Funding for the effort was kicked off with over $5 million from investment banker Peter Ackerman. Financially, the ultimate goal is to limit each contributor's donation to no more than $10,000.

Americans Elect strategists believe they'll need around $35 million in total, half of which will likely be necessary to meet cumbersome ballot access requirements.

"The people who provided the seed money to get us started come from across the political spectrum," the group claims on its website. "Giving to Americans Elect buys you no special influence whatsoever, and all donors acknowledge that fact when they contribute."

One point of contention is that the group does not disclose the names of its donors, citing its nonprofit status and fears that contributors could find themselves losing potential business or social contacts. Critics contend the secrecy undermines the organization's claims of openness and transparency, and they argue that any group with such a clear electoral goal should not be exempt from disclosure rules governing the Democratic and Republican national committees.

Any registered voter -- Democrat, Republican, or otherwise -- can become an Americans Elect online delegate. Over 300,000 people have signed up so far. While anyone can seek the group's nomination, possible candidates will have to answer multiple online questionnaires.

Six prospective nominees will eventually be chosen by the delegates in an online winnowing process culminating in the selection of a ticket in June. According to the rules, two members of the same party will not be allowed to run together.

"When candidates pick running mates from outside their parties, it's a clear sign that they're working to build the consensus necessary to get things done," the group argues. "They'll govern without regard to the partisan interests of either major party."

Could New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg team up with former Secretary of State Colin Powell? How about Joe Lieberman and Condoleezza Rice? What about tapping a media celebrity like Tom Brokaw or a deficit hawk like former Clinton chief of staff Erskine Bowles?

The list of possibilities is virtually endless, but the list of criticisms is long. Among other things, critics question the ability to stop a fringe group from hijacking the process and using Americans Elect to advance their own narrow cause. Possible nominees will have to be cleared by an independent committee and undergo a background check, but the committee's decision can be overruled by a majority of the delegates.

Will the online voting be secure from hackers? "We take that issue very seriously," Wachtel told CNN, noting that each delegate will be able to produce a paper record of his or her vote.

Josh Levine, the former chief technology and operations of E*Trade Financial, is tasked with the website's security.

A number of political observers question whether an Americans Elect ticket could ever have a serious shot at winning. For all the talk of voter alienation and disgust with Washington, broad segments of the electorate maintain strong party loyalties, and the country's winner-take-all electoral system remains a huge hurdle for anyone trying to break the two-party stranglehold. Ross Perot won nearly 20% of the vote in 1992 and didn't have a single electoral vote to show for his efforts; 270 electoral votes are needed to win the White House.

The last non-major party candidate to make any headway in the Electoral College was George Wallace, who ran in 1968 on a specific issue -- opposition to civil rights -- and with a very clear regional base of support. At the moment, Americans Elect appears to have neither.

Having a charismatic nominee might help, but would hardly guarantee electoral viability. When one of the most beloved politicians in U.S. history -- Theodore Roosevelt -- bucked the two-party system in 1912, he only succeeded in splitting the Republican vote and ensuring a victory for Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat.

Veteran political analysts Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann have speculated that an Americans Elect ticket may end up splitting the electorate next year in such a way that an otherwise unacceptable major party nominee ends up capturing the presidency.

"The nightmare scenario for us would be angry or demoralized independents and discouraged centrist Republicans gravitating toward the third candidate, enabling a far-right Republican nominee to prevail with a narrow electoral majority or with a plurality followed by a win in a deeply divided House," they recently wrote in The Washington Post.

The U.S. Constitution requires the House of Representatives to pick the president if no candidate wins a majority of electoral votes.

Ornstein and Mann also question the ability of an independent president to govern effectively, and fear the eventual winner's legitimacy could be undermined by a severe three-way split in the popular vote.

"In this tough environment, any diminishment of legitimacy for the winner is undesirable," they said.

Asked to respond, Wachtel told CNN the need for change is paramount.

"At this point, the system's already spoiled," she said. "We need to open the process up to more competition and more choices for the American people."


The instant criticism of this concept is both predictable and inevitable.

Nothing rattles people's cages like actually changing something that we all scream we want changed.

A little something from the "be careful what you ask for" folder.

And while there are reasonable questions to be answered when it comes to the Americans Elect paradigm, there are always reasonable questions to be asked about any new way of doing things.

Any things.

That shouldn't, of course, be an automatic disqualification.

If it was, we would all be reading by firelight before going to down the creek to bathe before heading off to work on our mule.

The mule, of course, with the eight track tape player in the dashboard.

Because, God knows, there are serious concerns to be addressed about this new fangled cassette thingy.

All of this aside, there exists, at the center of the Americans Elect concept, a little pin spot of light, a spark, perhaps, of the sort that has been known to start a little smolder, then a little smoke, then a little flame and then a fire that can light our way to new horizons and accomplishments.

Clearly, from the caliber of people involved in this, it is an idea whose time may very well have come.

We can't know at the outset.

In fact, there's really only one thing we know for sure.

What will happen if we don't find a way to change that we all scream we want changed.

"...They're Lousy Dealmakers, But We Keep Dealing Them In..."

Poker.

That's what it really boils down to, you know.

More on that in a minute.

Washington (CNN) -- The congressional impasse over extending the payroll tax cut became a showdown Tuesday between President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner.

After the Republican-controlled House passed a measure calling for more negotiations, Boehner made public a letter to Obama that urged him to order the Senate back from its holiday break to take part in further talks.

Leaders in the Democratic-controlled Senate reject that idea, and Obama agreed, telling reporters in a previously unscheduled appearance that the House must approve the two-month extension passed by a strong bipartisan majority in the Senate.

"The bipartisan compromise that was reached on Saturday is the only viable way to prevent a tax hike on January 1," Obama said. "It's the only one."

The House motion, passed with no Democratic support on a 229-193 vote, expressed House disagreement with the Senate plan and called for the dispute to be immediately taken up by a House-Senate conference committee -- something already ruled out by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada.

However, Boehner and the Republican leadership prevented a direct vote on the Senate plan, signaling they may lack enough GOP support to defeat it in the face of unrelenting pressure from the White House, Democrats and some Senate Republicans.

Reading these kinds of stories day after day, I'm mindful of a couple of acronyms.

D.C.

District of Columbia.

S.S.D.D.

Same shit, different day.

But, today, while reading the latest road report from the clown car that is our Congress, another word popped to mind.

Poker.

And how that's really what all this is about.

There's an old saying amongst card players.

"When you sit down to play, look around the table and try to decide who the sucker is...if you can't figure out who it is...

...it's you."

We rail and rant and bitch and moan about the complete wastes of space these elected officials are and how they fail to serve even the slightest of our needs, instead, bickering constantly amongst themselves and serving only their own interests.

Yet, every two, four or six years, we send them back to Washington.

The classic definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result each time.

Seems like two things are clear.

We're all a little crazy.

And we suck at poker.

"...Oliver Twist, 2012...Please, Sir....May I Run For President?...."

Somewhere along the fun little road trip I've been on for awhile known as morning radio, I've learned a few things about human nature.

One of those things is that people tend to, unfailingly, like two things.

Free stuff.

And puzzles.

Regardless of what a lot of broadcast consultants want us, and try to convince themselves, to believe, chances are that your tuning into "Blather and Blah In The Morning" is less about the latest time, temp and weather forecast that you can now easily get on your smartphone and more about "Tacky Tweaky Trivia At Ten After" for the chance to win a free lunch at "Sandy's Sushi City".

Lord knows it can't possibly be to hear Katy Perry or Gaga every eleven point seven minutes.

And, of the two, free stuff and puzzles, it's actually the latter that offers the most appeal.

No matter how fresh the sushi.

There is simply something inherent in human nature that insists we find the solution to any query, question, curiosity or outright puzzle that crosses our radar.

Which brings me to the Donald.

And why anyone in their right, or right wing, mind gives a G.O.P elephant's patoot about getting his blessing to run for President of the United States.

It's a riddle, inside a mystery, wrapped in an enigma.

In other words, it's quite the puzzler, pinky.

Because he's not an office holder, past or present; he's not any official of either or any political party, major or minor; he's not a media columnist or commentator with a faithful following of millions of potential voters.

He's a real estate mogul with more money than God, let alone Albert Pujols.

But multiple zeros on a bank balance do not a political patriarch make.

Basically, the guy is a ReMax agent who can afford really nice suits.

The fact that this status theoretically endows him with the power to make, or break, the candidacies of those running for high office says volumes more about the process itself than the players in the plot.

And, again broken down to its simplest essence, gives us mere mortals serious pause as we consider that the answer to the puzzle may be no more complicated than this.

Money talks.

Only a fool or a child naively believes that money doesn't, and hasn't, played a key role in the political process since day one of campaign one.

From the days of Mark Hanna doling out family dollars to get William McKinley elected to the big business meets ballot box blitzkrieg of the Rockefeller family, the dollars and cents of American politics has been millions and millions of dollars and cents.

John F. Kennedy even publicly joked, at times, about the amount of money his father threw around in the quest to relocate Camelot to the District Of Columbia.

But Trump's purse power has a more in your face, and more insidious, way about it.

And the line of Republican candidates who have felt obliged to request an audience at Trump Tower are looking like the right wing edition of the favor seekers at the wedding of Don Corleone's daughter.

Last time I checked, though, Trump Tower was still located in downtown New York City.

Not 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Or, for that matter, Vatican Square.