Republican Problems….

The Republicans have a problem. Oh, not THAT one. No, I mean the one about having too many candidates for president. I suppose it’s a good sort of problem to have, if only any of the potential candidates actually had the stuff to be elected president. But for now the problem is that the party is trying to figure out how to hold televised debates with so many people on stage.

You may recall that in 2012 there were as many as nine Republican wannabes on stage at the same time. That included Rick Santorum and Rick Perry, two of the least likely candidates-to-succeed, along with Herman Cain and Michele Bachman, a pair of the daffiest candidates ever to show up. Mitt Romney eventually won, of course, and we know how that turned out in the general election. Though we don;t know how large a role the fact that Mitt once drove to Canada with the family dog strapped to the top of the car might have played in his defeat.

Oh well, onward and upward. And speaking of upward, there may be nearly 20 Republican candidates this year, if you call Donald Trump a potential candidate (and does his hair count as a separate candidate)? The field is filled with lightweights, wackos and never-will-bes. Can you imagine a debate in which you have to listen to Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee, Carly Fiorina, Ted Cruz, Rich Santorum, John Kasich, Bobby Jindal, Lindsey Graham, and … well, you name ‘em?

Personally I think it would be hilarious. And since Fox News is the major media sponsor, the options become even funnier. Let’s have Sean Hannity moderate a debate with all of those people. The possibilities are endless and endlessly appealing in a bizarre kind of way.

And yet — the truth is that it’s really very disappointing. There’s not a single Republican candidate on the horizon who would seem to have the brains, the background and the intellectual and emotional honesty to be a legitimate candidate for President of the United States. Sad. And especially so when you think about the candidates — or candidate — on the other side. I’m not ready to crown Hillary; I’m not yet convinced she’s the best option for our country. And I don’t like yielding to her by Republican default.

So yeah, the GOP has a problem. But it goes a whole lot deeper than finding space on stage for its most prominent members.

Oh, SC, how could you?

I spent many years living in South Carolina, and it is a lovely state that is home to some wonderful people. My kids were born there and have gone on to much success since.

But I have to admit the Palmetto State — named for the tree, by the way, and not the extremely noxious Palmetto Bug, also known as one gigantenormous cockroach — also shelters some people best described as . . . well, probably best left alone. Take my word for it. Please.

I’m not referring to the deranged mother who drove her two small children into a deep lake and then abandoned them. That really happened, by the way. Nor am I talking about the man who held up a couple on the streets of Charleston, asked them to remove their clothes and then ran off with their clothes, leaving behind their money, jewelry and credit cards. That really happened, too. And then there was the guy who wanted to marry his sheep. And then there was Strom Thurmond. But, well, you surely get the idea.

No, my thoughts went burbling back to South Carolina recently when I read that the state’s attorney general has inserted himself into the discussion over the issue of same-sex marriage. It is now legal in a majority of states, of course, and most people seem to believe the Supreme Court will make it official in a ruling later this year.

The South Carolina attorney general has a novel view of this. His contention, if I might sum it up briefly, is that the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution — adopted in 1868 and declaring that everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law — was approved by a group of people who at that time explicitly discriminated against women. Hence, they would certainly approve discrimination against gays and lesbians, including the banning of same-sex marriages.

You’ve got to admit there’s somebody in South Carolina who’s really thinking out of the box, if by box you mean abandoning the basic parameters of logic and sensibility for the sort of thinking that once assigned slaves the value of three-fifths of a single non-slave person. And that happened when we had people like James Madison and Thomas Jefferson around.

Anyhow, I’d rather think good thoughts about South Carolina, in spite of its somewhat checkered history. Charleston, for instance, is voted as the nation’s friendliest city in polls year after year, and it really is a place where fabled southern hospitality lives on. Boston, by the way, has not showed up in those polls since 1775, when the British started voting.

I love the South Carolina beaches. They are unspoiled, and by unspoiled I mean it is still possible to see an occasional grain of sand through all the semi-naked bodies and beach towels laying on it in July. Myrtle Beach is the most popular beach resort on the East Coast and boasts more golf courses than New Hampshire has Republican presidential candidates, although not by much, I grant you.

South Carolina has beaches and mountains and a whole lot of flat, plain stuff in between. Sort of like a sandwich in which the bread is really yummy and the ingredients are close to plaster-board taste. I naturally lived in the middle. There were competitions among some of the smaller towns in the middle to see which one truly deserved the title of “the armpit of America.” I always thought it was mostly a tie between 34 of them.

South Carolina claims to have more churches per capita than any other state, and they do have a number of gorgeous, historical churches. The state also claims it is the only state in the Union that deserves to be called Carolina, since North Carolina is a late-comer and pretender, much like South Dakotans probably feel about North Dakota, although my usually thorough online research has not yet turned up information on exactly where the Dakotas are on the map. West of the Monadnocks, I believe.

So in conclusion, I would like to think I’ve helped my fellow Granite Staters understand a little more about the place I once called home. I hope everyone has an opportunity to travel there soon; you won’t regret it, I assure you. You’ll get to it pretty much the way everyone does: drive south of Boston until it stops snowing, and then make a left just before you get to Florida. If you get to the place where restaurants are advertising that early-bird dinners start at 3:30 p.m., you’ve gone too far.

Or you’ve accidentally driven into South Dakota. And if so, please do let me know exactly where it is. I hear it’s really pretty there.

Just Plain Weird

Some years back when I was living in Atlanta, I remember coming across an item in the newspaper about an incident that occurred in a small East Tennessee town. To properly appreciate this, you have to know that East Tennessee is a very weird a sort of place, and my apologies to anyone who hails from there, but you exactly what I mean.

Apologies aside, it seems that one evening police were called to a trailer after reports of a disturbance there. They found the residents were indeed having a little dispute. One of them, a dwarf albino man, had just stabbed his wife, a blind, one-legged transvestite, following an argument apparently over the television remote control.

Doesn’t hearing that make you feel just a tad bit more normal now? I mean, really, don’t we all argue over the TV remote?

And we can all smile forgivingly at those kinds of goings-on because they occurred in the South, which is notorious for its eccentric if not altogether crazy and occasionally dangerous people, right? Just think, Louisiana alone boasts more certified political wackos than any state north of Maine. Just go read Flannery O’Connor’s stories if you doubt that haunted characters inhabit the South But, well, wait a minute . . .

Some stories in recent Granite State newspapers do remind us that we are a lot more alike than we might care to remember. One example, and I’ll quote a newspaper’s lead paragraph since it’s impossible to summarize better what happened:

“A man charged with chasing a Chester homeowner around his yard with a running chainsaw has told a judge he may claim he was acting in self defense.” Now remember as you read through that, we’re not in Tennessee any more, Dorothy.

Of course you can’t make that sort of thing up; nobody would believe it. The claim of self defense seems irrelevant. After all, does anyone read that and not conjure up the image of Leatherface rampaging through “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre?” in pursuit of the five stupidest teenagers in cinema history?

That’s hardly it for New Hampshire, however. Has anyone forgotten about that amazing woman in Epping a couple of years ago who somehow managed to get arrested four separate times in a mere 26 hours? That has to be some sort of record for law-breaking persistence.

First she was issued a warning at her home for playing loud music by the group AC/DC. One hour later they returned to arrest her for continuing to play music too loud. She was released, then arrested five hours later for the same offense. A few hours after that she was arrested a third time. Same problem. And amazingly that wasn’t the end of it.

Police had to come back to her house one more time — they probably didn’t need a GPS by now — after her nephew called to report he was trying to remove some belongings from her house when she threw a frying pan at him, which seems a minor offense after having to listen to AC/DC for so long. I think we can all agree it could have been worse if by worse you’re thinking of listening to loud music by Herman’s Hermits.

But unusual celebrity has come to other Granite Staters. Take Earl Tupper, for instance. Sort of an average guy, born in Berlin (ours, not Germany’s), raised on a working farm. As plain and as simple as Tupperware. And come to think of it, that’s why we remember Earl Tupper today.

Mr. Tupper — his friends never called him Earl, and who could blame them — was working for a chemical company during the Depression when he invented Tupperware. Only of course when he invented it it wasn’t Tupperware, it was just an oddly congealed plastic substance. Once he invented a lid to go on it and started marketing it in the 1940s, he got rich.

It’s a wonderful rags to riches story, isn’t it? Humble New Hampshire boy becomes a great inventor and a source of joy and pride for all Americans. Only it didn’t quite end that way. It seems Mr. Tupper wasn’t exactly as fond America as it was of him, especially the part involving taxation, so he sold his invention, divorced his wife and bought an island off the coast of Central America where he spent the last years of his life wishing he’d invented the Ronco bassmaster instead.

The point of all this meandering, of course, is . . . well, I may possibly have lost the thread somewhere along the way, but I’m sure if you read back over the column you’ll find it. Sorry, but I’m busy checking the yard to make certain there’s no one out there with a chainsaw.

The Wall Street Campaign

The Wall Street Journal — the Fox News for anyone who can read — offered an editorial this morning in the wake of Hillary Clinton’s announcement of her presidential candidacy. No one will be astonished to learn they don’t think much of it. Or her. The reasons, why, are as illuminatingly ludicrous as they are anti-progressive.

Let’s go through them one by one. First, there’s the inevitability of her candidacy, which is true as far as it goes. We always knew she was going to run again. and while it appears she has an almost clear run to the nomination, we know from 2008 that things can change.

The Journal’s editors complain that she has hired campaign assassins to destroy her critics with a blanket of propaganda. Hmmm. They failed to bring up the Koch Brothers, who spend tens of millions of dollars to trash Democrats of any stripe in behalf of right-wing Republicans. they grouse that Hillary will have the backing of President Obama who wants to maintain his legacy. Well, duh. Most presidents do support the candidates of their party,

And the Journal wants us to note that Hillary’s campaign will be trying to use historical erasures to eliminate from the public memory such things as Whitewater, Benghazi and Bill’s sexual indiscretions. That’s a very tired, old tactic which Republicans forget about when anyone brings up the Bush’s multi-billion dollar, life-taking misadventure in the Middle East. I’m inclined to forget about Bill and Hillary activities when compared again the terrible toll George Bush’s actions cost this country. For Fox News and their colleagues at the Journal, it’s the other way around: Never forget Benghazi. Never remember Iraq.

The Journal wraps up their argument by telling us that Hillary won’t be able to distance herself from President Obama’s healthcare initiative — as if that would be a good thing. Millions of Americans (who aren’t rich Republicans who can afford their own expensive health care options) — a majority of Americans in fact — approve of ObamaCare and need it. Even the most benighted of Republicans — Ted Cruz I’m looking at you — would be harebrained to try and abandon it.

The Journal sees Hillary’s campaign as one of deny, dissemble and attack. As if that wouldn’t match the Republican campaign of Cruz or Marco Rubio or Donald Trump or Jeb “I didn’t Send Troops to Iraq” Bush. Baloney. That may be the campaign we wind up with, but if so it will be not merely regrettable but a function of our broken political system. And I’m talking about you, Koch Brothers.

Deepening the quagmire

I dislike writing about the Middle East. It’s a quagmire in which all sides stubbornly resist serious efforts to reach a peaceful compromise. Lots of blame to go around.

But let’s be honest: Benjamin Netanyahu is grabbing for an extra share of blame. And let’s let him have it. Really. First, you’ll recall, he stepped into U.S. foreign policy — aided and abetted by a core of right-wing Republicans — to try and sabotage a nuclear agreement with Iran. That was despicable, and it was a crucial part of Netanyahu’s pitch for re-election, and one in which he was successful. Of course, his last-minute political denunciation of any hope for a two-state agreement in the Middle East sabotaged any prospect of meaningful peace talks between Israel and Palestine. Winning election on the backs of political sabotage is shameful. Right-wing radicals in Israeli are pleased with the results; everyone who thinks and cares about Israel’s future is or should be worried.

Netanyahu’s actions now threaten Israel’s stability in the world. Some leaders in Europe are now discussing imposing economic sanctions on Israel for its anti-peace decisions. The United States may well decide not to oppose support for a Palestinian state in the United Nations. Political backing for Israel in this country is slipping. And don’t blame that on anti-Semitism; that’s a canard. The reason is opportunistic politicians who are endangering their own country.

I’m not suggesting the United States abandon its support for the Israeli nation. Israel remains and should remain an ally. But we should not accept our ally’s political behavior when it pushes against the best interests of our country. We must do what is best for America. I can’t conceive under any circumstances for that to include abandoning Israel, but I can see us asserting our own needs on the world stage even when that alarms right-wingers in Israel. Nor can I see all of the nations of the Middle East remaining America’s enemies forever. Eventually there must be a peace, one that not only ensures Israel’s survival but also allows for others to live in peaceful proximity — if they will.

Netanyahu’s words this past week sadly and regrettably suggest to the rest of civilization that peace is now farther away. And — this is important — do not forget that Netantahu has been bankrolled all the way by the American Jewish gambling casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson. Adelson owns a partisan newspaper in Israel which toadies to Netanyahu and the worst instincts of the radical Likud political party. What seems so disgraceful is that in his actions Adelson has been guilty of selling out America in order to encourage Netanyahu’s feckless, irresponsible behavior. In doing so, he and his Jewish allies may find a serious backlash developing in American attitudes towards Israel. And Adelson could find himself with another label by a lot of Americans: a Judas.

Deserving Bedfellows

With friends like Israel, do we really need enemies? It seems an understandable question to ask after the embarrassing, empty and condescending speech to Congress by Israeli Premier Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday. But of course the answer is that Israel is a friend, a close ally of the United states. It is necessary, however, to recognize that there is a difference the state of Israel and its leaders. We support Israel – but Mr. Netanyahu deserves little.

Everything about his address smelled badly. First, he should never have been invited. That the invitation came from an incompetent simpleton named John Boehner — whose recent behavior makes me wonder if he is becoming unhinged — was nothing less than an insult to the President and to this country. Which, of course, was exactly what Boehner intended. The invitation was extended because the irresponsible Republicans in Congress (that’s not all of them, just a big majority) oppose the President’s efforts to strike a nuclear deal with Iran, and anything that might prevent that is acceptable.

The insult was real. Can you imagine the reaction of those same shameless Republicans had a foreign leader been invited to address Congress in 2003 opposing President Bush’s Iraq invasion? Their whines would still be heard, and rightly so. But they are without decency and common sense in this instance, swooning over Netanyahu as if he were a rock star instead of a careless, unprincipled politician whose actions have done as much if not more to block Middle East peace than George Bush.

In his address, Netanyahu sharply criticized current negotiations with Iran, warning they imperil the safety of his country. Do we need the leader of a foreign nation telling us what our policies should be? As long as our President is a black man named Obama, I’d say the Republicans would answer with an almost unanimous “yes.” It is to me condescending, rude and insulting. And wrong. Netanyahu offers nothing, only opposition to negotiations. He doesn’t and trust the Iranians. Well, neither do we, but a negotiated deal is better than nothing, allowing the Iranians to spur development of nuclear weapons, They’ve already made clear addition all economic sanctions won’t prevent them. And no one in their right mind currently suggests we start bombing Iran to stop it. Oops, did I forget John McCain?

Netanyahu says we can’t trust and work with the Iranian government. So if they are so intent on dominating the Middle East, no nuclear agreement will stop them, right? So what’s left to keep them from getting the bomb? Regime change? Well, yes, that was the unspoken part of his address, unspoken because he knows that after our misguided Iraq invasion, we’re not about to throw tens of thousands of Americans into a war with Iran. And if Netanyahu is so intent on securing peace in the region, how about putting an end to continuing Israeli settlements in the West Bank?

Nope, no mention of that in the speech. No touches of political reality entered the conversation between the Prime Minister and the Republicans. Opportunism was the dominant element of the day. Shameless, senseless Republicans and a crooked, smirking politician from Israel make unsurprising bedfellows, don’t they?

Enjoy Your Flight

The airlines are the most reliably honest corporations doing business these days. I know what you’re thinking — I’ve done nothing but rant against the airlines for years now. And you’re right. But the fact is the airlines are laughably up-front about their greediness and lack of interest in customer service (exception: if you purchase first-class seats for your flights, you are on their “treat-’em-right” list and should disregard the following).

What prompts this is the news that Delta — the airline I flew all the time since it overwhelmed other carriers at the Atlanta airport near my home — has made a lot of money in 2014. Profits at Delta are up, up and away, driven in part by higher fares, exorbitant fees and lower gas prices.

In fact, Delta reports it saved some $52 billion last year because of lower prices the airline had to pay for gasoline for its planes. So, you wonder, will Delta lower its fares as part of its concern for its passengers? You are surely joking, right? Delta says it will use the money to make its bottom line look better. Listen to Delta’s DEO, Richard Anderson:

“The first order of use is to continue to reduce our net debt, and the second order will be higher cash returns for our owners.” You have to really appreciate that kind of corporate honesty: Screw the customers, we’re looking after our investors. Of course, given Delta’s lack of interest in reducing fees and making seats comfortable — even tolerable — what else should we expect? And, to be honest about it, Delta is not alone; these words could as easily echo from the mouths of the CEO at any other American airline.

With strong demand, packed planes, reduced in-flight services, customers willingly paying outrageous fees and tolerating increasingly uncomfortable flying circumstances, why should Delta or any other airline be worried? Beats me — it seems a near perfect collision of greed and need. Don’t look for any changes anytime soon. Enjoy your next flight.

Looking Ahead with Trepidation

A few thoughts about the American economy c. 2015 …..

Can we please stop with all the caterwauling about how falling oil prices are ruining the economy? They aren’t ruining anything. And they’re helping tens of millions of Americans save millions of dollars, thereby improving the economy. This is not a rant–it’s factual. The federal government estimates that the typical American household is on track to save an average of $750 on fuel bills in 2015. If you’re a billionaire — or a Republican voter — that apparently won’t enter into your thinking. For the rest of us, however, that’s a huge boost, the equivalent of a major tax break for America’s middle class.

So why the whining? Well, stock market investors in oil companies have taken a hit. Big oil companies have slowed their digging. They have warned of job reductions if low prices continue. And you know what? There’s no way in hell or anywhere else that that is more important than the good news for so many Americans. The savings for American families has more than offset — by ten times at least — the gross domestic product represented by oil and gas industry development, according to The New York Times.

Now a lot of people are celebrating this. Republican congressmen seem to be alarmed by it, expressing fear that a shortfall in production will cause prices to jump. Well, prices are going to go back up because oil prices will rise eventually. The rise and fall is part of the capital market. We’ve all suffered when prices were up (and oil companies were making huge profits) — and those same Republican congressmen griped about it — but now that it’s down and the middle class is reaping benefits, the Republicans (John Boehner, Ted Cruz and the rest of you, I’m talking to you) are sounding concerned.

These are the same party which has reduced federal food stamp benefits for millions of poorer Americans. This is the same party that has fought to stop Obamacare, charging that it will drive up costs for everyone when the facts now show it is lowering costs for millions. That’s not a face — that’s what’s happening. This is the party that hurls its utmost energy into battles to keep the wealthy from having to pay any more in taxes while showing scant concern for the middle class.

This is also the party of the climate change deniers. The party whose platform opposes gay marriages. The party that opposes women’s birth rights. This is the party on the wrong side of almost every important social change in the United States in the last 30 years. And this is the party that controls both houses of the U.S. Congress.

That’s the hardest part to explain — why have voters supported politicians whose interests are so aligned against those of the middle class? These congressmen — admittedly like too many of their Democratic counterparts — have shown their only interest lies in getting re-elected. And in condescending to the basest of their constituents. And their constituents have fallen for it. Thinking about it, you have to bemoan the intellectual state of the Republican voter in this country.

There is no way to connect intelligence and thoughtfulness and compassion with people like Congressmen Louis Gohmert, Ted Yoho, Ted Cruz, Steve King and … well, sadly, it’s way too easy to go on with a listing. It makes for a depressing commentary on the state of American politics and the state of American voters. There’s a dumbness about too many of them that is frightening for this country’s future. And that’s not elitism, either. Far from it. It is rather speaking to a narrowness, a callowness, a willingness to place personal interests far above national interests. Our founding fathers would surely find this almost unimaginable and those who perpetrate it — politicians and voters — to be disgraceful and undeserving.

Enter 2015

What a year 2015 promises to be!

Americans bringing back cigars from Cuba legally. Eating French fries again instead of those “Freedom” fries. A year year free of presidential politics. OK, I may have misstepped with that last one. In fact, since Chris Christie has spent more time in Iowa than New Jersey in the last 12 months suggests I am not just overly optimistic but downright bonkers. We are in full-bore presidential freak-out even though it’s a year before the primaries.

It’s somewhat amusing to think about the possibilities for Democrats, but blessed folly to consider the Republicans. For the Demos, as we know, it will be Hilary against the field, which at the present time includes only Jim Webb (who?). Will a long-shot show up a la Barack Obama in 2008 to take away the Clinton’s marbles? I have no idea.

Nor do I really have an educated guess about the Republicans, but then again who does? It’s just dizzying fun to consider the options: Rick Perry (memory loss?). Rick Santorum (Google him). Scott Walker (who?). Jeb Bush (can’t see the forest for the Bushes). Chris Christie (America needs a bully). Mike Huckabee (good for book sales). Herman Cain (oh please, please yes). Marco Rubio (ready to lead the Roughriders back to Cuba). Ted Cruz (when hell freezes over. And over). Mitt Romney (you’re kidding, right?).

Take a deep breath and look over that field — is there anyone, really anyone, you want to cast a vote for in 2016? My hope is that we’re looking at the wannabes and not someone who may actually run and win. Someone qualified. Someone intelligent, outspoken, progressive, capable, someone with a vision for this country that includes all strata of its citizens, from the poorest to the richest, from the neediest to the least deserving. Someone with passion, compassion, leadership and … oh who am I kidding. Forget that and let’s all just get behind Ted Yoho.

OK, I’m kidding again. I just like writing the name Ted Yoho.

007 Comes to New Hampshire?

The online headline really grabbed my attention last week: “James Bond Sequel To Film in New Hampshire.”

Talk about WOW! The story reported that fans of the Bond movies were having mixed feelings about the surprise change of locations for the upcoming 24th film in the hugely popular series. “A Bond film is known for its exotic locales, so I get a little nervous when I read about director Sam Mendes securing the rights to shoot in downtown Concord and scouting covered bridges for the opening action sequence,” fan Peter Harris said in response to the absolutely astonishing news.

The film, according to the article, will feature Agent 007 tracking a shadowy terrorist organization through conservation centers, hiking trails, maple syrup farms and craft museums throughout the rural state, culminating in a final confrontation at the Franklin Pierce Homestead. Fans were also reportedly divided over the decision to change the name of the film from “Spectre” to “Live Free Or Die.”

OK, by now, even the densest of readers must have realized something is amiss. As indeed it is, since this news report appeared in The Onion, the satiric newspaper that re-imagines the news as sort of a parallel universe. (Other recent headlines: “Elderly Woman Begins Freezing Meals Husband Can Eat While She’s Passed Away” and “Desperate GOP Spotted in South Dakota Trying to Build Keystone Pipeline Themselves.”). You get the idea, I’m sure.

But stop and think about it for a moment. Why shouldn’t 007 traipse around our beloved Granite State disposing of spies and various and assorted bad guys? What better place for the villains to hide than somewhere in the Great North Woods where the lakes are called Connecticut Lake 1 and Connecticut Lake 2? Who but Bond would ever figure out they’re actually in New Hampshire and not The Nutmeg State?

I see a lot of opportunities for James Bond’s escapades in New Hampshire to thrill the most sated of adventure-loving moviegoers.

Can’t you just see the drama and surprise afoot when Bond pursues the evil ones up Mount Washington? They’re all dressed like Palm Beach tourists at the base, but as they proceed upward — using the cog railway would give everyone plenty of time to admire the gorgeous scenery — only 007 understands the temperature will drop by 40 degrees and it will be snowing by the time they get to the top, the villains now helplessly shivering and easy prey for the master spy.

When something as harmless and charming as Keene’s Pumpkin Festival goes awry, who better to resolve all the issues than 007 with his amazing array of gadgets (like a pumpkin device that wraps would-be miscreants harmlessly in an orange, gooey substance that smells a lot like a pie)?

And for that big finish for the film at the Franklin Pierce Homestead, wouldn’t it be thrilling to have the film’s stars taking time during the derring-do to talk about the accomplishments of the nation’s 14th President, skipping over only those parts about his excuses for slavery, his denunciation of Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation and his generally high ranking among America’s worst Presidents (talking about you, Millard Fillmore and James Buchanan).

Heck, maybe the fabled secret agent could somehow even manage to penetrate the ultra-secretive offices of FairPoint Communications to bring an end to the onerous strike that has crippled phone service for many Granite Staters. Wouldn’t that be worth at least a standing ovation in the theaters?

Frankly, I can’t wait for the filming to start. I’m already smiling at the prospect of Daniel Craig jostling for space with the likes of Hilary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and everyone else who’s spending some serious quality time in New Hampshire.

I’m not sure we’re big enough for all of them to co-exist. In which case they may spillover to Vermont, which could lead us to a round dairy farms, maple syrup stands, cheese makers and unpaved roads. And — could you imagine the bad guys trying to make a successful getaway anywhere during our mud season?