"Trump Will 'Probably' Run as Independent If He Doesn't Win GOP Nomination." America Had Better Get Ready for a Three-Ring Circus in 2012...

…And that's even if the billionaire real estate mogul never runs as an Independent. More on that subject in a moment. But first, I have some observations about Donald Trump's recent antics and rising poll numbers:

I get the sense that the democrat party is starting to become just a little bit concerned with ol' Donald. And with good reason, methinks. Absent New Jersey Governor Chris Christie throwing his hat into the ring (which probably won't happen), I believe that Trump may be the only republican with a prayer of beating sitting president Obama in 2012 (and wouldn't Melania Knauss-Trump be the hottest First Lady in history?). We'll get to that too. But let's take this step by step.

The Republican Nomination

You might say that it's not even clear that Trump's going to run. But all signs strongly point to him running. And if he does, he has at least a decent chance of capturing the republican nomination. A poll over the past week had Trump at #2 among potential republican candidates and not far off the leader, Mitt Romney. Then Tuesday I saw a CNN poll that has him tied for #1 with Huckabee. He's now a player.

Call Trump crazy, if you will (and I think a certain aspect of him is crazy), but he's also crazy like a fox. ("That dude's a gen-ee-us!") Look at all his recent "birther" rhetoric. No coincidence his polls have simultaneously gone through the roof, which is attributable to deranged right-winger tea partiers finally having someone lend credibility to the now completely debunked notion that Obama was born in Kenya.

Trump shoots up in the polls, and he gets away with talking about such lunacy. And only he could. If Palin or Romney or one of the conventional potential republican candidates started talking a bunch of birther (is that like talking turkey?), then they would get crucified by the media.

But Trump's a different kind of creature. He's a bona fide celebrity who's been well known to the American people for a quarter century. The guy's got a Star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame for cryin' out loud! The media doesn't treat him like it treats Palins and Romneys.

And Trump is also viewed as a political outsider, which he largely is. Americans love that sort of thing, and the media is intrigued by it. That means he can play outside of deranged right-winger land to a significant extent.

But he's also been playing inside of it, which is necessary to capture the GOP nomination. I've heard a number of the right-wing talking heads – people such as Rush Slimebaugh, Michael Savage and Sean Hannity – all speak in generally favorable terms about Trump.

So this guy is dangerous. He could win the GOP nomination. If you think that's crazy, then I’m sorry – you're simply uninformed. Even if Trump doesn't win it, I am so looking forward to the high entertainment of Trump participating in the GOP primary debates. That's gonna be great! Sort of like when Al Sharpton ran for the democrat party nomination. I agree with Sharpton on virtually nothing, but that crazy cat was really mixing things up in the primary debates. Classic.

The General Election

And what if Trump can win the GOP nomination? Then the fun really begins. Sorry, but I doubt any of the boring white male retreads or never-were potential republican candidates (Romney, Huckabee, Pawlenty, Gingrich, etc.) have much chance of beating Obama – who has the huge advantage of being a sitting president and a political machine in place that is looking to raise a billion dollars to throw at the 2012 campaign.

Trump might be the only republican who could beat Obama. Obama's never had to contend with the likes of Trump – a fast-talking, political outsider celebrity who’s liable to say or do anything. Put another way, Trump's a complete wildcard, and I think that makes the democrat party nervous. Not to mention, who’s the one candidate who could match Obama’s big money with money of his own? That would be Trump.

The democrat party underestimates Trump at their own peril. But alas, despite their current public rhetoric downplaying and insulting Trump, I don’t think they are (or will) underestimate him. I call the leftist 20 percenters many things, but just plain stupid is usually not one of those things.

Potential Run as an Independent

All of that now on the table, what about this Wall Street Journal story quoting Trump this week as saying that he will "probably" run as an Independent if he fails to capture the GOP nomination? As I've said before regarding Trump -- go for it. I tend to doubt that I would vote for him (although I rarely say never), but I would love to see him in some three-way presidential debates. That would be fun.

Trump also says he thinks he "could possibly win as an Independent." But that's where the odds would be most against him. In American history, the best performance of any third-party presidential candidate was to capture a paltry 27% of the popular vote – and that was a political heavyweight, i.e. former president and larger-than-life personality Teddy Roosevelt in 1912. Roosevelt ran in the self-coined "Bull Moose" Party and split the republican vote, which swept far leftist democrat Woodrow Wilson right into power.

Truth be told, instead of becoming president, the effect of Trump running as an Independent probably hands reelection to Obama. That's because Trump will similarly divide the republican vote, while the leftist 20 percenters will rally their typical coalitions without any divisions. (Trump's only hope might be a general election shift to the center to try to peel off Obama-voting Independents and "moderate" democrats).

Sort of 1912 and 1992 all over again, and a complete nightmare for the right-wingers. It must be more than just a bit ominous for republicans that 2012 falls exactly 100 years after Roosevelt's failed bid and exactly 20 years after the failed third-party campaign of one Ross Perot.

Trump is aware of this and notes that republicans "are very concerned that I [may] run as an Independent." So why would Trump want to derail the GOP nominee like that? Pretty simple, I think. Dude's an egomaniac. He couldn't care less about the GOP nominee (which I can admire just a bit). This thing is about him, not the republican party.

Not to mention, Trump's been paying a bit too much attention to Charlie Sheen, apparently. Concerning why he might run as an Independent, Trump spouted: "I like winning."

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/04/11/trump-will-probably-run-as-independent-if-he-doesnt-win-gop-nomination/tab/print/

What Can I Do to Put You in This Home? Response: "GIVE ME THE DAMN KEYS!" Pushy Squatter Won't Take No for an Answer When It Comes to Dream Home...

He loved the house. And he really wanted to live there. So 43-year-old Pennsylvania resident Frederick Harris (pictured on right) went down the traditional route for house hunting – scheduling a tour of the vacant upscale digs (worth $500,000 to $600,000) with the real estate agent.

But after his tour, Harris apparently wanted an opportunity to take his own little private tour in the near future. He pressed hard for the agent to turn over the joint's keys to him, acting "extremely anxious" to get his grubby little paws on them. But nothin' doing on that front, as the agent broke Harris' half court press at the top of the "key."

And it probably didn't help his efforts that Harris reportedly wore gloves during the April tour. Having been rebuffed at the front door, Harris allegedly took things into his own little gloved hands, since no one (allegedly) was going to keep him from his dream home.

First on the agenda, allegedly, was to ward off other potential buyers of the home: Cops say Harris yanked the "For Sale" right out the home's front yard. But why let a perfectly good real estate sign go to waste?

Instead of tossing it into the rubbish bin as you might expect him to do, Harris allegedly put the sign to constructive use by converting it into a makeshift burglary device. Cops say Harris used the sign to bash in a window at the home and broke in. (And to think, this all could have been averted if that pesky agent had just turned over the damn keys!)

Now was this your typical (alleged) burglary in which Harris was interested in lifting some resalable fixtures from the joint (which was apparently vacant)? Are you crazy? This is the man's dream home (allegedly)!!! Why would he want to damage or defile it?!?

Nope. Harris allegedly did the only thing you would expect of an enamored house hunter: He moved in and took to squattin’ in that crib (allegedly)! Cops says Harris lived in the house as if it was his own for days, stocking up the fridge and parking his Chevy out in the garage. "He basically was making a home there," said the local police chief.

Things reportedly headed south for this loopy home lover when the home's caretaker noticed the car in the garage and the proverbial "strange man" milling around inside the house. Busted! The caretaker called the cops, who entered the home with one of those bloodhound sniff dogs, named Argos.

Apparently trying to put the pooch and the cops off his scent, Harris allegedly hit the button to open the garage door – I'm presuming in hopes that Argos and his blue masters would scurry out the joint thinking that Harris had escaped. But regardless of what you think of cops in general, they typically aren't stupid.

They didn't go for Harris' apparent little attempt at subterfuge (Winston Wolf, this dude was not) and looked to secure the house before looking into the possibility that Harris had fled. Argos and the cops reportedly found Harris huddled down inside the shithouse. No word whether he had his gloves on at the time.

Harris' story to the cops was pretty garden variety – said he had a right to be there and that he was "working" with the real estate agent to possibly buy the house. Well, Harris ain't buying this house, and cops weren't buying his line a' bullshit (allegedly).

Now Harris "has been removed to a more Spartan home: the Westmoreland County Prison," facing charges of burglary, criminal trespass and criminal mischief.

Meantime local cops are apparently baffled by the whole incident. The aforementioned police chief, Thomas Seefeld, candidly revealed to the media that this is a very "unusual case."

But the revelations did not stop there. Providing an insider's glimpse into the way the cops really view this case, Seefeld added: "Usually people pay money when they buy a home and move in."

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_731217.html#

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11099/1138173-59.stm

On Same Weekend as Debut of "Khloe and Lamar," a New Polls Says 46% of Mississippi GOP Rednecks Wants to Ban Interracial Marriages. Can We Ban THEM?

I don't call it the Shithouse State for nothing! And how fitting (and I would assume by the pollster's design): On the same weekend that the new reality series of married couple Khloe Kardashian and Lamar Odom debuts on E! (first link at bottom), there's word of this new "Public Policy Polling" poll that found that a whopping 46% of Mississippi republicans would like to ban interracial marriages (second link at bottom).

And if that many actually admit having such an ugly opinion, then how much higher must the real number be?!? Indeed, a supermajority of 60% of those same republicans are unable to say that they approve of interracial marriages (40% say they do, while 14% claim to be "unsure," with the aforementioned 46% being opposed).

I wonder what outgoing Mississippi governor and likely GOP presidential candidate Haley Barbour (pictured above in all his white redneck glory) thinks about this issue? I mean what does he honestly think, since he'd obviously say he doesn't oppose interracial marriage (presumably, anyway). Not knowing the redneck, I won't pronounce judgment. But I can guess.

But let's not cast all of the white shadow, for lack of a better phrase, upon the deranged right-wingers. I have little doubt that plenty (if not as many) white redneck Mississippi democrat party members also oppose interracial marriage. This is a former bastion of the Klu Klux Klan, after all, which was historically very entrenched with the democrat party in the Deep South (are you supposed to capitalize that phrase, BTW? I'd actually prefer not to).

Someone should tell these backward, backwoods Dixie goofwads that this ain't 1950 anymore. I have to think a race-based ban on marriage would be blatantly unconstitutional and struck down almost immediately (federal courts tend to be like that when it comes to treating people differently based upon race).

Moreover, in this day and age, just what in the hell is an "interracial" marriage? If a person is 1/8 African ancestry, for example, would that mean he/she couldn't marry a WASP? What about Jewish people, who are often referred to by right-wing extremists as being a different "race"? Would the Mississippians lump them into the equation too? What about me? I have a lot of Irish in me, which doesn't exactly fall within the neo-Nazi definition of "racial purity." Does that mean a white guy like me can't marry a white woman?

Good grief, whom could I marry under a Mississippi interracial marriage ban? A farm animal, maybe? Actually, that at least I know is something to which they are most hospitable down in the ol' Hospitality State. A little Animal Love amongst the Magnolias!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1375552/Khloe-Kardashians-husband-Lamar-Odom-My-father-heroin-addict.html
http://www.aolnews.com/2011/04/08/46-percent-of-mississippi-republicans-want-interracial-marriage/

Charlie Sheen Fails to "Win" Over the Big Apple, "Stinks Up Radio City Music Hall Like a Flatulent Goddess"!

They booed him. They jeered him. They sent him scurrying offstage like a New York City sewer rat only halfway through his show this weekend. " 'F--k you, Charlie,' a row of young men chanted after Sheen sprinted from the theater."

This was the latest stop in Sheen's infamous "Violent Torpedo of Truth" road tour, which has now seen Sheen stink up joints from Detroit to the Empire State. But this one apparently took ROTTEN to a whole new Extreme. (Links to full story at bottom).

Sheen reportedly got off on the wrong foot with the less-than-capacity Hall audience before he even arrived, as he didn't bother to even show up on time (30 minutes late). Then, when he finally arrived onstage, his first words to the audience were incoherent drivel that no one understood – "Hey Mrs. Farmer – suck it!" It only went downhill from there.

The show consisted of Sheen being "interviewed" by some friend, all the while chain-smoking "like a criminal" despite NYC's anti-smoking laws. He reportedly rambled on and on about his wealth and every hotel he's ever stayed in, and he told profanity-laced stories about his many wild cocaine-and-hookers-infested parties. For good measure, Sheen insulted and took shots at various Hollywood types, including his own brother, Emilio Estevez.

The only problem? None of it was funny. And worse yet, the audience was thoroughly bored. The jeers and catcalls began early on, and they only picked up momentum as the minutes ticked slowly by. But instead of picking up his performance, Sheen simply snapped back at the audience: "The audience jeered him, and he cussed back at them for not listening closely."

It might have helped if Sheen had more featured his two slutty girlfriends in the show – porn star Bree Olson (a.k.a. Rachel Oberlin) and pot magazine model Natalie Kenly. But alas, they made only a brief appearance onstage to say hi. Opportunity missed.

Finally, 45 minutes into the "incoherent snooze-fest . . . Charlie abruptly ran out of gas [and] stopped talking. Sheen sat onstage, smoking silently." With the boos reaching epic levels, Sheen did his audience the biggest favor of the night and "ran from the stage like a scared felon ahead of a lynch mob." But by that point, much of the crowd wasn't even around anymore to chase after Sheen.

Reading the various media and audience accounts of this raunchy event, I'm left to think of those television ads for new movies that have just come out. You know: "Joe Blow gives a riveting performance, raves Entertainment Weekly; a big thumbs up, says Roger Ebert; the laughs never stop coming, shouts Rolling Stone…." Those ads are usually highly misleading because they use only the most glowing of the film's reviews.

Well, Sheen's little road show now has a whole host of such material from which to draw – at least if he wants to make a Bizarro-World promotional ad. Check out this sampling of media and audience opinions:

-"The worst show I've ever seen in my life."

-"This is worse than Chernobyl!"

-"It was an atrocity!"

-"A shit-show."

-"An aimless and slovenly disaster."

-"His hecklers are funnier than he is."

-"I got kicked out once. I snuck back in and he sucked both times."

-"I thought it'd be fun. Turns out not so much."

-"I felt like I was watching Charlie Sheen dying on stage."

-"Dribbled-out, half-baked ramblings."

-"I didn't get one honest laugh."

-"Not worth the money."

-"He didn't provide entertainment; No bang for the buck."

-"His most coherent message is how much money he has."

-"Torpedo of Truth turned out to be a real bomb."

-"He didn't quite give a 'winning' performance."

-"Sheen seemed like he'd prefer to be asleep."

-"His pop references are weirdly stuck in time."

-"He's still stuck in that 80's idea."

-"As rebellious as a diary entry by Donald Trump."

-"I've had better conversations with crackheads."

-"Rambling stories about his life that were long on profanity, but short on amusement."

-"He was boring. He had nothing to say."

-"Sheen doesn't have any jokes!"

-"He has the mind of a 12-year-old."

-"Charlie, you suck! You should have kept your day job."

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/charlie_losing_xLahPtH37ntkYfKr8MSzxH

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/fans_tell_sheen_to_kiss_off_ZLQ9lf1m1ClSvS4Uucz5aI

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/04/08/charlie-sheen-brings-violent-torpedo-of-truth-to-manhattan/#

http://www.showbiz411.com/2011/04/09/charlie-sheen-at-radio-city-audience-boos-he-smokes

http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/04/09/charlie-sheen-at-radio-city-hes-losing/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1375105/Charlie-Sheen-heckled-booed-New-York-stage-turns-sour.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Gov't Shutdown Averted; Parties Reach Agreement on Budget For Now: I Don't Think Either Side Really Won, Although GOP Likely Avoided the Biggest Loss.

The news came down in the past few hours that GOP and democrat party congressional leaders reached an agreement on the 2011 budget at the last minute to avoid a government shutdown. Both sides will spin and declare a victory this weekend, but don't believe them.

I wouldn't call either side a clear winner here. Both parties appear to have taken a hit in the polls (the republicans the bigger hit) for letting things get so close to the deadline. The democrat party didn't want to cut anything in the budget, yet appears to have given and given, and conceded and conceded, a huge amount throughout this process to the republican's budget cut demands.

But republicans had wanted (and had campaigned on) cutting at least $60 billion from this budget, while the agreement is only for $40 billion. So the republicans gave plenty of way too.

Also some of these apparently policy-based aspects of what the republicans wanted (some more based on right-winger social policy than a sincere interest in cutting the budget in my opinion) -- such as defunding "Planned Parenthood" -- went by the wayside, representing a small victory for the democrat party (a small victory since the democrat party traded a concession of allowing such a measure to come to a vote in the Senate, which they otherwise would have blocked).

BTW, if the republicans had shut down the government over "Planned Parenthood" funding (funding that neither I nor many Independents could give a rat's ass about one way or the other), I would have been very critical and it likely would have been disastrous for the republicans. Abortion is a largely a right vs. left pissing match issue that the average American, while perhaps having an opinion on the issue, just says "yawn" to as right-winger social conservatives and 20 percenter leftists fight endlessly about it.

And here's the reason why I say that while there's no clear winner here, the republicans appear to be the ones who avoided the biggest loss: All indications to me, from polling data and myriad instances of conventional political wisdom from various pundits on both sides, are that a shutdown -- for whatever reasons -- would have been blamed much more on the republicans by the majority of the American public.

That's how it went down in 1995, and while today is much different from 1995, a lot of the same dynamic remains: The majority of the public doesn't want something so drastic as a government shutdown to occur if the democrat party is willing to go a majority of the way that the House republicans are looking for in terms of budget and/or governmental cuts.

For that reason, I have little doubt that plenty of 20 percenter leftists out there really wanted a shutdown to occur and are disappointed that it didn't. As well, plenty of the leftists are very clearly disappointed in how much their party conceded in the way of budget cuts.

I think House Speaker John "Party Time" Boehner actually in all likelihood did a fairly effective job here in bleeding just as many budget concessions as he could from the democrat party right up to the deadline, but still not taking things to a shutdown. My guess is that the general pundits' reviews of his performance this weekend (if not from the deranged right-winger tea partiers) will be fairly positive.

Finally, and purely political analysis aside, I think my own personal views on current budget and debt issues have been well alluded to previously in this space: We have a $14.2 Trillion national debt which only continues to grow. Unless we have a serious effort and plan to reduce that debt through our annual budgets and deficits, that debt will completely run this country into the ground within a matter of years, if not sooner. Them's just facts, regardless of your political persuasion.

Some (although truth be told, not very many) in the republican party have a serious conviction towards tackling that debt. Congressman Paul Ryan is one of those few republicans, and he's put forth a plan. Leftist 20 percenters criticize various aspects of that plan incessantly as being "extreme" and "draconian" -- as predictable as the morning sunrise.

And while some if not many of those criticisms may actually have some small or even pretty decent merit, they still largely fall on deaf ears with me, since the democrat party has no alternative plan. So if cut or reform X, Y or Z is so "extreme" and "draconian", then what do they propose as an alternative cut? Entertain me. Hell, in some or many instances, I might agree to the alternative!

But the leftist 20 percenters have none, and frankly likely won't in the future. Because their world view is devoted to growing spending and the size of the federal government just as much as they can possibly get away with -- with any necessary "reigning in" of the national debt coming through redistributions of wealth and taxing the holy hell out of the wealthy and raising taxes as much as possible on everyone else as well. The phrase "tax and spend" may be cliched and stereotypical, but you know why most cliches and stereotypes arise, don't you? Out of a whole hell of a lot of truth.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_spending_showdown