http;//www.Californiacontrarian.com

Who of you can tell me who Tom Robinson is? What about Atticus Finch? Are these two sounding more familiar? They should be as they are two of the primary characters in Harper Lee’s 1960 novel, To Kill a Mockingbird, later made into a moviethat I am sure most everyone has seen. From Wikipedia: To Kill a Mockingbird is probably the most widely read book dealing with race in America, and its main character, Atticus Finch, the most enduring fictional image of racial heroism.

Just to refresh everyone’s memory Tom Robinson is the young black man who is unjustly accused of raping a white woman, and Atticus Finch is the lawyer who defends him. Although the evidence is strongly in favor of acquittal, Robinson is found guilty by an “all white prejudiced jury.” This was in essence, a “courtroom lynching.”(At one point, Atticus tells his son, Jen, that courage is “when you’re licked before you begin but you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what.”)
I just finished “My Grandfather’s Son.” It is the autobiography of Clarence Thomas. I never really knew much about Justice Thomas, but his life story is one of those, “Are you sh***ing me!” I can’t believe he ever made it as far as he did, considering the extreme poverty into which he was born. He is an outstanding example of what a person can do with hard work. Before I had reached the Anita Hill episode in the book, during his confirmation hearings, I had already a great deal of respect for this deeply religious and humble man. The entire Anita Hill fiasco just strengthened this feeling. Judge Thomas defended himself when the “all white prejudiced jury,” including Democrats, Sen. Howard  Metzenbaum, Sen. Patrick Leahy, and our old friend, Sen. Joe “I’ll Stab You in the Back, if I Have To” Biden grilled him with vague questions chock-full of innuendo. In his closing statement, Clarence Thomas referred to the Senate hearing as “a high tech lynching,” while he defended his character and his family.  (“He was licked before it began, but he began anyway and saw it through to the end.”)
Justice Thomas’ 1991 “high tech lynching” in Washington D.C. turned out better for the accused than Tom Robinson’s “courtroom lynching” in Harper Lee’s book. However, now in 2019 we have another post-confirmation attempt at a lynching. The difference here is that the accused is white, Justice Kavanaugh, but the “jump on the bandwagon without having any facts” accusers continue to be Democrats, mainly either running for office or already in office. The major difference this time is that the ultimate decision concerning this lynching attempt will be made, not by a prejudiced jury, but by the American people.

9/19/29

I often take my young grandchildren, ages 2 and 4, out for a walk to our neighborhood park. I always point out the American flags that we pass on our walk. Occasionally we will have contests to see who can see the most flags. I will occasionally show them how to salute the flag, as I feel that it is important that they gain respect for the flag early on. 

Speaking of respect for the flag, did anybody watch the most recent Democrat debate? Due to an unforeseen and totally unexpected conflict, I missed it! Pshaw! Double pshaw!! Even though I missed the back and forth of a lot of big winds on the stage, apparently I did not miss the back and forth of American flags on the stage . . . as there were no American flags on the stage. This was a debate to help determine who could possibly be the next President of the U.S.A., and there were no American flags on the stage! Was this just an unfortunate faux pas? So far I have not heard anyone of the Democrats suggest that this was the case, and likewise I have not heard any of the commentators on either MSNBC or CNN even allude to this. Ergo, I can safely conclude that this omission was a purposeful omission . . . a disgraceful omission, but at the same time a very telling omission!

The notable absence of a flag on the stage led me look at the candidates themselves. I sent out inquiring emails, “Does anybody know if any of the candidates at the recent debate had American flags displayed on any of their clothes?” Thus far I have had some catchy, but unprintable responses. However, there have been no reported American flag sightings on the debate stage. I have looked at the pics of all the candidates spread out across the stage (even with a magnifying glass) to try to discover if any of them had an American flag on his/her lapel. So far, the best I can do is to say that Joe Biden definitely had an American flag on the left lapel of his suit coat. Yang was a “maybe” on his right lapel. Bernie had something round on his left lapel, but even with magnification, it did not look like a flag to me. The other seven definitely did not. (Just for grins, I randomly pulled up three pictures of President Trump. In two of these three pics, there was an American flag prominently displayed on his left lapel, and in all three his tie was tied with a Windsor knot.) I will not comment on the hidden meaning of the Windsor knot, but the message conveyed by the absence of American flags by the Dems is pretty clear!

For years I have thought about the “homeless crisis in California,” but have not commented much about it because I do not have the answer. However, it is clear to me, and probably to anyone with even half a brain that those in charge in California are “clueless personified” in dealing with this issue. In fact their policies are “insane,” according to the definition of insanity put forth by Albert Einstein.(“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting adifferent result.”)

Today the headline in our local newspaper-via the Washington Post had to do with President Trump launching an effort to take homeless off the streets in California. According to the Post, White House spokesman Judd Deere said that “the President has taken notice of the homelessness crisis, particularly in cities and states where the liberal policies … are combining to dramatically increase poverty and public health risks.” Hooray for Mr. Trump! Maybe he can actually help.

Is he playing politics here? Clearly, this is part of it! As most are aware the President has criticized the Democrats, who run the state of California, on their handling of the homeless issue. He has referred to the states growing homeless issue as “ a disgrace to our country!” It is a disgrace! And furthermore Governor Newsom and other Democrats like Rep. Ro Khanna (D, Santa Clara) have to audacity to say that their incompetence is somehow Trump’s fault. This response follows the usual Democrat modus-operandi of using ad-hominem attacks to defend their own incompetence, rather than addressing the issue. 
What are the actual statistics on homelessness and California?
From the Public Policy Institute of California:Last year’s count revealed that about 130,000 Californians were homeless—nearly a quarter of the national total, even though California has only 12% of the nation’s population. California’s rate of homelessness, 33 per 10,000 residents, was among the highest in the country. After rising 14% from 2016 to 2017, the total number of homeless Californians declined slightly (by 1%) from 2017 to 2018.However, even with this slight decrease, homelessness remains a huge problem. Los Angeles County alone recorded nearly 50,000 homeless people. The other nine counties with the largest homeless populations reported between 2,300 and 8,600 people experiencing homelessness. And many areas across the state saw increases in the number of homeless people.

The vast majority of homeless Californians (69%) were unsheltered, meaning they were living in streets, parks, or other locations not meant for human habitation—the highest rate in the nation, and double the rate, 35%, for the rest of the country. Among homeless veterans, California has the nation’s highest share that are unsheltered (67%); and among homeless youth, the share that are unsheltered (80%) ranks second highest.

Liberal Media Matters blamed Fox News because they have been emphasizing the futility and the seriousness of the plight of the homeless in California. Media Matters stated that the network has painted a dire picture of American cities, calling them “almost Third World in their decay” and describing “a complete breakdown of the basic needs of civilization.” Again another ad-hominem attack without commenting as to whether the Fox News reports are true or false. Unfortunately, just as Trump’s comments about Baltimore being “rat infested” were true, the comments from Fox News about homelessness in California are also true! Hooray for Fox News.

My prediction is that if President Trump comes up with some ideas on helping to resolve California’s homeless issue, California will sue!

Last week I attended a talk about China. The speaker was excellent and very analytical when discussing the economy of China, the Hong Kong situation, and the tariff battle between President Trump and China. In the “tariff war” he thought that Trump held all the cards, and thought that China would try to hold off until after the 2020 election . . . if they could, with the hope of getting a better deal if Trump lost. 

However, I have an idea to help President Trump have even more leverage, and I hope that he reads this blog more than his usual once a week!                                                                                              

Consider the following numbers from an article written by Phyllis Schlafly in Eagle Forum back in 2016:                                                                                                              The number  of Chinese and other foreign students who go to college in the U.S. is truly mind-boggling. Of the nearly 1 million people living in the United States on F-1 student visas, about 360,000 are from China. These Chinese mainland students are not gaining an acceptance of democracy in general nor an admiration for the U.S.A. They are here to take STEM. courses, and computer courses so that they can bring this knowledge back to China – obviously to China’s advantage.

What is the reason for this huge increase of students from foreign countries, especially China, who are admitted to study on American campuses. Again, as I have said before, if there is a question whose answer seems to defy logic . . .always follow the money!   At University of California, San Diego (U.C.S.D.) in 2017 the tuition for in-state students was $13,646, whereas the tuition for out-of-state or foreign students was $40,327, and I would assume that this cost differential of $26,681 per year would be the same at all of the different University of California (U.C.) campuses. For just U.C.S.D. alone with its over 5000 Chinese students, this amounts to almost $68 million per year! And who do you think benefits from this largesse? Not those in-state students who did not get into a U.C. school, because a mainland Chinese student took his/her place, but rather the State of California and/or the U.C. System.

As almost everyone is aware, President Trump and China are presently facing off in a tariff war. With regard to this “tariff war” and the myriad of Chinese students studying in the U.S., my suggestion to President Trump is two-fold:

First: Stop issuing all new Chinese F-1 student visas immediately . . . zero, nada, turn off the spigot! When one thinks about the number of new mainland Chinese students studying in the U.S. every year, who will be the winners? The obvious answer . . . The winners will be the thousands of high school graduates who are losing out to foreigners when it comes to getting into college. Here in California, the lure of higher tuition has tempted state colleges to lower their admission standards for foreign and other out-of-state students. The California State Auditor recently found that the average SAT scores and grades of out-of-state students were lower than those of in-state students, and that state universities had rejected 4,500 Californians whose test scores and grades were good enough for out-of-state and foreign students. 

California has more U.S.-born Chinese students than any other state, but its public colleges nevertheless admit huge numbers of students from mainland China, including in 2016, 1,200 at University of California, Berkeley, up from 47 in 2006, and 2,200 at University of California San Diego (U.C.S.D.), up from 70 in 2006 – at present U.C.S.D. has approximately 5227 total students from mainland China, up from about 500 a decade ago.  Of course, the Democrats will howl at this suggestion, and California will sue! 

However, California high school graduating seniors are not alone when talking about their potential spots as in-state students, being taken by mainland Chinese students. For example, in 2016, the University of Illinois had 5,000 Chinese students on its Champaign-Urbana campus, compared with less than 100 a decade ago, and students from the People’s Republic of China made up a tenth of the freshman class in 2015 at that campus.

Second: At the end of the present semester begin tariffs on college and postgraduate tuition for mainland Chinese students. These tariffs would start at 100% of the Chinese student’s college tuition in January 2020, and would double each year thereafter . . . until China agrees to President Trump’s tariff compromise.

This will, in essence, give those in power in China three months to decide what to do with these “tuition tariffs.” Either they compromise and agree to what Trump wants as far as trade is concerned, or they will begin paying double (100% tariff) for those enrolled at U.S. colleges and universities. In essence, as of January, 2020, this means  “double tuition” for the almost 400,000 students studying in the U.S. by the first of January, 2020. These “tuition tariffs” will narrow the trade deficit between the two countries.

Joe Biden while campaigning in Iowa, was talking to a 41-year-old special needs educator about his plans for strengthening collective bargaining rights for teachers in states like Iowa. After a short back and forth, Biden grabs the woman’s hand and clutches it firmly throughout the rest of the conversation.”

Apparently the Washington Examiner thinks that this is “news!” Now don’t get me wrong. I do not like Joe Biden. I think this worn-out, aged, hackneyed politician would make a lousy president. But really! This is “news?” Who cares? I suspect that good-old Joe is a sincere guy . . . mostly wrong in his political views, but sincere, and his grasping of someone’s hand is just an innocent part of his personality. Many years back I worked with a sincere friendly guy who was chummy with many of our female co-workers. Occasionally he would innocently put his hand on one of their shoulders. Did they consider this an affront? No! This was who he was. Now granted he was not campaigning to be the President, like “Old Joe,” but if he was, would his hand be “news?”
What if this male co-worker were to be nominated to be a Supreme Court Justice? And what if Christine Blakey Ford had worked with us? Would it then be okay for her to go after him because he and Ms. Blakey Ford had different opinions on certain issues? Most of us would say, “no,” but according to Ford’s attorney, Debra Katz, Blakey Ford apparently felt otherwise. Katz said part of Blasey Ford’s “motivation” for coming forward with her unsubstantiated claims against Brett Kavanaugh during his contentious confirmation hearings stemmed from Kavanaugh’s views on abortion. Interestingly, I have not seen anything concerning Debra Katz’s recent statement in our local  liberal newspaper, which apparently does not consider attorney Katz’s statement as “news!”

BTW: When I read about Blasey Ford’s “motivation,” I found myself wondering what Anita Hill’s “motivation” was during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings? Maybe this is something which Joe Biden could be asked, as he was a key player in Clarence Thomas’s confirmation hearings. Here his answer might well be “news!” 

Another Labor Day Weekend has come and gone.

From Townhall:

While most of the media attention this Labor Day weekend focused on the mass shooting in Odessa and Midland, Texas, where seven people were killed and 22 injured, the death toll in Chicago was the same with 36 people shot. The weekend proved to be more violent than the same time last year when four people were killed over Labor Day weekend and 23 people injured. BTW, all of the weekends in July also had near record-setting numbers of dead and wounded.
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) took notice, tweeting that “gun control doesn’t work, etc.” Sen. Cruz should keep his mouth shut when mayhem and murder are involved. He has no reason to state the obvious in this situation. Chicago’s Mayor Lori Lightfoot took issue with Cruz’s assessment, and lashed out, telling him to “Keep our name out of your mouth. 60% of illegal firearms recovered in Chicago come from outside Illinois – mostly from states dominated by coward Republicans like you who refuse to enact commonsense gun legislation.”

She is right about the numbers, as only 40.4% of the recovered firearms come from Illinois. The rest come from a potpourri of states, from as far away as Texas (1.8%) and Georgia (2.4%). The majority of the out of state guns (21%) come from neighboring Indiana, the northwest corner of which abuts Chicago’s South side, and surely Mayor Lori Lightfoot must know that most likely the guns are brought across the state border by Chicago thugs.

However Mayor Lightfoot should learn not to lash out, when the problem is not solely a matter of where the weapons are coming from. Granted, she is in a bad position, having inherited the city’s violent state of chaos from her predecessor, Rahm Emanuel who served as the 55th mayor of Chicago from 2011 to 2019. Emanuel tried his best to emasculate Chicago’s Police Force by bringing in Garry McCarthy from Newark to take over the Chicago Police Department in early 2011. McCarthy came in and cleaned house by reflexively demoting most of the police captains, which caused a large number of experienced police officers to retire. These actions of Emanuel and his hired gun, McCarthy, severely damaged the morale of the department, a blow from which it has not yet recovered. The remedy here falls directly on Mayor Lightfoot. Hopefully, she recognizes the severity of the morale problem, and realizes that only she can reverse it.

The other major issue that Emanuel dropped on Lightfoot is the sanctuary city issue. Emanuel was a big proponent of sanctuary cities, and Chicago was made a sanctuary city in 2012 when Mayor Emanuel and the City Council passed the Welcoming City Ordinance. This ordinance meant that the police could not ask about one’s immigration status or disclose that information to authorities, and that the City will not deny city services based on one’s immigration status. Considering that most of the violence on the South and West sides of the city is gang and drug related, and a considerable portion of this is related to criminal illegals, the making of Chicago a Sanctuary City seems almost counter-intuitive! Again with this issue, the remedy will fall directly onto Lightfoot, and whether or not she will have the balls to reverse this sanctuary city designation. 

The other problem which Mayor Lightfoot did not address or even mention has to do with the often light sentencing of gun offenders.  As Dana Loesch recently pointed out, “Classic example of ridiculous sentencing in Chicago allowing repeat offenders to drive gun homicide: Felon fires off gun in public, and prosecutors let him plead guilty to a reduced charge of unlawful use of a weapon & drop two counts of felony possession.”

So unless things are changed it will be “Sundown” and like “The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald” for Lightfoot and Chicago!

Just about everybody agrees that there is a housing crisis in California. Even the politicians in Sacramento agree that this is a significant issue. As the price of houses continue to go up, fewer and fewer are able to afford to buy a home. This problem disproportionately affects those in the middle and lower strata of income levels, as they become increasingly unable to save the necessary down payment which goes up as the price of housing goes up. Just today in our local newspaper a sub-headline noted that the average cost of a house in San Diego had risen to $580,000. With a 20% down payment this equates to $116,000 down, and at 10%, $58,000 down . . . to purchase an average house. For those who are at the entry level in the housing market (without any equity in a present home), saving $58,000-$116,000 is nearly impossible, especially now with the cost of water rising 6% this month. (Another typical example of a “left hand, right hand” story – for another day!)

In response to this housing affordability problem, what do the Democratic politicians in Sacramento do? . . . Of course they exacerbate the problem making the cost of new homes even more expensive! Beginning in January, 2020, newly constructed homes must have solar panels. Does the left hand know what the right hand is doing?According to California’s Energy Commission (CEC), that mandate will add between $8,000 and $10,000 to the cost of a new home, which translates into an increased downpayment. Sure over the long haul, the decrease in their cost of electricity will most likely pay for these solar panels, but again, this does little for those trying to scrape together enough for a downpayment.

Danielle Hale, chief economist at Realtor.com, told CNBC’s “On the Money” that the new solar requirement could undermine a segment of the real estate market that’s struggled to add to new homes relative to demand . . . those exact people that I have referenced above. (Is this another situation where the Democrats in charge in Sacramento do things that are going to have a disproportionately deleterious effect on those at the lower levels of society? It certainly seems that way to me!)

In the same newspaper, on the same day, another example of the left hand seemingly not knowing what the right hand is doing. A front page story noted that the rates to ride public transportation are going up at the beginning of next month. Again, all I can do is to shake my head when I read about the things that our enlightened Democratic City Council passes. On one hand those in charge locally are trying do discourage driving by expanding bike lanes especially downtown. However, in the next breath they have okayed the rise in the cost of public transportation . . . which will, of course, discourage the use of public transportation, and cause more people to drive. Expanding the use of bike lanes in downtown may well encourage an increased use of bicycles downtown, but 95% of the populace does not live downtown! Aye-yay-aye! (Again, not to bore you with the same theme, but doesn’t increasing the cost of public transportation disproportionately effect those at the lower levels of society that need to work, but cannot afford a car?) 

Last week in what I initially thought was a “tongue-in-cheek” letter to the editor, someone suggested that the best way to encourage the use of public transportation would be to make it free, as it is in some Scandinavian countries. The more I think about it, this “tongue-in-cheek” guy might be onto something. Hopefully, the Democratic politicians did not read his letter, as they will screw it up for sure (left hand, right hand)!

Who will end up as the Democratic candidate? This will be up in the air for a long time to come. Biden, Harris, Sanders, and Warren are the favorites at this time, and I doubt that this will change much in the next year. However, once the field gets narrowed down, the focus will be on the potential running mate. Just as important as who is the presidential nominee, is the question of who will be his/her V.P. It will be a tough 12 months for all of the  potential presidential candidates, and for sure enemies will be made! Just like the situation with Trump on the campaign trail precluded him from picking his V.P. from the multitude that were on the stage with him for the debates . . . too many “enemies” were made! The same thing could potentially happen with Democrats. For example, this point, I could not fathom Joe Biden choosing Kamala Harris as his running mate after she made a point going after him in their first debate.

 
From my perspective it will be imperative for the Dems for have a woman on the ticket. However, if Warren, Harris, or any of the other female long-shots were to be their presidential nominee, they could not have two females, one as the presidential and one as the vice presidential candidate. If they do end up with a female nominee for president, the VP candidate on the ticket would be . . . Who? This would be a big problem for the Dems. Biden would be off of the short list. But who would be on the list? Buttigieg, O’Rourke, de Blasio, and Castro either have too little experience on the national level or have alienated too many people. Unlikely to be one of the present or ex-governors, senators, or House members, all of whom have poor name recognition, and bring little to the table. Tom Steyer or Andrew Yang? Don’t make me laugh! What about Bernie Sanders? The way to make sure that the Sanders’ backers vote, is to place him on the ticket, but Bernie is just too old, and his ideas are now hackneyed and no longer fresh. If Sen. Elizabeth Warren gets the nod, then Sen. Cory Booker is a possible V.P. candidate, whereas if Sen. Kamala Harris wins the nomination, Harris/ Booker would not be a viable potentially winning option (two people of color). At this point I see only one viable combination of a female presidential candidate and a male vice-presidential candidate. . . Warren/Booker. However, this would be a loser for the Dems, and a winner for Trump!
Now what about if Biden wins the Democratic nomination. Who would his V.P. be? Remember Biden would be the oldest person elected President, and you can be absolutely sure that Donald Trump will stress Biden’s age over and over and over again! However as I said before, I think that the Dems will need to have a female somewhere on the ticket. Voters would have to seriously consider if his V.P. could step up and do the job. I think that the top females, Warren and Harris, are too liberal for Biden. Ditto for Klobuchar and Gillebrand. Williamson, ha-ha! His best choice might be Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, but Biden/Gabbard would be a loser for the Dems, and a winner for Trump!

There is however one other potential female vice-presidential candidate who would fire up the base, and would even attract the votes of many independents . . . Obama!      No, not Barack, but Michelle! In 2008 and 2012, the winning ticket was Obama/Biden. Could the potential winner in 2020 be Biden/Obama?

One Thursday last month while waiting in line to order at In-N-Out, I noticed an unusual site in line just in front of me. I am not sure exactly how to describe Pat/Pat, who was not only wearing a dress, but also had make-up and lipstick on his/her face. The dilemma was that he/she was sporting more than a five-o’clock shadow, and had thick black hair on both calves above the pumps on his/her feet. Not cool.

Years ago I would have chuckled to myself and just shook my head, however on that particular Thursday I had a feeling of sadness for this unfortunate individual with his/her gender confusion. Later I subsequently wondered if he/she was going to get gender transformation surgery . . . irreversible gender transformation surgery, and also simultaneously wondered if he/she had the necessary insurance coverage to pay for this expensive surgery.

By the next day Pat/Pat was no longer on my radar, and for the last month I did not think about gender dysphoria . . . until this morning when I read about one of the latest rulings to come down from The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case involved 31-year-old Adree Edmo, an inmate in an Idaho prison, who was born a male but identifies as female. Edmo sued the state of Idaho for refusing to pay for his gender reassignment surgery. Not unexpectedly, The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week that the State of Idaho must pay for his/her gender reassignment surgery. Oh yeah, BTW Mr./Ms. Edmo is currently serving three to 10 years for sexual abuse of a child.

After reading this I said to myself, “Let me get this straight. The state of Idaho (i.e. the taxpayers of the state of Idaho) must pay upwards of $75,000-$100,000 for sex reassignment surgery for a sex offender.” Granted, The Ninth Circuit never really uses any common sense when it makes these rulings, but if this ruling stands, there will inevitably be some not unforeseen consequences.

Consider the situation of Pat/Pat noted above. He/she wants gender reassignment surgery, but cannot afford it. A dilemma that can potentially be solved by committing and being convicted of a sex abuse offense or any criminal offense, and once imprisoned for his/her crime, demand sex reassignment surgery. Wallah, if in prison in a state which is under the auspices of The Ninth Circuit, he/she will get the surgery paid for by the taxpayers of that state. As Chuck Larabee, the retired black marine on Last Man Standing, would say,”Not cool!”

This will never happen, you say. Actually, there is another much less expensive but potential practical solution to this problem:  When someone in prison demands sex reassignment surgery, release him/her from prison, so that the taxpayers will no longer be on the hook for this questionably effective surgery! Again,”Not cool!”

Obviously, neither of the above would be an acceptable solution for anybody. Is there a solution?

Yes, I have one!!! Create a separate fund for “prisoner sex reassignment surgery (PSRS).” Anyone who thinks that a prisoner deserves to have whatever he/she wishes in terms of this type of surgery, can then contribute to this fund. When enough money for this surgery is contributed to this PSRS escrow account, then the surgery can proceed! I would predict that this escrow account would be funded only by those on the left . . . if at all. It is commonly said that those on the left of the political spectrum have an easy time spending other people’s money, as in this situation is evidenced by this decision by The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I wonder just how much money those jurists Is to on The Ninth Circuit would actually contribute to Pat’s PSRS fund?

Another challenger is stepping into the ring, the political ring, that is. With umpteen people already thinking that they have a chance at the nomination, does America really need another disillusioned individual spouting off as to why he is running for the highest office in the land ? Whether we need it or not we now have another, as the candidate announced in an exclusive interview with George Stephanopolis (G.S.) on his ABC Sunday news show.

The new candidate announced, “Friends, I’m in. We can’t take four more years of Donald Trump. And that’s why I’m running for President. It won’t be easy, but bravery is never easy. But together, we can do it.”

Although I did not listen to the entire interview, I can imagine that the rest went something like this:
G.S.: “Why do you think that you are qualified to be the President?” New candidate: “As you know, George, I do have a radio talk show.”
G.S.: “Do you have any experience in politics?” New candidate: “As you know, George, I have just as much experience in Congress as Beto O’Rourke, as we both served one term in the U.S. House of Representatives.”
G.S. : “Like Beto, after two years in the House, did you then run for the U.S.Senate?” New candidate: “As you know, George, my district was redrawn in 2012, and in my remapped district I was then defeated in 2013.”
G.S.: “Is there anything else that my audience should know about your candidacy?” New candidate: “ As you know, George, I am not a racist even though in 2014, I was pulled off the air during my radio show for using racist slurs. I do stand by my previous “birther” comments that I made during former President Barack Obama’s time in office and I still say that Obama was only elected because he was black.”
G.S.: “Perhaps with your being a new candidate, ABC can arrange for a special debate including yourself, Michael Bennett, Bill de Blasio, Steve Bullock, John Delaney, and Wayne Messam. You get the idea!” New candidate: “But as you know, George, I am a Republican and the rest of those names that you mentioned are all Democrats.”
G.S.: “I am well aware of your political affiliation, Mr. Walsh. This special debate would be a “loser’s debate,” limited only to those ego-maniacs, like yourself, who have no chance whatsoever. However, Joe, to be fair we could include in this debate, Bill Weld, another “no chance in hell” Republican, who has declared himself as a candidate, even though Mr. Weld has even less name recognition than you!” New candidate: “Thank you, George, for getting my sprint to the finish-line campaign off to a rousing start!” 

I am not making up this Joe Walsh story, even though, believe it or not, I did make up the dialog of the interview. Joe Walsh did actually declare himself to be a candidate for the Republican nomination.

Who are these yo-yos? . . . Bennett, de Blasio, Bullock, Delaney, etc. and now Joe Walsh. Stephanopolis’ show must be in bad shape if he has to have the likes of Joe Walsh on his show.

BTW: My response to Joe Walsh’s announcement . . . YAWN!

The response of Tim Murtaugh, President Trump’s campaign spokesman . . . “Whatever.”