The Big Interview 2020

Dagwood: I'm sitting down once again with the big fella, Bigfoot, or Sasquatch. Or skunk ape. Whatever he is called wherever he has been sighted. Anyway, Bigfoot, you have announced your 2020 presidential run rather early, wouldn't you say? I mean the mid-terms are just three weeks old.

Bigfoot: The early bird gets the worm, Dag. Besides, as I recall, many of the 2016 Republican and Democratic candidates began their campaigns a good year before the primary season even began. I might as well get a jump on any of those early birds this time around.

Dagwood: Good point. So what is your strategy for 2020?

Bigfoot: To come out of the woods, like coming out of the closet, because most humans have trouble seeing the forest between the trees.

Dagwood: How do you plan to do that?

Bigfoot: Facebook and Twitter, baby! I thought about Instagram, but I don't have a camera, and no one has come forward yet to offer real pictures of me, either. Besides, many people tend to vote superficially anyway based on a candidate's appearance. I'm afraid if they saw too much of me, they'd get scared.

Dagwood: Are you planning to follow President Trump's example by Tweeting about everything, pretty much unfiltered?

Bigfoot: Sure, why not? I mean, it's pretty ingenious. I know a lot of people, especially liberals, hate it. Well, they hate him. But they really hate how he has used Twitter as a way to personally connect with people and allow them to get to know the real Donald Trump. If people don't like what I Tweet, then tough buffalo chips. First Amendment, baby!

Dagwood: Okay. Have any of your positions changed since 2016? Any new positions you are taking?

Bigfoot: No, I don't think so. I don't care much for change anyway.

Dagwood: What about the Russians and their alleged meddling in the last election? Would you do anything to address that?

Bigfoot: Yep. I think I'd drop a giant stink bomb over the Kremlin. They ought to know what corruption looks like. They might as well smell it, too.

Dagwood: Are you saying you are corrupt?

Bigfoot: My body odor is, definitely. Well, to the human senses anyway. The animals I live around don't seem to mind. And I find it an effective tool in keeping people out of my life.

Dagwood: If you want to keep people out of your life, then why are you running for president? I mean, no other person in the world has a more public life than the President of the United States. Except maybe the British royal family.

Bigfoot: I'm running out of obligation, Dag. Candidates from both major parties offer nothing new or fresh, just the same old stuff. They are foot soldiers who take their orders not from the people, but from national political party committees. All the party leaders really want is to take or hold onto power. They want to keep the nests they've built for themselves in Washington. They are all about preserving their places in the swamp. Admittedly, I can appreciate that, because I want to preserve my humble place in the wilderness. But Washington does not belong to them any more than the wilderness belongs to me. We are all part of it and we should share it. Washington belongs to the People and the swamp creatures who live there have taken advantage of Americans for far too long. They need to be reminded who really put them there and show some friggin' respect.

Dagwood: You are sounding a bit like Donald Trump. Do you consider yourself a populist?

Bigfoot: Trump is right about the swamp. No, I don't consider myself a populist. I don't care about what's popular. If I did, then I'd smell more like Irish Spring soap than dead animals. I just want the folks in government to do what's right for everyone who has put them there.

Dagwood: What is your view of President Donald Trump? Everyone seems to have an opinion about him.

Bigfoot: Personally, he comes across as a jerk. But, then again, he has always come across as a New York street brawler. That has been his mind-set for decades as a cutthroat business man. He lacks decorum, is short on manners, speaks abruptly, and is even offensive to sensitive people. Yet, I can appreciate his personality, because I can come across that way, too. Especially when hikers, campers and hunters get too close to my lair or some food that I've stashed. I can get pretty mean. Make me mad, and I might say some things that others could easily misinterpret or misunderstand as hateful or take offense to.

Dagwood: Do you think Donald Trump is a hater?

Bigfoot: No, I don't. Is he a curmudgeon? Yup. Is he a reprobate? Uh huh. But I don't hear or see any proof that he is a bigot or misogynist. Liberals compare him to Hitler and his Administration to the Gestapo. Hahahahaha! Really?! It is so absurd that I don't even want to spend another moment discussing it.

Dagwood: How about the border wall that the Trump Administration is trying to get funding for? What are your thoughts on that?

Bigfoot: No walls. How the heck else am I supposed to get back home to the wilderness after vacationing on the Yucatan? I don't exactly have a passport; either do any of the animals who travel across the border, too.

Dagwood: Do you have any ideas on how to address illegal immigration? What are your thoughts on that topic?

Bigfoot: I don't normally care about that issue, because I'm not classified as a human. Therefore, I come and go as I please, and no one tries to stop me.

Dagwood: But since you are running for POTUS, it is a topic important to many Americans. You should consider taking a position on it.

Bigfoot: Point taken. All right. Place hundreds of stink machines along the border that repel humans. Animals won't care, but the stench would be too much for people to bear. Hey, if we can create snow-making machines, certainly we can develop stink-making machines. I'll even volunteer my own stench as a template.

Dagwood: What about the border patrol officers along the border? Won't that repel them?

Bigfoot: Gas masks, Dag. Gas masks.

Dagwood: Okay, then. Moving on, how would you address the issue of gun violence in America? There are school shootings and other public mass shootings that seem to occur every year. What would you do as POTUS?

Bigfoot: Well, as the target of a few hunting rifles, I don't much care for guns. But I respect the Second Amendment. I mean, come on, I want to keep and bear my two big, old long arms. Who wouldn't? The way some of these legal eagles interpret the law, people could start losing their appendages if they are no longer allowed to keep and bear arms.

Dagwood: Ha, ha... But that didn't answer my question about stopping mass shootings.

Bigfoot: Sorry. I was trying to add a little levity. I know it's a very serious topic and a growing problem. But banning firearms, even specific or select guns, isn't going to halt the violence. Ban assault-style rifles, and assailants will use semi-automatic pistols. Ban those, and perpetrators will use hunting rifles. Ban hunting rifles, and they will use shotguns. Ban those, and the perps will use revolvers. Ban those, and people will use black powder. Ban all guns and ammunition, and perps will use knives, swords, homemade bombs, anything that can inflict damage on the human body. There have already been incidents where non-projectile weapons have been used in domestic attacks. You see, the problem isn't the access to weapons or even their use. It's the mentality of the people who wield them. Frankly, this is not a problem that can be solved with legislation. The People need to take back control of their culture. It begins and ends there.

Dagwood: Would you take any measures to improve school safety?

Bigfoot: Totally. Replace all exterior entrances with door locks that keep people out, but can be opened from the inside in the event children and school staff need to evacuate. Have a single-entry point for students and have them walk through a metal detector before entering anywhere else in the school.

Dagwood: Some might argue that would make school feel more like a prison.

Bigfoot: Not really. The kids get to leave and go home when school is out. The prisoners stay put. Besides, airports have similar security measures. So do a lot of government buildings. If that security is good enough for travelers or government workers, then why shouldn't it be in place for school children?

Dagwood: What about more comprehensive, mandatory background checks for any sort of gun sale?

Bigfoot: Look, the majority of the perps who have committed these mass shootings did not have criminal records to begin with. Actually, I'm not even sure any of them did. So how will a criminal background check stop someone who has a clean record, but who has perhaps snapped and gone off their rocker?

Dagwood: What do you think about adding mental health records to background checks, and banning mentally ill people from possessing firearms?

Bigfoot: What about HIPAA? How do we mitigate that? I mean, mental health is protected under patient privacy laws, as well as the ethics of the health care profession. Who is going to be willing to say that a person's mental health should be public record? Wouldn't that also be a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment, the right of the People to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures? And not all mentally ill people are a danger to themselves or others, either. We can't just rubber stamp everyone and throw them all under the bus.

Dagwood: Okay. But most of the mass shooters have shown to suffer from some degree of mental instability. Do you think background checks can be modified to give an alert if someone is shown to be unfit to possess dangerous weapons?

Bigfoot: Certainly. Therapists and medical professionals are mandatory reporters. If a patient threatens their own life or that of another person during a session, or they admit to committing abuse, we already require the service providers to report those incidents to authorities. How about mental health providers complete a screening of their clients that grades their capacity to be safe, responsible with weapons, not a threat to themselves or others? If they fail that screening, then the results can be passed along to law enforcement agencies and placed in a background database. The screenings would not reveal any details of the person's illness or their psychiatric background. It would just say the individual failed a safety screening. That's the only red flag authorities would need. Doesn't mean the person gets arrested, but it could serve as a marker for any gun dealer doing background checks.

Dagwood: If a lawmaker or group of lawmakers proposed to make changes to the Second Amendment, would you support that?

Bigfoot: Nope. Changing the Bill of Rights is a very dangerous proposition. Take away the People's ability and right to defend themselves against enemies both foreign and domestic, and you might as well set us up for a fascist or communist takeover. Taking away arms is the first step toward authoritarian control. Besides, I need my arms if I am going to throw rocks and boulders at trespassers.

Dagwood: Well, I think we've beaten that dead horse to death, so let's talk about some moral topics like abortion and the death penalty. Do you have positions on these issues?

Bigfoot: I will never understand why humans would choose to kill their infants. It goes against all laws of nature. Would you kill the puppies inside your dog's belly, or the kittens inside your cat? Come on. That said, I realize there are cases from time to time in which abortion may be a necessary procedure to save the mother's life or spare the child pain and suffering from mortal or fatal developmental deformities. A woman also should not be forced to go through with a pregnancy that resulted from a crime against her. But abortion on demand is sick and macabre. I think unborn humans should be declared persons under the law when they reach a certain stage in prenatal development; like when they start moving around on their own, communicating with the mother, basically acting as a sentient being trapped inside a bubble. Then they can legally be protected under the Fifth Amendment, which guarantees persons the right to life.

Dagwood: And the death penalty?

Bigfoot: A stupid waste of human resources. These convicts spend years, decades even, just sitting in their cells and waiting for their sentences to be carried out; all on the taxpayer's dime. What a waste. Instead, put them to work being productive for society. They can build tiny houses for the homeless, assemble or repair fans and heaters for poor people to use during months of temperature extremes; provide the labor to help build solar and wind energy structures; can or box shelf-stable foods for the hungry and our military; provide rehabilitation for homeless animals; there is a lot that these men and women can do to pay their debt to society. Putting them to sleep seems like an easy way out for them to pay their penance.

Dagwood: You mentioned wind and solar energy. What is your position on energy consumption?

Bigfoot: I don't consume any energy except the sun and moon, wind and rain, and so forth. As such, I cannot relate to how Americans feel about their energy. I do believe, though, in energy diversity. That goes both ways. I think more green or clean energy like solar, wind and geothermal power are good options and alternatives. Having those as part of an energy infrastructure can only help energy providers deliver more cost-effective energy to consumers. However, I do not believe that fossil or carbon-based fuels should be completely eliminated, either. Technology over the years has made coal and natural gas much cleaner than they used to be. In fact, they are very clean. I disagree with the environmental lobby that wants to outlaw fossil fuels. Frankly, I think it is a socialist ploy to seize control over a major sector of the U.S. economy.

Dagwood: So you don't consider yourself an environmentalist. I have a hard time believing you would be an industrialist. What are you when it comes to the environment?

Bigfoot: I'm neither of those. I am a conservationist, which means I believe in conservatively using resources for consumption. We must make things last and adopt harvesting practices that accomplish conservation goals. We must also tread lightly on the land. Be respectful of the other creatures that depend on it for their livelihoods. Like me. I believe in balance, and I think it can be achieved. We don't have to be all one way or all another. That's just stupid.

Dagwood: And global climate change? Any opinion there?

Bigfoot: It happens. It has for 4.5 billion years since the Earth was formed. Nature is going to do what it does. We can't stop it.

Dagwood: What about human-caused climate change?

Bigfoot: I go back to my conservation point. We must adopt practices that respect the Earth. That doesn't mean we need to halt everything that we are doing. But it does mean we ought to tone it down. Look, man cannot destroy the Earth any more than he can save it. To think either way is arrogance. But man can be respectful of the Earth and adopt practices that make resources last longer and in more abundance than before. If we do that, our carbon footprint on the Earth's atmosphere will be less. Smog will get reduced in the big cities, too.

Dagwood: Let's talk economy, because that is always a big topic for voters. What are your views on our economic system, and what changes would you make, if any?

Bigfoot: It's the economy, stupid! Not directed at anyone in particular, of course. I like using the catchphrase from the 1992 Clinton Campaign. Hey, Bill never copyrighted it, so it's fair game.

Dagwood: Got it. Now, what are your positions on the economy?

Bigfoot: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Another axiom that was never copyrighted. Hahaha! ... Ahem, anyway, I see no evidence that the economy is broken right now. Very low unemployment. Manufacturing jobs are coming back and there is a bigger push for America to become a producer again. Wages could be better, though, especially in parts of the country that are experiencing growing pains. Overall, though, I like the free market. Being able to choose is a fundamental part of liberty, our nation's most sacred value.

Dagwood: And foreign trade?

Bigfoot: President Trump is on the right track here. America has gotten screwed for so long by other countries benefiting from her. Everything from NAFTA to giving China "most favored nation" status, we've let other countries take advantage of us. We've become primarily a consuming nation, and other countries charge us tariffs and taxes any which way to Sunday on goods flowing out of their country to our stores. They have even messed with us by charging arms and legs on any of our goods coming to their consumers. I would like to see free trade across the board. But I don't see other countries stepping up to the plate and offering. They've benefited from us trading freely with them, and then they turn right around and tax us. Time for that to stop. If not free trade, then definitely fair trade. If other countries won't lift their tariffs on us, then we should levy tariffs on them. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, too.

Dagwood: Corporate taxes. Many critics of the Trump Administration say he is giving huge tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans, and cutting the corporate tax rate will put a dent into the budget. How would you respond if you were President Trump?

Bigfoot: Have you ever worked for a poor employer? I didn't think so. Come on, if we tax the snot out of the wealthiest Americans -- many of whom are the job providers -- then what do you suppose will happen to workers? There will be fewer of them. Then we can say good-bye to a strong economy.
Look, American companies are taxed at almost twice the rate corporations are taxed in many other countries. All that does is give incentives to American businesses to relocate overseas to save on taxes. It encourages an exodus. That's just plain stupid on our part. I say cut the corporate tax rate by 10 percent and encourage companies to stay here. And if bureaucrats are worried about how that loss of revenue will affect the budget, then start cutting spending, stupid! If a family suffers a cut in their wages, but continues spending at their usual rate, what do you suppose will happen? Government can start by reducing the salaries and benefits of Congress. To serve there should be an honor, not a privilege. Establish trade tariffs to bring in extra revenue. Start recycling all of that dormant nuclear waste tucked underneath Yucca Mountain in Nevada and re-sell it to other countries still using nuclear energy for power. I mean, really, I'm just a big, hairy hominid creature with repugnant body odor. If I can figure this out, so can all of the so-called smart people elected to Congress and appointed to high positions in government.

Dagwood: You mentioned wages. What would you do, if anything, to address those? Would you raise the minimum wage?

Bigfoot: I would not raise the minimum, because every time government does, the argument to raise it more remains. All that it really does is drive costs of living up. If it costs more to pay people, it costs more to produce things and provide services. Again, not rocket science, and I'm far from a rocket scientist. The minimum wage in some states is now double-digits, but people are still struggling to get by. I say dangle the proverbial carrot in front of employers by offering an additional corporate tax rate cut and/or a payroll tax reduction to companies who raise employee wages commensurate with the cost of living in their respective areas. And to the minimum wage worker who thinks they will never be able to do anything else, get your head out of that hole behind you, get motivated and roll up your sleeves. Success isn't free, and you actually have to work for it. There is a lot of federal money available for retraining of workers who are underemployed or at or near poverty level. Go back to school, get training in a field you really like or want to be in, and stop whining. No one else can make your life better but you. So, to borrow a phrase from Nike, just do it. (That one is copyrighted, by the way.)

Dagwood: Do you support government money to be used for retraining?

Bigfoot: Absolutely, because there is a direct return to the government. The higher the wage that a worker earns, the more in income taxes he or she pays. In addition, the more money they will have to spend in the economy, and the more money companies get that will also be paid in the form of taxes.

Dagwood: Kind of like Reaganomics, or trickle-down economics, right?

Bigfoot: Um, yeah, I guess. But I hate the term trickle-down, because it sounds more like I'm peeing.

Dagwood: Uhhhh, ok. Are there any other topics you want to talk about before I wrap up this interview?

Bigfoot: Nope. I'm getting hungry. And when I get hungry, I get temperamental. So this is a good stopping place for now.

Dagwood: Alrighty then. What are you going to eat?

Bigfoot: I thought I'd fix myself a Dagwood.

Dagwood: *gulp* huh?

Bigfoot: Relax. I'm referring to the sandwich, not the guy.

Dagwood: *whew* Thanks, and enjoy!

2020 Announcement

Hello, this is Bigfoot again, and I am officially declaring my candidacy for President of the United States (POTUS) in 2020.

I am running neither as a Republican nor as a Democrat. In fact, I don't belong to any political party whatsoever. I am as independent as they come.

Besides, I'm a bit of a loner anyway. I prefer to do things on my own. By myself. Basically devoid of human contact.

I ran unsuccessfully in 2016, mainly because the news media was more interested in Donald Trump's hair and sound bites, or Hillary Clinton's zeal for power and the number of different shades of blue she was capable of wearing. And also because Blogger.com kind of sucks as a marketing tool. I intend to change that, though, by utilizing social media as a central part of my 2020 campaign.

You might be wondering why a nine-foot-tall hairy recluse like me is running for president.

Because the traditional two-party system sucks. American voters are usually left choosing between the lesser of two evils, settling on a candidate that they may not really favor and voting against another candidate.

That's counter-productive to the representative process. American voters shouldn't have to settle. They shouldn't feel they have to vote against one candidate by casting a ballot for another.

So, that is why I have offered myself up as an independent candidate for POTUS. The world we live in is three-dimensional. Why shouldn't the political process be that way, too? Why do we need to accept it as only two dimensions?

There are more directions, after all, than left or right. There's also up, down, all around and diagonal, too!

Now, let's talk about my qualifications. I may not be fully human, but science considers me the missing link and I possess many human traits. I am, more or less, a humanoid hominid type being.

Besides, I know in my gut that I am really a human trapped in a Sasquatch body. I am species-questioning.

I think, therefore, I am.

I am bipedal.

I have and use opposable thumbs expertly.

I'm adept at playing hide and seek.

I'm a good communicator. Howling and wood knocking always seem to get my points across.

I settle disputes efficiently. Throwing rocks and boulders discourages an escalation to conflicts.

I am a good steward of the land and the environment. I am a tride-and-true conservationist.

I utilize green energy better than any human does.

But don't confuse me with environmentalists. I don't believe in a hands-off approach. If I did, then I wouldn't support the beaver in utilizing lumber to build his lodges and dams.

I'm more fiscally conservative than any human is, because I don't use money at all to live and thrive. I know how to do more with less.

I'm an avid hunter-gatherer.

I'm a strict follower of an extreme paleo diet, so I am the most health conscious candidate you will ever encounter.

I have lived in the United States longer than any human, so that gives me grandfathered residency dating back tens of thousands -- maybe even millions -- of years.

And age-wise, you'd probably have to use carbon-dating to determine that. I really don't know. But I'm more mature than the oldest humans.

Here are my positions on issues:

I support organic agriculture, as well as animal harvesting for food. I'm an omnivore, what would you expect?

I believe in conserving natural resources, so there is plenty to use for many years to come.

I am pro-life, meaning I oppose both abortion on demand and the death penalty. The former is just plain macabre. The latter is an inefficient use of resources, offering criminal offenders an easy way out to avoid a lifetime debt to society.

Who in their right mind would choose to kill a tiny, little defenseless and innocent infant? That would be akin to killing a litter of puppies inside of your dog's belly. Really?! Something is wrong with people who want this choice.

I see more pragmatic ways to utilize lifetime convicts who are on death row. A lot of money is wasted on them just sitting there, waiting years for their sentences to be carried out. Instead, have all of these lifers get busy building shelters for the homeless; assembling emergency supplies for victims of natural disasters; preparing and canning shelf-stable food for the hungry; repairing or renovating prisons; working in textile factories that produce clothing for the homeless and poor; rehabilitating homeless animals; building furniture; producing fans and heaters to be given to the elderly, disabled, infirmed and poor to use during months of temperature and weather extremes.

Sticking a needle in a lifetime convict and sending him or her off into a peaceful sleep is wasting an opportunity to use their labors for good. Just saying.

I believe in the axiom "live and let live." Let me live and I'll let you live. Simple.

I am a bit of an isolationist, I admit, and I tend toward fundamental nationalism. That is, I believe in protecting and defending what's mine first, so that I can be strong enough to protect and defend what belongs to others, too. I guess if that makes me a Nazi fascist kook then so be it.

My philosophy is, just leave me the heck alone, and I will give you the same courtesy. Mess with me and mine, though, and there will be heck to pay through a shower of rocks and boulders.

As such, I believe in a strong national defense. But I wouldn't insist that the U.S. military convert its weaponry to rocks and boulders. Those may work for me personally, but probably not against other countries with missiles that can be launched with the push of a button.

It's also the economy, stupid. Sorry, I borrowed that from Bill Clinton. Hey, he never trademarked it, so his loss!

Keep American jobs in America, and help her to be more self-sufficient in the production and distribution of goods. America was greater when she produced for the rest of the world instead of consuming from it.

Diversify our energy consumption by expanding sources of energy. Don't replace fossil fuels with green energy. Supplement them instead. I produce a lot of natural gas myself. So do cows. The more diversity we have in energy, the more energy can be produced to meet our needs without harming the environment or skimping on volume.

Equal rights. Everyone has the right to be howled at, wood-knocked or have boulders thrown at them by me regardless of their skin color, ethnic or national origin, gender, sexual preference, religion, politics or disability.

Social justice means you have the right to be treated the same by me if you trespass into my life, no matter who you are, what you look like, or what you think.

Don't hassle me, and I won't hassle you. A pretty simple rule to live by. Kind of like the Golden Rule.

I believe in freedom of the press. They have the right to smell me as any hiker or camper does. Equal olfactory access, I say.

There is probably more to write here, but right now I need to go hunt down a late-morning snack before lunch. Stay tuned!

What now? The post election interview

Dagwood: Well, it's over. Donald Trump is President-elect and Hillary Clinton is billed as a victim of Russian interference. I see you didn't garner any official votes. What say you?

Bigfoot: *Sigh* People wanted me in their hearts, but they tried to vote with their heads instead. See what happened?

Dagwood: What do you think of the upcoming Trump presidency?

Bigfoot: I love the circus. Especially the clowns.

Dagwood: Ok. Are you interested in any cabinet positions should The Donald extend an olive branch to you?

Bigfoot: Nah, I want the whole enchilada. Unlike Hillary, if I can't get the top spot, I won't settle for half of it.

Dagwood: Will you run again in 2020?

Bigfoot: Is hindsight 20/70?! Of course!

Dagwood: What will you do differently in the next election that you didn't do this time?

Bigfoot: Facebook and Twitter. Clearly Blogger sucks. That's what I get for listening to a Dodo.

Dagwood: Aren't those extinct?

Bigfoot: I was referring to my lawyer.

Dagwood: Oh. Well. Any thoughts on how you will challenge incumbent Trump?

Bigfoot: Sure! Let's see how long he can go without showering! I'm covered in fleas and flies, but I'm still ticking!

Dagwood: I meant on issues and leadership.

Bigfoot: Hey, it takes somebody with real iron will to stand the kind of stench I produce. I can take all the ugliness and stink Washington, D.C. can throw at me, because that's the only thing uglier and smellier than me. It remains to be seen what The Donald can take.

Dagwood: Any other thoughts?

Bigfoot: Yeah, where can I find a trophy wife like Melania? Slovenia is kind of a small country. I don't suppose she's got a sister?

Dagwood: What about your current wife?

Bigfoot: Oh, no, the trophy wife is just for show. Gets all the dander up on the liberals. My wife will probably employ her as official White Housekeeper or something.

Dagwood: Anything else, big guy?

Bigfoot: 2020 baby! Just win!

The big guy's take on the nominees

Dagwood: So, the presidential primary season is unofficially over. We are just waiting for the Democratic National Convention to wrap up. The major party nominees will be Donald Trump of the GOP and Hillary Clinton of the Democrats.
When the primaries were underway, I asked Bigfoot for his predictions of the party nominations.
Looks like you are batting .500, Buster. You were right about Clinton and wrong on Trump.
In hindsight now, what do you think happened around the country to result in a Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton showdown?

Bigfoot: First let me say that a .500 average is better than any major league player, so I don't feel too bad about missing on Trump.
I mean, a lot of people do dumb things when they are angry. But voting shouldn't be one of those.
Then there are people who do dumb things just because stupid is as stupid does.
How many brain cells does it take to vote for someone who is on a power trip? Hillary's been on one for the past quarter century. Since 2000, she's actually been in a power grab. And people vote for this person. Can't they see the forest through the trees like I do?

Dagwood: I'm afraid you've got the edge on everyone here. You live amongst the forest and the trees.

Bigfoot: Ha, ha, ha. Very funny.

Dagwood: What's not so funny is that the world's most powerful office will belong either to a showman or a zealot. It's like having to choose between P.T. Barnum and Napoleon Bonaparte to be the leader of the free world. Scary.

Bigfoot: Tell me about it. I thought for certain Trump would fade and get taken by a more reasonable candidate like Cruz or Rubio. But I think Trump knows how to feed off peoples' emotions, and conservatives are fighting mad right now.

Dagwood: And what about Hillary?

Bigfoot: Bernie Sanders is fiery, but he lacks the stuff that Obama had to possess others to vote for him. No snake oil, no Obasm I always say.
Besides, the Clintons have a lot of influence in the DNC. It was sort of her year by default, as if the Democrats had this all arranged after the 2008 primary.

Dagwood: What about the third party candidates?

Bigfoot: BFD. Who cares? They won't win. But Stein could take Berner votes meant for the Democrats in November. Assuming this is a close race, Stein could be a spoiler to Hillary the way Ralph Nader was to Al Gore and John Kerry.

But, frankly, I don't see this being a close contest. I feel Trump will ride a tsunami of conservative anger into the White House. Then his true moderate rhino skin will show. Plus, he's got a hot trophy wife half his age that poses nude. Much more interesting than the potential First Dude Bill. Been there and done that for eight years already.
No more.

Dagwood: Speaking of mates, have you settled on a running mate for yourself yet?

Bigfoot: Sure have. Smokey the Bear. He's tough, loveable and dirty like me. But he'll shore up the environmental lobby for me; the most powerful political machine in the nation.
I mean, how could anyone not like a guy who is a first responder, believes in personal responsibility and conservation, while championing tourism? "Only you can prevent forest fires!" How cool is that?

Dagwood: Who else did you consider?

Bigfoot: McGruff the crime dog. But he settled instead for the A.G. Personally, I think he'd be better suited as top cop anyhow.

Dagwood: What, no Barney?

Bigfoot: And commit political suicide? No thanks.

Dagwood: Got the rest of your cabinet figured out yet?

Bigfoot: Sort of. Big Bird as Secretary of Education. Elmo is just a kid, after all. Kermit the Frog as my press secretary. Woodsy Owl as Interior Secretary. And Eddie Eagle as Secretary of Defense.
So far, that's it.

Dagwood: What, no humans?

Bigfoot: What do I look like, a populist? I am what I am...and that's all that I am, to borrow a phrase.

Advantage Who?

Dagwood: The 2016 presidential primaries and caucuses are right around the corner, beginning with Iowa on Monday, Feb. 1. Similar to a tennis match, each state primary or caucus has the potential to swing momentum toward one candidate or another.
And the early votes are the most important, because they set the pace for the rest of the country, which will be watching the February contests closely.
That said, I'm asking unaffiliated presidential candidate Buster Bigfoot to break down the early contests and determine who will have the advantages in either party from the out-set of the race.
Let's start with Iowa, Buster.

BF: Okay. On the GOP side, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Dr. Ben Carson carry the advantage in the Midwest because of that region's traditionally more conservative base. I forecast the caucus will go (1) Ted Cruz, (2) Ben Carson, and (3) Donald Trump.
For the Democrats, Hillary Clinton has the clear advantage here. She talks tough on defense and national security issues; both big items for the more conservative base of the Midwest, even among the Democratic Party. I figure it will be advantage Hillary in Iowa, followed by Sanders.

Dagwood: How about New Hampshire? Different story?

BF: Yup. Big time. Although Hillary enjoys quite a bit of popularity in the Northeast, New Hampshire is Mayor Bernie Sanders' back yard. He is from Vermont, and the folks up in that small corner of the country tend to band together. I expect a close one for the Democrats, but Sanders should take New Hampshire over Hillary and even the odds going into the next
contest.
The GOP should see a similar turn-around, too. Donald Trump enjoys much greater notoriety in the Northeast, where he is from. He is also more centrist on social issues, and there are more republican moderates in the Northeast than there are conservatives. If Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina and Chris Christie are going to score any significant points, it will be here. I forecast Trump will take New Hampshire handily, followed by Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, and probably Ted Cruz in third.

Dagwood: Then there's Nevada, known for it's libertarian ways. Anybody's game?

BF: Nevada will probably go with Hillary Clinton on the Democratic ticket, and Donald Trump for the GOP. Clinton has shown strong in Nevada in the past, and her notoriety were serve her well there. However, Nevada can surprise people, too. Sanders seems to be gaining momentum, especially in Las Vegas, which is big with trade unions. Nevada really could go either way, but I expect Hillary will edge out Sanders by virtue of her celebrity.
Trump has his properties in Las Vegas, which I expect will vote overwhelmingly for him. Vegas will out-vote the northern part of the state, which I figure will be more geared toward Cruz. Nevada will go Hillary then Sanders for the Dems, and Trump followed by Cruz for the GOP. Ben Carson will come in third there.

Dagwood: South Carolina?

BF: South Carolina will go with either Cruz or Carson on the republican side, and Hillary for the Democrats. Those folks down south aren't too big on folks in "Yankee" land. Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are as "yankee" as one can get. Bush and Rubio could have strong showings there, too, as close as South Carolina is to their home state of Florida. But South Carolina, like Iowa, tends to vote more traditionally conservative, so I expect Cruz or Carson to take it over Trump.

Dagwood: The biggest race in March is Texas. What do you see there?

BF: That's Cruz's home state, so I forecast he'll carry it handily over Trump. Carson and Bush should also have strong showings there. Rubio perhaps a little among Hispanic voters, but the Latinos seem to like Bush a lot, too, and his family has its roots in Texas. I'm thinking Cruz will win it, followed by Trump, and Bush in third. Carson will probably come in fourth followed by Rubio.
The democrats should see another win for Hillary here. Sanders is, again, a "yankee" and Texas is not so friendly towards "yanks." Hillary's roots are in Arkansas, which borders Texas. I expect she will win Texas without a problem.

Dagwood: So, for the first month or so, it appears Hillary will likely set the pace for the Democrats, while Cruz and Trump appear to be neck and neck. Is that what you see?

BF: Yes. However, primaries in the upper Midwest, like Illinois, Michigan and Ohio--the Great Lakes states--can easily go Sanders' way. He has a better reputation with the trade unions, and those states are all about union labor. If he sticks with his campaign through Texas, in spite of fighting from behind, he can make the race much more interesting with wins in the Great Lakes. Pennsylvania and New Jersey are also solid potential victories for Sanders. New York is a toss up since Hillary was a U.S. Senator there for eight years. And Virginia will probably go with the former U.S. Secretary of State given its proximity to the Beltway.
Colorado will stand behind Hillary, I think, while Arizona may side with Sanders. California is the biggest prize of all, though. With a lot of union workers, Sanders has good potential there. But so, too, does Hillary. California is anybody's game in the Democratic Party.

Dagwood: What of the republicans after Texas?

BF: May of the candidates will have folded their campaigns after South Carolina. Some even after Iowa or New Hampshire. February will see the race thin out and the front-runner(s) clearly established. After Texas, the Great Lakes states should follow Cruz as they tend to be more  conservative than moderate. Cruz may have the advantage after those states, but Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey will even things out as they side with Trump. Maryland and Virginia likely toward Cruz; but both Rubio and Bush could pick up significant votes there assuming their campaigns haven't already folded.
The keys late in the primary season will be Colorado, Arizona, and California. I expect Cruz to take Colorado and Arizona, but by slim margins. Trump should win handily in California.

Dagwood: Predictions for the party nominations?

BF: It will be very close on the GOP side, but the race will come down to the wire against Cruz and Trump. I think Cruz will take it, though, as the GOP will eventually favor distancing itself from the much more bombastic and controversial Trump, whose mouth can get both himself and the party into deep trouble during the general election season. Cruz is more diplomatic in his approach, and will appeal more with GOP Hispanic voters; having an effect not unlike George W. Bush did in 2000 and 2004.
For the Dems, Sanders will make it a good race, and an interesting one. He may even scare Hillary, giving her reminiscences of 2008 when Obama snatched the nomination out from under her. But not this time. Sanders lacks the swagger, the stuff that Obama had. I think Hillary will get the nod in the end.

2016 Presidential Primaries

Dagwood: The first of the major presidential primaries is coming up at the beginning of next month. Naturally, you weren't invited because you are unaffiliated with either of the major political parties. So, what message(s) would you like to communicate to voters on the eve of the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire primary?

BF: First, a shout out to my fans in Iowa. Love your corn, man! To my peeps in New Hampshire, maybe I'll see you on the slopes some time.
Now, second, to my message.
If you want plain speak, don't vote for a guy who practices it in front of a vanity mirror while getting his coif perfected. Vote for someone who dishes out plain speak daily with every howl or wood knock he makes. I may not look pretty. My hair is a mess, stinky, full of knots, mattes, and any number of species of tiny parasites. But I care more about what I am saying than how I look saying it.
If you want someone who will bring "real" change to America, don't vote for career politicians looking to move up the proverbial career ladder. That's what you get with most of the candidates in both parties. They are, more often than not, too zealous and wanting for their own good...and yours, too.
I want to be elected POTUS because I want to help people believe in something again; namely their country, its values and ideals. I mean, if you can't believe in Bigfoot, then what the heck can you believe in?

Dagwood: Any particular issues you think need to be stood on for the upcoming primaries?

BF: Yeah, noise pollution. There is an over-abundance of hot air being expelled this time of year; especially in places like Iowa and New Hampshire. I encourage voters to filter out all of the hot air, and breathe fresh oxygen again. That's what they get with me; fresh, organic air not spoiled by pollutants. I don't have the advantage of years of experience in politics. I don't dance the Potomac two-step. I don't talk out of both sides of my mouth, and I'm not double-tongued. I tell it like it is. Don't like it? Don't vote for me. If you are the kind of voter who is easily offended by body odor or truth, then I'm not your candidate. But if you can stomach my smell, then the truth won't hurt you, either.

Dagwood: Who do you think will emerge from the major parties as the front-runners after Iowa and New Hampshire?

BF: I still think Donald Trump is a farce, a show that will eventually lose its luster and fade from the spotlight. Whether that happens in February or June remains to be seen. Let's just say the start of the primary season separates the men from the boys, so to speak. If Trump is real, then his lead will increase to such an extent that catching up with him will be unlikely for any of his competitors. But if he is just a show, as I suspect, then his lead will gradually and steadily narrow. Even if he remains in the lead after the February primaries, if that lead has been significantly reduced, then that tells me the voters of the GOP want someone else with a better message; not simply better hair.
Ted Cruz has come on strong, and that is surprising considering the names ahead of him with greater notoriety and better affluence. But his emergence in the past month has told me that voters eagerly want an alternative to Trump; someone with a similar message, but not the same show. That's why I feel Trump's time in the limelight will be finite. The GOP really does want someone else. But it tolerates Trump because he's good for their bottom line right now.
The rest of the field is too far behind, I think, to make up significant ground on Trump and Cruz. Anything is possible, of course, but that is my feeling.
Bush is Bush. We've done that dance for 12 years. Carson is fading because he is just a nice guy who lacks a political edge to him. People want someone in the White House who they feel exudes strength, and the good doctor is just that: a good guy. Not sure if he is national leadership material.
Fiorina is all corporate. People think of her as the face of a company, not a nation.
Rubio is more centrist, and lacks appeal to the conservative core of the GOP. He also doesn't seem to be as aggressive or assertive in his campaign at this juncture as Trump and Cruz, and that will hurt him in the long run. If you're going to step to the plate, then play ball. Take your swings, and don't watch the strikes fly by you.
Everyone else in the field is just there. The bulk of the field will be gone in 1-2 months.

BF: As far as the dems go, Hillary has the notoriety to run away with this year's party nomination. But a lot of folks thought that very same thing in 2008 coming into Iowa. Then Obama showed up and it was all over. Frankly, Sanders and the other candidates don't have Obama's swagger or his snake oil. It would have to be some dark horse that enters the race late that snatches it out from under Hillary again. I'm not dismissing that possibility, either. Just doesn't seem likely this time around.

Buster on immigration

Dagwood: A month or so ago, Donald Trump made very candid comments about temporarily restricting all Muslim immigrants into the United States. This has come following terrorist attacks in Paris, France, and San Bernardino, California. What do you think of Trump's comments and his stand on Muslim immigration?

BF: Believe it or not, I don't disagree with him. I just take issue with his methods. He's still an arrogant, egotistical showman whose money can't buy him a cent of tact.
I fail to see how more comprehensive background checks are going to help reduce America's risk of attracting people who want to do us harm. If a brainwashed, lock-step follower of ISIS intent on carrying out his or her "holy mission" has no criminal record in the country he or she is emigrating from, then how will tighter background checks on immigrants prevent such a person from setting foot on American soil?
It is the same principal as background checks on guns. Politicians use a lot of rhetoric about tightening background checks on guns every time there is a shooting. But a person with a clean criminal record will pass even the most strict and comprehensive checks. Then they go out and shoot up a school or shopping mall. A lot of good the background check has done.

Dagwood: What solution do you advocate?

BF: I think there needs to be a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigrants until our armed forces can contain ISIS, and/or Islamic nations begin to take the lead on fighting extremism within their own borders. It may not seem fair, but war is not fair. And, ISIS has publicly declared war on the "West," namely the United States. That said, though, America shouldn't have to be the one taking the lead in the fight against Islamic extremists. That fight should have been led, from the very beginning, by the countries from which extremism has taken root. If the problem really isn't Islam, but rather extremists who have hijacked the religion, then mainstream Muslims around the world need to do more than just talk. Merely condemning the extremists with words isn't enough. They need to stand up and take their religion back from those violent factions who have claimed it as their own. When or if that ever happens, then America can welcome Islamic immigrants into her folds with open arms. But until that happens, America needs to protect herself from those who want to kill her. Welcoming them with open arms is like inviting the Angel of Death to dine at your table.

Dagwood: What about immigration in general, and all of the undocumented immigrants living and working in America?

BF: Politicians want to give them amnesty, which is a free ticket to ride, just to curry their votes. Admittedly, those are in the millions, and politicians know it all too well. Illegal immigrants have been caught riding without a ticket. Instead of getting pulled from the ride and sent to the back of the line to purchase a ticket, politicians want to award them with complimentary tickets that they don't have to pay for themselves. And they continue to get to ride for free. Meanwhile, other people have dutifully purchased their tickets and have been waiting patiently in line for the right to get on the ride. It isn't fair to give cuts to cheaters, but that's exactly what politicians favoring amnesty are doing.
I have nothing personally against immigrants, so my message to illegal and undocumented immigrants is simple: Please, do the right thing and follow the rules like everyone else. If you do, then there isn't any problem.