With a tip of the cap to the infamous Chicago Daily Tribune headline declaring John Dewey as our 34th President, this would be the prevailing caption Wednesday morning if the GOP had chosen its nominee with more prudence. While there’s no denying that 2016 has witnessed an unprecedented rise in anti-establishment fervor, the messenger of this (largely white, blue collar, male) discontent is so deeply flawed as to blunt its efficacy- especially when you consider the vulnerability of the Democratic candidate. It’s not easy, after all, to play the moral card when you’ve been caught time and time again dealing from the bottom of the deck. And then there’s the glaring lack of experience. As the New Yorker stated in its endorsement of Clinton: “Trump is manifestly unqualified and unfit for office.” To defeat Hillary, all the Republicans had to do was elect a credible, risk-free alternative. And no one in the GOP ranks fits that description better than Ohio governor John Kasich.

Supporters of Clinton, including President Obama  (heck, even William Weld, her Libertarian opponent), have trumpeted the claim that she is the most qualified person to ever run for the White House. The point is magnified when you contrast her experience against Trump’s. A Kasich candidacy, however, would negate these declarations. The governor was elected to Congress in 1983, a full decade before Hillary became First Lady. Kasich served nine terms in the House, including 18 years on the Armed Services Committee and six years as chairman of the Budget Committee. He was a key figure in the passage of President Clinton’s welfare reform, as well as the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. In 2010, after a near decade in the private sector, Kasich was elected governor. Four years later, he was re-elected in a landslide. An additional benefit of this vast experience is that it dilutes assertions of sexism; unlike against Trump, she would not be the more qualified candidate for the job.

Perhaps the biggest advantage of a Kasich ticket is the unquestioned authority to assume the higher moral ground. Measured and unassuming- his tenure at Lehman Brothers during its collapse in 2008 being his biggest albatross- Kasich would effectively prosecute the case against Clinton. While Trump has been forced to go on the defensive about his treatment of women- along with the litany of indiscretions he’s committed not only on the campaign trail, but throughout his life- Kasich would have free reign to attack Clinton on everything from emails to Syria without retribution. As the Art of War professes, the high ground is an advantageous position to wage a fight. Having the upper hand on experience and integrity is a formidable combination for securing any job, let alone the most powerful one in the world.

The electoral map would look different- and decidedly more crimson- particularly in key battleground states. Having won re-election with 64% of the vote and winning 86 of 88 counties, Kasich would almost surely the carry the Buckeye state- a must win for Republicans, as history suggests. Pennsylvania could also be flipped. Born in McKees Rock, an industrial town near Pittsburgh, Kasich boasts blue collar roots and speaks easily to the working class. And if he chose, say, Marco Rubio to be his veep, Florida would likely be in the red column, as well. Not only would Rubio rally Latinos (his sharp verbal jabs against Clinton would also boost the ticket), his running mate’s less incendiary, more substantive approach would appeal to older voters. While he wouldn’t draw the fiery crowds that Trump attracts, he would undoubtedly rack up more votes, especially with the help of popular ex-governor Jeb Bush.

In one of the primary debates, Rubio proclaimed that if Trump didn’t receive a $14 million loan from his father, he’d be hawking fake watches in Times Square today. Trump’s privileged upbringing and ostentatious style make him unrelatable to the vast majority of voters (though this hasn’t seemed to matter to his most fervid supporters). Kasich and Rubio, on the other hand, have far more humble- and identifiable- beginnings. The son of a postal carrier, Kasich’s parents immigrated from Eastern Europe. Likewise, Rubio’s parents were born in Cuba; his father toiled as a bartender. They both can pontificate about the American dream more convincingly than most politicians.

Most pundits agree that this election will be decided by women and Latinos, two voting groups that Trump has deeply offended. A Kasich candidacy would not have this problem. Sure, he would be attacked for his pro-life stance and support of defunding Planned Parenthood- popular positions in the GOP- but women wouldn’t be on a moral crusade to oust him. They would be no rape allegations, no groping charges, no body shaming. Women with a conservative bent or independent streak would feel no compunction punching their ballot for the Ohio governor. And there certainly wouldn’t be any talk of building a wall. Though Rubio was crucified in the primaries for favoring an amnesty bill, this pragmatic viewpoint would reap rewards in the general. With a welcome absence of racist rhetoric in the campaign- including the more subtle cry of ‘law and order’- African-Americans wouldn’t be mobilized to cast votes against the Republican nominee.

Unlike with Trump at the helm, the party would be united in its effort to defeat Clinton (it’s hard to imagine a “NEVER KASICH” faction). The Koch brothers, silent this election, would surely pitch in for the cause. Along with more capital at their disposal, the politicos behind Kasich would be more seasoned, more professional. They would be no micromanaging, no keeping the candidate on message, no apologizing for gross misstatements. In short, there would be little chance of the governor going rogue. Endorsements would come in abundance, too, from ex-Presidents and major newspapers- even some left-of-center ones dismayed with Hillary and the hefty baggage she carries.

Furthermore, Reagan Democrats and independents would give Kasich strong consideration. Along with running an issue oriented, toxic-free campaign, the governor does not tote the party line on two key issues that appeal to indies: climate change and gun control. Kasich believes that mankind is responsible for the warming of the Earth, heresy to many on the right. Even more heretical for Republicans, Kasich received an F rating from the NRA in 1997 after passing an assault weapons ban. While he may alienate Second Amendment fanatics, they’re not going to cast a vote for Clinton. Picking off enough disaffected Dems and independents, though, particularly in swing states, would be enough to reach the magical 270 number. And in this election year against a historically unlikable candidate, that’s more than a possibility. With a proven leader like Kasich competing against her, it’s all but a certainty.

As the second debate of this (insert pejorative adjective of choice) election season approaches- and perhaps the most important since Kennedy/Nixon, at least for Trump- I pondered which presidential pulpit battles would be the most entertaining. First on the list, JFK versus Trump, set somewhere in the year 1960:

• Classic youth (and vigor) vs. age (‘I feel younger than him, believe me. Ask him about his back’) battle.
• Both have star power, with bronzed complexions and full heads of hair (whether attained naturally or not). Unlike Nixon, Trump knows how to perform on TV.
• New England vs. New York. Hyannis Port vs. Trump Tower. Accent vs. accent.
• Both have rich fathers who paved the way for their success (and older brothers who died young). Trump goes after Joe, Sr. for his alleged bootlegging- and his son’s ties to Sinatra and the mob. A 1960 version of Chris Christie leads a ‘Lock him up!’ chant at the convention to riotous applause. The Giuliani doppelganger, naturally, is insane.
• Both have an affinity for beautiful women. Heck, both married one (and, in Trump’s case, three). Trump makes a play for Jackie, bragging that ‘I could get her.’ Melania is undoubtedly charmed by Kennedy. This mutual libidinousness, much like the arms race between the US and the Soviet Union at the time, makes either leery of striking first with accusatory statements.
• Despite JFK running to the right of Nixon on foreign policy, Trump claims that Kennedy is soft on communism- and that he has a secret plan to wipe it out. In fact, he boasts about building a wall around South Florida to keep out the Cubans. And when the Bay of Pigs is invoked, Trump is confused, thinking it’s the residence of Rosie O’Donnell.
• Egged on by his fervent supporters in the Klan, Trump attacks JFK’s Catholicism. ‘People say he’s close to the Pope- very close. I love Italians- how good is pizza?- but do we want ’em running this country? I mean, how can we trust a guy in a funny hat?’ (as he adjusts his red, Chinese issue ‘Make America Great America’ cap)
• Trump bashes Kennedy’s campaign slogan, New Frontier. ‘When I think of a frontier, I think of Indians. Didn’t we kill all them drunk losers?’
• Trump makes fun of Rosemary Kennedy, John’s sister, for having a lobotomy- mostly with incredibly rude physical gestures.
• Trump takes advantage of the times and lies incessantly (yes, more than now). After all, there wasn’t much fact checking back then. He might just take the advice of Kennedy’s VP and accuse his opponent of fornicating with farm animals.
• The debate concludes with JFK’s closing statement: ‘Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.’ (turns to Trump) ‘You can start by paying your taxes.’ Mic drop.

Ever since Ralph Nader was vilified (at least by Democrats) for throwing the 2000 election to Bush- and, in turn, for the disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with the worst recession since 1929- no third party has garnered more than one percent of a presidential vote. Never mind the fact that if Gore would’ve carried his home state, hanging chads, butterfly ballots and Katherine Harris would have toiled in obscurity. Regardless, the notion of the ‘wasted vote’ became firmly entrenched in our political lexicon. Only eight years earlier, Ross Perot stormed onto the scene, racking up nearly 20 million votes- after leading the polls at one point- marshaling, perhaps, an end to the two-party system. Perot’s calamitous NAFTA debate with Gore and increasing nuttiness, however, doomed him in ’96, thwarting any momentum to crush the 200-year duopoly. If there was ever a time for the pendulum to swing back towards a third party, it’s 2016.

The choice in this election is, regrettably, between the two most unlikable candidates in American history. Truth is, the majority of Clinton and Trump supporters will punch their ballots with gritted teeth and held noses. Only the approval ratings of Congress, hovering around 18%, score lower than the presidential nominees. Sadly, that’s a marked increase from 2013, when they bottomed out at 11%. The root of this unpopularity is a metastasizing polarity, particularly in the GOP-controlled House, a tumorous cancer that destroys moderates, leaving extremism to flourish. After the 2010 midterms, featuring the rise of the Tea Party, Karl Rove and his REDMAP squad carved up congressional districts to assure their gains wouldn’t be temporary. This brazen form of gerrymandering (Google a map of the 10 worst drawn districts) led to the ouster of reliable conservatives such as John Boehner and Eric Cantor, who committed the unpardonable sin of compromising with those across the aisle. In this new era of obstructionist politics, only ideological purists need apply. Democrats, for their part, nearly nominated a tried-and-true socialist for president.

While there’s no doubt that Washington is broken, the solutions to repair it are myriad and largely untested, at least in this country. Perhaps we should look to Germany as a model of political efficacy. The Germans boast a multi-party system that, instead of a Balkanization that has crippled other nations, promotes a far greater accommodation than our own legislative branch. Working with rival factions is not only good politics, it’s a necessity. Currently, five parties share power in the Bundestag- there’s a 5% threshold to keep out the riffraff, i.e. neo-Nazis- forming coalitions to pass laws. ‘Politics make strange bedfellows’ is more than a maxim in Berlin. Based upon the country’s strength, especially economically (zero deficit, low unemployment), multiple, viable parties may just be the answer.

The first step, of course, is to support third parties, whether they be Libertarians or Greens. Which brings us back to the so-called ‘wasted vote.’ For Democrats and Republicans, only the electoral college matters, as Al Gore knows all too well. When Perot collected those 20 million votes, he failed to capture one state. George Wallace was the last third party candidate to actually win a state, carrying five of them in 1968. A vote for Trump or Clinton, especially in non-competitive states, is a truly wasted vote. A margin of victory of 1% (or 537 votes in the case of Florida, 2000) is no different than a 30-point landslide. Every vote for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, on the other hand, matters. Not only do aggregate vote totals lend legitimacy and build momentum for successive elections, federal funding is predicated on performance. Perot, for instance, qualified for campaign funds after his impressive showing in ’92.

In addition to the virtue of voting one’s conscience- and eschewing the stale, if odious, options shoved down our throats- third parties have proved salubrious to the progressive ideals of our nation. They’ve pushed new ideas into the mainstream, like women’s suffrage, unemployment compensation, and the direct election of senators. Roosevelt’s New Deal, for example, incorporated some of the core issues championed by the Socialist Party in the 1930’s. No matter where your politics lie, there’s general consensus on one thing: the current system is dysfunctional. We’re long past due for a new brand of politics, even if it is, egads,  a European-style one. A vote for Johnson or Stein is a small step toward that change, but (hopefully) a giant leap for our political future. Rest assured, you will not have wasted your vote.

p.s. yes, the title of this piece is a reference to Johnson’s affinity for cannabis

After watching the GOP convention, I found myself reminiscing about original episodes of Seinfeld (Thursday nights at 9) and new CD’s from Nirvana (bought at, egads, Tower Records), all while sipping a Zima in a grungy flannel shirt. Technological advances aside- AT&T released a revolutionary product in ’92, a videophone ($1499)- the last two nights in Cleveland looked eerily similar to the convention 24 years ago. Namely, a heavy and repeated dose of Clinton bashing; sex scandals and draft dodging have been replaced with Benghazi and emails. Attacking Clinton was the raison d’etre of that quadrennial rally in Houston, much as it is for this one. With Trump’s political inexperience and divisiveness- you’re either with him or against him, to paraphrase W.- the best option is to destroy your opponent, a time tested strategy that eviscerated Dukakis and Kerry, among others.

The rancid tone of this convention (gleeful chants of “Lock Her Up!”) mirrors the vitriol expressed in ’92. The high-er, lowlight- of that edition was Pat Buchanan’s “Culture War speech,” a sulfuric rant laced with intolerance and hate. He railed against abortion, homosexuals, women in combat, and basically anyone who failed to sufficiently toe the God line. (As humorist Molly Ivins quipped, “It probably sounded better in the original German.”) Pat Robertson and Marilyn Quayle heaped scorn upon those who had the audacity to support feminism and gay rights. RNC Chairman Rich Bond declared from the pulpit: “We are America, they (Democrats) are not.” You can imagine Reince Priebus, much like Melania was accused of doing, lifting those words for his speech.

The issue of race has also been a common thread in both conventions. 1992, after all, was the year of the LA riots. The beating of Rodney King has morphed into the shootings of Trayvon Martin, Freddie Gray, and Mike Brown; “No Justice, No Peace” is a forerunner of “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot.” To be sure, the bete noir of the current GOP isn’t black (All Lives Matter, according to them), it’s more of a dark brown- specifically, immigrants from Mexico (build that wall!) and Muslims from, well, anywhere (ban ’em!).  Yes, I know, it’s illegal immigration and radical Muslims the party’s opposed to, but the tonality of such proclamations is undoubtedly one of rancor. Unless Trump softens his stance and pulls a Nixonian shift to the center, this xenophobia will likely doom his chances in the general election. Then again, thrashing Clinton mercilessly, over and over again, may just pick off enough independents and disaffected Dems in swing states to carry the day.

After losing his bid for reelection, Bush senior blamed the acrid atmosphere of the convention as one of the reasons for his defeat. Even if Trump loses in November, this convention will likely be spared any culpability; from its inception, his entire campaign has been replete with, if not based upon, inflammatory remarks. Failure will lie with him and him alone. Surely, they’ll be more fiery, rabble-rousing speeches to come over the next two days, culminating with Trump’s address Thursday. So kick back in your Doc Martens, pop open a Zima (sounds like one of Donald’s ex-wives, Zima Trump), and enjoy another round of hate-filled fireworks.

It was unconscionable to many Americans, particularly those with a leftward bent, that no less than four gun control measures were defeated Monday in the Senate. And that’s the grown-up chamber of Congress. Even if a compromise bill is ultimately passed- a new vote is expected Tuesday- what are the chances that the legislation will survive in the House, teeming with far right ideologues? With a nod to the bottomless pockets  of Citizens United and the peasants-with-a-pitchfork uprising of the Tea Party, a primary reason for today’s Congressional extremism is the redistricting that occurred after the 2010 midterms.

Engineered by Karl Rove, REDMAP analyzed vulnerable Democratic districts, then poured money into them (now unlimited thanks to Citizens United) to oust incumbents. The results were spectacular. The GOP gained a record breaking 700 state legislative seats, pushed 20 chambers to a Republican majority, and gave the GOP control over both houses in 25 states.  With the numbers in their favor, Rove and his team carved up districts to assure that they would remain red for perpetuity. Some were drawn so obliquely as to defy logic, certainly from a geographical standpoint. From its inception, the REDMAP strategy was a bold stroke of hunt-or-be-hunted politics that would make Machiavelli blush.

In the 2012 House races, Democrats received 1.7  million more votes than their Republican counterparts. Despite this, the GOP gained 33 congressional seats. The battleground states of Pennsylvania and Michigan exemplify the disparity between vote totals and victories. Obama won the Keystone State by 300,000 votes; Democratic congressional candidates bested their GOP rivals by 100,000. Still, Republicans captured 13 of 18 seats in the House. Likewise, in Michigan, Democratic Senator Debbie Stabenowby defeated her opponent by over 20 points; Obama won by almost 10. Yet Republicans seized the majority of House seats, 9 of 14.

Egregious redistricting has resulted in candidates flanking to the far right of the ideological spectrum. In these heavily crimson districts, turf wars are fought in the primaries, where moderation is equated to liberalism and, worse, heresy. Much like urban blight propagates criminal activity, gerrymandering creates polarizing politicians out of step with mainstream America. Not to say Democrats have not used redistricting to their advantage (though certainly to a less palpable degree). The inconvenient truth is that Dems haven’t been nearly as effective as their counterparts.

Efforts to alter the practice of redrawing districts have largely failed. Independent boards, supplanting the government in the task, have been spoiled by hidden partisanship of its members. Perhaps the only hope is that Trump will be such a disaster that his malignant candidacy will wreak havoc down ticket, putting even the reddest districts in play. Then, of course, the onus would be on the Democrats to do the right thing and redraw the lines in a more responsible fashion. Naive, sure, but the current system, corrupted by a toxic mix of money and extremism, desperately needs to be fixed. Ironically, the most polarizing candidate in recent history- perhaps in all of U.S. history- can unwittingly help pave the way towards reaching that goal.

Movies have been entrenched in our nation’s zeitgeist since nickelodeons dotted the landscape at the turn of the 20th century. From the first celluloid rag beatifying the works of Chaplin to the latest TMZ reporter chasing down a drunken starlet, the world of cinema has shaped, molded, and often crafted popular culture. Ever since Griffith’s monumental albeit overtly racist oeuvre Birth of a Nation, Hollywood and Washington have been inextricably linked, its relationship waxing and waning over the years depending on the tides of social mores. The grubby milieu of politics wasn’t exposed until the typically mawkish Capra delivered a cynical gem, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, in 1939, a seminal year for film. Like other public figures, politicians have been judged, usually in a negative manner, against their on-screen personas. While many promising Jefferson Smiths have succumbed to the meat grinder of Congressional compromise, less desirable protagonists have had their share of imitators. Clinton was deemed, particularly on far reaches of the AM dial, to be a modern day Elmer Gantry, a slick, silver tongued preacher who eschews the values he proselytizes. Likewise, his successor was likened to the dimwitted Chauncey Gardiner, whose earthy folksiness was mistaken for profundity. As election day looms, the media, which now includes a disturbingly wide assortment of bloggers, is sure to stamp a cinematic simile on the candidates. For your consideration, I’d like to suggest the 1995 thriller Crimson Tide as a exemplary model for the 2008 campaign.

Directed by Tony Scott, Crimson Tide depicts a power struggle between two senior officers aboard a U.S. nuclear submarine that may or may not have been summoned to launch missiles at a suddenly chaotic Russia whose rebel leader, hellbent on terminating his enemies, may or may not have access to the country’s nuclear codes. Ramsey, the crusty, impulsive captain, authorizes a preemptive strike but is denied assent by Hunter, his Harvard educated yet wet behind the ears commanding officer, who happens to be three decades his junior and, oh yes, black. Beyond simple demographics, it’s a classic confrontation between experience and education, force versus diplomacy. In a nutshell, McCain versus Obama.

“Do you think I’m some crazy old coot endangering everyone as I yell yee-haw?”

No one in Washington has been a stronger advocate of aggressive military action in both Iraq and Afghanistan than Senator McCain. Despite his differences with Bush on such issues as tax cuts and campaign finance reform, McCain has become the administration’s mouthpiece for the War on Terror. Not content with maintaining the mission, he upped the ante by calling for additional troops. While the so-called surge undoubtedly has led to a decrease in violence, at least temporarily, his militaristic bent has struck trepidation in voters with a less hawkish stance. For those familiar with the film, you could easily imagine Ramsey, cigar clenched in his teeth, his face crinkled with prolonged laughter, palling around with his fellow officers, crooning “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.” The grizzled captain, in an early scene on the sub, boasted that not only he would have ordered the annihilation of Hiroshima, he would have “dropped the fucker. Twice.” In a similar tone of audacity, McCain declared he wouldn’t mind if troops were stationed in Iraq for one hundred years, let alone fifty. As any military historian can tell you, boldness often deteriorates into recklessness.

“You’re out of your league, Hunter. You’re not ready to make tough decisions.”

A lean resume has always been the albatross nipping at Obama’s vulnerable heel ever since he announced his candidacy one frosty day in Springfield. His work as a community organizer and law professor, along with his lone, truncated term in the US Senate, is hardly a suitable backstory for a Presidential aspirant. Similarly, his cinematic counterpart was awarded a tour of duty on the USS Alabama despite the fact he served only a single stint as commanding officer. While Obama deftly deflected the issue during the primary- though Clinton’s red phone ad still has a lingering effect- you can bet the Swiftboaters now employed in the McCain camp will slice open the wound and, for good measure, dump in the salt. As Captain Ramsey gripes to a loyal subordinate about Hunter: “The closest he’s come to combat is a policy seminar.”

“I’m the captain of this ship. Now shut the fuck up.”

McCain’s prickliness was evident in his first congressional race in ’86, when his Republican challenger suggested he was a carpetbagger. Concerns about his fiery temper were partly to blame for the Straight Talk Express derailing in 2000 when conservative kingmakers, notably Limbaugh and Hannity, questioned the Senator’s mental stability, heaping their support onto the untested governor of Texas. Perhaps worse, at least on a personal level, one of his own, Republican Senator Thad Cochran, expressed worries that his colleague was too erratic, too hotheaded to be commander in chief. A declaration which, knowing the Naval pilot’s insistence on absolute loyalty, must have stung, if not scarred.

By contrast, Obama’s equanimity has been his greatest attribute during the campaign. The image of him picking an imaginary strand of lint off his shoulder provides a portrait of his coolness under fire. Sure, Obama may qualify his remarks, as Ramsey accuses Hunter of doing, but there’s denying his model temperament, particularly when compared to his crabby opponent. Likewise, the even-keeled Hunter seeks additional information- critical information- before he’s ready to light the match that could very well ignite a global conflagration. More time to obtain more data that leads to a more informed decision. A rational approach, to be sure, one that parallels the reasoning behind the inspection of Iraqi weaponry and, later, Obama’s objection to the invasion.

“The Lipizzan stallions are the most highly trained horses in the world. They’re all white.”

There’s no discounting the importance of race in this historic campaign. Obama addressed the complex issue in a courageous, if not necessary, speech, simultaneously broadening minds and, vastly more importantly to his campaign, soothing fears. While virtually all poll respondents deny that race will have an impact on their votes, anyone familiar with the Bradley effect has wisely adopted a cautionary approach. Like Obama, Hunter seems to have transcended race, blending seamlessly into a (subterranean) world that is nearly as white as its uniforms. McCain, for his part, has steered clear of these murky waters. Considering his party busting move to the left on immigration, McCain may be viewed as much a compassionate conservative as he is a maverick. It is a stubborn fact, however- and stubbornness in McCain is more than a passing streak- that he once voted against establishing a holiday for Martin Luther King, Jr. In later years, he regretted the vote, much like Ramsey, at the film’s conclusion, conceding the fact that he was, indeed, wrong. After all, the horses may be white, but, as Hunter declares, they were born black.

If the election follows script, Obama’s cool-headedness will win the day, retiring McCain to the Arizona sunset, and, in the process, tightening the knot between Washington and Hollywood. Much like Hunter, now in charge of the USS Alabama, Obama will have to lead our nation against an avalanche of adversity, both foreign and domestic. We can only hope- and hope is what will have propelled him to the Oval Office- that he isn’t out of his league and that he’s ready to make the tough decisions.

I was driving the rented Town Car somewhere between the Van Nuys airport and Staples Center- the venue of our destination, the Democratic Convention- bantering politics with President Clinton’s social director when the guy in the backseat leaned forward, his short, wiry frame a powder keg of displaced energy: “I think he should do a bunch of coke and give the best speech of his life.” He was referring to Al Gore and the fidgety man proffering advice was none other than Sean Penn.

It was 2000 and a friend of a friend worked as a White House page. He was in Los Angeles for the convention and one of his duties was to secure a driver for his boss, Marilyn, the well connected woman mentioned above. Being a political junkie- and having no employment to speak to- I quickly volunteered. On Wednesday morning, the third day of the convention, I left the posh Century City hotel in the rented Lincoln. Marilyn, her gaze rarely diverted from her Blackberry, rode shotgun. It was only when I turned onto Avenue of the Stars that she, fingers tapping on her phone, told me my mission.

I picked up the actor at his production company in Beverly Hills, then drove to the airport where he was to greet Al Gore on the runway. Sean wore a light blue suit and sunglasses. He didn’t say a word the entire ride, though his leg never ceased to twitch, up and down, up and down, a coiled snake of suppressed rage that could strike at any moment. The purpose of the visit wasn’t for a media hyped photo op. Sean (yes, I call him Sean) sought an audience with Gore to discuss the Senator’s stance on the death penalty. After filming Dead Man Walking, Sean had become a fierce opponent of state mandated killings. And while he generally agreed with Gore on most issues, particularly in contrast to Bush, Sean hoped to convince the Presidential aspirant of his position.

After dropping my guests off in front of the main terminal- where they were promptly escorted inside by earnest campaign staffers- I parked the Town Car a block away. Shuffling towards the airport, a young volunteer approached me. “Are you Dave Penn?” Yes, I answered. She led me into the lobby, then barked out commandingly, “I have Sean Penn’s brother!” The sea of spectators, a few hundred or so, waiting for a glimpse of (hopefully) our next President, parted. It was impossible not to blush during those glorious few seconds as I weaved through the crowd… the admiring looks, the clicking cameras… I sat next to Sean on the makeshift veranda set up on the runway. As we waited for Gore’s plane to arrive, my attempts to converse with the actor largely failed. Only the suggestion of “wish we had some beers” elicited a grin, albeit a small one.

The next stop was Paramount Studios, where Sean was putting the final touches on his film, The Pledge. The feeling of celebrity washed over me again at the commissary. Even in a place accustomed to stars of the highest order, every eyeball shot multiples glances our way as the three of us ate lunch together. Afterwards, while Sean went off to his screening room (a movie theater, in essence, reserved for him), I sat with Marilyn and Sean’s producing partner. A distinguished, gray-haired man in his late 50’s, he possessed a Brahmin accent, giving away his patrician roots. They spoke intimately of the Kennedy family, waxing about the trials and tribulations of raising Ethel. Though I was clearly out of my element- to paraphrase Diane Keaton in Manhattan, “I’m from Allentown”- they never made me feel like an intruder, a gratitude that hasn’t dissipated to this day.

It was time to head to the convention. During the drive to downtown, Marilyn chatted on the phone with Tipper, occasionally breaking into fits of laughter. Upon hanging up, she described Mrs. Gore as ‘randy,’ a far cry from the stiff, Stepford wife portrayed by the media. We whittled away the time discussing politics, namely the awfulness of Republicans and (strangely) Chris Matthews, whom she thought treated Clinton unfairly. Sean sat in the back, head darting, leg twitching, on the cusp of chiming in, but remaining silent. The cobra, after all, is more intimidating coiled. We parted ways in front of the Staples Center, my duties as chauffeur over; another volunteer, supposedly, was to retrieve the car. Marilyn thanked me for my service, then handed me a ticket to the convention. Sean nodded at me- his way of saying ‘nice to meet you,’ apparently- then strode away, the gait of a man twice his size. I watched them disappear through a VIP entrance, chagrin at the thought that I’d never see them again.

That night, Bill Bradley delivered one of the most thought provoking speeches I’ve ever heard- warm, intelligent, replete with philosophical ruminations more familiar to a college dorm room than a stadium packed with 15,000 acolytes. Unfortunately for the New Jersey Senator, his oration lacked the all-important soundbite, perhaps an indication of his campaign’s failure. He was overshadowed by Ted Kennedy, who not only provided the nightly news with useful tape, but encouraged audience participation in his rah-rah speech. Conventions, I realized, were merely adult versions of frat rush parties, converting the converted.

I watched the spectacle in a private suite with a handful of congressmen and assorted politicos. Taking full- and needlessly aggressive- advantage of the open bar, I made the grave mistake of invoking Ralph Nader in my increasingly slurred tirades. Nader was bete noire to these folks, a potential spoiler in the election. (Many still blame him for the loss, though I point to Gore failing to capture his home state) Yet I clamored passionately on Nader’s behalf- at least for his inclusion in the upcoming debates- much to the dismay of my fellow recipients of free booze. Finally, one of the friends of a friend warned me to cool it. I ordered another rum and Coke and listened silently to the rest of the charade.

After the convention, seemingly the entire crowd trekked over to the Paramount lot (twice in one day!) which was now decorated in a Mardi Gras motif. The bash was hosted, fittingly enough, by Louisiana Senator John Breaux and couldn’t have been more debaucherous if held in the Big Easy itself. Once again, food and drinks were gratis. Despite my relative youth, I was asked- by attractive women, no less- if I was a delegate. More offended than honored, I replied emphatically in the negative. Instantly, their interest waned. In hindsight, I should have lied. Even if I was discovered to be a fraud, the act of deceiving to gain advantage would hardly have been frowned upon at a political event.

That night, like more than a few drunken escapades, ended at Denny’s. It was 4 in the morning and my friends of a friend were engaged in a heated debate. The topic was Giuliani and his controversial mayorship. More profoundly, do the means justify the ends? After repeated reprimands from the waiter, we were asked to leave. While countless patrons, surely, have been expelled from Denny’s, we may have been the first booted for political banter. The sun was rising as I slumped on a bench, waiting for the bus to take me home. Nodding off, I thought of Sean Penn in his powder blue suit and smiled. If only I had a bunch of coke right now.

In an open letter to Republican primary voters, Stephani Cegielski, Trump’s former communications director, said the former reality star not only didn’t expect to be the nominee- let alone President- but that he never wanted to be. According to Cegielski, his campaign had but one goal: raise Trump’s profile. Now that he’s the front-runner, she claimed, his instinctive desire to win has taken over. While Trump may chalk up her comments as the grumblings of a former employee, they serve as a blueprint for his best case scenario this election season: get screwed in Cleveland.

If Trump somehow reaches the magic 1237 number, he’ll likely get stomped in the general election. Virtually every poll predicts a double-digit Clinton victory, with some forecasting a 20-point thumping. On the electoral map, the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia projects a Clinton landslide, 347 to 191. What’s also likely is that Trump will be blamed for splintering the GOP, a bitter Balkanization that could divide Republicans for years. An even worse scenario for Trump is not quite capturing the necessary delegates, then pleading and posturing until he’s awarded the nomination. Then, with the expected defeat in November, Trump will undoubtedly be vilified by the party- and, far more damaging to the businessman, his brand will have been tarnished.

But what if he somehow beats Hillary? She is, after all, a flawed candidates with unfavorables approaching Trumpian levels of abhorrence. And there’s that cloud of prosecution lingering over her. Well, what if he does win? He’ll learn quickly that being the leader of a country, particularly the most powerful in the world, is far more complex than running a business. You can’t fire those who disagree with you. You’ll have to compromise on issues that you swore you never would. More troubling, you’ll have to make good on all those promises made on the campaign trail: creating jobs, defeating ISIS, deporting illegals, imposing tariffs on China, and, of course, building the wall- and having Mexico pay for it. The odds of President Trump accomplishing all these feats are minimal, to be kind.

No, the best result for Trump is to come perilously close to 1237- one shy would be ideal- and have the rug pulled out beneath him. Let Cruz or Kasich or whomever the establishment anoints get slaughtered in November. Then, whenever the Clinton administration has a setback (and there’s always setbacks), Trump can go on all the talk shows- or heck, even his beloved Twitter- and boast about how much better everything would be if only he were in charge. His platitudes will have the luxury of never being tested. More so, he’ll enjoy the gravitas of being a victim of (in his terms) a political coup. Over the next four years, his supporters will beg him to run, candidates  will seek his endorsement, and the media will clamor for appearances. Trump, in effect, will become a martyr to many folks. And, more importantly, his brand will soar.

As I watched the cinematic gem (for at least the fifth time) Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, I couldn’t help but ruminate on the similarities- and stark differences- between Jefferson Smith and Donald Trump, two neophytes thrust into the grimy muck of big league politics. They both faced a world in turmoil. At the time of the classic film, Hitler threatened to conquer Europe, if not the world. Seventy-seven years later, the malignant forces are more varied and complex, but at least as dangerous. Likewise, the corruption that Smith encountered in the halls of the U.S. Senate is hardly dissimilar to the moneyed interests that dominate today’s political landscape. Jim Taylor, the fat cat calling the shots for Smith, is a black & white precursor to our current oligarchy, where a handful of billionaires drown their favorite candidates with endless buckets of cash.

Circumstances aside, the candidates themselves could not be any more different. While Jefferson, a starry-eyed idealist, was appointed to a Senate seat as a so-called stooge, Trump barreled his way to the top of the GOP class, all bombast and bluster, trampling everything in his path. Smith speaks of lost causes, loving thy neighbor, and ‘plain, ordinary kindness.’ Trump, on the other hand, declares Mexicans to be rapists and that Muslims should be banned, among his litany of insults and crude proclamations. And while Smith fights the good fight- he proposes to build a camp for kids- Trump promises to construct a wall. Smith’s a wounded lamb ambling naively into a den of starved lions. His associate pleads with him: “Why don’t you go home? This is no place for you- you’re halfway decent.” Contrary to the Capra character, Trump has not only had little difficulty adapting to his new environment, he’s beating the pros at their own game. In fact, if there’s a cinematic equivalent to Trump’s ascension in an alternate field, it’s Chili Palmer, a loan shark turned Hollywood producer, in Get Shorty.

When Chili tells his loan shark buddy that he’s going into the movie business- “I’m thinking about producing”- his friend says, “What the fuck do you know about making movies?” Chili replies, “I don’t think the producer has to know much.” Indeed. Trump’s knowledge of policy, both foreign and domestic, is alarmingly suspect, even after eight months on the campaign trail. His speeches are largely composed of platitudes and blind assurances (‘Believe me, it’ll be great’), declarations typical of a teenager running for class president, not the highest office in the land. Regardless, much like Chili producing a movie with limited know-how, Trump’s the presumptive nominee. As Chili states, “I’m not gonna say any more than I have to, if that.”

“I can’t believe the way you do business out here. I can’t believe how fucked up your organization is.” You could imagine Trump saying this about the broken political system in general or, more specifically, about his rivals’ bloated campaigns. Take Jeb (!), for example. His campaign, coupled with his Super PAC Right to Rise, spent $130 million for what amounted to four delegates. After Bush quit the race, the modern day Jim Taylor’s threw their considerable weight behind his fellow Floridian, saturating the airwaves with anti-Trump ads. All to little effect. Rubio lost his home state by almost 20 points and suspended his campaign. Despite his inexperience, the businessman, much like the former loan shark, is showing the establishment how to get things done. When questioned on his credibility, Chili boasts, in his most alpha male voice: “I’m the guy telling you the way it is.”

“Rough business, this movie business. I’m gonna have to go back to loan-sharking just to take a rest.” Though Trump has chiseled out a clear path to the party’s nomination, he’s been bloodied and battered along the way (much, alas, like some protesters at his events). Rubio roughed him up a month ago, attacking his credentials as a businessman- and personal endowments- calling him a con artist. Cruz asserts he’s not a conservative; on some issues, in fact, he’s downright liberal. And those are the genteel jabs. Other political figures have deemed Trump a madman, a racist, and a misogynist. The media has jumped into the fray, as well, suddenly critical of the boorish creature they helped create. Still, Trump keeps forging ahead, seemingly impervious to all the backlash. Chili Palmer, for one, would be proud. When an imposing figure in Hollywood, trying to ascertain exactly how Chili fits into the power structure, asks: “You must bring something heavy to the deal.” Chili responds, “I do: me.” Trump would crack a knowing smile.