Why Trump doesn't really want to be president

I don't believe Donald Trump really wants to be our next president. I've said before that Trunp doesn't really believe the garbage he's spouting. So why does he persist in running for the nation's top job? In this, I agree with my wife: I think he's trying to make some twisted point that our electoral system is irreparably broken. He's trying to prove to us that our votes no longer count, that the presidency is bought, not elected.
   Trunp is an incurable egomaniac, and perhaps part of him does believe that he does have the answers for fixing our country's problems. But in his heart of hearts, I don't believe he really wants the job. And why would he? Consider: Trump is a billionaire, worth at least $4 billion. The presidency only pays $435,000 a year. Not bad, but Trump has more than that in his couch cushions. Why would he willingly take such a huge pay cut? If Trump wins, he will have to divest himself of all his massive holdings and give up control of his empire, at least for the next four years. I just can't  really see him doing that. And really, why would he?
   Trump is a control freak. He's used to getting his way, to having people ask "how high?" When he says, "jump." If he becomes president, he's going to learn quickly that he can't run the country the same way he does one of his businesses. He's going to have to learn to work with Congress. He's going to have to learn that he won't be able to do everything he wants. He's going to have to learn to compromise. And given his "my way or the highway" personality, I just can't see that happening.
   Trump is making a mockery of our electoral system, and if he wins the nomination, he'll make a mockery of the general election, and maybe even the presidency. To Trump, this whole thing is some kind of game, some sort of twisted reality show. To borrow a term I heard recently from some comedian, it's "Celebrity Select-A-President." To Trump, winning the presidency is some kind of challenge. This whole fiasco is the ultimate feather in his cap. It's designed to stroke his already massive ego.
   The best case scenario I can see if Trump wins is that he will soon tire of the job, the constant scrutiny and the criticism. In that case, let's pray that he selects well when it comes to picking a Vice President. Another possibility is that his candidacy will be the mirror the GOP needs to realize that they have drifted too far to the right and it will cause them to pull the party back toward where it truly belongs: in the political middle. If that happens, perhaps this misguided exercise in ego won't have been a complete waste after all.

Rise of Donald Trump should be no surprise to GOP

I've been following politics for most of my adult life. Still, I've found myself more than a little surprised by the meteoric rise of Donald Trump, the politician. When he first announced, I thought it was novel. I thought that, while he would inject some spice into what promised to be a dull campaign season, he was no one to be taken seriously. I figured his extreme views on immigration, and his embrace of the nutty "birther" movement would drive him from the race before the Iowa caucuses. How wrong I was. Not only is he still in the race, he's now the leading contender for the GOP nomination and has a very real shot at becoming the Republican standard bearer for 2016. What was once unthinkable a short six months ago is now a very scary reality. Upon further reflection, though, Trump's success should come as no surprise to anyone who's been paying attention for the last 20 years.
   What has made Trump so successful? Easy. He's playing into the fears that have been pushed by the Republican Party for the last two decades: fear of Muslims, fear of illegal immigrants "taking over" our country and fear of being the victim of another terrorist attack like we were on 9/11. Above all, Trump is a fearmonger, and he's taken advantage of our fear to drive his own success. But fear isn't the only tool Trump has used to propel his campaign. Trump has also tapped into a very real anger in the American electorate, the feeling that no matter who we elect, nothing will ever change for the better. Trump has successfully positioned himself as a political outsider, someone with new and different answers. This sounds good, right? After all, who wouldn't want to "make America great again?"
   Here's the problem with all that. Trump is the embodiment of everything wrong with today's Republican Party. He's a bigot and a xenophobe. He says the things out loud that have been whispered among Republicans for years, but that they would never have dared express. His ideas might seem to make a certain kind of sense, but the truth is, he has very little chance of ever making  them a reality. With his bombastic, take-no-prisoners personality, the more likely scenario is that he'll  anger leaders in Congress to the point that they will refuse to consider any of his proposals, thus rendering him an ineffective figurehead. Worse, his massive ego and "my way or the highway" approach to everything is likely to alienate our international allies and worsen our standing in the world. The end result of a Trump presidency could very well be the permanent marginalization of the Republican Party as a party of extremists, bigots and xenophobes.
   The GOP, to its credit, has been horrified by Trumps's success and has done everything it can to derail his campaign. But if they're honest with themselves, and with the American people, they really have no right to be surprised. The sad truth is, they are solely responsible for creating the Trump phenomenon. He is the end result of the party's decades of fear-mongering and illicit bigotry. That he is now saying out loud what they have been saying secretly among themselves is no one's fault but theirs.
   If one good thing might come out of the Trump candidacy, I hope it is this: I hope that the party will realize just how far to the right they have drifted and start to move itself back toward the political middle. I hope that after almost three decades, the party will finally divorce itself from the poisonous pact it forged with the Religious Right and recommit itself to the core principles that made it great and that were embodied by past GOP presidents such as Ronald Reagan and Bush the Elder: smaller government, less taxes and staying out of people's personal lives. If that happens, then the Trump experiment will not have been in vain, and the entire country will be better for having survived this surreal nightmare.

Take down the flag, but don't forget history

   In the aftermath of the recent tragedy in Charleston, the Confederate Battle Flag is in the news again, with renewed calls to remove the flag from the South Carolina state house and several national retailers, including Amazon, saying they will no longer sell merchandise bearing the banner. In pondering this issue, I find I am of two minds. On one hand, I support the removal of the flag from the South Carolina state house, and state houses nationwide. On the other, I believe the decision to stop selling merchandise bearing the flag is short-sighted, and is a decision we will ultimately regret.
   Removing the Confederate Battle Flag from South Carolina's (and other) state houses is a move that is long overdue. Supporters of the flag have long claimed that the flag is not about hate, that it is a symbol of Southern pride and heritage. Maybe it started out that way, but the truth is, right or wrong, it has been hijacked by hate groups such as the KKK and other white supremacist groups. It is the symbol that flew over the Jim Crow South while blacks were denied basic human rights, while black churches were bombed and while an unknown number of innocent blacks were lynched. It is the symbol of a failed nation -- the Confederacy -- that fought for state's rights, yes, but that also fought to maintain an economy that was based largely on the subjugation and abuse of an entire race. It's no wonder that blacks still find the flag offensive. The Civil War may be long over, but the truth is, blacks were still being treated as subhuman as recently as 50 years ago. That's not something you get over quickly, if ever. So the flag should be removed from state houses nationwide because each state house belongs to the people of that state, no matter their race. What purpose does it serve to fly a flag that symbolizes hate and oppression to a significant number of that state's residents? Answer: There's no justifiable reason for keeping the flag.
   On the other hand, I don't want to see the Confederate Battle Flag disappear completely. It's true that it represents hate and oppression for blacks everywhere, but it's also true that it's a symbol of a past we can't afford to forget.
   Look, our history isn't as nice and neat and shiny as we'd like it to be. And we aren't always the heroes on the right side of every issue. The truth is, our history is dirty and full of shameful acts. Our nation did engage in the slave trade for almost 400 years. Our nation did slaughter thousands of innocent Native Americans and steal their land. More recently, we did hold hundreds of terror suspects indefinitely and engage in torture. We did secretly wiretap the phones of innocent Americans. And the list could go on.
   The point is this: As much as we would like to rewrite history, to always cast ourselves as the "good guys," we have done some horrible things, and we shouldn't allow ourselves to forget them just because they are painful, or because they cast our country in a bad light.
    I once interviewed an Auschwitz survivor who had endured unimaginable suffering. During our interview, I noticed that she still had the tattoo on her arm given to her by her captors. When I asked her why she would keep a reminder of such a painful time, she said: "I keep it because I don't want to forget what happened, and I don't want to allow others to forget what happened, either."
   She's right. As painful as it is to admit that the South once endorsed slavery in this country, then fought a war to maintain it, it did happen. Removing all traces of the Confederate Battle Flag from the public square won't change that. And truthfully, it's a chapter in our history we shouldn't allow ourselves to forget.

Combatting hatred begins with each of us

   It's happened again. Another senseless shooting where innocent people died for no reason. This time, it happened in a historic black church -- Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, S.C. Nine people died and one was injured after the alleged shooter, Dylann Storm Roof, opened fire after sitting in a Bible study group for about an hour. Roof was apparently motivated by hatred stoked by racism, as he had racist patches on his jacket.
   It all seems so simple. A white supremacist opens fire in a historically black church. It's an open and shut case, right? Hardly. You'd think we'd be used to this by now. Every few months, it seems, we're jarred out of our sense of complacency by a seemingly senseless act of violence. Someone opens fire in a movie theater or in a shopping mall or on a military base. Every time we react with outrage, especially if race is somehow tied in. That outrage is justified, but it's not enough. This time, I believe we need to go beyond the outrage and the prayers for their victims and their families. This time, we need to take a long, hard look at ourselves and what breeds this type of hate. More important, we need to ask ourselves: What can we do to break this vicious cycle?
   To begin with, we need to take a long, hard, honest look at ourselves. We need to admit to that we, too, are capable of this type of hate. Be honest. Who can say that they've never had a racist thought or used a racial epithet in their lives? If we're completely honest, I think we'd find that we've all had a racist thought or used a racist term at one time or another. The difference, of course, is the vast majority of us never act on those thoughts or go beyond using a racist term. But each of us is capable of the same type of hate that motivated Roof. We are not perfect, so it's wrong of us to cast judgment on Roof, especially since so little is known of his past right now.
   The second thing we can do is realize that hate is not natural to the human condition. Yes, we each have the capacity to hate, but children are a blank slate. They aren't born hating. They are taught to hate. So if we want to end this vicious cycle of hatred and violence, we need to teach children to look beyond skin color. We need to teach them to judge people based on the "content of their character," to quote Dr. King, not on skin color. More important, we need to demonstrate this love for others through our own actions. Children hear what we tell them, but they are more likely to imitate what the see us doing, so setting the right example is vital.
   Third, we, as a society, need to confront the societal factors that likely led to Roof's outburst. And what are those? Two that come immediately to mind are profound poverty and broken homes. Here's how it works: A child is born into a single parent home where that parent is struggling daily to provide even the basic necessities. As that child grows, he sees peers with two parents who have plenty without having to struggle. He grows to resent it, then becomes angry. That angry child has just made himself vulnerable to the myriad of hate groups out there, who target kids like this, kids who want desperately to belong and who want to find someone to blame for their situation.
   To be honest, I can't really relate to what it's like to be a victim of racism. Nor do  really know what it's like to live in poverty. I'm one of the lucky ones. I'm a white male who was raised in a solidly middle class environment by parents who taught me not to hate. But whether I can directly relate or not, I know that racism and hatred in this country won't end until people like me stand up against it. It won't end until people like me teach my future children not to judge others on anything other than their actions. It won't end until I go beyond words of outrage and actually set the proper example for how to treat other people. We can defeat the kind of hate that showed itself in Charleston last week. But for that to happen, it must begin with each of us.

Rand Paul: The 'X Factor' in 2016

   On Tuesday, the second domino fell in the race for the Republican presidential nomination when Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky announced his candidacy for president. This should come as a surprise to no one who has been paying attention, as Paul has been talking about running for at least a year. And while he stands little chance of winning the White House, or even surviving his own party's primaries, don't underestimate him. Win or lose, Paul could exercise a significant influence on who wins the GOP nomination, maybe even the White House.
   Rand Paul is the son of longtime Texas Congressman and perennial presidential candidate Ron Paul. Before being elected to the Senate, he was an opthamalogist. And while he is a libertarian like his father and shares many of the same views, he also has several important differences with the elder Paul. While Ron Paul drew fire four years ago when some seemingly racist writings surfaced, the younger Paul has gone out of his way to speak at historically black colleges and universities and has made an effort to reach out to minority voters. While the elder Paul was a strict isolationist when it came to foreign policy, Rand Paul understands that this is not a position we an afford to take.
   Perhaps Paul's biggest advantage as he joins the race is a high level of name recognition. His father, Ron, enjoyed a great deal of grass-roots support, especially among younger voters hungry for a change from the status-quo. Rand is likely to inherit that support, along with whatever fund-raising network his father had established.
   Rand's biggest disadvantage is the same as his father's: His libertarian views are largely outside the mainstream of his party, and his willingness to speak out, even against his own party line, is likely to alienate his party's leaders. Like his father, Rand is an ideologue who stands on principle. But having the right idea can only take you so far. Unless you have the ability to sell that idea to others, you remain just an ideologue with the right idea and no chance at seeing that idea become a reality. That makes for a largely  ineffective leader, which I fear would be Rand's fate in the unlikely event that he became president.
   That doesn't mean, however, that Paul couldn't have an impact on this election. In fact, I view him as the "X factor" in this election, the same way Ralph Nader was ultimately the deciding factor in the election of 2000. Paul has almost no shot of winning his party's nomination. He knows that, even if he won't admit it publicly. But he does have a loyal, grassroots following, just like his father. Combine that with voters who are fed up with the status-quo, who view the two parties as largely identical, and it's possible that he could draw enough votes off of one candidate to throw the election to the other.
   I have said for years that what this country needs is a viable third party to offer voters a real alternative to the two entrenched parties. But Rand Paul is not that alternative. Hopefully, he will realize that and withdraw quietly before any real, lasting damage is done.
    

Ted Cruz' candidacy bad news for GOP

On Monday, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz ended months of speculation on the worst kept secret in America when he formally declared his candidacy for president. There's been little doubt that the White House was his ultimate goal ever since he came to Washington, but now that the junior senator from Texas has made it official, members of his party should be quaking in their boots. If he somehow manages to pull off a miracle and become the nominee in 2016, it will only help guarantee a Democratic victory in the race for the White House.
   Cruz is the worst possible nominee for the GOP. He is a backbench bomb-thrower cut from the same mold as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. He is a virulent narcissist who loves to hear himself talk. But while he certainly knows how to draw attention to himself and generate headlines, he has accomplished little during his time in the Senate except to grandstand (see his attempted filibuster in an attempt to kill Obamacare) and damage his party's credibility by leading the charge to shut down government in 2013.
   Make no mistake. Cruz is a formidable candidate. He has been described as "off the charts brilliant" by his former Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz. Thanks to his constant self-promotion, he has wide-spread name recognition and won't have to waste time letting voters know who he is. That's a definite plus when it comes to fundraising. Cruz has worked hard to ingratiate himself with the GOP's Tea Party wing. Today, he is recognized as a leader of the movement. That should help him in the primaries, where the most hardcore party members tend to exert more influence. Should he become the nominee, however, his uncompromising nature could become a liability.
   The problem is that not most voters don't reside on the political extremes. Most reside in what Cruz has derisively labeled "the mushy middle." Cruz has been outspoken in criticizing members of his own party, including former presidential nominees John McCain and Mitt Romney. That has undoubtedly cost him the support of some of the most powerful leaders in the GOP. And since he has shown no interest in moderating his rhetoric or moving even an inch toward the political middle, it calls into question his ability to lead should he somehow win the White House.
   Good government is about more than having the right ideas. To be an effective leader, one has to be able to sell those ideas to others. Being a good leader means being willing to compromise. It means being willing to take baby steps forward instead of trying to get everything you want all at once. If Cruz has shown anything, it's that compromise is a foreign concept to him. Instead of being willing to work patiently toward his goals, he prefers to be a bull in a china shop. He prefers to make noise and go for the juicy soundbite instead of looking toward the final goal. He has shown no concern about alienating members of his own party. That "maverick" spirit may play well with voters, but if he wins, it will ultimately leave him without allies when he needs them most and will lessen his effectiveness as president.
   Ted Cruz candidacy is an exercise in ego. And while it may be hailed in some quarters, we can only hope that cooler, wiser heads prevail and Cruz will ultimately fail. We deserve better than a narcissist stroking his own ego by running for president. We deserve better than a leader who would rather make a point than get results. We deserve better than Ted Cruz.

Looking forward toward 2016

   It's more than a year before our next presidential election, and already, contenders from both parties are lining up. So who has the best chance to replace President Barack Obama? Will historic trends continue and will 2016 be the Republicans' year? Will Hillary finally realize her destiny and win the White House that she has coveted practically since the day she and former President Bill Clinton left in 2000? Or will the Republicans finally field a candidate with a chance to  win the presidency?
   Of course, it's a little early to know for sure who will separate themselves from the crowded field of presidential wannabes, but it's never too early  to begin handicapping the field and trying to determine who we'll still be talking about a year from now. Below, I have broken the field down by party. Only those candidates who I feel have a legitimate shot have been included.

Democrats

   Hillary Clinton: The Democratic nomination appears to be Clinton's to lose at this point. She has been part of the national political scene for almost a quarter century, first as first lady during husband Bill's presidency, then as Democratic senator from New York and most recently as Secretary of State under Barack Obama. In 2008, she very nearly won the nomination outright, becoming the first woman to headline a major party ticket. Clinton has unrivaled name recognition and a resume that few can touch. She enjoys a vast network of donors. And, of course, there's her ace in the hole: her husband, Bill.
   Bill Clinton is, without a doubt, the most gifted politician this nation has seen in the last 50 years. Who else could have survived a sleazy White House sex scandal and impeachment while making his political enemies look bad and coming out the other side more popular than ever? Clinton has maintained his popularity since leaving the White House, and there' s no doubt that his popularity and political genius could benefit his wife.
   Clinton's biggest weakness is, ironically, also one of her strengths. Her long history in the public eye means that she has a record separate from Bill's that she has to defend. And as big an asset as Bill could be, he also could prove a liability. Bill Clinton was only the second president to be impeached. The Monica Lewinsky scandal dragged this nation through the sewer, and not everyone has forgotten that.
   Then, there's Clinton fatigue." Bill and Hillary have been part of our nation's political life since 1992. Many Americans are tired of seeing their name on the ballot every four years, and many would vote for "anyone but Clinton." Still, even with these obstacles to overcome, Hillary has to be considered the odds-on favorite to win the nomination next year.

Joe Biden: Biden is the only other person with a realistic chance to win the nomination, at least so far. Biden's strengths include his vast experience in government and his name recognition. He served in the U.S. Senate from 1973 until 2008, when he became vice president. He is former chairman of both the Senate Judiciary and Foreign Relations Committee. And he has run for president twice before, in 1988 and 2008. That experience should serve him well in what promises to be a wide open race to replace the popular Obama.
   The problem with Biden is that he has not used his time as vice president to his fullest advantage. In fact, he has made several notable public gaffes, so much so that he is regarded as somewhat of an intellectual lightweight in some circles, much like former Vice President Dan Quayle under Bush the Elder. Historically, vice presidents are seen as having a major advantage when they decide to seek the top office. Just ask the elder Bush, who was swept into office thanks to Ronald Reagan's popularity. Biden doesn't appear to have that advantage. Then, there's his age -- he's 72.  Still, so far, he's the only person who can pose a real threat to the Clinton juggernaut.

Jim Webb: The former Virginia senator is a little bit of an enigma. He's a Democrat who managed to win in largely Republican Virginia. That shows he has some cross-over appeal. Still, I don't think he has the name recognition or the bonafides to mount a serious threat to either Clinton or Biden.

John Kerry: Kerry has not expressed a formal interest in running yet, but if he did, he would be formidable. Like Clinton, he has a sterling resume, having served in the U.S. Senate from 1985-2013. He is currently Secretary of State. And he is both a genuine war hero and a former Democratic nominee for president in 2004. He's been there before, and one can only assume that he learned from his past missteps.
   The problem with Kerry is that he's "damaged goods." In 2004, George W. Bush successfully painted him as a stereotypical Massachusetts liberal, an elitist blue-blood -- much as his father had done to Michael Dukakis in 1988. It's an image he is yet to overcome. Add to that the controversy over Kerry's actions upon returning from Vietnam, and it's doubtful that Democrats would take another chance on him in 2016.

Al Gore: Another dark horse who is yet to declare a formal interest. Gore would be an intriguing candidate. He is a former U.S. senator from Tennessee who served as vice president for eight years under Bill Clinton. In 2000, he very nearly rode Clinton's popularity into the White House, losing the election by less than 600 votes.
   Gore brings vast knowledge of government policy to the table. He is the quintessential "policy wonk." But Gore never had Clinton's personal charisma. He wasn't a popular vice president. And his somewhat extreme views on the environment have made him a punchline and alienated him from the more mainstream elements of his own party. He would be a major risk if Democrats hope to hold the White House.

Republicans

Jeb Bush: So far, the odds-on favorite for mainstream Republicans. Jeb is a former Florida governor who is seen as less extreme than his brother, George. As far as assets, perhaps his biggest is his family name and political pedigree. Both his father and older brother are former presidents. That gives him instant name recognition that would be hard to beat, at least in the early going. That pedigree also gives him access to the vast Bush political machine and network of donors. Win or lose, Bush would run an extremely well-financed campaign.
   Bush faces at least two major obstacles as he prepares to step onto the national stage. First, and perhaps most problematic, is the baggage he inherits from his older brother. George W. Bush was seen as an extremist by many, even within his own party. His elective war against Iraq, his support of the use of torture against suspected terrorists and his use of Guantanamo Bay to hold prisoners indefinitely all made him extremely unpopular. Jeb is already seen by many within his party as less extreme than his brother, but he would still have a tall mountain to climb to prove that to the average American. Many of us have not forgotten the nightmare of the George W. Bush years, and it would take a lot to prove that he's really different from his brother.
   The other obstacle facing Bush is the same facing Hillary Clinton: public fatigue with his family. Think about this: Since 1980, a Bush or Clinton has either been president, been within a step of the presidency or occupied some other major government post. We've had two Bushes serve as president so far. To many, Jeb's ascension makes it seem as if he is simply continuing the family dynasty by taking his turn.

Ted Cruz: The Texas senator and Tea Party darling is perhaps the scariest of the possible 2016 contenders. What makes his interest in the White House so ironic is that Cruz led the charge to shut down the government in 2013. And now, he wants to head that government? What an opportunist. Cruz is a virulent narcissist and a bomb-thrower in the grand tradition of Newt Gingrich. While he is undeniably  brilliant and a master at garnering headlines for himself, he also represents the most extreme elements of his party. While that may appeal to the hardcore primary voters, it won't play well during the general election. Most Americans, regardless of party, occupy the political middle, and there's no way for Cruz to ever successfully paint himself as a moderate.

Rand Paul:  The biggest thing Rand Paul has going for him in 2016 is name recognition, thanks to his father, Ron's perennial quest for the White House. Over the years, Ron Paul has built quite a impressive network of  grassroots support, both among Libertarians and among those fed up with the status quo. Rand Paul would automatically inherit that support.
   Rand Paul's biggest liability looking toward 2016 is that he shares many of his father's more extreme positions. While it may sound good to promise to eliminate the Department of Education, for instance, that will never realistically happen. And there's the problem. Paul, like his father before him, is an ideologue. His ideas might sound good, but his chances of actually making them a reality are slim to none. If he were to become president, he would prove to be an extremely ineffective leader. And a presidency cannot survive on ideas alone.

  Bobby Jindal: The Louisiana governor has made no secret of his desire to be president. In fact, if you look at his career in public life, every move he's made has had that as his ultimate goal. Jindal is a former U.S. representative and served as head of the state's public college system before becoming governor. Since becoming governor, he has taken every opportunity to raise his profile nationally, often lecturing the national party on how they can better connect with voters. The problem is, his actions often belie the wisdom of that advice.
   While head of the University of Louisiana system, Jindal spearheaded an effort to change the names of the state's universities, thus stripping them of any of their unique identities. As governor, he led an effort to privatize the state's hospital system, going so far as to push through a contract with 50 blank pages, presumably to be filled in by the company that took over the system. Jindal was originally one of the leading proponents of the Common Core national education standards. Once they gained traction, he promptly changed sides and has been trying to repeal them in Louisiana ever since.
   Jindal is undeniably brilliant. But he has shown that he lacks the ability to lead. He is a "fair weather" politician who will support an idea when it suits his needs, then promptly change his mind when it no longer serves him. While he might make a decent vice presidential pick (and even that's doubtful), he lacks the name recognition among the general public to be considered anything but a dark horse candidate.

   Chris Christie:  Another intriguing candidate. The New Jersey governor has been on the public's radar for awhile. He won widespread praise for his leadership following Superstorm Sandy in 2013. And he has occasionally shown an independent streak by giving praise to Democrats when it's due, and even criticizing members of his own party in public. The question is, how would that translate in a long presidential campaign? Could Christie be seen as "Republican enough" by hardcore primary voters? And if he did win the nomination, would he be able to moderate his positions enough to gain the trust of the average voter in the general election? It's a formula that almost worked to perfection for Arizona Sen. John McCain in 2008. But McCain had years of experience on the national stage and a lengthy record of being a political "maverick." Both of these are things Christie lacks. At best, Christie is a dark horse candidate. He'd make an excellent vice presidential pick, but despite showing flashes of promise, he's not quite ready for prime time, at least not in 2016.