The Democrat Party is attracting candidates for President faster than Tom Brady collects Super Bowl rings. He got another one as the New England Patriots beat the Los Angeles Rams 13-3.

Back to the proliferation of candidates. I often said “I’m not a member of any organized political party… I’m a Democrat.” And any organization, in order to survive, needs a leader with common sense.  There’s a bunch of wise old Democrat leaders in Washington but they have a problem: they’re old!

So along comes this new, young firebrand Congresswoman from the Bronx, with no credentials and no leadership experience, who has assumed the mantle of the Democrat Party. To her credit she’s pulling the Democrat wagon down the road at a good clip. But she’s veering so far to the left the wagon load of candidates she’s hauling will end up in the ditch. She’s too young to run in 2020 and she has not publicly endorsed anyone. But I can definitely tell you who her favorite is: Nicolas Maduro.

Howard Schultz, owner of Starbucks, says he is running in 2020. He might end up a good President. Anyone who can convince millions of Americans to buy coffee every morning for three times what it’s worth would stand a good chance of persuading us to contribute enough extra taxes to balance the budget. He knows how to cut costs, too. Half of the coffee drinks he sells are cold; he doesn’t even pay to heat ‘em up.

Michael Bloomberg, another billionaire businessman who was a Democrat mayor of New York, says he may run. Both of these men are abandoning the Democrat Party, figuring no old white male has a chance at the nomination, unless maybe it’s Joe Biden.

I heard another potential Democratic candidate for President say he is for “Women’s Health.” Well, I hope so. How could anyone be against females being healthy?

But “women’s health” seems to be a code term for “pro-abortion.” And for a few extreme politicians, including the governor of Virginia, it even includes “infanticide.” Oddly, that governor is in more trouble for a photo of him in blackface 35 years ago at a Halloween party than for aborting live babies. Both are bad. But which does the most harm?  What about today when a white person, or black, puts on a feathered headdress and stomps around like a wild Indian?

The debate over a physical barrier along parts of the Mexican border is approaching another deadline. Speaker Pelosi already called any kind of wall “immoral” and added that this particular wall has a terrible cost/benefit ratio. This shocked most of her fellow Congressmen; since they’ve been in Congress, they never heard of a cost/benefit ratio having any consideration in a spending bill.

I’m not an economist, but which of these choices would likely cost less to keep thousands of immigrants from crossing our border:  500 miles of a 30-foot steel-slat fence, or paying border agents to stand shoulder to shoulder, 24/7, along that same 500 miles? Of course technology, such as drones, can help, but how does a drone keep an immigrant from touching our soil? And the fence can last 50 years. How much would a million extra border guards cost in 50 years?

Now here’s an idea with a great cost/benefit ratio for Speaker Pelosi: pass a law saying that just because a foreigner gets one foot on American soil he or she has no right to stay without our permission. And while you’re at it, prohibit lottery immigration and letting immigrants who came illegally, but are now legal, from bringing in all their relatives. Great benefit, no cost.

We’re going to hear the State of the Union, finally, tomorrow night (Feb. 5). President Trump says he will cover just five points, which is far better than 30 or 40 that some previous presidents have crammed into an hour talk. The Democrat response has already been written and can be summarized in six words: “Whatever Trump is for, we’re against.”

Historic quotes by Will Rogers:

“The one way to detect a feeble-minded man is to get one arguing on economics.” DT #2239, Oct. 6, 1933

“One of the few stipulated duties of the President is that every once in a while he delivers a message to Congress to tell them the Condition of the Country. This message, as I say, is to Congress, the rest of the country know the condition of the country, for they live in it and are a part of it. But the Senators and Congress men being in Washington all the time have no idea what is going on in America. So the President has to tell ’em.” WA #371, Feb. 2, 1930