Can  you imagine waking up every day with responsibility for the success of your organization and every day your colleagues put up roadblocks to that success? Or, that you have to weigh every word you utter so as not to upset your colleagues and start a fight over some piece of rhetoric that doesn't matter to save your chits for a bigger fight? How about  having to say things you don't believe to keep your co-workers happy. Every day. Every night. Oh, and still find time to bring in hundreds of millions of dollars to help your co-workers keep their jobs?

Then, after doing all that, you face a rebellion by those same co-workers, facing off against an angry group of your peers that wants you out of your job?

Welcome to Speaker of the House John Boehner's world. Or, the world he is leaving. When the rebellion against him swelled to a point he knew was bad for the institution,  he did what many of us would have done long ago -- resigned for the good of the Congress. He is a dying breed in the Congress. The right-wing nuts in the house -- and they are nuts -- are taking over even though they have a minority of the caucus' votes and a minority of the country behind them.

One example of the right-wingnuts arrogance: Cong. Matt Salmon of Arizona said: "(Senator Majority Leader) Mitch McConnell is infinitely worse as a leader than Boehner. He surrenders at the sight of battle every time. We made a lot of promises to the American people that if we took the Senate that we would do certain things and those things have not been accomplished."

Mr. Salmon (and, for disclosure, I once worked with him in a consulting firm), there are about 30 of you in the House who threatened Mr. Boehner. Those 30 represent districts that contain 710,767 people each (men, women and children, by the way, not all of voting age). The U.S. population is 320 million. The 21 million is less than 10 percent of the country (again, that's counting those of non-voting age). You do not speak for "all Americans," you speak for a minority.

John Boehner deserves a long, healthy retirement where he can spend time with his family, his faith and maybe earn some money after sacrificing all those things to serve his country, something he did quite well. He put up with more than the rest of us could handle. And he left to keep the Congress from going through a no-confidence vote that is rare in a democracy. Plus he bought the country another couple of weeks without a government shutdown threat and the economic upheaval that we all endured not that long ago, because of the right-wing nuts in Congress. He did not want his true friends in the caucus to have to make that vote.

The Tea Party is celebrating his departure. Many Democrats outside the Congress are too, thinking he was bad for the country. But, friends, you ain't seen nothing yet. If Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy succeeds Bohener, as is assumed, he inherits the same dynamic that Boehner faced, emboldened by what they see as a victory by forcing Boehner out. Unless McCarthy caves to the Tea Partyers' desire to stop this country from operating so they can maybe someday get their way, nothing is about to change. These people like to look good losing. They make promises to their constituents that they know they cannot keep. And then they blame the Speaker of the House for their failures. And the country stagnates. Boehner, freed from the need to hold back, gave that piece of honesty when interviewed yesterday. Boehner could finally let himself be Boehner.

Some say that the Speaker approached his leadership responsibilities the wrong way, that he should have taken a stronger tack with his caucus. He could have stood up to the Tea Party types and maybe had a more successful Speakership, a speakership of mre accomplishments rather than a speakership of stopping worse things from happening.

The Tea Party types began to sow the seeds of their rebellion on literally the first vote after they took office. They were clear in their designs on the Congress. Boehner, many say, is just too nice a guy to be Speaker. Probably true. Personally, I enjoyed watching him sitting behind the Pope the other day as the Pope addressed Congress. Boehner's eyes welled with tears over the moment. A sign of strength, not weakness.

I guess Boehner could have tried marginalizing the Tea Party folks more, and working across the aisle more -- something that may have worked and better fits his style. I give Boehner credit for being the last bastion against total craziness in the House. It could have been far worse than it has been. It may yet be,

         The Republican Party has a front-runner who wants to keep alive his belief that President Obama is a Muslim, ignoring the facts. The person in second place has said he doesn’t think a Muslim should be President of the United States, ignoring the Constitution. The person in third place sees things in videos, ignoring the fact that they aren’t.

Oy.

    At some point, even the Republican base has to wake up and see reality, don’t they? Maybe not. But the rest of the Republican Party will. A problem is, there is little “rest of” the GOP.

    It’s been a slow march, but many in the Republican Party are either withdrawing officially (changing their registration) or withdrawing emotionally and not engaging in giving money or supporting the GOP national candidates. I know, I know: everyone pretty much has his or her own billionaire or two to provide the money – but they can’t deliver the votes.

     It does mean that the GOP cannot win with Donald Trump or Ben Carson or Carly Fiorina at the head of the ticket. Many pundits are now pointing out that politics is a game of addition, not subtraction – the more voting blocs you tick off, the fewer potential voters you have. If Trump became the candidate, he won’t get the support of women (more than half the population), Hispanics (the fastest-growing demographic) or men and women who support a woman’s right to the abortion. And that’s just for starters.

    The other knock on those three contenders is none has experience in government. Some in the base think that’s a plus. They are wrong. The measurement in the private sector for success is different than the measurement in the public sector. Private sector: you make deals (Trump has made it clear he believes he’s the best deal-maker ever born). Public sector: you also make deals (or we will get back to it some day, I hope) but the back and forth isn’t over money,  for special interests – which could be people supporting women’s health or better education or a focus on college costs etc. Trump may think that’s the same, it isn’t. The same with "making deals" with foreign leaders. It ain't gonna be done on the force of personality. It takes policy positions to back up what you're proposing. These folks hold up President Reagan as their guiding light, but they clearly have not studied his presidency to see how he accomplished what he accomplished, including seeing the Soviet Union break up and the Berlin Wall come down.

    You don’t measure success in the public sector in dollars or cents; you do in the private sector. If the President of the United States was going to be judged on whether he had a balanced budget, he’d have a balanced budget. That’s not the measure of success. That's clearly not what gets presidents re-elected. What does get them re-elected is providing services for those who need them and providing security for the nation. You can’t put a precise price on those things. Thus, it’s nearly impossible to live within a budget and be a successful president.

    I do think the tide began to turn in the last GOP debate. Already governors Perry and Walker have “suspended’ their campaigns. There was a time Walker was odds-on to be the candidate. The winnowing has begun. It will continue. The fewer the candidates, the more attention on more candidates and not just one. The fewer the candidates, the more votes those fewer candidates can get.

    That’s when Mr. Trump, Dr. Carson and Ms Fiorina will see that their politics of subtraction was a big mistake. They may have captured more of the base of the party – but that’s a losing mathematical proposition.

               The Republican race hit a slow turning point in tonight’s debate. It wasn’t as much Donald Trump failing as it was the other candidates rising. Among those who I thought performed well was Lindsey Graham in the first debate, a more lively debate because there were only four participants.

               In the main event, Jeb Bush finally showed some passion, especially when his brother was attacked by Trump. That exchange, to me, marked a turning point – Jeb finding his sea legs, Trump being put on his heels. John Kasich continues to impress as the more moderate and more adult person on the stage. Ben Carson is soft-spoken which helps, but some of his policies (“tithing” replacing taxing) are pretty weak. But he comes across as what he is, a smart, nice guy.

               Carly Fiorina will be seen as a big winner tonight. I don’t fully agree. Clearly, a debate format works to her strengths. She is bold and strong and glib on her feet and good with a one-liner. If I was running for President she’d be someone I might want to hire as my partner to run as vice president, but someone I would fire when we won because she lacks the relevant experience.

               I think we’ll begin to see the polls shift now. Trump, while his usual bombastic self in the first hour, faded back after that. His comment that Fiorina, he now thinks, has a pretty face – and the reaction it got, which was not a good reaction, hurt him.

    That shift in Trump’s role in the debate also coincided with the questioners ceasing to feature him in every question. The other candidates, while I don’t agree with many of them, gave good performances, were adults and put forward their views well. Graham did it the best – after that first debate, we certainly know why he is running – to be a commander in chief who wants to beat the terrorist. He was quite clear.

    But Walker, Christie, Rubio also performed better than we’ve seen.

    Biggest takeaway for me: it’s the beginning of the end of Donald Trump in the race. It won’t be quick. But it will be. And who becomes the candidate is still up for grabs.

          If you’re running against Donald Trump,  there are a few strategies available to you:

1.  Ignore him and run your own campaign on the assumption that, at some point, he will flame out
2. Strategically drop criticisms of him as you focus on your own message but show your supporters that you have the guts for a fight when needed
3. Take him on directly and demonstrate what a phony candidacy his is and see if you can turn the media from fawning press agents into the objective force they’re supposed to be
   

            If I were the candidate in today’s environment -- when voters want authenticity and straight talk -- I’d give a speech and here’s what I’d say:

“Thank you, my fellow Americans. I want to talk to you today about the elephant in the room – Donald Trump. He is leading the polls, by a good measure. He is flamboyant. He says bold things. He is a glib entertainer and he makes for good headlines. He counter-punches, as he says, very well. He is rich, really, really rich as he often tells us. He is smart, very, very smart as he waves around his excellent Wharton education. He is a terrific negotiator, which I believe has been mostly true in his deal-making career, with some mistakes along the way – as is to be expected in any successful life.

“So, Mr. Trump has made quite a splash on the political circuit, just as he did in his reality television career. He’s made that splash through force of personality and boldness, just as he did on his TV series. He drops sound bites that garner huge attention, just like those politicians he says he despises. He calls leaders of the country “stupid.” He insults women. He discriminates against various races and cultures, particularly Mexican immigrants who he considers rapists and thieves. He doesn’t apologize for he sees not what he does wrong. He may skip to another subject quickly, or he may say, 'But I love women.  Women love me. You’ll see, I’ll the best president for women…Hispanics love me! I’ll be the best president for Hispanics.'  Then he goes out and insults them again.

“Just like the politicians he lambastes in his rants – he says one thing, and then says a contradictory thing, trying to find the right note to appeal to the group he just insulted. He never lays out how he will do things, other than building a multi-billion dollar wall which he, of course, says he can do because he’s a 'builder, that’s what I do.'

“He may be a builder. He may be a deal-maker. What he is right now, though, is a politician. Sound bites. Big talk without specific backup. Made for TV speeches with no substance. Criticisms but no solutions other than to trust him, like many politicians before him have asked you. He is all that he claims to not be. And it’s time he is called on it.

“Many in the field, and I was one for a while, are careful not to criticize Mr. Trump because they want to win over his voters when he gets out of the race. Also because we know that we really can’t beat Mr. Trump in a head-to-head insults contest. He follows no rules, has no discretion, and how do you beat that? But if we allow Mr. Trump to do as he’s been doing, he won’t get out of the race and those voters may well stick with him. It’s fun to poke 'career politicians' in the eye and claim he knows better than they how to run the country.

"But, my friends, today – he is a politician. Let me pause a moment and say it again: Donald Trump is a politician and, at the moment, the best politician, as he defines the word, in the bunch. He uses his excellent marketing skills just like P.T. Barnum did to create an image of boldness, of straight talk and an image that promotes the ability to do something, on the strength of his personality and business experience. Just like P.T. Barnum he makes you believe what he wants you to believe based on strong marketing skills and good line of blarney.

“So, today, I want to lay out five issues for you. Five issues that I have thought through, discussed with experts in their fields, and come to conclusions on how I can put policies in place to improve these five areas. The areas are: the economy and jobs, education for our children, national security for us all, the equity in pay and health for women and immigration.

“I will be specific, as my policy thoughts are specific.  I will detail my plans. And, when I’m done, I challenge Mr. Trump to do the same. Now, Mr. Trump may call this speech boring -- but this speech is about how I want to improve your lives. That is not boring. That is crucial. That is what elections are about.

"These are the issues most important to the most Americans. And these are the issues I will tackle today. I’ll talk specifics about other issues in the future, and the same challenge stands: Mr. Trump, tell us your plans for making lives of all Americans better. Be specific. Let the voters decide who among us is best qualified and prepared to be their next President based on facts and policies, not based on insults and sound bites.

“To Mr. Trump I say, I will talk specifics about policy. I will not ‘counter-punch’ your personal or substance-less attacks. We have no time for those kinds of games. We have millions of people who need help, who need federal policies to help, who need national leadership to build them up, not tear everything down.

“It’s time to leave the political games behind and to lay out for the American people our visions for America. It’s time to take this campaign seriously. To the voters I say, message received. You want straight talk from those of us who run for office. You’re tired of the prepared talking points and of us avoiding direct answers to your questions. I hear you. And here are my policies for those five issues.”

Then, I’d list the specifics in each of those areas and let people base their decision on whether I’m qualified to be president on policy proposals and temperament. If they don’t vote for me based on those things, why would I want to be president? At some point, this election will be decided on specific policy differences among the candidates. Candidates have to stop trying to match Trump. You cannot beat him if you try to follow his rules. To get there, you have to silence the bully in the room and force him to give specifics rather than hyperbole and tell us all what he would do if elected.

I’m confident that once that happens, Mr. Trump no longer will be the front runner and he’ll be trying to find a graceful exit from the race that allows him to maintain some semblance of his dignity. And that’s a low bar, I know.

 The Republican Party asked all its presidential candidates to sign a loyalty oath pledging to support whoever the eventual candidate is, and not to lead a third party against that candidate. This idea was spurred by Donald Trump’s candidacy and his threat to run on a third party ticket if he fails to win the GOP nomination, a move that likely would tank a GOP win. Trump, and his 16 competitors, all signed. And, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus traveled to the mountain, I mean Trump Towers, in New York City to get Trump’s signature.

               Oy.

               A few thoughts:

• The loyalty oath is not legally binding. Based on what we’ve seen of Trump, he could easily break that oath if he doesn’t win the nomination. It wouldn’t hurt him in the least and likely would help him among that minority of voters that actually might cast ballots for him.

• Why did the GOP national chairman – the leader of the party – have to travel to New York to get the signature? It was one more example of how the bully Trump is using his “power” to get leaders of the party to kowtow to him. “You want my pledge, come and get it,” you can almost hear the bully say. And Chairman Preibus just asked how high. I didn’t read that the chairman traveled to any other candidate’s headquarters to get their signature.
• The other 16 candidates now are bound, though not legally, to support Trump if by some shock to the space-time continuum, he wins the nomination. I expect, and hope, that pledge to be broken if that eventuality occurs. As hardened an observer as I may think I am, don’t think I could stomach as someone like Jeb Bush endorses Donald Trump for president. It would break my heart, and 41’s too, I imagine.

• It gives Trump an out when he doesn’t win the nomination and he can go not-so-softly into that good night and not have to spend the millions trying to get on the ballot if every state, which he would have to do to run on a third-party ticket. He can walk out a “statesman,” in his perverted mind, and still command press attention as he comments on the campaign as it goes on. I cannot imagine. Personally, I never thought Trump really wanted to be the president. I think he got in on a lark and, through one of those moments of the universe’s timing, he is way ahead – the summer before the summer the conventions are held – shocking even himself and his overblown ego.
  

Remember the movie “The Candidate” with Robert Redford? Redford’s character, Bill McKay, is a guy who is drafted as a candidate for the U.S. Senate in California because the incumbent is seen as someone who can’t lose.  The Democratic party needs a token to put on the ticket (not unlike the plot of “Fiorello,” the musical about Mayor LaGuardia of New York City, but I digress), whose dad had been governor,  so name ID was on his side. McKay easily wins the nomination. There are other plot turns, but McKay winds up winning the election! The movie closes with a scene of celebration as McKay says to his key political adviser, “Marvin…what do we do now?” as the film fades to black and no answer is given.

I don’t see yet an exit strategy for Trump to leave the campaign now that he is ahead. Who quits then? Certainly not The Donald. If, as I expect, his popularity wanes in time, can Donald Trump get out of something so high profile while he’s losing? Not sure it’s in his makeup to be a “loser” like the rest of us, in his bloated mind.

This ending can be better than “The Candidate” ending. But I pray life doesn’t imitate art.