A flash the other morning has me wondering. Donald Trump as a … Jezebel?

Yes, Jez was a woman married to a spineless king. And in her excesses she led Ahab’s kingdom astray. Or more accurately, God’s.

It was all glitzy seduction and court intrigue, of course, and she was the outsider taking over. Most of the prophets went silent, somewhat like the criticism we’re not hearing today. For those who saw clearly, this initiated a time of terror.

As for the gender thing, we might ask if any previous presidential candidate paid so much attention to the rivals’ hairstyles or dress. Aren’t there more serious issues? And the bitchy tone? Is everyone else really that cowed?

Don’t know how far to take the comparison, other than throw it in play for discussion. Your turn!

A recent brag by Marco Rubio’s camp that he nearly killed “Obamacare” could just have a boomerang effect. Yes, I know that many Republicans hate the Affordable Care Act, but the reality remains that it’s the only way for many Americans to obtain medical care.

If you have a child with a “preexisting condition” like asthma or a defective heart, you know the alternative is a death sentence. If you undergo surgery and see what the bill would be without insurance coverage – thousands of dollars more – you get a clue of the unjust disadvantage you’d be at. Bankruptcy, as your likely fate. (There goes the house. And the American dream.)

It’s not that the critics are presenting a better proposal for affordable health care. They keep ignoring the issue, actually. It wouldn’t take much for many Americans to awaken to an argument that Rubio nearly killed health care. Kinda sounds like a Neanderthal or Hun.

Saying what you stand against doesn’t necessarily tell us what you stand for. The question remains.

After all of the delusional accusations about Obama’s citizenship and religion, hearing charges that Ted Cruz is not a “natural born” American and thus Constitutionally barred from the presidency comes as an ironic twist. This one might actually have legs, factually speaking.

We don’t expect him to quit that easily, of course. So this could get interesting, especially if the natives get restless.

Those of us on the peacemaking side of armaments debates have usually resisted calls that would require a balanced budget, usually because of our concerns about what would happen to the poor and oppressed during economic downturns. It’s not that we’re against a balanced budget, mind you – many of us would favor a budget surplus and reserves.

Curiously, however, those who have been most vocal in their demands for a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget have also proclaimed strong support for large military outlays.

Here’s their unintentional bind: Some historians and economists have noted that without the ability to borrow money, America would never have been able to enter into armed conflict. Perhaps that’s universally true among nations, not just mine.

If that’s the case, perhaps we have our lines tangled. Would a balanced-budget requirement have prevented the U.S. buildup in Vietnam as well as both wars in Iraq?

Remember, too, we were on track to eliminate the federal deficit before 9/11 overturned everything.

The war costs were, in effect, put on a national credit card the hawks were never willing to pay off.

Is this a game we’re willing to play – a kind of chicken? (No pun intended.)

The concept certainly thickens the plot, even before we get to name-calling.