Fani Avenatti - Absurd Aliteration

These are the people being used to try to stop me from voting for my presidential choice?!?  I remember when Michael Avenatti was interviewed on the MSNBCs of the world as the Voice of Reason and Conscience.  OMG.  And now we've got Fani.  Sometimes, you're judged by the character of your enemies.  

Duplicity

How transparently duplicitous can people really be? The Supreme Court is now being accused of trying to engineer a Trump election by taking a case relating to Presidential immunity that's of obviously vital Constitutional importance. And yet, somehow, when Trump objected to the alleged bias of a judge of Mexican descent, none other than then Vice-President Joe Biden called that "a dangerous attack on a vital pillar of democracy, the independent judiciary." Here, the baseless attack is on the Supreme Court itself. Sheesh - I guess everything OK to say when it's pro-left, and nothing's OK to say when it's pro-right. 

Haley's Exploding Comet

I'd like to address a number of justifications that Ms. Haley has suggested, or that others have suggested on her behalf, for her continued presence in the Republican primaries:

- She's impressive because she's the Last One Standing

That's complete nonsense.  She's the Last One Standing because she hasn't dropped out.  It's a totally self-fulfilling prophecy and self-effectuating result.  Anyone could do it.  Is there some type of impressiveness to the fact that Dean Phillips is the Last One Standing in the Democratic primaries?  Haley and Phillips can go all the way to their respective conventions if they want.  Just where is the accomplishment in that.  It's more like a little child stamping the child's feet and screaming, "No!"

- It's somehow a prideful thing to remain committed

Or maybe it's just silliness to keep banging one's head up against the wall when it's so obviously over.  Sticktoitiveness is one thing; childlike stubbornness quite another/

- She wants to be there to pick up the pieces if Trump somehow can't be the nominee

But she could've done that by dropping out after New Hampshire and then coming back in.  Too late now, I'd suggest; as others have said, at this point the nomination would go to someone else.

- She wants to be there to pick up the pieces in 2028

See immediately above.

- We need to give the voters a chance to vote

This one's hilarious.  We're told that the Party Elite and the polls shouldn't decide the candidate.  But, hey, now the voters have indeed spoken.  And the front-runner is winning not only every state but virtually every county.  It's like the statement, "we have to let the voters vote," is some strange kind of Orwellian gaslighting suggestion that's designed to establish the false premise that the voters haven't voted. 

- It's her duty to stay in to give the voters an alternative

Really?  She was appointed by whom for this sacred duty?  Why wasn't it the duty of the others who dropped out?  Freudians may need to redefine what is meant by the "ego".

- She said she'd stay in so she's staying in

Sheesh.

- She wants to run as the No Labels candidate

Honestly, this one in some ways makes the most sense.  However, she's clearly said that there's no way she'd run as a third-party candidate.  But - who knows?  Frighteningly, this is the one thing that really does scare me in terms of Trump's prospects for being returned to the Presidency.

- 40% is pretty good

Is it?  What about 30%?  20%?  10%?  Here again we seem to have an Orwellian effort to use the art of rhetorically setting low expectations in order to advance the notion that complete (and even record-setting) failure is somehow impressive success.

********************************************************

Many have tried to figure out what she really wants here.  Is she so angry with Trump that she wants to help Joe, in almost a NeverTrumper sort of way?  Let's hope not.  Unfortunately, though, if her message is that Trump can't win then she must be saying that Biden will.  But the notion that Trump "can't" win - putting aside the imponderable question of whether he will in fact win - is just patently absurd at this point.  We're well past there being any legitimacy to the assertion that he's literally unelectable.  

Anyway, with all that said, here's my draft of her Super Tuesday speech: "I said that I would stay in at least through Super Tuesday.  I'm a woman of my word.  I said I wanted to give the voters a chance to speak.  And now they have.  At this point, it is clear to me that there is no path to the nomination for me.  What's of the utmost important is that we not have four more years of Joe Biden.  And, while I'm deeply concerned about Donald Trump's ability to win in November, he is now our best and only chance to stop this country from spiraling further.  So, with that, I am suspending my campaign, and am urging my supporters to vote for Donald Trump in November.  Let's save America."  Something like that seems inevitable.  So why not go ahead and do it now?  It would've been nice if she gave us that after South Carolina.  Maybe she'll find a way after all to (wo)man up and give that to us before Super Tuesday.

A Special Conundrum; and Sanity at Oral Argument

So the Special Counsel's report is out. The aspects that jump out to me:

- This President can no longer act willfully?!?

- 1.  He will not be prosecuted (only) because by virtue of memory loss he's not responsible.  2.  Biden and his team vociferously deny the memory loss.  3.  Thus, he should be prosecuted?!?

As to the Trump/ballot question, it has seemed obvious to me since this whole question started that there's no way that people's rights to vote for a Presidential candidate cannot be left to the vagaries of how countless state and local elected and appointed individuals might choose to behave.  In the worst case, I lose my president because a single official in Maine (as an example) decides that people in Maine can't vote for Person X?  That's obviously absurd - Iran, Russia, Cuba and any number of banana republics could go to school on what's going on here.  But I confess that I didn't unpeel the onion for the technical underpinnings of what I saw as an obvious end result, and I was concerned.  Kudos to all the members of the Court for, each in his/her own way, cogently and crisply getting to the applicable rationale(s).  Obviously, whether it's a Dem or a Republican in the crosshairs (can ANYone take a principled position on ANYthing?!?), the result could not solely have been otherwise.  I hope they don't wind up implying that Congress could make this choice.  That would present similar (although not quite as out-of-control) possibilities.  Maybe they'll simply say they're not deciding the "what if Congress were to venture out" question.  But, thankfully, it looks like we're safe for now.  And, amusingly, in the "be careful for what you wish" department, this whole thing will shortly backfire (esp. with liberal Justices piling on) and play into Trump's (accurate) persecution narrative.  I guess I'll wait for all the commentator lawyers who got on the soapbox with errant analysis as to the obvious validity of what Colorado did to apologize for being, well, bad lawyers.  I'll be waiting a long time, I suspect.  Still no apologies for the Trump-is-a-Russian-spy nonsense.  It's going to be an interesting November.

Overshooting the Mark; Nikki, Trials and More Confusion

1.  Overshooting the Mark

OK, now look. I know that there are plenty of very smart people on the Left. I generally respect them greatly. And I'm quite used to being looked at like I'm insane when I disagree with them. After all, I just think what I think; they, on the other hand, are blessed to be objectively correct. Lucky folk, they are. 

But sometimes, they really do overshoot the mark. Examples: (i) Trump's a Russian spy and (ii) the Hunter laptop is Russian disinformation. Well, in those cases, they somehow successfully engineered a reversal at the mid-terms in 2018 and somehow successfully engineered a (maybe) Democratic victory in 2020. Gotta give 'em credit - very impressive. 

But the jig may now be up. I'm hearing that if Trump wins we will have seen the last American election. I'm hearing that if he wins it is - literally - the end of democracy. I'm hearing that if he wins the great American experiment is over. The complete (with all due respect) absurdity and inanity of those phantasmagorical surmises are flat-out jaw-dropping. Maybe Trump Derangement Syndrome really is a thing. Anyway, anyone other than those at the fringe will or at least should see the patent hilarity of these supposed eventualities. And, when they do, the Left will have yet again lost the middle. 

Looking forward to November. 

2.  Nikki and More Confusion

I've been getting more and more confused about the patent duplicitousness of certain arguments coming from the left. Now I've got to listen to the same kind of thing from Haley? Identity politics? The "fellas" have conspired against her? Really? So when they all turned away from her to Trump AND turned away from DeSantis that's somehow an attack on Haley as a woman? Or when DeSantis, who obviously has views that conform to Trump's, endorses Trump, that's because he's a "fella"? C'mon, Nikki. Maybe, just maybe, you picked the wrong year for this and by doing so put your entire once-promising political future in tremendous jeopardy. Maybe. 

3.  And yet more confusion. The question you hear being asked is - well, if he's convicted then at that point he can't still be supported, right? So I'm assuming that Mandela's conviction DQ'd him? Solzhenitsyn's? Etc.? The question obviously presupposes that the prosecutors and adjudicators are not politically motivated. So the answer to the question is, "C'mon, give me a break."

 

Leadership; Democracy; Climate Change

I'm so confused. And I think my confusion may well become a running theme here going forward. The duplicity is just so stunning. 

- So now we're to believe that strong charismatic leadership is a bad thing. Like, presumably, it was for JFK, Clinton and Obama. Sheesh. People who ascend to the top at least in part because of their magnitude and because of the devotion of their supporters are to be admired.

- On the following I'm far from the only one to notice. Trump is a threat to democracy? And so the way to deal with that is to get him off the ballot and try to jail him? That's just so transparent that it seems more like a joke. 

- Didn't we hear last year that the warm winter was proof positive that global warming was indeed upon us? As long as we're confusing causation with correlation, don't we now need to conclude that the threat of global warming is over? Just asking. 

- Why is every Democratic subpoena one that must be complied with for risk of jail, but every Republican subpoena is an abuse of power? Similarly, why is every Democratic change to the left an evolution, while every Republican change to the right is a flip-flop?

I would submit that I'm not the only one that's getting progressively (haha) more confused here. I think it's time for the Dems to come up with an issue other than "we really really hate Trump". Although they do seem to be running out of time. And the voters seem to have caught on. Looking like November may be fun, indeed.

Paths

I remember that 2016 Election Day moment in time (I believe it was when Wisconsin was called) where, in a Wag the Dog numerical sense, the media en masse came to the realization that, not only was it not the case that Trump had no path to election, but that indeed it was Hillary that had no path. I wonder if there'll come a 2024 point, indeed well before Election Day, that the media starts to settle into the somber realization that there's no path for Joe. I'm not saying we're there yet. I'm just wondering if (and when) we'll get there. Tick tock.