Elected

The theme song of this historic moment is right here.

It'll Be OK

Watching this incredible time in American politics, I'm struck by so much of the duplitiousness. I'm an especially big fan of the notion that whataboutism is somehow an invalid or otherwise bad thing - of course it's fair to point out that the speaker or the speaker's allies have the same infirmity being criticized. Yet somehow those on the Right aren't permitted to identify glass houses. And now we watch the defense of Biden's debate collapse. And we hear, "But what about the fact that Trump lied?" Funny - it's a whatabout that isn't even apples to apples; it's just pure deflection from an obvious (cheap fake?!?) catastrophe. (Putting aside for the moment the obvious truth thst hyperbole is not a lie.) And then there're the courts, a bastion of the Republic when they're attacking The Donald or are otherwise Left, and an institution to be torn down (from the top, no less) when their decisions help him or are otherwise to the Right.

But, for me, the duplicitousness isn't even the main thing. It's this absolutely hysterical notion that the other (i.e., non-Trump) candidate just has to win, lest democracy and the country have seen their last appearances on Earth. Trump may win. Trump may lose. It'll be OK, in terms of the Eternal Timeline. I've got otherwise reasonable friends who've said things like, "There will never be another election [if Trump wins]." Oh my. What utter absurdity. I guess it's just a specific application of TDS, because it speaks less of hatred (you go, Joy) - which I sorta get, but it really is getting crazier out there - and more of downright lunacy, which is harder for me to understand. 

It's really sorta funny, in that arguably the far more cogent concern is that the future is being endangered by a rudderless administration the has opened the southern border and is the laughing stock of some not-so-nice world leaders. But i won't make that argument here, as it's inconsistent with my thesis above that: it'll be OK. 

See you in November . . .

An Anti-Trump Rogue's Gallery

Back in 2020, Avanatti and Parnas were part of a virtual Rogue's Gallery of clowns paraded around in an effort to denegrate Trump. Now we get Cohen and Daniels and Carroll and Omarosa (Omarosa?!?). Are they kidding? I guess when you hate someone enough, you'll reach for literally any source no matter how absurdly incredible, and then pretend the sources are credible. And I guess they really do believe we're all that stupid. Sheesh. Onwards to November . . .

MTG Unites the Republican Party

Marjorie Taylor Greene has succeeded in uniting the Republican Party. 196-11. Very impressive. Who'd'a thunk it? Even the cretinous Matt Gaetz participated in the show of unity behind the extraordinaryMike Johnson. Thank you, Marjorie? Can we now please move on to a functioning government led by 45/47? 

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.

To Support Or Not To Support

In that I'm a New Yorker, I'm asked every now and then how I can possibly continue to support our President. Hmm, lemme see.

Booming economy. Absurdly low unemployment, including among virtually all minority groups. A rising stock market. A tax cut that's resulted in record tax revenues. Increased respect for law enforcement. Massive deregulation. Two undeniably qualified Supreme Court justices. The decimation of ISIS. A pending recut of the Mexico/Canada trade deal. Advancing trade talks with China. Improved border security. A dialogue with North Korea. A reinvigorated military. Increased monetary participation in NATO by US allies. Movement of the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, as promised, followed by official recognition that Assad's Syria doesn't have the Golan Heights.

And, just to say it - no collusion; no obstruction; much embarrassment for out-of-touch newspeople.

To come - health care, infrastructure, etc.

A bonus? - a consistent procession of some pretty funny tweets.

The alternative to all this? Sanders, Warren, AOC & Co.?!?

I think the right question turns out to be - how can I NOT support this President?!?!? 

Walls, Witch Hunts and Word Games

Several linguistic/logical exercises for you.

First, on The Wall. I'd like to ask a question. Now the question is a pure hypothetical, but please don't answer that the premise is impossible so the question isn't worth answering. The question is designed to hone an issue. And the question is, "If The Wall cost $100, would you still object to its being built. It's a critical question. If the answer's "yes", then I guess you really do believe that The Wall is, somehow, magically - immoral. But if the answer's "no", as it would almost undoubtedly be for most objectioners (doesn't it really HAVE to be "no"?!?), then the issue is brought into clarity. And the issue is cost. So, if indeed the issue is cost, shouldn't the debate shift from "should it be built" to "can it reasonably be financed"?* Just askin' . . .

Now onto the notion of a "witch hunt". This one's bizarre to me, and no one's called anyone out on it. The narrative goes that because there have been indictments, guilty pleas and the like, regarding ANYthing, then by definition the Mueller probe is not a witch hunt. But that's absurd. The basic nature of a witch hunt is that you're looking for things that DID happen so as to debilitate someone you hate. To wit, suppose that you want to fire the CEO of X Corp., and then if the CEO is fired without cause the CEO will get $30MM in severance. But if the CEO is fired with cause the CEO gets nothing. So you scour the records and find a receipt for $10 spent on non-business food and a video record of the taking of a stapler for the CEO's child. Both ARE clear violations of company policy, implicating such things as fraud and embezzlement. But do they justify a $30MM forfeiture? THAT's the nature of a witch hunt. Sure the CEO did those things. Something was bound to be uncovered, arguably. But are we left a with a "so what" or something more. So the right focus is not on whether the Mueller probe is yielding indictments or pleas, or even convictions, but whether, let's say, the issues rise to a sufficient level of importance or whether the issues are even remotely germane to the purpose of the inquiry (which I guess (silly me) I thought was collusion).** Now, we can debate and argue those points. But please don't tell me that because some kind of something was uncovered that's per se proof that the Mueller probe isn't a witch hunt.


__________
* This sorta reminds me of the old inappropriate sexist joke that goes something like: "Will you sleep with me for $1MM?" "Sure." "OK, great. Will you sleep with me for $1?" "OMG, no. What kind of a girl do you think I am?!?" "We've already established that. Now, we're just haggling over price."

** Can you say, "Monica Lewinsky"? Wasn't that probe supposed to be about Whitewater?

The Parties of . . .

Well, with the mid-terms coming up, maybe this space needs to be rejuvenated.  So, with that in mind, I'd like to take stock of for what our two parties stand.  I'll try to summarize:

1.  The Republicans, the party of -

- historically low unemployment figures

- a raging stock market
- lower taxes
- deregulation
- a decimated ISIS
- revised trade agreements
- continuing discussion with North Korea
- stronger borders
- recognizing Jerusalem as capital and moving the embassy
- law enforcement
- a conservative Supreme Court

2.  The Democrats, the party of -

- alleged Russian collusion

- impeachment efforts, now on multiple fronts
- antagonism towards fraternity drinking
- wealth redistribution, maybe sorta
- ironic tolerance for those like Keith Ellison
- keeping together families illegally crossing the border into this country
- Colin Kaepernick
- a liberal Supreme Court

I'm serious - other than a liberal Supreme Court, for what DOES the Democratic party really stand, in terms of issues?  Is it really possible that people will vote Democrat in the mid-terms, despite all that's being accomplished, just because they hate our President on some kind of personal level?  They'll just cast the proverbial vote AGAINST.  And they'll do that without anything FOR which to vote.  I really hope not.  People, if that's what you ultimately decide to do, be careful for what you wish (as Metallica said, you just might get it) . . .

Referendums, MGGA, 2018, MAGA and 2020

We seem to be back in election mode.  So, how'd we do in that Georgia referendum?  Or maybe, given the result, it wasn't a referendum after all?!?  Hmm.  Some possible lessons, from a red map that just doesn't seem to want to quit:

1.  MGGA (thank you, Georgia)
2.  2018
3.  MAGA
4.  2020

Onwards . . .

A Glimpse of One Possible Future

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding on the Left.  The idea is that people generally are upset with Mr. Trump and his Administration.  Well, the upset, I think, is confined to a little dot on the map known as Manhattan, one on the west coast covering La La Land, and another couple of dots spotting places like Philly, Detroit, Milwaukee, etc.  Elsewhere, I think people continue to be quite happy.  And that was even before what may be a speech that's in contention for the Best Speech to a Joint Session of Congress Ever Made.

So what I'd like is, if I may, a date or two or three - or four - with one or more of my friends on The Left.  Here're my proposals.  Let's get together when the Dow gains another 300 or so points.  And let's also get together right after the 2018 mid-term elections.  Then let's get together, oh, maybe in October/November of 2020.  And once more after almost eight years of prosperity and ever-increasing national and global safety.

Let's, together, reflect on to where we've gotten, and to where we're going.  Lookin' forward to our chats, my friends on The Left. . . .

A Christmas Wish on the Highway to Hell

So Alex Baldwin has offered to sing Highway to Hell at Trump's inauguration.  Plea to The Donald - ACCEPT THIS OFFER!!!  I cannot imagine a better way to make the Greatest Inauguration Ever even better.  The table-turning aspects of the acceptance of the this entreaty would be mind-numbing.  Two suggestions - (i) do it early in the celebration in case the idea goes awry and (ii) have careful control over the mike so that if/when Alec tries to proselytize he can be silenced.  Blood in the sky, baby; blood in the streets - for those about to rock, we salute you!!  Merry Christmas, all . . .

Marco's Revenge and the Race to the Bottom

I guess it's a familiar refrain for me, but - are we kidding?!?  So we're now poised to lose as a State Department nominee one of the most capable people in the entire world.  President of the Boys Scouts.  Leader of one of the most incredible companies ever.  A man of incontrovertible class and ethics.

Over what?  Over the fact that he has an excellent relationship with one of the three most significant world powers on the global stage?  Yet again, we have these people, including Republicans like Marco Rubio, believing that, somehow, what's best for the leadership of this country, is a situation where the people running it have no real-world experiences, and no real-world successes.  No, we don't want to have people running this apparatus who have massively succeeded in this world.  We would rather have people that the world has never rewarded with anything other than a political job.

All of which is consistent with this Shaming of Success that we've seen ever since Mitt Romney ran for President.  Somehow, being a world-beater has become bad.  We're seeing it again now, with complaints about a Cabinet of Billionaires.  Do you know how people become billionaires?  They're really really really (really!) good at what they do.  The thought of having this country run, for the very first time, by the Best and the Brightest should be something that we all embrace.  Why is government run so poorly?  Maybe it's because governmental jobs don't pay much and - no offense - maybe the world's most capable people don't actively gravitate to the least paying jobs.  Maybe.

We've recently seen people who are enormously successful take on government roles.  Mayor Bloomberg is an example.  President Trump is another one.  And now we have a collection of successes willing to serve in the Cabinet.  Not only is this not a bad thing; it's an absolutely terrific thing.  A thing to be treasured.  Disdaining success is nothing short of surreal.  A race to the bottom is one thing.  Here we have a downright contest for incompetence. 

It's time to stop looking a gift horse in the mouth.  If it's being suggested that Tillerson will sell us down the river to his buddies, the Russians, well, then, I'll suggest that the suggestion is plainly moronic.  If it's being suggested that he will conduct himself in a way that's intended to enhance his own personal finances, well, then, I'll suggest that the suggestion is downright insulting.  Contentions like these show the naïveté and immaturity of politicians who see the world through only the prism of their own life experiences.  After all, if they are running the country without even a hint of experiences that might actually amount to anything, then it must be the case that anyone with valuable experiences is to be cast aside, right?  Amazing.

So just like we got Scalia after we rejected Bork, let's see what we get after we reject Tillerson.  Bolton?  Giuliani?  Be careful for what you wish, oh Naysayers.

Maybe I haven't made clear how I really feel.  But I tried.

Happy Holidays!  (Indeed, Merry Christmas!)

You Lost

OK, listen, here it is - you lost. ‎ Let's go through some of this -

- Pruitt for EPA.  He feels that the EPA has overreached.  S‎hocking.  Someone who believes is lesser (more balanced?) environmental regulation has been proposed for appointment by a Republican president-elect.  Not a member of the vaunted and undoubtedly to-be worshiped Green Party?  Shocking.  Hard to believe.  Oh, that's right, I forgot . . . Hillary didn't win.

- Sessions for attorney general.  He has a long and distinguished career, but does not believe that chasing down every racial, ethnic and behavioral identifying characteristic is necessarily a sacrosanct endeavor.  A‎ conservative early supporter of the Republican president-elect has been proposed for appointment.  Not Eric Holder for a return tour?  All of this is shocking.  Hard to believe.  Oh, that's right, I forgot . . . Hillary didn't win.

- Flynn for NSA.  A man who believes that the Muslim approach is more political than religious.  And believes that the credo is dangerous.  (Can we get a cogent and staid debate on points of view along those lines, please?)  Should the NSA have been someone who's afraid to utter the words‎, "radical Islamic terrorism"?  All of this is shocking.  Hard to believe.  Oh, that's right, I forgot . . . Hillary didn't win.

- Pudzer for Labor.  He's against an increase in the minimum wage, as are many people not registered as Democrats.  H‎e's against other employee protections that, while well-intentioned, may well wind up hurting businesses and therefore employees.  And he likes advertisements with pretty girls.  Not Michael Moore?  All of this is shocking.  Hard to believe.  Oh, that's right, I forgot . . . Hillary didn't win.

- Etc., etc., etc.

And frankly it's not merely that Hillary didn't win.  The down-ballot Democrats got wiped out.  R‎epublicans trounced in the governors' mansions and state legislatures.  And Hillary won only a microscopic number of counties across this Great Land, if you look at the county-by-county electoral map‎.  

‎I guess I'm starting to understand the so-fun-to-watch weeping and crying of ever so many Hillary supporters on The Day After.  They were at the early stages of understanding that their Team maybe just might not make it into positions from which they could govern.  Then I guess they forgot or refused to accept or whatever, and so react with shock and amazement as every appointment incomprehensively turns away from their failed agenda.  As Capt. Louis Renault said as he entered the casino, "I am shocked - shocked - to find that gambling is going on here."

It's all getting really old.  And it may well even start to cost them yet more votes and more seats.  Maybe, just maybe, it's time to start getting just a little constructive.  Get over it, folks; you lost.
‎

A Look Back, from The (Not So) Lone Trumper

When Trump first announced, I thought it was a joke. In fact, that's what I told my teenage son, when he asked me. Trump had tried to run four years ago, and that foray was over in a blink. This was just a replay. Or so I thought.

And then Trump won New Hampshire. Odd, but somewhat believable. After all, we were still in the Northeast.

But then he won South Carolina, and I knew right then that this was "game on". Not so funny anymore. And so I started to listen to what he was saying. Carefully. I found myself in essential agreement with virtually all of the high-level perspectives expressed over the course of the campaign by our president-elect. And, having nothing to do with my own personal preferences, I quickly saw that this guy was the guy to beat in the Republican primaries.

Fast forward now, to Election Day. I was sad. The polls were so uniform in Hillary's favor, with maybe an exception or two, both as a national matter and in the battleground states. Every four years they say that this is The Year That The Polls Could Be Wrong. And yet the polls never really seem to wind up being fundamentally incorrect.

Regardless, I held out some hope that this year could indeed be The Year. I focused on two factors: the potential unwillingness of people to admit they were going to vote for him, and the potentially wild unpredictability of this year's turnout in any number of key demographics.‎ But, heading into Election Night, the overwhelming uniformity of the polls left me deflated.

Then, Election Night arrived.  It was an interesting flow, to say the least, starting with the closeness of Virginia. I was so consumed with worrying about The Donald's path that I focused only on the result. With virtually no time left on the clock, Virginia fell to Hillary. I was sad, again. I thought of the 20-point underdog in the first round of the NCAAs that takes the top seed into double-overtime, only to lose by one. An opportunity lost, yet again. (sigh)

I later heard someone say that Virginia was actually the end for Hillary. The comment was that, if Virginia could possibly have been that close, especially given the choice of a popular Virginian as a running mate, then the rest of the map would surely spiral out of control for Hillary. As things ultimately unfolded, that observation turned out to be perceptive in the extreme.

Things stayed pretty tight‎, but, for what seemed like days, nothing really happened. Until - Fox called Wisconsin for Trump. I, quite literally, physically launched off my viewing perch, in utter disbelief, realizing that he really could, and now indeed probably would, win this thing. Wisconsin?!? Seriously? Wisconsin wasn't even in the dialogue (unless, apparently, your name was Kellyanne).

Soon thereafter, the commentators awkwardly starting talking about Hillary's campaign in the past tense. And then Jake Tapper said that the path he was having trouble seeing was Hillary's. And then, in a blink, as the dominoes fell, it really was over. ‎Wow.

‎Ultimately, the win was one of overwhelming breadth. Look at the county-by-county election results. If you sheer off a sliver of blue in the northeast just west of the Long Island Sound, and a sliver of blue in LA LA Land, the map is essentially uniformly red. The House is strongly Republican. The Senate stays Republican (and, given the seats about to open up, seems likely to continue to stay that way). Statehouses are predominantly Republican. Remember the eulogies for the Republican party, focusing on some combination of a Hillary landslide and a downballot wipeout? Now, after the Election, can you say, . . . "Mandate"?

The irony of having gone from hearing about the impending demise of the Republican party at the hands of Mr. Trump, to hearing about the Democrat's debacle presided over by The Divine Mrs. Clinton, pushed me to do some reflecting about my experiences over the last several months as The Lone Trumper in a bastion of liberalness. So here goes.

First off, I am not a racist, I am not a bigot, I am not a misogynist, I am not uneducated, I am not disaffected, I am not downtrodden, I am not scared. The narrative goes that every supporter of Trump is either ‎a Nazi-like horror show or utterly beaten down by the world around him or her. Not so fast, kemo sabe.

The hubris of the left here is reflected by its view that, as a Trump supporter, I  must be in one or more of the foregoing categories, which range from horribly insulting to grossly patronizing. I'm either a Deplorable (thank you for that, Hillary) or a loser. But you want to know something? - I'll put my morality, approach, judgment, intellect and lot in life up against theirs, any day. Looking around at my life and family, and seeing the shambles in which so many of them (surely, though, in fairness, not all of them) find theirs, I enthusiastically accept that challenge.
‎
‎People on the left are just floored by the demographic numbers, especially in the case of women and Latinos. How could they possibly ever support this monster? Don't they understand? How could they so easily be conned?

I have some somber news on this point - these . . . voters . . . are not idiots and, moreover, don't need the left's help.  Maybe, just maybe, those who voted for him, including the women, Latinos and blacks that did so, actually agree with and support him. Early on, months ago, I suggested in a post that Trump's performance among Latinos, blacks and even possibly women might be better than expected, in which case those votes would seal the deal. That turned out to be spot on (which is pretty amazing, since I'm correct about once every three years).

But Trump's inroads into the groups that presumably supported Hillary doesn't by itself explain this wide-ranging victory. Sure, there are any number of disaffected and downtrodden people to whom Donald Trump powerfully spoke. I'm so glad he did, and it's about time. But this red map from coast to coast - well maybe just-off-the-coast to just-off-the-coast - did not get cobbled together without the help of solid everyday people who just happened, by some strange an inexplicable happenstance, to agree with him. The coalition, or whatever it is, includes more components than the left seems willing to acknowledge and accept. ‎Together with rock-solid Republican support, it all added up to: President Trump.

But there continues to be disbelief. Hey, maybe the answer is that Hillary was a flawed candidate, allowing anyone, simply anyone, to walk in the door. Yeah, that's the ticket (apologies to Jon Lovitz) - people didn't like Trump, and they held their noses and just voted against Hillary. Or because Hillary was so awful maybe they all simply stayed home.

Or maybe, just maybe, Trump earned the votes that he got, from the Republican primaries to and through the Election. Hillary, quite frankly, is an intelligent woman with experience in national affairs that is virtually unsurpassed. I get the fact that she wasn't the perfect candidate, but, again, the focus on her flaws is yet another part of the smokescreen being erected to obscure the fact that Trump, other than on the outermost edges of this great country of ours, simply killed this thing.

I was struck as all this evolved by the fact that, while I was more than happy politely to listen to commentary in support of Hillary, I was met with complete revulsion at my utterance of any words in favor of Mr. Trump. The cost of support for Trump was being labeled as some kind of prehistoric cretin (ordinarily a label for me reserved for use by my wife). The shallowest of the anti-Trumpers expressed amazement and concern for my mental well-being, wondering how someone with a family and an education who was doing alright economically could possibly support this aberrational candidate. It was like I was some kind of sociological experiment gone wrong.

And then would come noise and amazement about how anyone could like a guy that said this about this group or that about that person or the other about who knows what. "This is no reality show," I'd hear. Lighten up, folks. He's funny. Really funny. That's allowed. Get over yourselves. Oh, and by the way, what we've got here now is not a reality show, it's just . . . reality.

Anyway, eventually, rather than getting into the weeds regarding specific issues (did you notice that towards the end of the campaign Trump was the only one talking policy and, as they say, "go[ing] high"?), I went to an extremely baseline point.  "Listen," I'd say, "at this point, he's the Republican nominee. At an absolute minimum, I simply do not have to be for your candidate. I'm allowed to be for the 'other' one." I was convinced, silly me, that I just didn't have to be "with her".

Now that novel concept - that there actually were two serious candidates running - would sometimes get grudging acceptance, but it would often be followed by disbelief that, not only was I willing to vote for Mr. Trump, but I actually enthusiastically supported him. The self-absorbtion on the other side was palpable. It was like I needed those with remaining sanity somehow to guide me back to the Light. While I truly appreciate all the concern, though, I'm alright, don't nobody worry about me (apologies to Kenny Loggins).

So I'll deal with my peers viewing me as some kind of mental defective because I actually like the incoming President of the United States of America.  Indeed, I like him quite a lot.

I guess I'll just have to make peace with all of this.  I'm not sure how I'll get there, but I'll try. Oh, wait, I know: to quote the indefatigable Walter White, "I win."  

Election Night

Not literally 100% over just yet, but I have three quick thoughts:

1.  Wow.

2.  He only had one set of people on his side.  Only one.  The voters.

3.  I would like Billy Bush to be President Trump's press secretary.

Well, maybe a third thought - woo hooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!

Nightie night - gotta go watch the intelligentsia crumble and disintegrate.

Trumpelstiltskin signing off . . .

Deplorables II (and III and IV)

So it turns out that The Real Deplorables are at the DNC, at the DOJ and inside the Clinton campaign‎?!?  Really?  Wow.  Once again - who'da thunk it?  Onwards . . . 

‎

Debating Two Against One

Hillary did a really nice job in the Hofstra debate - maybe better than that.  Good for her.   ‎

‎

And while I'm not suggesting that a fair fight would've been any different, it is quite something that Mr. Trump in these things is essentially fighting a two-against-one fight.   There were three notable and incredibly inappropriate run-ins with the supposedly sage and impartial Lester "Candy" Holt, as follows:

‎

1.  Stop-and-Frisk.  Holt asserted that the policy was held to be unconstitutional.   In fact, it was held unconstitutional by an activist and discredited judge in a decision that was angrily reversed by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; after which Mayor di Blasio chose not to protect the City's options by abandoning the case.  Trump completely and accurately explained all that, but appeared to be arguing with some kind of deux-ex-machina Voice of Reason, who turned out to be an ignorant shill for a specific agenda. ‎

‎

2.  The Iraq War.  T‎rump has always been against the Iraq war, and in fact has strongly criticized Pres. (W.) Bush for the effort, to the consternation of many Republicans.  There is a single one-second throw-away line in a Howard Stern interview where, if one wanted to magnify the significance of that moment out of all conceivable rational proportion, it can be argued that there was a stand-alone statement of some vacillation.  Putting aside completely the proper resolution of that argument, Trump obviously should not have had to debate the point with the supposed . . . moderator.  ‎

‎

3.  The Birther Controversy.  There is legitimate controversy surrounding who promoted the birther controversy, with one possibility being the '08 Clinton campaign against Obama.  The issue is a complicated and nuanced one, and the small point here is that it's not up to the . . . moderator . . . to debate (yes, debate!) the point

So, at least in part, the moderator let his own views get the better of him and decided to go two-on-one against Trump with the other presidential candidate - on issues where he was somewhere between flat-out wrong or clearly uneducated, and was, at an absolute minimum, not right.  The words "shut up" come to mind.   ‎

Two more of these left to go.  Wow - I'm exhausted already.  I need a 400-pound hacker to fix the messaging.  

Onwards . . . ‎

No One There to Catch Her? - the Role of Big Mo'

People have correctly noted how there are ebbs and flows in elections, and, indeed, no one has shown that more than Donald Trump in this very cycle.  And so the question inevitably arises - if Trump comes out of the Debate with momentum, can this thing again bounce back the other way, towards and in favor of Clinton.  I respectfully suspect that the answer may well be, "no", because this situation is not like the other situations to which people point.  The most clear example of a bounce-back is after Obama's debacle (that's "debacle", not "debate") performance against Mitt Romney (remember him?).  Obama came back quickly, after the next debate.  But, here's the thing: Obama is incredibly likeable and incredibly charismatic, and had and has broad and strong affirmative support.  Reagan's early missteps against Carter and the subsequent path taken by the electorate resonate similarly.  Clinton, on the other hand, is despised and distrusted, and has an ever-shrinking and incredibly unenthusiastic core of support.  Pennsylvania is coming; even Colorado is coming.  The trappings of this situation has all the hallmarks of what happens when someone that no one like missteps and falters, . . . there simply may be no one there to catch her and break her fall.  And, if that's right, then you have a free fall, and one that is difficult or impossible to reverse.  But step one for The Donald is clearly, without a doubt, for him to come out of Hofstra with Big Mo'.  Can he do it?  Stay tuned, folks, it just may be about to get interesting.  Game on!

Sound Bites I'd Like to See

I don't know about y'all, but I'm actually surprised at the extent to which the run-up to this debate has actually been on the high-road side.  This whole cycle is the most amazing thing ever.  As Mark Twain said (this could be a paraphrase, so don't hold me to the exact words), the difference between fiction and reality is that fiction has to be credible.

Anyway, here are some sound bites I'd like to see at this upcoming Debate of All Debates:

- Stronger together?  Sure, that may be so when the person with whom you're working isn't a pathologically crazy person who is trying to kill you.  When someone comes after you wielding a knife, it's not the time to invite them over to a sit-down.  Just like the notion of keeping law-breakers out of our space is somehow the building of inappropriate walls rather than wonderful, happy bridges.  Your naivety is as reckless as it is dangerous.

- And, speaking of working together - you talk about an atmosphere of respect?  You're the one who calls me a reality-TV star.  I am the Republican nominee for President of the United States of America.  You call my supporters deplorable.  They are hard-working Americans.  I've identified things you've actually done, and you hurl insults.  Please show some respect.

- I will put my record regarding women up against yours anytime.  I have women in senior positions throughout my business network, and, with no offense to my two grown boys, my beloved daughter Ivanka may well be my most trusted advisor.  You, on the other hand, were in the White House at a time when we saw what was arguably the most ugly and unfair abuse of sexual power in a workplace environment in the history of the world, and probably participated in the efforts to control the fallout.  I'll take my record over yours any day.

- You think that I hope someone shoots you?  That is so ridiculous and offensive that it is shameful.  I should not have to utter the obvious words that I do not wish any violence of any kind on you, but I'll utter them, because of the things you've said.  I do not wish any violence of any kind on you.  Just like I hope that, if you're elected, you are not physically frail and do not take ill.  These are obvious things and should not need to be said, but I guess in the poisonous atmosphere you're created here I have not choice but to say them.

- I've had companies go bankrupt?  Of course I have.  The capitalist system permits investors to invest and to try . . . and to fail.  I have, clearly, succeeded overall.  It would shock me if any one of your larger donors have not had at least one failed effort.  It's worth mentioning that this bankruptcy system is largely informed by the preferences of Democrats in Congress over the years.  I guess only Democrats should use the system?  And we're worried about creditors being left holding the bag?  These are banks that understand the risks of lending to corporations, and protect themselves as they see fit in extensive documents negotiated by high-paid lawyers.  We're supposed to cry for them when there's a loss among all their gains?  But I guess I would not expect you to understand these things.  You haven't grown one significant business venture, or created any significant amount of jobs, in your entire life.

- Madam Secretary, I would not even pretend to have the kind of detailed understand of the inner workings of government that you have.  What I have is an understanding of process, and a set of judgments as to how I think things should be.  Whatever you think of how I've run my business empire, I'm now going to put my skills and approaches to work for the American people.  To our enemies, I would not want to be on the other side of that.  We've had a history of insiders who understand government all to well trying to make a go of it, and we now are where we are.  It's time to try something else.

I guess we'll know a lot more after tomorrow night!  Woo hoo . . .

The NFL, President Obama and . . . Radical IslamicTerrrorism

It is sometimes so painful to watch the media unable or at least unwilling to report things as they are, when those things don't align with the media's politically-correct preferred narrative.  So it turns out that the President's taped 9/11 message was booed at a number of NFL games.

The media's response?  Those wacky fans.  Some misguided notion of NFL-style patriotism.  Some amorphous unfortunate lack of respect.

No!  No no no no no!!  Those are NOT the explanations.  The explanation is that, on this most solemn of all solemn days, we have a president giving a homily who will not use the words "radical Islamic terrorism" to describe what this world is facing.  So there are people that don't want to hear him on 9/11.  That's why.*

Get over yourselves, people - this country is fed up, and, come Election Day, may well not be willing to take it anymore.

_________
* And while the President bolsters the back-up quarterback and his minions and other supporters for disrespecting this country, we have, in pointed contrast, Donald Trump calling out that disrespect.  I respect their right to pipe up - there is no bigger supporter of the right to Free Speech than I - but there are consequences to one's exercise of that right.  In addition, we (and that includes the President) should remember that the right to Free Speech is in respect of governmental interference.  Private citizens are generally free to address the speech of others as they see fit.  It will be interesting to see how NFL fans react to the efforts of these self-appointed (and quite wealthy) protesters, indeed on 9/11 itself.

Hillary's Health - Conspiracy Theories, or Just Plain Ol' Theories?

So Hillary Clinton gets sick and goes home from a solemn and extremely significant 9/11 event.  And those who wonder aloud about her health are immediately labeled conspiracy theorists.  Well, let's deconstruct that:

1.  What if she IS of uncertain health?  Well then focusing upon that isn't something to be done by the Lunatic Fringe, but rather is something to be done by any right-minded (and that's correctly minded, not conservatively minded) American voter.  Especially given that completely useless vice-presidential nominee, questions surrounding Hillary's health are OF COURSE legitimate.  As I addressed in a previous post (along with a Seinfeld reference, to boot), allegations are not specious if they're true!  And the fact that she felt the need to leave such an important event can only increase the appropriate focus on this question.  She did look totally burnt out when she offered up her "despicables" gaffe, and one has to wonder if all of this is starting to get to her.  Well, I don't want someone in that office who can be reached in this way.

2.  So now let's say that she isn't overly sick.  Well, then, the question turns to - how could she leave such an important event if she really didn't have to do so?  Maybe that's even worse than the alternative.  She gets so flustered by less-than-urgent health matters that she has to absent herself from the "room"?!?  Well, isn't THAT scary?!?  She really needs to woman-up, if she's going to make the case that she should be The President Of The United States of America.

Either way, this is a lose-lose for Hillary.  And when you add the "despicables" gaffe to the mix, it's lose-lose-lose.  In that I'm clearly  one of the "despicables", who clearly is either a racist bigot or who is so overwhelmed by governmental mistreatment that he can't see straight, and who in any event is clearly and utterly irreparably unintelligent, I feel compelled to say, "OK now, Donald, you go, boy."

The Hillary of the Vanities

OK, so we now have two insults staring the non-left American electorate in the face.  Let's deconstruct them both in four or less sentences (each).

1.  Trump's supporters are a "basket of deplorables".  The guy won the Republican primary going away - a veritable stomping - and is just about even in polls for the general election.  The "deplorables" comment is just another example of the Left's guiding principle that: "If you don't agree with me, you are an idiot and a moron [(yes, both)], and are otherwise indistinguishable from Attila the Hun."  Well, I politely beg to differ.

2.  The lack of "respect" being shown for President Obama and the "office of the Presidency" by the Right is somehow shameful and unpatriotic.  Really?  Can we look forward to Democratic support for Trump and the "Office of the Presidency" if Hillary loses?!?  Yeah, sure, right.

Goose/gander, and all that rot.  There's nothing Correct about the Left.  There's just a point of view - and maybe, just maybe, one that's not shared by every intelligent, capable and sensitive American across country.  Vanity is a dangerous characteristic.  See you in November . . .

Still Yet More Demagoguery

The demagoguery keeps coming. Now the idea is that, if Donald Trump levered any particular thing of which he is against, that is somehow  internally inconsistent or otherwise duplicitous.‎ That's hilarious. There is nothing at all wrong with living in a world within its rules, and simultaneously arguing that the rules should be changed. If you happen not to believe that mortgage interest should not be tax-deductible because the tax code should single out that particular type of real-estate expense, does that really mean that you shouldn't take the deduction if you have a mortgage?!? C'mon, people - please stop saying that kind of nonsense. If Trump can only compete in a world of low-cost labor by hiring low-cost labor, then compete he must - and it is completely consistent with that behavior to argue for rules that prohibit or at least discourage the use of such labor. Sheesh.

Misdirection As An Art Form

Let's see.  I steal from someone.  And then someone records me doing so.  And then I get caught.  So now, rather than focusing on my crime, I take offense at the person who recorded me.

If the DNC has any success redirecting attention from itself to the Russians (and to Trump) in the wake of the latest email scandal, that would be just amazing.  Artfully done, to be sure.  But amazing.

Fear Mongering? Really?!?

This would be hilarious if it weren't so tragically and dangerously sad.  Giuliani and Gingrich take the podium to worry us about barely (or maybe non-) human cretins blowing us up, and that's then labeled as "fear mongering."

OK, so here's the way this really shakes out.  If someone says to you, "Don't go outside because there might be bad people afoot who want to hurt you," that may well be conspiracy-theory fear mongering.  I get that.  But if someone says, "Steer clear of Charles Manson," well, that's simply good, smart advice.  Newsflash - if someone says to you, "Run, there's someone coming after you with a machete," then you . . . ahem . . . run.  It's just not fear mongering if it's true.*

Hey, guess what?  These crazies DO want to blow us up.  And they DO have the resolve to do so.  And they DO have the ability to do so.  1+1+1=3.  This is not fear mongering, but rather is simply good, smart caution.

I'll go you one step further: the opposite approach is irresponsible complacency.  And, indeed, that irresponsible complacency starts with the demagogic, dismissive labeling of on-the-money cautionary statements about extremist jihadi terrorists as being "fear mongering."

Geez, when will the politically-correct apologists wake the heck up?!?  I would've thought that the umpteenth incomprehensible set of pointless mass (and other) murders might have been a sufficient wake-up call . . . but I guess not. 

_________
*  Shades of Seinfeld's notion that, if you believe it, it's not a lie?

The Melania Dust-Up

So let's assume (without deciding) that "the" passage from Melania's beautiful speech was indeed lifted from Michelle Obama's.  If that's the case, then I believe that (i) no professional would make that mistake and (ii) no double-agent intentionally torpedoed Melania.  So, if all that's right, . . . what the heck happened? 

I imagine the following backstory.  At a point at which Melania's speech was almost done, she pulled up Obama's powerful and effective words from 2008.  I think that they resonated with Melania.  I'm guessing that, at that critical juncture, Melania decided that she would use those words - unaware that, in the world she has now entered, doing so is considered to be inappropriate (to say the least) plagiarism.

If my imagined world indeed reflects reality, Melania and the Trump camp had a way out.  Moreover, I think that way out is still available, although I acknowledge that it won't be available for long.  My path forward?  It would be for Melania say something along the lines of:

"I would like to explain what happened regarding my speech of the other night.  I am still learning the rules of the world that I have now entered.  I do not have a background or the education that would fully prepare me for my new role.  I was working to finalize my speech, which had been prepared by me with the help of others.  I came upon Michelle Obama's beautiful words from 2008.  They spoke to me, and I wanted to honor and use them.  I finished my speech by adding those words.  I meant no disrespect and, quite the opposite, I meant only the utmost respect.  I see now that what I did was wrong.  But it was done with the best of intentions, and I hope you understand.  All of this is hard for me to admit now, especially with all that's been said, but I want to be open and honest with everyone.  My apologies to Michelle and to all of you, and I wish you all the best."

I do still think that there's time for something like this.  I hope it happens.  There is nothing wrong with praising Obama's elegant presentation of several years ago, and, frankly, there's a lot right about doing so.  Melania should be oh-so-proud of her own presentation, and I look forward to a time at which she is again back in the saddle.

Flexibility

So now the anti-Trumpsters have homed in on the notion that Trump may not inflexibly insist that every single position he stakes out will be implemented as proposed.  That's presented as somehow being evidence that he's a bait-and-switch guy.

Really?  You've got to be kidding.  For years we've gotten nothing but complaints of gridlock on the Beltway - that extremists in power just dig in their heels with the result that, in the absence of a middle, nothing whatsoever gets done.

With that background, Trump comes along and describes policies he prefers, some of which are surely extreme, but increasingly indicates that he's open to discussing and massaging those policies.  I saw this coming in my very first post.  So the ship would get steered toward his policies, which may actually be fundamentally preferable policies (certainly, it's starting to look like the electorate thinks so), but possibly with substantial refinements incorporated out of deference for the strongly-held beliefs of those on the other side.  

This is bad?!?  That he's willing to discuss, cajole, negotiate, etc., to get things actually done is somehow a negative?  Flexibility, then, is a trait to be disdained.  Yeah.  Right.

I guess the Republican nominee's head of steam is becoming a bit daunting.  But do the people looking for anything . . . anything . . . insulting to say about him pause for even a second to think about what they're actually saying?  Grasping at straws in the face of is one thing, but the attempted vilification of a willingness to be flexible is hilarious, just hilarious.

Polls

In a prior post, I gave you an advance taste of how fast the polling numbers would show that Mr. Trump is a formidable candidate, and then some.  I surmised that early polling after his securing of the nomination would probably have him down only in the range of 46-for-Clinton to 41-for-Trump.  I guess I was wrong.  Today's polling?  Trump at 45, Clinton at 42.  Already.  I guess I undershot the mark.  And, with Hillary's unlikablility factor (as distinguished from the more official "unfavorables" designation), it may actually be hard for her to reverse any palpable slides.  Ol' Mo' (Momentum) could be a real thorn in Hillary's side, given the dynamics of this particular election cycle.  Be afraid, Hillary fans . . . be very afraid.

The Blame Game

OK, so now Democrats are throwing chairs, cursing and making death threats, all directed at those guiding the Party in the direction of Hillary Clinton.  Hey! - where's the cacophony of voices blaming Hillary for all of the is mischief and even violence?!?  Didn't we learn from the Republican primary season that Trump was at fault for those misbehaving in Trump's direction?  Why, then, isn't Hillary at fault for what went on in Nevada?

The answer, of course, is that neither Hillary nor Trump is responsible for this type of nonsense.  The people responsible are, well, the people who are doing what they're doing.  (Duh.) 

I point all this out, though, just to show the duplicity of any number of left-leaning commentators.  Boy, it would really be something to see them saying, out of respect for consistency, that Hillary needs to behave differently in order to quell all the violence.  Ha.

If there is an external encouragement of misbehavior here, I think that it revolves around systems that are implemented or even designed to thwart the will of the people.  The Republican system was corrupt in its implementation, as the Establishment plotted (really, plotted) to try to hijack the convention away from the people's clear choice.  The Democratic system, on the other hand, is corrupt structurally, with superdelegates that are there for the clear, express and admitted purpose of thwarting the will of the People in the event that the People have been adjudged to have gone awry.

Trump talked about possible riots in the event that party elders tried to wrest the Republican nomination.  He wasn't encouraging riots, but rather was expressing a likely state of play.  It's tough to watch the System countering the will of the People.  And now we're seeing it on the Democratic side, as Sanders supporters become more focused on the structural impediments that the System has erected against the Senator.  Disenfranchisement is a dangerous thing.  To quote a line from School of Rock, "Stick it to the Man."  I'm not trying to justify the behavior; I'm just trying to explain it.  

Rachel Maddow once pointed out to Jimmy Fallon (I'm paraphrasing) that Trump had driven a wedge between the Republicans.  On one side were the Beltway professionals and other members of the Establishment.  On the other side were . . . the voters.  Genius.  Bernie Sanders seems to be doing the same thing now, on the Democratic side.  

Wouldn't it really be something to see a Republican lovefest in Cleveland, and a Democratic riot in Philly.  Who'd'a thunk it.  Who'd'a thunk ANY of this.

See you in November.

Walls, Bridges and (Yet More) Demagoguery

So we've been hearing that the warm-and-fuzzy way forward in this terror-laden world is to build bridges not walls.  What transparent and absurd self-serving bluster that is.  I've previously noted the rank demagoguery surrounding certain other criticism of the Republican nominee, and I'll note it now, again.

Let's see if I've got this straight.  The idea of building a wall to protect the country against people crossing our borders illegally (!!!!!) is somehow an offputting concept that shows that we're not kind and open people.  Seriously, are you kidding (again)?  

When the White House is equipped with a lock or two (or three or four), sophisticated security systems and really high (but apparently not overly effective) fences, is that an unfriendly mean-spirited message to the world?  We're not . . . welcoming . . . our friends and neighbors?  Should the White House be an open house?  Of course not - that's absurd.  The proper characterization is that steps to attempt to bar entry by those up to no good are perfectly reasonable steps to pursue obvious and legitimate security goals.  There is no attempt there whatsoever to bar entry by those who should appropriately be allowed in.  

It's the same thing with a border wall.  People allowed to come in can, well, come in.  People who are not allowed in are physically barred from, well, coming in.  I challenge the left-leaning demagogues of the world to take the locks off their doors, or maybe better yet to remove the doors from their hinges altogether, in the name of pursuing a kinder-and-gentler approach to their beloved neighbors.  At the end of the day, choosing NOT to protect oneself from those not allowed in is probably the course that is indeed manifestly inappropriate!

How did it get to be the case that it is somehow, in any sane view of the world, inappropriate to bar entry by those that are not allowed to enter?  I guess the answer to that question is - you will see it argued that this country has no legitimate interest in enhancing border security when a Democratic nominee wants to generate some nice-sounding bridge/wall motto at the expense of even a scintilla of sense or reason.  

Sheesh.

Bankrupt Thinking on Bankruptcy

OK, people, enough about the bankruptcy thing.  What silliness.  What ignorance.  What  demagoguery.

So here's the way it works.  You're allowed to try investing in a variety of separate limited-liability buckets.  It's a concept that is at the very core of this economic system.  It encourages capital investment and risk-taking.  If one of your entities goes belly-up, the entity goes bye-bye, and the rest of the empire is safe.  Conversely, if something hits, you win.

You can try this all day long.  So it's easy, right?  Well, no - all in, it's really pretty hard to win.  If it weren't, we'd all be rich.  Many successful investors have embarked upon unsuccessful ventures.  I would imagine that the lion's share of successful investors have material amounts of failed enterprises in their long-term portfolios.  The question that matters is: where do you wind up, net-net?  

If you wind up personally bankrupt, that's not so good.  If you wind up with . . . BILLIONS OF DOLLARS . . . well, that's pretty good.  Mr. Trump has billions of dollars.  That's pretty good.  Let's see you do it.

Can this particular absurd line of criticism please stop?  It's getting pretty old.  And it's getting really stupid.  Trump's resume is just fine thank you.  And it now includes Republican Nominee for President of the United States of America.

Onwards . . . 

The "Napoleon Dynamite" Election?

There's a risky haughtiness to the notion of looking down on a campaign that goes down a distinctly entertainment-type path, as it appears that this one well might.  The Donald has already started to foreshadow a convention the likes of which we've never seen.

Watch out, though - underestimating the power of good feelings and generalized positivity can be dangerous indeed.  We can all laugh as Pedro wins the election based on Napoleon's distinctly issue-free dance presentation, but the movie may well be spot on when it comes to recognizing that the kind of excitement generated by Napoleon and his memorable moves really can lead to victory.  Remember the simplicity and power of Reagan's Morning in America worldview, with America portrayed as a "shining city on the hill"?

Laugh all you want, but do so at your peril.  If Trump comes out of that convention with a bump that goes so far as to constitute an actual lead - and I think he well might - then I'm not entirely sure that after a quick glance in the proverbial rear-view mirror he ever really looks back again.

As to the gorilla not yet in the room, who apparently will not be revealed until the convention (sigh), we have the incredibly critical VP question.  For myself, I'm imagining that, at that convention, we ultimately do get Big Marco.  Now I know he's said he doesn't want it, and he has cogently explained that Mr. Trump should have as his running mate someone who's views are more, well, Trumpian.  I get it.  I'm tilting at windmills, just trying to will my prior Big Marco surmise into reality.  But here's my draft of a piece of Big Marco's speech when he accepts the second-slot nomination: "Initially, I thought that what Donald needed was someone that had greater agreement with him on a range of important issues.  But he has tapped into something here, and I want to be a part of it.  After due consideration, I have come to the conclusion that I can do more to pursue the things I hold dear by working from within the system, rather than by working without it.  I want to be a part of this Movement.  And so, with that, I enthusiastically accept your nomination to be the Vice President of the United States of America."

C'mon, Marco (bringing it back full circle to viewing the world through the Napoleon Dynamite prism), you really do need to go out there and tell Pedro to: "Vote for Donald"!

The VP Issue

Having previously shot out a quick hitter on the Trump Cabinet, I wanted to get down just a quick thought or two on the VP issue.

Thought one - Marco Rubio.  The idea of building out the Hispanic, young, Florida, conservative, legislative angle just makes ALL kinds of sense.  I can just see Donald parading him out with the following line, "From here on out, I want you all to call him . . . BIG MARCO!"  Ha.

Thought two - Condoleezza Rice . . . which, I would think, would simply be just another way of pronouncing the phrase, "President Trump."

I'm sure I'll be 0-2 here, but you can't blame me for tryin'.  Do we really have to wait for the (hopefully Ryan-less) convention to see how this all shakes out?  Suspense, suspense, suspense . . .

Conservative Hypocrisy

Well, yet another chapter of the "Are You Kidding Me" book is apparently in the drafting stage.  Mitt Romney and a bunch of other Conservative Crazies are now talking about ginning up a third-party candidacy?!?  I would say, "Really?!??!" but that wouldn't do justice to the situation.  What happened to "We need to stop Hillary"?  Or, more specifically, "We need to rally around Ted Cruz so that we can stop Hillary."  I guess what they were really saying is, "I want", "Look at me", "Here I am."  Or maybe just simply, "me me me me me me me me me me".

They're not the most gracious Losers, are they?  (I'll concede, however, that they are indeed Losers, which I guess explains how Romney somehow got to become their leader.)  Somehow, there's this line that about 60% of the Republican electorate voted against Trump, and that the numbers therefore somehow support these strangest-of-strange efforts.  But hey, geniuses, did you notice that about 73% of the voters voted against Cruz?  What an utterly bizarre and transparent argument to support a third-party candidacy.

Let's just go with an honest line of thinking.  How about? - "I hate Trump so much for kaboshing any hope for a conservative takeover of the Republican party (itself a pipe dream, by the way) that I will sell my core purpose of defeating Hillary right down the river, regardless of the level of hypocrisy and absurdity that I need to marshal in order to get me there."  Well, at least that would be above-board, now, wouldn't it?  Hey, Ted, I remember all of those unite-behind-me-SO-THAT-WE-CAN-STOP-HILLARY oratories.  You think maybe it's time for you to call upon these petulant children that you call allies and get them back to being on-message?  Or, if being on-message is too much to ask from a bunch of irrational lunatics, let's maybe lower the bar to: not being utterly and counterproductively off-message?  Sheesh - what's going on here doesn't make any sense at all, even on its own terms.

Look, I don't know if The Donald really can beat Hillary.  But wouldn't it be sad if, because of a bunch of immature miscreants, we didn't even get the fighting chance to see if it's possible?

Liberals for Conservatives?!?

OK, so now I'm officially confused.  Here's the flow:

- The liberal media historically dislikes - or maybe despises - fringe conservatives.  Honestly, that's almost a tautology.

- Trump becomes the Republican nominee, completely shaking up the Republican establishment and utterly tweaking reactionary Conservatives.  The people shaken up and tweaked are the very people that, by definition, liberals oppose, and fundamentally so.

- The extreme Conservatives, some of whom are utterly off the right side of the page, decline to unify behind Trump.  In tantrum-like fashion, they criticize and even vilify Mr. Trump.

- The liberal media (and here comes the punch line) point to that criticism and vilification as confirmation of Mr. Trump's lack of qualification.

Really?!?  Are you completely kidding?!?  Maybe this is just a silly joke.  The people who have forever been in the cross-hairs of the liberal media are now somehow the Voice of Reason?  I frankly can't believe the rank duplicity.  A liberal citing to Beck, Levin, Limbaugh, etc., etc., for support of liberal opposition to Trump?  I thought everyone wanted to see a move away from the fringe extremes into a more moderate center.  So now we've got that, complete with full-blown hysteria on the part of the right-wing fringe extremists.

With any consistency at all, the reaction of the liberal media should rather be along the lines of: "Hey, the people who are rejecting Trump are the very people with whom we vehemently disagree at our very core, maybe more than we disagree with any other group in the political spectrum.  Hmm, maybe Trump is striking a chord that we should consider more soberly, if the people that are rejecting him are the very people whose views we hold in such incredibly low esteem."  The opportunistic demagoguery and sheer rank duplicity of liberals pointing to a rejection of Trump by dogmatic ultra-right Conservatives as evidence of his undesirability is nothing short of staggering.  Hey, folks, disagree with The Donald all you want, but please - please - try to maintain even a shred of honesty, consistency and self-respect.

P.S.: The remarkably self-important Speaker of the House is purporting to set himself up as a higher-ranking member of his party than the party's presidential nominee?  What exactly would the reaction of the liberal media had there been to an attempt by, for example, Nancy Pelosi to sit in judgment of Barack Obama?  Sheesh.

Paths

Not enough people are paying attention to the question of, "What's the path?"  While we can all root for Person X or Person Y, at some point the simple question revolves around identifying real scenarios under which your favorite can actually . . . win.

Ted Cruz understood the point.  So long as there was a path, he was hangin' around.  Then he laid the groundwork for getting out when the path evaporated.  (Supposedly, he was saying that from the "beginning"; yes, if the "beginning" means "this week for the first time".)   It wasn't only the Indiana ("heartland") shellacking.  It was that in conjunction with the 30-point walloping in the latest Cali polls.  I was on record as saying that, if Cruz lost Indiana big, he would suspend.  I give him credit for doing so.  It was the right move at the right time.

So what's the path for Trump?  That is the real question.  People should be focusing on the "Wag the Dog" theory of numbers assembly.  (C'mon, Mr. Rove, get with your own program!)  Reince Priebus has already said that the RNC is building a monolithic numbers machine for figuring out just where Republican resources should go, and that the nominee, whoever he is (now Trump) will have the full benefit thereof.  The Democrats should fear this as much as they fear anything.

But it's not just a purely state-by-state allocate-the-wins thing.  There are so many WtD and WtD-type dynamics here, and here are two of them:

- CNN's Van Jones makes the incredibly prescient point that if Trump gets a material minority of the black vote he's your next president.  With his support among certain voting blocs, he doesn't need to win the black vote.  When you drill down into the numbers, what he needs is to get some of it.  Can you say, "Cain, Carson, Tyson, West"? . . . with more coming?   And watch what happens on the women's side.  People are going to be shocked at the number of women that go for Trump.  There's a secret weapon here named Ivanka.  (Will Trump play the Monica Lewinsky and Orgy Island cards?)  When it comes to the Hispanic vote, to me the jury is still out.  Etc., etc.  The potential numerology here is truly fascinating.

- People are not making enough of the mischief The Donald will do in states like New York, California, Michigan and Pennsylvania.  Hillary wants to be able to ignore such states.  Even if Trump can't carry them, how much damage will he cause if he causes her to devote substantial resources thereto?  And what if he wins just one or two of those states?  What happens to the WtD numbers, then?

- And let's not forget the Bernie factor.  Bernie could never have won, to be sure (certainly, not in the general election).  But his staying power is undeniably remarkable.  Can Trump start picking off some of his voters?  If Bernie waits too long to unify behind Hillary will too many of his voters already have gotten comfortable with Trump?  For that matter, when Bernie does throw his support to Hillary, will it be at all enthusiastically?  That's an interesting aspect of the numbers calculus.

It's also not too soon to start talking about Mo'.  This could be an odd part of the cycle when it comes to Momentum.  Hillary is not particularly popular, and indeed in certain circles is brutally unpopular.  If Trump is able to cloud her ability to get her messages out, and if he is able to start driving up her unfavorables even further and putting her back on her heels, then we could be looking at a situation in which she is consistently swimming upstream.  One of the keys for the Democrats seemed early on to be the "joke" aspect of Trump's candidacy, especially given some of the early, and quite silly, Hillary v. Trump polls.  I felt that the post-Indiana early polling would show Trump down by, let's say 46 to 41.  Some are a little worse, and some are a little better.  But the notion that the Trump candidacy is a joke is, well, a joke.  If Hillary starts swimming backwards, it could start to be hard to reverse the Momentum.  We'll have to see.

The path for Trump started to become evident here, even as the pundits identified roadblocks at every turn.  He can't get away with saying X (about illegal immigrants).  Surely, he can't say Y (about John McCain).  Let's see what happens when people "really" start to vote.  His ceiling is 32%.  His ceiling is 38%.  His ceiling is 45%.  We'll see (this one is particularly funny) what happens when the field winnows down.  (I guess his ceiling is now somewhere in the 70%-to-80% range?)  And on and on and on and on.  And, of course, more recently, we have: well, that's just all primaries stuff, and now, you see, as we enter the general election, the game will change.  Really?  Well, maybe so.  And, then again, maybe not.

So now we head off to the next chapter of (with apologies to the Disney folks) Mr. Trump's Wild Ride.  Buckle your seatbelts . . .

Finding a Dream Team - the Real Trump Card?

I'll take my shot at some Cabinet-type folks for The Donald's team:

VP - ??????
Chief of Staff - Ivanka (haha - nobody seemed to mind Bobby Kennedy)
Treasury - Icahn
State - Cruz (yes, Cruz)
Homeland Security - Giuliani
HHS or Surgeon General - Carson
AG - Christie
Veterans Affairs - Sessions
Culture (new post, with co-Secretaries) - Michaels, West (and Rivers, posthumously)

Places for Huntsman?  Rubio?!?

Anyone out there have any thoughts?

A Golden Opportunity for a New Approach to Politics?

I wish I came upon the idea for the title to this blog after having made some kind of clever connection between Trump and the gold with which he brands himself.  Truth be told, the blog name just occurred to me, and, when I went back and reminded myself what Rumpelstiltskin was about, I sheepishly backed into the gold thing.  I know I'm not the first one to have coined this little play on the title to the old fairy tale, but I like it, and I'm going with it.

Anyway, onto some thoughts as we head into Iowa.

OK, so I get it.  If I support Trump, I'm a simple-minded, hoodwinked idiot.  Well, maybe simple-minded and hoodwinked - but I'm just not sure that I'm such a complete idiot.  With my intellect being challenged at every turn, and my self-confidence in doubt, I feel that it seems incumbent on me to review, even if for my own sanity, how I could possibly think that Mr. Trump's candidacy is a good thing.  While maybe many in polite society seem to be acknowledging that there's some fun going on (politics aside, it surely would seem that he's generating a fair amount of fun), few of them seem to think that what's going on is actually . . . good.

For years, so many of us have been yearning for politicians who are willing to say what they really think . . . for politicians who think the same things that non-politicians think . . . for politicians that don't speak in code.  Well, be careful for what you wish, and say hello to Donald Trump.

On almost everything, people seem to be saying that they don't like the words he's saying, while simultaneously acknowledging that there's some truth in there somewhere.  On the face of it, much of what he's saying may indeed be hard to follow.  But is the background message as bad as it seems?  If the message forms a foundation for debate, with details to follow, is there value there?  Maybe.  So let's dissect this thing on a point-by-point basis.

First, immigration.  This was the thing that ushered in the controversy surrounding Trump's tone.  He focused using intemperate words on Mexicans, on illegal entry and on other illegal behavior.  But what underlies the message?  There is the fact that there are many  illegal immigrants who are Mexican.  There is the rule of law, and the law, by hypothesis, does prohibit illegal immigration.  And there is the undoubted reality that some of the people entering the country are doing illegal things here.  The resulting debate focuses on how important or unimportant these considerations are and what we should do about them.  Hmm.

Next, a proposed ban on Muslim immigration and a jaundiced focus on the Muslims that are already here.  This may well be where Mr. Trump's most hurt himself.  But what underlies the message?  There is the fact that much international violence is propagated by purported Muslims.  There is the fact that the Muslim credo, in contrast to the credos of many other religions, has a distinctly political slant.  There is messaging that some have viewed as violent, bigoted and intolerant that is woven into a number of basic Muslim precepts.  And there has been and will continue to be the real risk of continuing death and mayhem in the United States and other countries around the world.  The resulting debate focuses on just what we do about that.  Hmm.

There's also railing against other countries, notably China, regarding trade, with protectionist threats on full display.  There are many arguments, both political and economic, against such a tack.  But is the way in which certain members of the global economy are competing really fair or reasonable?  Putting specifics aside for the moment, should something be done about it?  Hmm.

As to his lack of true conservatism - that's bad?  He doesn't like what Bush II did in Iraq.  He doesn't like the favorable tax treatment of carried interests.  He's all over the lot on the abortion issue, gun control, Social Security and health care.  He respects and apparently will be able to work with Putin.  I thought that we've become upset with a stratified two-party system that inexorably pushes candidates to dogmatic extremism.  And so now we have a front-running candidate with a set of views that don't consistently align with extremes.  This is a bad thing?  Darned if you do, darned if you don't?

And what of those bemoaning political correctness and those bemoaning the rise of Fox.  Could they take some time out of their day to marvel at what Mr. Trump is accomplishing on those fronts?  Could a little balance and honesty be in order?  Maybe some credit where credit is due?

As to his language and tone, maybe that's just a little bit refreshing.  If he jokes about women, he's disqualified?  Maybe the world could lighten up a bit.  Sure there's a point at which language can be downright hurtful, but there's also a point where people need to be able to take a joke.  One need only look to Ivanka to see the kind of woman he raises.  She comes from a man who fundamentally disrespects women?  Maybe - but maybe not.

Taking a step back for a moment, I would suggest that it seems pretty clear that, at a minimum, he's framing the issues.  And they're good issues.  Maybe every extreme and intemperate solution to these issues that he's proposing won't be and shouldn't be the ultimate result.  Maybe there will be other action deriving from reflection, consultation and compromise.  Maybe that's not so bad.

Which brings us back to a core message from Mr. Trump - I'll deal.  Ted Cruz wondered whether what Republicans want is someone who's interested in cutting deals with the Democrats.  Well of course that's what Republicans should want!  Reagan and Clinton were masterful at building bridges and finding common ground.  They got things done, in Reagan's case with a lean to the right and in Clinton's case with a lean to the left.  Now, it seems like everyone bemoans Beltway gridlock.  Republicans should indeed hope for someone right- (as opposed to left-) minded that can get some kind of an agenda through this now-fractured process.  If that starts with staking out extreme positions and then moving towards the middle, then so be it.

The sign of a successful compromise is that neither side gets everything that's sought - that neither side is 100% happy.  That's what makes the world go 'round.  Are Mr. Trump's utterances all sufficiently measured?  Are they all thought through with panache and style.  It wouldn't seem so.  Does that mean that everyone that thinks there's some "there" there is an boorish unthinking oaf?  I'm not so sure.

Before finishing up, I do want to weigh in with one prediction.  I don't know if Trump beats Clinton.  I think it's a close one, but I don't know who wins.  I will say this, however - if Bernie Sanders really somehow gets a head of steam, and if the Democrats are unsuccessful at begging (at that point, begging!) Joe Biden to get into the race, Trump will, I think, win this thing by acclimation.  I'm not saying that as an anti-Sanders rant or otherwise with any particular ax to grind; I'm just getting an early-in-the-day prediction out there.  I acknowledge that the whole Trump-Sanders scenario still seems quite unlikely, but it's worth noting that every element of that scenario was probably widely viewed as being in the realm of all-but-impossible only several months ago.

We're in for quite a ride here, and it's all only just starting.  All of us morons and idiots that find something positive about what's going on - I guess we'll just have to try to keep up with all of the fair-minded geniuses who seem to have it all figured out.