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?
Saturday, May 7, 2016
Thursday, May 5, 2016
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.
- 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.
Wednesday, May 4, 2016
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 . . .
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 . . .
Sunday, May 1, 2016
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?
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?!?
Sunday, January 31, 2016
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)