I have a few things to say to you. I think I've been particularly quiet about this election. I see I did two pieces back during our primary process, and mentioned him a few times, but very little specific about the election. I think Trump is interesting as a phenomenon but I've never really been a supporter. I mean I've never seen a total outsider run for president and get this close. He has even less political experience than Obama had in '08, and that's really tough to do. To get less experience than Obama, a candidate would need to have negative experience. Heck, Trump essentially has negative experience when you consider how he thought politicians were convenient purchases to get things done for his businesses. D? R? Doesn't matter. Buy 'em by the six-pack.
Certain lugubrious talk show hosts (I won't name) are making a big deal about not being able to vote for Trump. They act like there's some sort of horrible moral quandary associated with not getting the one ideal candidate whom they adore to vote for. That old "voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil" ideavirus. Please. Can we talk like adults here?
Look, if you honestly think Donald Trump is evil incarnate, go ahead and don't vote. Join the 60,000 people between the two #nevertrump websites who have signed a pledge to not vote for him. I personally don't think Trump is evil. I've read enough stories of nice surprises he's unexpectedly pulled on people to think he's a basically good guy. I like how he had the kids working: driving heavy equipment, and working with construction crews. Will he do stupid things? Of course: he's human. Also, see the remark about having zero experience in public office. Will he crash the country? I think the country might well crash no matter who's in office. With Hillary it's a slam dunk guarantee, if she isn't lying about her stupid programs while she's campaigning. With Trump, it's probably inevitable, too. He won't push as hard as her to destroy the country, it's just that it could be so far gone that repair without "the blood of patriots and tyrants" is no longer possible.
My perspective is that not once in my voting life has the general election offered a candidate I thought was ideal, and I've been voting since 1972. I've never gotten to vote for a candidate I'm really 100% behind and this year is no exception. I may get that candidate in the primaries, but by the time the general election gets here, the choice has always, always, always been who the least awful candidate is. If you #nevertrumpers are just now discovering that shit sandwich: welcome to your mid thirties. If you're older than that and never experienced that the choice is always for the least bad candidate, you've led a charmed life - or didn't really look at the candidates. Maybe you just loved Obama, God forbid.
A few days ago, CA at Western Rifle Shooters Association linked to an article called "The Flight 93 Election", with the line that this is the "Charge the Cockpit Election". Now, I'm pretty bad at metaphors (I'm too literal) and the puzzle over what "charge the cockpit" means in the context of elections didn't really work for me. It took a few days for it sink in that the analogy is that on flight 93, if we had just defeated the terrorists and got control of the plane back by charging the cockpit, we weren't out of the woods by any means. It could be that not one of us had a clue how to fly a plane or work the radio or anything. The only thing that was absolutely sure was that if we did nothing we were dead right then and there. At least fighting off the terrorists gave us a chance to live.
And that's the way I'm looking at the election. Hillary is an absolute DRT. Trump, for all his tendencies to boast too much and say stupid things, is our only hope to get into a survivable position. To use Mrs. Graybeard's analogy, someone in our group has a badly bleeding wound. Could be an artery. QuickClot causes problems for the doctors later, but it might just keep them alive long enough to get to surgery. There's really no choice of whether we do it or not.
The media, from the hard left New York Times and MSNBC to the slightly left Fox, are in full "Destroy Trump!!" mode. Even though, with the full tilt crap 24/7, I still hear encouraging things from and about Trump. I don't see it as a hard choice at all. Would I rather have someone else? People in hell would rather have air conditioning and ice water. Doesn't matter. I really only have the two choices.
I join you in yearning for a candidate to vote for.
ReplyDeleteSince 1988 I've been voting against candidates, not for them.
Do you think that Trump will try to run everything himself?
ReplyDeleteOr do you think that, as a successful businessman, he understands how to delegate to competent people?
Was Ronnie an expert on everything? Or did he know how to delegate?
If Trump DOES delegate, do you think he might be able to find some competent people to do the work? Or would he instead go with the same fine "experts" who have put us where we are today?
Yes indeedy, it may be too late for him to save the country. Hell, if he wins the election, I expect that the Muslim in Chief, the Democrats in Congress, and his Rove Republican enablers will do EVERYTHING they can to crash the economy as soon as Trump is sworn in. But at least we'll have a chance to identify some of those who have been committing treason for so long. I wonder if they have enough lamp posts in DC...
FWIW, 1) I think he'll delegate and fire anyone who's not getting the results he wants. Like he has so far in the campaign. He's been quick to fire people, but campaigns are short so there's little time to make up for mistakes.
Delete2) I don't recall that level of detail with Reagan, but I think he tended to delegate.
3) So far, I think he's shown that. His group seems to be mostly outsiders to politics. For example. Kelly Anne Conway was a pollster, so a political observer, but not a political insider. Roger Ailes was an observer but not an insider.
4) I think Rove has far less influence than you apparently do. I think he's almost completely ignored in DC. I don't think he has won anything in at least a decade in a business where winning is everything, so he's now just a pundit, not an insider. Who's he working for, besides Fox News? Having lots of congress against him would be a weak impression of what would happen if Gary Johnson were elected, where everyone would be against him.
Oh, I agree that Rove does not control anyone. He has, however, set the standard for their politics:
DeleteNo morals.
No principles.
No scruples.
No honor.
They do whatever they think will get THEM ahead, country be damned. Hence the Fast and Furious "investigation" by Issa and Grassley. Never intended to do anything other than generate donations for their re-election. Same for IRSgate. Same for Benghazi.
The Rove Republicans are nothing more than the old Rockefeller Republicans, dusted off and tarted up to look new. Rockefeller didn't control the Rockefeller Republicans any more than Rove controls the Rove Republicans. But they BOTH set the standard for what the Republican Elite stand for.
And yes, Reagan was indeed good at delegating. Hence his comment on why nobody woke him up when the Navy shot down the Libyan MIGs that there would only have been a reason to wake him if the Libyans had shot down OUR planes.
I get it - you're using Rove Republicans as a brand name. Maybe not the best term.
DeleteI just use the term GOPe (rhymes with soap) to abbreviate "GOP Elite". One syllable instead of five. Rove Republicans is five syllables, too.
I use the name because that puts a face with it, just as did "Rockefeller Republicans" before, even though Nelson was not giving orders to those who followed his lead either. And as I said, the Rove Republicans are just the current version of those Rockefeller Republicans. In fact, Shrub I went into the Reagan Administration as a Rockefeller Republican, and came out as a Rove Republican. Different name, but same morals and principles.
DeleteFWIW, in the last two presidential elections I voted for two candidates that held less appeal to me than a bag of Mississippi mud. Yet I did it because our current POTUS is beneath that. If HRC is elected president, I will hold every #nevertrump personally responsible for the demise of what is left of this fragile republic.
ReplyDeleteFWIW, in the last two presidential elections I voted for two candidates that held less appeal to me than a bag of Mississippi mud. Yeah, that sums it up pretty well.
DeleteThat old "voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil" ideavirus. Please. Can we talk like adults here?
ReplyDeleteEvil bioaccumulates in political systems. Voting for the lesser evil may be a short term win, but is always a long term lose.
I really only have the two choices.
Another choice is to refuse to obey politicians when you recognize the policy is bad. Refusing to re-register your gun in Connecticut in 2014 is a perfect example of this. Only took about 200K like-minded people, or 6% of CT population, to achieve that result. Want to keep your doctor or your retirement savings? There's no end of the liberty that could be reclaimed if a few percent decided it was proper to disobey and ignore bad policy.
I think you are wrong on two points. You think that 200k people refusing to register their gun was a win. It wasn't. Keep watching. You will see honest gun owners prosecuted for this simple infraction and lose their rights, pay big fines and expenses and maybe do time. The law is there and it will bite you.
DeleteVoting for the lesser of two evils is always a long term lose. Every vote is for the lesser of two evils. There are no perfect politicians. Simply the act of choosing to be a politicians should be a reason to not vote for them. This election is different, the times are different. We will look back and wonder why we didn't understand the risks and problems.
Being a gun guy, I analogize this election as follows: a Donald Trump presidency is like our country playing russian roulette. A vote for Hillary is like playing the game with a Glock.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEither way our economy and the world situation will get worse. Neither candidate has the will or the backing to fix it. We (the U.S.) are like the passengers on the Titanic and the two candidates aren't willing or able to change directions. Where it matters Trump is better/stronger a candidate for the country. He will stop the effort to make the entire Supreme Court an anti-American anti-constitution left wing institution. He will slow and reverse the effort to destroy our military. He will somewhat reduce the tax and bureaucratic burden on businesses but not enough to prevent or reverse the inevitable great depression redux. He will/may (I hope) demand some investigation of the IRS, the DOJ and now the FBI who have clearly been taken hostage by the forces of evil. If Hillary is elected we will never know the full extent of Obama's anti-American agenda. But my main point is that either way I fully expect continued massive immigration (i.e. Trojan horse invasion) and a biblical economic disaster and dramatically increased militarism by Russia, China and Middle East actors If not WW III. Yes, WW III with nukes and death tolls in the millions to multi-millions. BECAUSE we need a statesman, a real leader, someone who understands the dire situation and we don't have that and we don't even have anyone in the wings who might/could step in when it happens. Buy PMs, Store food and necessities, Prepare for the long emergency, gird your loins, "it's" coming and "it's" the big one.
ReplyDelete