Whatever faint hope there was that Donald J. Trump won’t be the Republican Party’s presidential nominee died with a long awaited whimper on Thursday evening when a pre-convention meeting of the rules committee overwhelmingly rejected a last-ditch proposal to allow delegates to nominate someone else, and with Hillary Rodham Clinton as the certain Democratic nominee that means the country will be choosing between two people whom the vast majority of us have quite rightly concluded both are entirely unfit for the office.
From here to November it’s all an argument about which of these two awful people are more awful, and which of the oddball third party alternatives one might choose to cast a futile protest votes for, but these are less important questions than the overriding one about how the hell did we get here. A nation of three hundred and thirty million or people so should be able to come up with some better choices than are now at hand, and that we haven’t is the most pressing issue of the day.
The binary choice we’re now faced with has Trump winning or losing, and at this particular moment in this crazy election year it seems a coin-flip as to which is more probable, but in either case we can’t imagine the country winning. We’ve long laid out the case that certain Republican nominee is an egomaniacal and authoritarian and shady-dealing blowhard whose opinions blow with the political winds and has tried to kick elderly widows out of their homes and snooker retirees into paying their life savings for a get-rich-quick scheme and lured gambling addicts into his somehow failed casinos by paying young women to disrobe in front of strangers and bragged about his penis size on a Republican debate stage and promised that anyone who brings this sort of thing up will have “problems, such problems” after he gets elected, and we could go on all day like this with countless other outrages, as we’ve been going on for months, and we cannot be dissuaded that the Republican Party can only lose by winning with this guy.
As we’ve frequently reminded our readers, we’ve been laying out a similarly damning case against the certain Democratic presidential nominee for far longer, since way back when the certain Republican nominee was contributing to her campaigns and inviting her to his third — count ’em, third — wedding and telling all his fawning interviewers what a great Secretary of State and President she’d be. Way back when she was a mere Arkansas celebrity her law career mostly consisted of drawing clients to her shady law firm because of her husband’s standing as Attorney General and then Governor, and hiding the records involved, and cackling into a tape recorder about the child rapist she’d gotten of lightly even though she knew he was guilty. As First Lady of the entire country she was mostly preoccupied with a failed attempt at socialized medicine and sliming her husband’s sleazy extra-marital sexual conquests. She got elected Senator by promising to continue her husband’s then-successful policy of forcing banks to make sub-prime loans, then didn’t do any memorable except to vote the Iraq War that the certain Republican presidential nominee now says we were lied into. Her record as Secretary of State should have gotten her indicted on felony charges, as a majority of the country now believes, and we’ve long noted countless other outrages to numerous to recite here, and yet all the polls suggest there’s still a coin-flip chance she’ll be the next President of the United States.
We’ll leave it to the rest of the citizenry to decide which is more awful, and instead concern ourselves with which of the oddball third party options we’ll futilely cast a protest vote for, but mostly we’ll be pondering some solution to this sorry situation. Each of the charges the nominees will repeatedly make against one another will be mostly true, and in every case of the character question will effectively negate one another, and on those matters of policy that might yet come up we won’t be buying any of it. After a surprisingly effective challenge by a self-described socialist the certain Democratic nominee is as opposed to America’s past free trade policies as the certain Republican nominee, neither has the least interest in tampering with the entitlement programs that are hurtling America toward bankruptcy, both are fine with that cross-dressing creep of a man taking photos at a Target store’s women restroom, and even the Libertarian nominee we’re tempted to vote for is also proposing a surely disastrous foreign policy and seems eager to force Baptist bakers to make a same-sex wedding cake.
Sorry for such a glum assessment of the current scene, but that seems to be where we’re at.
— Bud Norman