Advertisements

A Brief History Lesson for the Young Democratic Whippersnappers on the Other Side of the Generation Gap

Ryan Grim strikes us as another one of those wild-eyed liberals looking to take over the Democrat party, and the sort of revisionist young whippersnapper who still calls President Ronald Reagan “a C-list actor,” but we think his op-ed piece in Sunday’s Washington Post correctly identifies the current fissure among the Democrats as a generation gap.
So far as we can tell Grim is a bit too young remember the late ’60s and early ’70s when the hippies and the hard hats were fighting it out on the streets and “generation gap” was a familiar part of the political lexicon, but he’s familiar enough with Reagan’s landslide victories and the Republican party’s ascendancy in the ’80s to understand why some Democrats are still spooked by it. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer and front-running Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden are all aged enough to remember how President Richard Nixon a landslide over the hippie favorite Democratic nominee Sen. George McGovern in ’72 despite an increasingly unpopular war in Vietnam. They remember that the carefully centrist President Jimmy Carter won office in ’76 only because of the Watergate scandal, but was decisively ousted four years later by Reagan, who won a record 49 states in his reelection bid.
They also well remember how many of their longstanding congressional colleagues were voted out along the way. Such liberal lions as McGovern and Sen. Frank Church and Birch Bayh and the most senior Sen. Warren Magnuson from the New Deal era were voted out during the ’70s, and the likes of wild-eyed conservative Rep. Newt Gingrich were voted in. Reagan won a third term of sorts when his Vice President George H.W. Bush, and any Democrat old enough to remember that still shudders at the thought. President Bill Clinton ended the Republicans’ 12-year White House reign in 92′ and won reelection in ’96, but he ran as a centrist and won by mere pluralities with considerable help from nutcase third-party populist candidate Ross Perot peeling off conservative votes. In ’94 the Republicans even took the House of Representatives after 40 years of Democratic control, a result of Clinton offending the public with such divisive ideas as allowing gays to serve in the military and the government taking a greater role in the health care system, but Clinton won reelection mostly because he and Gingrich had come up with a rare balanced budget and revived the Reagan economic expansion after a short and mild recession.
Republican President George W. Bush succeeded Clinton with a plurality and razor-then electoral majority and then won reelection with a slight majority of the popular, which drove all the Democrats crazy, even though the increasingly wild-eyed conservatives in the Republican party found both Bushes far too centrist for their tastes. President Barack Obama succeeded the second Bush and then easily won reelection, which drove all the Republicans crazy even if the younger of the increasingly wild-eyed Democrats now consider Obama far too centrist for their tastes. All of which explains why such liberal but seasoned septuagenarians as Pelosi and Schumer and Biden are reluctant to veer too far left of the center.
Much younger and less experienced and better-looking and more wild-eyed Democrats as New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke and Sen. Kamala Harris and New Jersey Sen. Corey Booker now have considerable sway in the Democratic party, and although the aging self-described socialist Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and ripened Massachusetts Sen. Warren are on their side Grim seems correct in surmising that a generation gap will be the story of the Democrats’ upcoming presidential primaries. Grim apparently believes that youthful idealism and its resulting recklessness will eventually overwhelm old age’s hard-earned experience and its resulting caution, and he seems to wish for it, and although we hope he’s wrong we worry he might be right.
At this point in our late middle age we must admit, however begrudgingly, that a lot has changed since Nixon won a landslide reelection but lost a popular culture back in ’72, and that things have changed far even more rapidly ever since. The “don’t ask, don’t tell” that allowed homosexuals to serve in the military so long as they remained closeted cost Clinton the House back in ’94, but it seems quaint in this age of constitutionally guaranteed same-sex marriage. The government intrusion into health care that Clinton’s wife proposed was less ambitious than what Obama wound up getting passed, and lately it polls well, and the Republicans couldn’t come with any alternative they could pass even when they held the White House and both chambers of Congress, so the crazy ideas that these young Democrats are proposing will have some appeal to a significant portion of the population. “Socialism” is no longer the damning term of opprobrium that it was during most of our lives, although it still should be, as far as we’re still concerned, and will probably get a lot more votes than Eugene Debs ever did back in a more sensible era of America.
Which is a shame, especially given the currently wild-eyed state of the Republican party in the era of President Donald Trump. It’s not the admirably wild-eyed conservatism of the Republican party that opposed the New Deal programs President Franklin Roosevelt wrought during his party’s six-decades dominance of American politics, nor is it the centrist and internationalist Republicanism of President Dwight Eisenhower that ended that long reign. It’s not the small government and free markets conservatism of Republican nominee Sen. Barry Goldwater, who lost by a landslide in ’64. Trump has the same tough-talking anti-hippie and pro-law-and-order rhetoric that Nixon won with in ’68, but Nixon won reelection after establishing the Environmental Protection Agency that Trump rails against and abandoning the Gold Standard monetary policy that Trump’s Federal Reserve Board appointees want to reinstate, and Trump has made his disdain Republican nominee back to Reagan quite clear.
Despite a pretty good economy America is adding the same trillion or so to the national debt that Obama was racking up in the wake of a deep and long lasting recession, The Repubicans’ big tax cut bill went mainly to the rich while the poor are probably paying even more for Trump’s tariffs every time they go to Wal-Mart. As bad as Obama was Trump has done even more to buddy up to dictatorships while undermining our the post-World War II military and trading alliances that Eisenhower and both Republican and Democratic presidents wisely established. We also note that his promise of proposing such a wonderful health care policy that your head will spin has not yet been kept.
On the other hand, Trump has outraged those damned Democrats even more than Nixon or Reagan or either of the Bushes ever did, and the more wild-eyed Republicans seem satisfied with that. He’s threatened governmental retribution against the free press and promised to lock up his political opponents, enforced our border laws with extreme cruelty and questioned the legitimacy of any federal judges of Latino heritage, has kinder words for the leaders of Russia and North Korea than he can must for our North Atlantic Treaty Organization partners, and is even coarser than Nixon ever was in his “twitter” denunciations of the damned hippies.
As much as the die-hard fans love it, it’s not at all the conservatism and Republican party we signed up with. With ur old-school sensibilities we’re free press absolutists, and we worry how that Third World “lock ’em up” stuff might play out if the damned Democrats control the White House and both chambers of Congress yet again. We have nothing against Latino citizens and legal immigrants, and rather enjoy their music and food and construction and road-paving efforts and occasional judicial opinions. We prefer our classically liberal democratic allies to the authoritarian populists popping up around the world, and by now we’re friends with a lot of dope-smoking hippies, and our hard=hat friends are also taking atoke  or two.
Which is not to say that we agree about anything with anyone on the left. Even the aged and relatively wised-up Democrats toward the center have always been too far left for our centrist tastes, and Grim’s favored youngsters strike us as at least as crazy as Trump.
There’s always some hope that the upcoming congressional impeachment investigations will result in some deus ex machina that delivers the Republican party some nominee other than Trump, and that the Democrats won’t go full-blown socialist. We can’t envision any scenario where the budget gets balanced, or any sort of budget actually gets passed and signed into law, or health care becomes universal and inexpensive, or all the ethnic and sexual groups learn to love another, but we hold out hope the center will hold and the republic will somehow persist.
When we were born Eisenhower had reconciled the Republicans with Social Security and most of the rest of Roosevelt’s New Deal,  and until recently the Democrats have only arguing about how much to tax the free markets that Goldwater and Reagan had championed, everyone more or less agreed on the post-war world order that Presidents Truman and Eisenhower and Kennedy and Nixon had sustained, and for the most part it worked out well enough. At this point in our late middle age we believe the sole purpose of the Democratic party is to keep the damned Republicans from imposing their worst ideas on a great nation, and that the Republicans exist solely to save the country from the Democrats dumbest ideas.
For now both parties are seized by a wild-eyed youthful idealism, which we’ve noticed from our reading of history is the most destructive force on the planet, but old age and experience and its resulting caution still stand a fighting chance. We’ll probably wind up casting another futile protest vote on some write-in candidate, but hope the rest of the country chooses as wisely as possible, given the circumstances..

— Bud Norman

Advertisements

Well, At Least There’s Still More than a Year and a Half Left in the Race

The Cable News Networks has run the first significant Democratic presidential poll since the two-part and too-early Democratic presidential debates of last week. Given the results, we’ll mostly take a day off from our usual bashing of Republican President Donald Trump to note that the Democrats seem intent on nominating someone even arguably worse.
At the outset of the race the clear front-runner by double digits was former Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, who was also Vice President for eight years to President Barack Obama, who somehow remains popular in the Democratic party, even if much of the party now grouses that liberal administration we daily fulminated about wasn’t nearly liberal enough. Part of Obama’s enduring appeal in the party is that he was The First Black President ™, and given all the white flight to the Republican party over the past several decades of the Civil Rights era black voters are a sizable chunk of the Democratic primary electorate, especially in the southern states that hold early primaries, and Biden seemed to enjoy their gratitude that he’d been a loyal ally of Obama. The Democrats also retain a following among the Rust Belt white working class, even if Trump won enough of them last time around to squeak out an electoral majority, and the affable and commuter train-riding “Uncle Joe” and his aged self’s ties to an earlier era of populist Democratic politics made him seem well poised to win those votes back from Trump.
It was never likely to hold up, however, and seems to have taken a severe hit after just an hour of televised debate. The CNN polls shows Biden dropping 10 points, and although he’s still in the lead with 22 percent he’s only five percentage points ahead of California Sen. Kamala Harris, just six ahead of Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and just eight ahead of self-proclaimed socialist and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. He retains a bigger lead over the other 21 or 22 or so candidates, but several of them still have a chance to break out.
Biden’s hold on the black vote was always tenuous, given that he was running against a bona fide black man with verifiable slave blood in New Jersey Sen. Corey Booker, who can also rightly claim to love in one of America’s most blighted and crime-ridden black ghettos, as well as California senator Harris, who has a Jamaican immigrant father and an east Indian immigrant mother, and grew up identifying and being identified as a black woman. Harris was the one who seized the opportunity during the debates, criticizing Biden for his way-way-back-in-the-’70s position against forced busing to achieve school desegregation, and it gave her a nine point bump in the poll while Biden took a ten point hit.
Harris is too far left and too much an “identity politics” candidate for our tastes, but she’s a former prosecutor and California Attorney General who always comes across as smart and well-informed in every interview, which contrasts to her favor with Trump, and she’s not quite so crazy as many of her competitors, so we warn both Biden and Trump to be worried. Given the current far left and “identity politics” predilections of the Democratic party, she seems a formidable opponent.
Biden’s hold on those aggrieved white Rust Belt blue collar workers was also tenuous, given that pretty much of the rest of the field was willing to outbid him with grandiose promises of free health care and guaranteed incomes and various other free stuff. Anyone who voted for Obama twice but then switched to Trump is not a true-blue Republican or conservative by our old-fashioned standards, and we suspect they were swayed by Trump’s even more grandiose and far-fetched promises of restoring the steel and coal and other Rust Belt industries to their long-long-ago ’50s glory, and now the rest of the Democratic party seems to willing to make to such gullible rubes even more grandiose and far-fetched promises. They can’t make the same make America white again promises as Trump, whose brand of identity politics also offends us, but Obama got their votes two times around and  we think they’ll once again fare well.
The estimable Washington Post editorial writer Eugene Robinson had an editorial on Monday taunting that we Never-Trump Republicans should reconcile ourselves to the idea that the Democrats are going to wind up nominating a Democrat. With all due respect to Robinson we didn’t need him to tell us that depressing news, and note that the three or four Democratic candidates we could conceivably vote for are all polling in the single digits, but we’re still hoping the party will come up with its least crazy possible nominee. Two major parties gone stark raving crazy are two too many, as far we’re concerned.
Our guess is that we’ll wind up once again throwing away our vote on some futile independent candidate, and that all our Democratic and Republican friends will accuse us of de facto voting for the hated other side. Once again, we’ll console ourselves that at least we threw our vote away on something better. How the rest of the country votes is up to the rest of the country.

— Bud Norman

Fox or Not, That Is the Dem’s Question

Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg had an hour long “town hall” appearance on the Fox News network Sunday, and he wound up getting a standing ovation from the studio audience and rave reviews from much of the rest of the media. Democratic presidential candidate and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren has recently vowed not to appear on Fox News at all, calling the network a “hate-for-profit racket,” which also got much applause from rank-and-file Democrats as well as rave reviews from many media.
So far Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and a fewother Democratic candidates have accepted invitations to appear on Fox, while several other contenders are have joined in the boycott of the network. The primary results will prove who’s made the smarter choice, and we’re not in the habit of giving advice to Democrats but our best guess is that getting coverage from Fox is a good idea.
There’s no denying that most of the Fox opinion show hosts are unabashed apologists for President Donald Trump, but the news reporters tend to play it straight, the “town halls” are conducted by the tough-but-fair Chris Wallace, and any Democratic candidate who can’t handle the hard questions will eventually be exposed by the other networks. Besides, there are a lot of people watching Fox, and some of them might even be persuadable.
The exposure is especially useful for a candidate such as Buttigieg, who is atypical contender even by today’s standards. He’s a mere 37 years old, the mayor of mid-sized South Bend, Indiana, and openly homosexual, and until he became a media darling he was little-known, but he could be a formidable opponent for Trump. His youth shouldn’t be any more an issue than Trump’s advanced age, his political experience exceeds Trump’s, and Trump has no standing to criticize anybody’s sexual behavior. Buttigieg also served in the military, has excellent educational credentials, is well-spoken in eight languages, and is centrist enough that Trump will have a hard time portraying him as a left-wing crazy.
The “town hall” went enough for Buttigieg that Trump was complaining about Fox broadcasting it.
“Hard to believe that @FoxNews is wasting airtime on Mayor Pete, as Chris Wallace likes to him,” a two-part Trump “tweet” said. “Fox is moving more and more to the losing (wrong) side in covering the Dems. They got dumped from the Democrats boring debates, and they just want in. They forgot the people … who got them there. Chris Wallace said, ‘I actually think, whether you like his opinions or not, that Mayor Pete has a lot of substance … fascinating biography.’ Gee, he never speaks well of me — I like Mike Wallace better … and Alfred E. Newman will never be president!”
One hardly knows where to begin finding fault with this “tweet.” There’s the obviously bad idea a major news network shouldn’t be covering a major party’s presidential primaries, for one thing, and Trump’s grousing that he doesn’t get sufficient sycophantic support from Fox is also ridiculous. Trump misspelled the name of Mad Magazine mascot Alfred E. Neuman, too, which is hard for readers of our age to forgive, and readers younger than ourselves probably won’t get the reference at all. Even if some people notice some similarity between Neuman and Buttigieg — which we don’t, by the way — Trump won’t beat the Democrat on handsomeness.
There are surely some Democratic primary voters who will resent any candidate appearing on Fox, but surely many more who will applaud a willingness to wade into what is widely considered enemy territory, especially if the candidates perform as well as Sanders and Buttigieg are thought to have done. Any Democrat who wins the nomination will eventually have to engage with the network in the general election, anyway, so they might as well start now.
Both Sanders and Buttigieg took the opportunity to criticize Fox News’ opinion programs, by the way, and with Trump now badmouthing the network might be able to credibly revive its “fair and balanced” slogan.

— Bud Norman

On the Idea of a Woman as President

On Monday we ran into a young woman friend of ours who’s a staunch Democrat, and were slightly surprised to learn that she’s not running for president. We joked that pretty much every other woman who’s a staunch Democrat is in the race, as California Sen. Kamala Harris had just announced she’s joining Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and New York Senator Kristin Gillibrand and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard in the already-crowded field, but our friend didn’t think it was a joking matter.
Although our young friend is very much an I-am-woman-hear-me-roar sort of feminist, she looked around to make sure anyone else wasn’t listening and then confessed that she wasn’t comfortable with the idea of the Democrats running another woman for president. She needlessly assured us she’d dearly love to see a woman become president some day, but explained that at the moment her most pressing concern was defeating President Donald Trump in the next election, and confessed she was worried that at the present moment in the sexist United States of America any woman nominee couldn’t accomplish that.
At the risk of being accused of “mansplaining” or some other “micro aggression” against feminist sensibilities, we comforted our young that she was being an hysterical flibbertigibbet.
There are indeed plenty of sexist pigs remaining in America, and we can’t deny that the current president is one of them, but we argued that’s no reason for young feminist friend to despair. As  awful a woman as she was Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by three million or so and only lost the electoral vote by some 80,000 votes spread out over four key crucial states, and given that Trump’s approval ratings are even worse than when he was elected any less awful woman Clinton — a very low bar –stands as good a chance as any man of beating him after the past two years and what’s sure to come in the next two. We also noted the Kansas is by no means America’s most politically correct state, which is one of the things we love about it, yet it recently elected its third Democratic governor and rejected the Trump-endorsed white male Republican. The recently installed Democratic majority in the House of Representatives feature a record number of women, including a Native American lesbian kick boxer from right here in Kansas,  several of whom have all the media listening them to roar, and a tattooed folk-singing single mother is now our district’s Sedgwick County Commissioner, and we figure that in modern day America a woman stands as good a chance as anyone in any American election.
None of the Democratic women who have thrown their hats into the ring are to our liking, but then again neither are are any of the Democratic who figure to be in the race, and for old-fashioned Republican and conservative reasons of our own we’re eager to see a president other than that Trump fellow. Our advice to our young feminist friend was to choose whatever candidate or either sex who could win a majority of still mostly centrist America. We’re old enough to remember the election of ’72, when the crooked and unpopular Republican President Richard won a 49-state landslide because the Democrats when too far to the left, and although our young friend hadn’t been born at the time she seems to have learned the lesson, as much as she wants an eventual socialist paradise.
That Harris woman from California is way too far left for our tastes, but she’s a former tough-on-crime prosecutor and seems calmly deliberative and restrained in all her many television interviews, but that probably means she’ll seem too centrist to a lot of today’s radical Democrats, but we still think she’s a contender. That Gillibrand woman from New York was an appealing centrist when she was a congresswoman from a suburban swing district but when far left when she ran for statewide office, and will probably spend the primary race explaining away her previous and more sensible positions. Warren is running on the same platform as self-described socialist Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who might be campaigning on an octogenarian’s walker, and although she’s now impeccably politically correct that Gabbard woman from Hawaii has some explaining to do about past “tweets” regarding homosexuals.
We’d give all of them a fighting chance against Trump, but we told our young friend that we figure there’s better than a 50-50 chance he won’t be the nominee in 2020, and we wouldn’t be surprised if the first woman President of the United States turns out to be a Republican. Former two-term governor of South Carolina and recent United Nations ambassador Nikki Haley is young and ready, her governorships featured old-fashioned Republican fiscal rectitude and the permanent lowering of the Confederate flag from state buildings, her service in the Trump administration was marked by a more traditional foreign policy from her boss and a quiet resignation letter, and the Republicans could shake their reputation as the party of old white men by nominating a central young dark-skinned woman, and even our feminist Democratic young woman friend said she’d go along with that.
Sooner or later some white or dark-skinned woman is going to become president of the United States, and that’s fine by us, so long as she’s a good one.

— Bud Norman

Those Darned Democratic Women

Two prominent Democratic women foolishly rushed into entirely unnecessary controversies on Monday, which should provide Democrats with a reminder that as bad the Republicans might be at the moment they have some serious problems of their own.
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren got the day off to a bad start by publicizing the results of a DNA test which shows that she does indeed have some long-ago ancestor who was a Native American. During her first run for the Senate against former Playgirl model and unlikely Republican Republican Sen. Scott Brown she was widely ridiculed for her claims as a Harvard University professor that she was part Indian, and President Donald Trump has long loved mocking his outspoken critic and potential general election challenger as “Pocahontas,” and got a big a laugh from rally crowd by promising if he meets her in a presidential debate he’ll to pay a million dollars of his own money to a charity of Warren’s choice if she’d take a DNA test “that proves she’s an Indian.”
Warren apparently figured that the test results would make Trump look bad, as we’re sure she’s not so stupid to think Trump would pay up a million dollars. Trump told a gaggle of rain-soaked reporters that he’d never offered such wager, which did make him look bad when almost everyone network re-ran the footage of Trump saying exactly that, and by now even Trump seems to realize that the “Pocahontas” gag is so stale it’s no longer even provocative.
So why bring it up? By doing so, Warren invited Trump’s army of internet trolls to re-tell all the old jokes and “memes” of a feather-clad and war-striped Warren, and they could now giddily note that the percentage of her DNA derived from Native America makes her not only whiter than the average white person but whiter than Ivory soap. There’s no proof that Warren’s objectively impressive academic career benefited from her claims of American Indian heritage, but she did make mention of it on various forms, and it’s exactly the sort of loony identity politics on the left that the even the most ridiculous on the right can rightly make fun of. Various Native American groups have long objected to Trump’s repetitive “Pocahontas” jokes, but they also taken offense at Warrens’ claims of kinship, so at best we’d score it a desultory draw for Warren and another humiliating defeat for America’s political discourse.
On the same day, former First Lady and Senator and Secretary of State and former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton defended the sexual behavior of her hound dog of a husband back when he occupied the Oval Office, reviving all the old fellatio jokes on the right and arousing much disgruntled talk on a left that’s currently on a moral crusade against hound dog male sexual misbehavior. Clinton correctly noted that Monica Lewinsky was 22 years old when she consented to what the president would later call “an inappropriate relationship” with the then 49-year-old Leader of the Free World, and when her interviewer brought up all the feminist theories about power dynamics and all that she defied the sisterhood by saying it was no reason for her husband to resign.
The sisterhood all agreed with that back in the day, what with Roe v. Wade being danger if the Republicans ever regained the office and all that, but that was then and this is now, and at the moment the sisterhood is less indulgent of even the most impeccably liberal Democratic men’s hound dog ways. It’s a winning issue for the left, given the alarming number of women out there who seem to regard male sexual misbehavior as a pressing social problem, so the left doesn’t need Clinton out there reminding everybody that they’ve not always been so pure as Ivory soap when it comes to respecting young womanhood. Both of those dreadful Clintons have now outlived their usefulness to the Democratic party, yet remain favorite villains to rev up the fearful Republican faithful, and would be well-advised by almost everyone to retire from public life and enjoy their ill-gotten fortune and somehow long-lasting marriage.
Far better for the left to focus the attention on the right’s hypocrisies, as the Grand Old Party that once impeached President Clinton for his lies about offenses against young but legal womanhood is now, for some reason or another, regarded by a landslide majority of American women as a party of pussy-grabbing sexist pigs who mock women alleging sexual assaults. The left would also be better off if they stopped with all that white guilt-ridden identity politics nonsense, and focus attention on the equally nutty white pride identity politics that has a small but annoyingly significant toe-hold on the right, but they’ve once again blown that opportunity.
The Democrats have recruited a slew of formidable women candidates for a wide range of offices this year, even here in Kansas and Sedgwick County, including some decorated war veterans and barrier-breakers and Lifetime Network movie heroines, and given that a landslide majority of approximately half the electorates reasonably regards the Republicans as a bunch of sexually insecure and draft-dodging and pussy-grabbing sexist pigs we’ll expect they’ll do fairly well.
Still, at the risk of being accused of “mansplaining” or some other “micro-aggression,” we’d advise Clinton to step out of public life and Warren to step up her game before the looming mid-terms. These Democratic “babes” — as Rush Limbaugh calls them — have some pretty crazy ideas about the economy and social justice, as far as we’re concerned, but we have to admit they’re pretty much right about the Republicans these days being a bunch of pussy-grabbing sexist pigs, and we’ll hope that whatever the eventual disastrous outcome is it isn’t based on today’s dumb news.

— Bud Norman

In the Mean Times of Trump

Way back when we registered to vote as members of the Republican party on our 18th birthday it was the “party of Lincoln,” the Great Emancipator who preserved the Union by brutal means but then vowed to heal its wounds with “Malice toward none and charity toward all.” At this late date in our lives the Grand Old Party is the party of President Donald Trump, and we can’t help noticing the malicious and uncharitable turn it has lately taken.
Not just in the insult comic rhetoric Trump employs at his never-ending campaign rallies, or the mean-spirited and blatantly self-interested way he chooses to to enact even his most defensible policies, but also in our conversations with dear old Republican friends we used to consistently agree with. We used to agree on strict border enforcement policies, for instance, but these days we seem to disagree about whether the border laws can be strictly enforced without traumatizing thousands of children and perhaps losing track of hundreds of them, and whether that that pesky Constitution and its noisome judges and all those treaty obligations America has pledged its scared honor to in past administrations should have anything to do with it.
We’ve lately had a couple of conversations with conservative friends we have long known as good guys always willing to do a favor for a friend in need, and were surprised to hear them defending the family-separation policy even Trump had already disavowed and blamed on those darned Democrats. Neither had been informed by their favored news sources that the Trump administration is failing to meet a court order to reunite those those thousands of children with their parents, and and seemed to admit in sworn court proceedings that they weren’t entirely sure where all of those children were, and both of our friends were uncharacteristically callous to the fates of the children involved.
Both insisted all those Dickensian orphaned-by-Trump urchins of those sob sister stories in the mainstream media were better off than they ever were in the countries their parents had fled, and although the Trump administration isn’t letting anyone into the facilities where the children are known to be held they’re willing to take Trump’s word for it. They’re also both quite sure that almost all those people who made the perilous journey with their children to America to flee their undeniably dysfunctional home countries and apply for asylum according to America’s laws and longstanding sacred honor international treaty obligations did so to leech off America’s welfare system and join the notorious MS-13 gang. Neither was aware that Trump had “tweeted” a complaint about a formerly conservative Republican senator’s proposal to double the number of federal immigration judges in order to deal with a sudden backlog, and further groused that the existing law and the judges who enforced it and America’s longstanding sacred honor treaty obligations all had to go, and neither was much unsettled by our accepted assurances that it was from Trump’s own “twitter” feed and not “fake news” from their less-favored news sources.
Such is the state of “constitutional conservatism” in Trump’s Republican party.
Meanwhile, the rhetoric from the top of party is meaner yet. Last Thursday Trump regaled yet another large campaign rally crowd in Montana, ostensibly on behalf of a Republican Senate candidate he briefly mentioned, and he ratcheted up his insult comic shtick yet another notch. He got another big laugh be reporting his longstanding gag of calling Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren is “Pocahontas,” based on her past dubious claims of having Native American heritage, and sneaked in a jibe about how he’d have to confront her ever so gently because “we’re in the ‘#MeToo’ generation,” which protests the frequency of sexual harassment and sexual in America. We’re no fans of Warren, but by the gag seems very stale, and although we believe every male or female citizen deserves a fair hearing in the courts of public law and public opinion, we can’t help noticing how eager even our longtime and gentlemanly Republican friends suddenly seem to dismiss even the most plausible complaints about about fellow Republicans grabbing women by their wherever.
More bothersome yet, Trump also aimed his insults at past Republican nominees we proudly voted for. Trump didn’t dare mention the name of Arizona Sen. John McCain, but the draft-dodging reality show star with a lifelong career of self-enrichment and self-aggrandizement got about 6,000 Republicans in lustily boo a dying war hero and past Republican presidential nominee who had devoted his life to often painful public service. The booing was about McCain’s decisive vote to not repeal and replace the hated Obamacare law, but the bill wouldn’t have entirely repealed Obamacare and certainly didn’t replace with the everybody-covered-at-a-fraction-of-the-cost replacement that Trump promised during his pie-in-the-sky campaign, and no matter what you think about McCain’s vote the boos rang unmistakably mean to our ears.
Past Republican president and bona fide war hero and lifelong public servant George H.W. Bush is also dying, and without mentioning the name Trump also ridiculed Bush’s “thousand points of light speech.” The phrase was from a famous speech penned by Reagan’s speechwriter Peggy Noonan about the thousands of individual and collective efforts of America citizens to provide charity to the country’s poor, and Trump scoffed that he never understood what it was talking about, and not nearly so clear in meaning as “Make America Great Again” and “America First.” This struck us as the fourth-grade vocabulary understanding of political rhetoric of Trump and his die-hard fans, and malicious and uncharitable and downright mean.
Trump didn’t bring it up during the Montana rally, but he’s also feuded with previous Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and previous Republican President George W. Bush, and he’s even dared criticize President Ronald Reagan’s North American Free Trade Agreement and embrace of amnesty for illegal aliens and failure to pick Trump as the guy to negotiate the end of the Cold War, and he’s clearly contemptuous of pretty much the entire pre-Trump Republican party.
Trump has given President Richard Nixon a pass, but he’s currently seeking to undo the world trading order and western military alliances that President Dwight Eisenhower nurtured. Trump seems committed to the same sort of Smoot-Hawley protectionism that President Herbert Hoover used to create the Great Depressions, although we doubt he’s aware of any Republican party history prior to his birth, or perhaps his hostile takeover.
Trump always refers to his party’s first nominee as the “late, great Abraham Lincoln” — always adding that “late” part in case you haven’t heard the bad news about Honest Abe — but he doesn’t seem much of a fan. He infamously told a friendly interviewer that Democratic party founder unrepentant slave-holder and unabashed racist President Andrew Jackson could have averted at all that Civil War unpleasantness that happened under Lincoln’s watch. We don’t doubt that draft-dodging Trump would have pursued the civil war with the same brutality of Lincoln, and not lost a moment’s night sleep over it, but we can’t imagine him proposing to restore the Union with malice toward and none and charity toward all. Even our most kind-hearted Republican friends don’t seem to have much interest in that these days.
Which is a shame, because we and our Republican friends can continue to agree that the Democrats are as bad as ever and getting even crazier left by the moment. A Republican resistance is more needed than ever, but one that spoke of malice toward none and charity toward all and a thousand points would be preferable to one that seems to revel in its meanness. Our conservative friends cite the meanness on the left, our liberal friends say they’re only responding in kind, and we miss the Democratic party of such centrists as Vice President Hubert Humphrey and Sen. Scoop Jackson and the Republican party that existed so long before Trump.

— Bud Norman

Just Another Manic Monday

President Donald Trump was largely out of the news over the long Thanksgiving holiday weekend, but he made up for with it a manic Monday of mostly embarrassing headlines.
The day began with Trump’s Office of Management and Budget director showing up at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to take control as acting director, which was already being contested in federal court by the woman who was tapped for the job by the outgoing director. Although Trump has every legal right to appoint a permanent director to the bureau, the specific law that created the bureau spells out that until the appointment is confirmed by Congress the the outgoing director’s choice is in charge, so there’s a good chance that the courts will quickly bring more embarrassing headlines about the matter over the next few news cycles.
Which is a shame, because there’s a strong case for the changes Trump is clearly eager to bring about at the CFPB. The bureau’s defenders can rightly point to cases where it’s helped out average folks, even if the big one is the Wells Fargo fake-account scandal that the bureaucrats first found out about by the reading the free press, but all those too-big-to-fail banks it was meant to combat keep getting bigger, and so do the fees they charge their customers, and the acting director Trump appointed rightly pointed out that the agency’s quasi-governmental status and non-congressional funding give it power that anyRepublican should fear a Democrat wielding, and any Democrat should fear a Trump appointee weilding
The smart move would have been to quickly appoint a permanent director to make the necessary changes and have all his good friends in the Republican majorities in Congress quickly confirm, and quietly suffer whatever indignities some President Barack Obama administration holdover might cause in the brief interim, but that’s not Trump’s style.
Later in the day Trump had a photo opportunity with three aging Navajo “code talkers,” who were one of the great stories of World II, and the smart move would have been to act solemn and grateful and not cause any racial controversy, but that’s also not Trump’s style.
The youngest of the nonagenarian Marine veterans was only 15 years old when he signed up for a bloody war in Guadalcanal and Iowa Jima and the worst of the Pacific theater, and was able to give an eloquent account of how he and his Navajo colleagues helped win that war by sending in-the-middle-of-it radio reports in their indecipherable-to-the-Japanese native language, and how it proved that America is invincible when all sorts of Americans are truly united. Trump was so moved that he said wasn’t going to use the speech that had been written for him, which he handed to one of the veterans as a gift, which would have been a moving gesture if he’d left it at that, but in his extemporaneous remarks he wound up slipping into his campaign rally insult comic mode with an oft-used joke about “Pocahontas.”
“Pocahontas” is of course  Trump’s nickname for Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth, who was largely responsible for the creation of the CFPB but has nothing whatsoever to do with Navajo code talkers’ heroism, and he couldn’t resist the opportunity of having Indians on hand to bring up his favorite Indian joke. During her first Senate campaign it was revealed she had long claimed some small amount of American Indian blood and counted herself among some group of Native American scholars or another, which was widely ridiculed at the time by such conservative outlets as this, so Trump has always responded to her frequent criticisms by taunting her as “Pocahontas.” The wittier wags used to call her “Faux-cahontas,” but that’s either too subtle for Trump’s tastes or he figures that hard-core fans wouldn’t get it.
By the now the joke is pretty much played out, and at a ceremony that was supposed to be about Navajo code talkers and a united America’s invincibility it didn’t play nearly so well as it used to at the campaign rallies. The honored guests couldn’t have looked more unamused if they were made of wood and standing outside a cigar shop, the National Congress of American Indians the president of the Navajo Nation was offended by the remark, so was Oklahoma’s Chickasaw and Republican Rep. Tom Cole. White House press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders assured her interrogators that the president didn’t indent any offense to American Indians, and that everyone should be more offended by Warren’s unsubstantiated claims “which should be constantly covered,” but no one in that audience found it convincing.
Trump had already “tweeted” routine gripes about the “fake news” media, this time singling out the Cable News Network, writing with his characteristically random capitalizations that “@FoxNews is MUCH more important in the United States than CNN, but outside of the U.S., CNN is still a source of (Fake) news, and they represent our Nation to the WORLD very poorly. The outside world does not see the truth from them!” The fans still love this familiar routine at the campaign rallies, but elsewhere the timing was once again a bit off.
Trump’s tweets came just after Russian dictator Vladimir Putin announced his intention to start restricting such foreign media organizations as CNN, and while the governments in Poland and Turkey and the Philippines and other countries that Trump has a similar affinity for are increasingly threatening their own independent journalists, so Trump’s media critiques have an ominously authoritarian tone. They also come at a time Trump’s Department of Justice is challenging a complicated merger of a couple of big-time media giants that involves CNN, and although it’s too complicated for us to say who’s right we can’t blame any court that suspects the administration is pursuing a political vendetta against a perceived enemy among the free press.
There were also stories about Trump telling friends that the notorious “Access Hollywood” tape with him talking about grabbing women by the wherevers and all the rest of it  is also fake news, even though he not only owned up to but actually apologized for it way back when it came out, with all the links to the related story about the credibly accused child molester he’s backing in an Alabama senatorial race. Not to mention the ongoing speculation about why his former national security advisor’s legal team has stopped sharing information with Trump’s legal team regarding a special counsel investigation into the “Russia thing,” which seems likely to generate a lot of future embarrassing headlines.
Today is Tuesday, though, and the rest of the week should be clear sailing.

— Bud Norman

The Democrats’ Dilemma, Not Ours

These are the times that try our traditional Republican souls, but we suppose it’s even harder on a Democratic.
A mere eight years ago the Democrats won the White House back with the most hyped candidate in the history of presidential, along with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, clear control of the House of Representatives, and had enough votes on the Supreme Court to get away with its most grandiose ambitions. Those congressional majorities quickly vanished, now the White House has also been lost, and it seems likely that a conservative Supreme Court will be getting in the way of Democrats for another ten to twenty years no matter how future elections play out. Republicans control most of the state and local governments, too, with the Democrats’ dominance confined to the west coast and the upper northeast and a few big but shrinking cities in between.
The latest election results don’t represent a clear victory for the Republican party we once knew or the conservatism it once represented, but there’s no way to read them but as a resounding defeat for the Democrats and the liberalism is has come to represent. Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton won the popular vote due to running up the score in the west coast and the upper northeast and those few big but shrinking cities in between, and her party also won most of the Senate votes thanks to two Democratic candidates in California and no one running in Texas, but pretty much everywhere else the Democrats and their ideology were overwhelmingly rejected. Obamacare and the Iran deal and all those executive actions on immigration and everything else the Democrats have accomplished in the past years has been found wanting and will soon be erased, the noisy and angry race-class-gender sort of identity politics that the Democrats have peddled to ascendant minority-majority for the past many years has been beaten by an equally noisy and angry identity politics among a still mostly white and working class and almost entirely male or female population that doesn’t feel the need apologize for its race or class or gender, and at the moment the Democrats seem out of any other ideas. Whatever they get in the way of infrastructure spending or protectionist trade barriers or isolationist foreign policy will come courtesy of the reviled Republican president-elect Donald Trump, and none of it is likely to help the Democrats’ future electoral prospects, or anything else for that matter.
This has prompted some long overdue soul-searching within the Democratic Party, along with the usual finger-pointing and squabbling, but so far the results have not been promising. Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, who was Speaker of the House back in the good old days of six years ago but has been consigned to minority leader status ever since, has somehow retained her leadership position despite losing 63 of her caucus’ votes to challenger Rep. Tim Ryan of Ohio, and think the Democrats missed a chance there. Seventy-six-year-old Pelosi represents a district in San Francisco, a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants and every sort of race and class and gender identity refugee you can think of, and was the one who made sure that Obamacare passed so that we could as see what was in it and pushed that trillion dollar infrastructure spending “stimulus” boondoggle and pretty much everything else that voters have now soundly rejected. Ryan seems a rather middle-of-the-road to Democrat to our old-fashioned Republican eyes, but he’s only 43 years old and represents a district in Youngstown, a hard luck town chock full of the sorts of disgruntled white folks who used to vote for Democrats but are lately responsible for the Republicans’ monopoly of political power, so he might have been able to drag the party at least slightly closer to where most of the country is.
The Democrats are also forced to choose a new National Chairman or Chairwoman or Chairperson of Indeterminate Gender, the last two women who held the post having been forced out by scandals of collusion with Clinton, and thus far the leading contender seems to be Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota. He’s also gone by Keith Hakim, Keith X, Keith X Ellison, Keith Muhammad and other variations during his long career from the virulently anti-white Nation of Islam to a more mainstream form of Islam that is merely anti-western to his current status as America’s first Muslim congressman, and although his views on all those newfangled gender issues seems more in keeping with Democratic scripture than the Koran and he’s right on all the minimum wage and corporate taxes stuff he’s got all sorts of ties to some some unsavory segments of the Muslim world. At a time when a relatively recent Republican is winning a majority of the electoral votes by stoking the public’s very rational fears of radical Islamist terrorists, Ellison seems an odd choice as the chairman of a major American political party.
Both Pelosi’s and Ellison’s races are a result of the predictable divide in the party between those who feel that its liberalism is at fault for their predicament and those who blame it for not being liberal enough. There’s a sizable segment of the party that believes that should have gone with the self-described socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and although that’s based on some polling from ages ago and doesn’t take into consideration that incredible amount of opposition research any Republican could have unleashed on that unkempt nutcase it’s at least theoretically possible. Another segment blames Sanders’ insurgent primary challenge to Clinton for making her unpopular among the most idealistic sorts of Democrats who’d prefer someone less indebted to Wall Street and corporate boardrooms, as if Clinton’s appalling record of dishonesty and corruption was already obvious, and as if such idealistic Democrats were a significant voting bloc, but we suppose that’s also theoretically possible. The 70-year-old Clinton will probably still have some sway in the party, although she not only but she lost to the reviled Trump, and 67 year old Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts is probably the most prominent high-cheekboned face of the Democrats, but a party of scolding old white women will have a hard time going up against a party of angry old white men, and we’ve seen enough of those arguments to know that it won’t do anyone any good.
Not being Democrats, we’ll leave to them to sort it out. We used to be Republicans, and we’ve got our own worries.

— Bud Norman

Speculating on the Latest Speculations

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton reportedly has the walking pneumonia, and has exhibited symptoms of the boogie-woogie flu, which is leading to all sorts of speculation that she might be replaced at that top of her party’s ticket. The speculating isn’t just occurring in the comments sections of the more conspiracy-minded corners of the new media that have been gleefully predicting Clinton’s imminent demise for months now, but also at the old school over-the-air television networks and in the most respectable of the ancien regime ink-on-paper outlets.
We’ll not indulge any guesses about Clinton’s physical condition, as our medical expertise is pretty much limited to our Pop’s all-purpose prescription to put some merthiolate on it, but we’ve been studying both politics and the press long enough to surmise that her campaign might well be in critical condition. Her walking pneumonia was reportedly diagnosed last Friday, the same day the latest round of polls that showed her tenuous lead over the widely reviled Republican nominee slipping further into the margin of error, on Saturday she regaled a homosexual rights group’s fundraiser with her now-infamous remarks about the racist and sexist and homophobic and Islamophobic and “you name it” being a “basket of deplorables” who comprised a full half of Trump’s support, while on Sunday the polite press was still reluctantly reporting the fallout from that gaffe when she had another videotaped moment of weakness that was blamed on her walking pneumonia, which even the most polite press had to admit her walking pneumonia  should have been to revealed the public last Friday. By Monday there was chatter about who might replace her, from one end of the media to the other, and it didn’t seem at all far-fetched.
We’ve also been studying politics and the press long enough to allow for the possibility that Clinton will survive these headlines, just as she and her philandering “Comeback Kid” of a husband have survived so many others, and even in this crazy election year we’d guess it’s still a probability that candidate nominated at the convention will be the nominee on election. The “deplorables” comments will likely be treated more like Democratic nominee’s “bitter clingers” remarks in ’08, which somehow didn’t derail his candidacy, than Republican nominee Mitt Romney’s asides about the government-dependent “47 percent,” which seems to have played a role in his demise. The public might yet decide they prefer a comatose Clinton to either a cognizant Trump or or a cognizant Clinton, too, in which case we could hardly blame it.
Still, one can’t resist the fun of speculating about who might be the nominee should the Democratic coaches decide to send a replacement in from the sidelines. The sports talk show-like chatter on all the political talk shows includes such predictable choices as the ticket’s vice-presidential nominee, former Virginia Senator and Gov. Tim Kaine, the longtime Delaware Senator and sitting Vice President Joe Biden, the self-described socialist and primary runner-up Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the far-left darling of the party back when the Democratic race began with such high hopes and someone who could still realize the Democrats’ long-awaited dream of a First Woman President.
Each of whom, of course, would have his or her own problems. Kaine has an impeccably leftist voting record and a glaring lack of charisma. Biden has been an inconsequential vice president with a noticeably creepy way around young girls for the past eight years or so, and still carries all the plagiarism and hair plug scandals that sank his previous attempts at the top job. Sanders is still a self-described socialist, and even in such crazy election year as this we’d prefer to think that won’t play well with a general electorate. Warren is also further left of center than Clinton, not to mention the obviously white woman’s easily ridiculed claims to an Indian. Pull any other name out of a Democratic hat, and they’ll almost certainly raise similar concerns.
Any name you might pull out of a Democratic hat, on the other hand, wouldn’t be weighed down by so much baggage as Clinton has brought along in her sputtering campaign. Clinton and her philandering “Comeback Kid” of a husband have been generating juicy scandals since their Arkansas days back in the ’80s, and with less than a couple of months left until election day it’s hard to imagine that the pro-Trump media, such as they are, could whip up the same level of indignation and distrust against anyone who has been at least conscientious enough to remain so little-known. More importantly, almost any of them could credibly claim that their political scandals and moral shortcomings can’t compare with those of a thrice-married-to-a-naked-model and four-times- bankrupt casino-and-strip joint-and-reality-show mogul who mocks the handicapped and disparages American prisoners of war and endlessly praises Vladimir Putin and contributes to Clinton’s campaigns and promises the potential students at his “university” that he “personally handpicks” all the professors, to name just a few of the political scandals and moral shortcomings that have caused the Republican nominee to be regarded with such indignation and distrust that he’s still slightly behind even Clinton in the average of the polls.
There’s still the matter of political philosophies  and voting records, but the Republican nominee doesn’t seem to have any of either, and by now the general public seems to have also lost interest all that bosh in any case. If we ever somehow found ourselves running the Democratic party with the sole concern of winning an election we would be yank Clinton on whatever handy pretext presented itself and insert some dully scandal-free yet seemingly physically fit sort of more-or-less centrist, if the party still has any on hand, but we’ve followed politics long enough to bet that won’t happen. Given the chance to run the Republican Party we’d quickly yank Trump for almost any old name you might pull out of a hat, too, but at this glum point that’s also not worth speculating about.

— Bud Norman

Do Not Remain Calm, Democrats, All is Not Well

Republican nominee Donald J. Trump took a slight lead over presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in Real Clear Politics’ widely watched average of polls on Monday, and at least three pundits were urging that the Democrats not panic about it. Given what was going on both outside and inside the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, those pundits’ pleas for calm recall that scene in “Animal House” where Kevin Bacon is urging the townsfolk fleeing a fraternity-induced riot to “remain calm, all is well,” just before he is squashed into the sidewalk, Wile E. Coyote style, by the terrified trampling horde.
Outside the Wells Fargo Convention Hall there were large groups of angry supporters of self-described socialist and Democratic runner-up Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders wearing the same “Hillary for Prison” t-shirts and shouting the same “Lock her up” chants that were de rigueur at last week’s Republican National Convention in Cleveland, and even on the credentials-only inside the presumptive nominee hardly fared better. Surly Sanders delegates were booing any mention of Clinton’s name even during the opening prayer that the rigorously secular Democrats still offer for some reason or another, and kept it up even when Sanders himself was speaking on behalf of the presumptive nominee. Democratic National Committee Chairwoman and Rep. Denbie Wasserman-Schultz, who was denied a speaking slot and will resign her post at the end of convention because of the leak of thousands of e-mails showing she had long plotted against Sanders on behalf of Clinton, endured a similar chorus of boos while addressing her home state of Florida’s delegates. Speeches by such liberal icons as Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and First Lady Michele Obama and and illegal immigrant girl were better received, but hardly any reason to delay the panic.
Those Kevin Bacon-ish pundits pleading for Democratic calm could rightly point out that Trump’s lead is indeed slight, well within the margin of error, and that other usually reliable forecasting models continue to show Clinton with a lead, although also slight and well within their margins of error, and that of course the election remains a few months away, but a few months ago everybody had Clinton up nearly double digits so the clear trend is not encouraging for Clinton supporters. They rightly note that Clinton has far more money and a larger campaign apparatus, but the dissolution of her once formidable lead has come as she’s vastly out-spent her opponent on attack ads. They also note the Trump’s long forestalled lead came with the usual “convention bump,” but that was no usual convention the Republicans held and it didn’t get the “yuuge” ratings the candidate expects probably would have cost the usual candidate a point or two, and what’s going on in Philadelphia doesn’t seem likely to undo the damage.
Hope springs eternal in the Democratic soul, so there are also reassurances to the faithful that Trump will surely do something to disqualify himself from the race, but all hope has already been extinguished in our formerly Republican souls and we can’t think of any reason our leftists friends should have any. If they’re hoping that Trump will mock somebody’s handicap or disparage American prisoners of war or publicly boast about his penis size or peddle some bizarre and slanderous conspiracy theory about the Kennedy assassination he’s already done that, and much more, and got a bump in the polls every time. If they’ve got their fingers crossed that he’ll make some more dangerous statements about paying America’s creditors less than promised or not fulfilling our treaty obligations or taking The National Enquirer seriously, that all happened while he was taking his slight lead in the race.
Trump prevailed with such unprecedented tactics against a crowded field of better-funded and better-organized Republican challengers, who varied in quality but in every case were more appealing public figures than Clinton. What those pleading-for-calm pundits won’t tell their readers is that Clinton is such a thoroughly awful candidate in every way that her unfavorable ratings are now even higher than Trump’s, which is saying something that should provoke a widespread and bipartisan panic throughout the land. Her tenure as First Lady was mostly spent enabling her perv husband’s sexual assaults, which Democrats at the time applauded because at least he was pro-abortion, but these days the feminist wing that was supposed to go all sisterly solidarity for the First Woman President are carrying mattresses around campus to protest a mythical “culture of rape” with the Republican nominee praising the good works of Planned Parenthood and quite obviously insincere about his recently acquired anti-abortion principles nobody’s all that anxious about the looming theocracy these days. Her brief and inconsequential time in the Senate was mostly spent plotting her presidential run, which she lost to an even more junior and inconsequential Senator, and her run as Secretary of State was one disaster after another. She’s humorless, apparently in ill health, and every bit as mean and morally compromised as her more entertaining and robust opponent.
The longtime political operative doesn’t seem to understand this strange American moment nearly as well as the longtime reality television show star she’s running against, too, and thus has wound up on the wrong side of big issues. That 11-year-old illegal immigrant girl given a spot on the Democratic convention stage sure was cute, but no so cute as to dissuade the majority of Americans who are so eager for some semblance of immigration law enforcement that they’re even willing to indulge wild fantasies about giant walls that the Mexicans will pay for.
Her frequently stated belief that all Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people who have nothing to do with terrorism is more consequentially wrong than Trump’s wild overstatements about how they’re all out to get us and we have to start getting tough even on the Gallic French and Teutonic Germans who have been willingly living among them. Trump’s protectionist trade policies are so similar to the self-described socialists Sanders’ that he’s making an unlikely plea to Sanders’ supporters, and although Clinton has been dragged into pretty much the same disastrous and suddenly bipartisan position her past support for the North American Free Trade Agreement and other trade-friendly policies make her seem the less sincere of the two remaining contenders.
She’s also stuck with the race-baiting “Black Lives Matter” movement that isn’t playing well outside the black community that was going to vote for any old Democrat anyway, while Trump is so law-and-order that he once called for the execution of the young black and hispanic men convicted of raping the “Central Park Jogger” and then continued to do even after they were exonerated by incontestable physical evidence, which won’t endear him to those black voters who were going to vote Democrat anyway and probably won’t much bother many of his own supporters. Trump is against Obamacare, which is good enough for his supporters, and although his vague descriptions of a replacement that would “take care of everybody” and the “government’s going to pay for it” probably won’t win him many new supporters at least it will make it hard for Clinton to pull out the usual heartless capitalist cliches. Trump’s newfound enthusiasm for government-paid child care and “LGBTQ” issues right up to and including that creepy guy hanging around the women’s restrooms and showers obviates much of the old Democratic playbook, too, and somehow in this strange American moment it didn’t keep him from romping to a Republican nomination.
At this point Democrats might as well start facing the dreary fact we were forced to confront last week that either one of these dreadful candidates might win, and that in either case the country is going to lose. If anyone tries to tell you otherwise, we advise trample them as you flee in horror and leave them squashed on the sidewalk in Wile E. Coyote fashion.

— Bud Norman