Holding One’s Breath To Vote

by Glenn Fairman10/8/16

Friends:

Far be it for me to step in as Trump’s apologist. I did not want him to represent my party, but the damage has been done and we are stuck with him because the only true alternative is unspeakable.

Nevertheless, If I were to be judged by every casual word that sprang forth from my mouth, my lips would shame Hell. Moreover, there is a significant distinction between what one said in the spirit of sexual braggadocio to one’s confidant when one was heedless of an open mic, and Hillary Clinton’s outright loathsome epithets to staff and Secret service agents who were only doing their job to the best of their professional abilities.

Character is doing what is right when you think no one is looking, and hypocrisy is charging another with crimes that literally drip from your own fingertips. If we are fated to place our futures into the hands of sinful individuals infected with hubris and who crave the spotlight more than righteousness, I would prefer the Lothario who objectifies beautiful women to the traitorous liar who has sold her country’s birthright for a mess of pottage. What a mess we have made for ourselves when the act of choosing our destiny can be reckoned to diving head first into a septic tank. God save us.


Glenn Fairman writes from Highland, Ca.
About Author  Author Archive  Email

Have a blog post you want to share? Click here. • (1951 views)

Share
Glenn Fairman

About Glenn Fairman

retired
This entry was posted in Blog Post. Bookmark the permalink.

121 Responses to Holding One’s Breath To Vote

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I told Glenn to post this as a comment as I didn’t think it reached the standard of bothering to make it a blog post. But I took a moment and did it anyway if only to have a chance to say, “What the heck is wrong with these supposed Christians”? Let me count the ways.

    It is an extremely disingenuous, or at least confused, argument to say, “Let he is without sin throw the first stone,” to point out that, “Yes, we’ve all said stuff in private that we wouldn’t want to make public.” Andy McCarthy notes:

    This is so inane it is hard to know where to begin. Trump was not “merely” speaking on that tape. He was reporting his prior actions and relating his then-current attitudes. These included trying to bed a married woman while he himself was married; expressing the view, based on what he indicated was lots of experience, that women are playthings; and lacing it all with a beyond-weird arrogance and sense of entitlement. (Again, this is nothing that we shouldn’t have known already, but the tape brings it home in a bracing way.)

    My favorite moment in that recording is just before Trump exits the bus. He stands at the closed bus door like a cloistered king, not sure what to do. I guess he expects someone to open it for him. He then knocks. Nothing happens. Then someone behind him tells him to grab the handle. He finally does.

    This isn’t about being caught off-camera with normal private stuff that we all say that is way more than we would ever say in public. This was, for all intents and purposes, said in public (on a bus promo tour, for Christ’s sake…a publicity stunt).

    Hillary is a separate issue. The only reason — the one and only reason — we have this issue to deal with in an “us-vs-them” dichotomy is because one of the “them” finagled his way onto the “us” ticket and thereby negating the “us-vs-them” normal partisanship. Trump is not us. He is them. That so many were asleep at the wheel, willfully blind, or have been corrupted by other things is neither here nor there.

    Now, decide which of the “them” is worse. But, please, Glenn and others, spare us the moral rationalizations regarding Trump. He deserves to be flushed off the ticket with a fire hose. Now is not the moment to “Yes, but” him into normalization.

    • pst4usa says:

      Brad, I have an old Catholic joke based on this verse. Jesus comes upon the woman about to be stoned and says, Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, just then a rock flies in from the crowd, Jesus turns around and says, really? Mom!
      Sorry, I just could not resist. I’ll keep reading.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Well, assuming Monty Python got their facts right in Life of Brian (and I wouldn’t bet against that), women couldn’t take part in stonings.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          Don’t know if women, in those days, could take part in stonings, but they certainly did in parts of the Muslim world as recently as the 1980’s. I knew someone in the oil business who saw this happen.

          I knew someone else who worked in Saudi Arabia in the 1970’s who while walking down the street saw a judicial beheading. He left Saudi Arabia shortly thereafter.

        • pst4usa says:

          I try to always turn to the best scholars such as Monty Python movies for all my research. It is a very funny movie though. The scene with, “We’re all individuals”, really reminds me of the left today. We on the left are totally tolerant and all about equality and unity, unless of course, you disagree, then we kill you.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        I heard this joke in 1974 in Austria. I have told it many times.

        To really make it funny, one has to act it out.

        The ending I heard was that a clearly exasperated Jesus turns to a small woman and says, “Mother! Sometimes you just piss me off.”

        • pst4usa says:

          I like your ending better KFZ, and I really do not know about women involved in stoning or not, but I thought it appropriate joke for Brad’s use of the verse.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        LOL. Good one, Pat. Speaking of Catholics, the latest WikiLeaks describes the Catholic Church as a “Middle Ages Dictatorship.” As Jim Geraghty quips:

        It took a while, but it appears we’ve finally found a “Middle East dictatorship” that the Clinton camp wants to overthrow in a revolution.

        God bless the Catholics. May they (like so many of us need to) turn away from false prophets.

  2. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Great words from Mona Charen on The Corner:

    “Anyone who knows me knows that these words do not reflect who I am,” Donald Trump declared in his “apology” video last night. More likely, the exact opposite is the truth. I don’t know the man personally, but like the rest of you, I’ve been obliged to study him for the past year and more, and it’s safe to say that most people have the impression that this is exactly who he is, and who he has always been. I’m not sure why the Earth is opening up under him now and not a hundred other times in the past 16 months, but it’s a long, long, overdue reckoning.

    Charen makes another valid and practical point:

    It is tragic for the country that this likely means a Clinton victory. But as between a Clinton and Trump presidency, the former is probably less devastating to the things we treasure than the latter. Alexander Hamilton called Aaron Burr an “unprincipled voluptuary” in 1800 and wrote that he’d prefer to see his ideological foe Thomas Jefferson prevail. “Mr. Burr loves nothing but himself,” Hamilton wrote, “thinks of nothing but his own aggrandizement–and will be content with nothing short of permanent power in his own hands. No compact, that he should make with any passion in his breast except Ambition, could be relied upon . . .” If Trump were president, Republicans and conservatives would be forever tainted by every irresponsible, cruel, or stupid thing he said or did. Besides, if we’re going to have liberalism for another four years, let it wear the proper Democrat label.

    Pence/Lee 2016.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Well, if you can persuade enough electors to vote Pence/Lee, and Slick Hilly somehow falls short of a majority, it could happen. For that matter, there’s a decent chance (according to the latest poll) that Evan McMullin could actually win Utah, with similar possibilities.

  3. Glenn Fairman says:

    Politics is the art of the possible. Apparently he is all that is standing between the death knell of the republic and the slimmest of hopes. Oftentimes, we are left with the lesser of two evils. I am not speaking as a Christian, but as an amphibious being who can read the writing on the wall. I suppose I can pick up my marbles and go home and read the Book of Jeremiah. I cannot excuse the moral inadequacy of a cretin, only point out that one cretin is far less dangerous to liberty than another. If this is what we deserve at the end of liberty, then so be it. If it is rationalization, then it is the thinnest of gruel and boils in the belly like Sulphur—and tears are all I have left in the exchange of honor for expedience.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Politics is the art of the possible. Apparently he is all that is standing between the death knell of the republic and the slimmest of hopes. Oftentimes, we are left with the lesser of two evils.

      See my post below. I think this is complete and utter nonsense. Does anyone seriously think this jerk would nominate conservative Supreme Court justices? Does he understand the Constitution, the rule of law, American history, etc? No. He *is* of the Left, Glenn.

      No, he’s probably not a committed Alinskyite, per se. But one can be just as damaging as a useful idiot for the Left which he is (and which too many Republicans have been and continue to be).

      The only possible reason you, or anyone else, can make any sort of apologies for this man is because of the “R” next to his name. But he’s not one of us. He is the cultural enemy. And if this parasite actually became a Republican president, it is arguable that then, and especially then, that it would be the end of our great republic, or certainly shove us violently in that direction, for opposition to the Left would then be all but de-legitimized.

      They used to put out these films in WWII called “Know your enemy.” I hope someone out there with some Final Cut Pro experience could give us a refresher course. By all means, make one about Hillary as well.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I am not speaking as a Christian, but as an amphibious being who can read the writing on the wall.

      Listen, Glenn. I’m going to be a tough grader on this. I find it weak, at best, to go on and on as you and others do about Christianity but when it comes to actually putting it into practice I get this “I’m not speaking as a Christian.”

      Well, you sure as heck ought to. If you believe that America is a land helped along by Providence, you sure as heck ought to be speaking as a Christian. If you believe that America is deserving of good and wise leaders — in fact, that it is necessary for our world — you sure as hell ought to be speaking as a Christian.

      And if you won’t delve into Jeremiah for the answer, perhaps you’ll find the appropriate thought in the more recent writings of William Shakespeare: “A plague on both your houses.” And this need not be read as a curse but as a description of what we have now. And when sick, shouldn’t we seek a cure? And does a cure ever come from not washing out the filth and setting our houses in order again?

  4. Glenn Fairman says:

    While Conservativism is cut to the quick by the ethical lapses of its standard bearers, the Socialist Left will forgive any moral degradation– because to them, morality is only an instrumentality in the service of attaining its ultimate program. Since it despises humanity in the micro and claims to love only that which can be molded into its own stripe of perfection, the Left will avert its gaze to even Hell’s methodologies for the sake of constructing its City of Man.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Glenn, Trump didn’t engage in an “ethical lapse.” He is an ethical lapse.

      I’m no friend of feminism. And I’m certainly not politically correct. My brother and I often joke about setting up a YouTube channel of just a camera pointed on us when watching movies and TV shows. We would put Trump’s vulgarity to shame. We skewer all this nonsense and leave each other in stitches.

      But there’s one key difference: I have contempt for Leftism and political correctness (especially including feminism). But I like women. I genuinely like them and get along with them. And, yes, some of them are particularly hot and sexy and, in private, our talk can get pretty ribald. But I am not the sort of man pictured in that revealing conversation that has finally outed Trump (or should) for the fraud that he is, if not outright fiend.

      I don’t expect anyone to be an angel. But if you haven’t figured out yet that Trump is basically a con, then I don’t know what to say but that’s time for a little moral outrage. And this ain’t about me or anyone’s past (or current) sins. This is about Trump, who is running for president. Don’t inflate this into some gigantic metaphysical exposition on the shortcomings of Man. This is about the shortcomings of Trump.

      And I think Mona Charen (posted above) makes a great case for why Trump would be worse. Good god, just look already how much Trump has corrupted (the already semi-corrupt) Republican Party, not to mention conservatives, the Tea Party, Ted Cruz, etc.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        Months ago, I told you that Trump as the Republican candidate would do tremendous damage to the country no matter what the outcome of the election.

        Sadly, to date, I have not been proved wrong.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          For those new to the site or only marginally tuned in, I don’t have to explain to Mr. Kung or any regulars here that I have little but disdain for the pussified Republican Establishment. They have barely an ideology to speak of other than power and money.

          As much as I despise the ideology of the Left, at least they believe in something. So count me amongst the most zealous in regards to wanting a Politically Incorrect messiah to come talk about the important issues that the GOP pussies (whose genitals Trump can and has grabbed at leisure) have long taken off the table as “too divisive.”

          Well, we’re now worse than back to square one. Even before being elected, Trump has further marginalized conservative topics. Who is going to push back against the grievance, victimhood, and entitlement political establishments now, the very mindset that is, at the very least, bankrupting this country?

          Not that I expected even Ted Cruz to be a no-nonsense conservative. Unfortunately, Trump (inadvertently) has outed Ted Cruz as just another too-careful (and too clever by half) politician with seemingly no principle he would die for. Imagine where he’d be now if he had simply not shown up a the convention and remained steadfast in opposition to Trump.

          Now, as some NRO writer opined, John Kasich comes out of this in a very strong position for 2020. Granted, he’s probably in the wrong party as well. But he’s not a heathen. And he didn’t back the wrong horse…or ass, in this case.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      Do you or anyone else believe that this will be the last such salacious Trump video to pop up?

      Figure it out.

      First the to-do about the whorish Miss Universe, which the idiot Trump couldn’t shut up about.

      Now this video showing him for the vulgar scoundrel, which all along we have known him to be. But if a picture is worth a thousand words, a video with audio is worth a million. Thus, this will be extremely damaging.

      And who would like to take a bet that the Dems have a couple more of these videos or the like, which will be released over the next month?

      The honorable thing to do would be for him to withdraw from the race. But this man has no honor and no deep love for his country. He is a complete egomaniac. The only positive to carry from this is that even if he resigned today, it would probably be too late to undo the damage he has done. What a complete ass-hole.

  5. Glenn Fairman says:

    The party, it appears has already gone off the rails. I have long since changed my Republican status. That which is falling should be pushed. In the meantime, we can wax righteous as we are ground to dust in the rusting gears of Socialism.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Trump has promised twice the “infrastructure” spending as Hillary and opposes all entitlement reform. Glenn, put down the kool-aid for a moment. Just who of the two isn’t going to grind us down into the dust of socialism? Trump is for socialized medicine as well and against free-market solutions. But then I suppose it depends on what day of the week you read his policy statements. He may have been for it before he was against it before he was for it…sort of like he has changed his party affiliation at least five times.

  6. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    If Trump is our champion, what are we for?

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      Mephistopheles and Beelzebub!

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        As conservatives, our agenda should be clear. These are the most pressing issues facing our country:

        1) Debt

        2) Breakdown of the family

        3) Lawless government

        4) The tentacles of an unelected bureaucracy

        5) A weakened national defense

        6) Dependency and socialism

        Anyone who says “political correctness” is just a clown. Political correctness isn’t a policy. It’s a way to demonize opposition to Leftist policy, and it’s worked very well. To be against “political correctness” is a stupid as saying you’re against “terrorism.” Terrorism, like political correctness, is but a tactic. If you can’t name the enemy, you’re not even in the game.

        And if one will tackle these issues at that level, all well and good. But any politician who doesn’t understand the three pillars undermining our way of life will be shadow boxing.

        1) Freudianism (feelings uber alles…we are all but bundles of neuroses that need to be alleviated…the idea of human meaning, let along having a soul, is considered a joke)

        2) Darwinism (it gives license to all the cockamamie schemes of the Left because if nothing means nothing, man may do as he wishes — materialism is the commanding metaphysics and religion)

        3) Marxism (morality is turned on its head and those who suffer from their own misconduct are deemed victims while those who prosper because of hard work are cast off as “winning life’s lottery” or demonized as having gotten their gains due to “white privilege”).

        The specific incarnation of the above three is primarily feminism (anti-men), equality (of outcome and anti-capitalism), diversity (read: anti-white), and multiculturalism (read: anti-American). All these toxic things are dressed up, given a gender change, and are the new definition of good. All have produced the six bullet points above, and more.

        And that ultimately is how the Left has triumphed. While Christians and others have sat on their hands or have been unable to articulate a message any more complex than “god hates fags,” the Left has grabbed the initiative in defining what is moral and why.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Or perhaps Cthulhu and Yog-Sothoth.

  7. Glenn Fairman says:

    See you at the re-education camp.

  8. GHG says:

    Those who look for opportunities to criticize Trump has found their favorite pastime almost too easy as Trump has given them plenty.

    So Trump is a sexist jerk. Is anyone really surprised? There’s been a number of other presidents that would fall into that category as well. That’s not an excuse for Trumps vulgar behavior, only a little perspective for those who are feigning the vapors.

    Speaking of perspective, if the choice were as simple as a sexist jerk versus an untrustworthy criminal, who would choose the untrustworthy criminal? Well, actually the choice is just that simple.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      So Trump is a sexist jerk. Is anyone really surprised?

      We are in deep shit when stuff like this becomes the best defense for a presidential candidate in the United States of America.

      Speaking of perspective, if the choice were as simple as a sexist jerk versus an untrustworthy criminal, who would choose the untrustworthy criminal? Well, actually the choice is just that simple.

      At this point, the criminal is looking better than the crazy man. By a hair. By a dirty hair.

      Trump now doesn’t have a prayer of a prayer of a chance. It’s not that he got nailed with some past stuff. It’s that his answer was so weak. I really think there is something deeply wrong with this man. Yes, Hillary is corrupt and perhaps we’ll all soon be waiting in line in the re-education camps. (A naive and straw-grasping idea because it ignores the fact that those lines are already distributed throughout America, in corporations, universities, etc.)

      I’m very disappointed in my fellow man that he has nothing to offer but purely partisan politics based on the hobgoblin that “Anything or anyone but Hillary.” I truly do see now how a Trump presidency would be even more destructive because he would completely ruin and corrupt any opposition to the left. He is a political retrovirus, stealing the civic immune system and using it for his own purposes.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      As I noted here a while back, there actually were polls on that subject, Hillary (in effect; no names were used) was referred to in one case as an unrepentant criminal and in the other as (I think) a habitual liar. Both referred to Trump as some severe sort of jerk.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      So Trump is a sexist jerk.

      I make no excuses for Hillary, but to downplay Trump’s behavior by simply calling him a “sexist jerk” is dishonest or blind. How about an immoral scoundrel and perhaps criminal?

      Screwing the wives of others is more than sexist. Cheating on your wife is more than sexist. Molesting women, which is what grabbing them by their pussies is, is more than sexist, it is assault. Wait for the accusations of rape which will, no doubt, soon surface. Whether they are true or not will matter little because the predicate has been set.

      And the attempt to deflect from Trump’s disgusting character by saying a number of other presidents were sexist jerks is not very edifying. While this may be the case, I do not recall their immorality being known by the general public, as is the case with Trump. Let me ask you a simple question, “If they had proof of Trump raping a woman, would you still vote for him?”

      As it now stands, if I vote at all, I will still probably vote for Trump if only in the hope that the son-of-a-bitch wins and then proceeds to croak immediately after the swearing-in ceremony. (I sure hope that rape tape doesn’t turn up.)

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      This will, perhaps, give you hope.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2424555/Bill-Clintons-mistress-Gennifer-Flowers-Wed-today-wasnt-Chelsea.html

      According to Jennifer Flowers Bill told her, “Hillary has eaten more pussy than I have.”

      Let’s see how low we can go.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Ask Arne Saknussem. No one else has any idea.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Yikes. If that gastronomic delicacy is on tape, it might actually boost her poll numbers. She would be out-Trumping Trump so, well, isn’t that now the new definition of good? Shouldn’t we automatically apologize for that? Maybe god is using her to restore the country via everyone being so repulsed at her lawlessness. Maybe.

        In the meantime, David French has some good words on The Corner:

        In the meantime, as this sorry episode plays itself out, it will be useful as a reminder not only of how cheaply some people will sell out their own integrity (think of the parade of fading conservative stars who latched onto Trump as their last hope for professional relevance), but also of how much even good people can convince themselves of the most foolish things. Already I’m seeing good friends wake up as if from a dream – unable to believe they’d walked so far down the path with a man like Trump.

        May more people wake up, and may more people repent. To continue to advocate for Trump in the face of all we now know is deplorable. But no one is irredeemable.

        Repentence, not apologists, is what we need. You can’t count me among the fans of Kathryn Lopez, but I thought she had some very wise words about renewal and repentence in this post.

        Or, in the vernacular of Trump, “We fucked up, big time.”

        I don’t know why so many strident Christians so thoroughly fell for this guy. Again, I’m not talking about those who said, “I’ll hold my nose and vote against Hillary.” I don’t understand what they see. Is it their grandiose good-vs-evil thinking that has cast Hillary as the electoral devil therefore goodness is automatically ascribed to Trump, even if as some sort of instrument of God?

        Trump is finished. The deal with the devil has not worked out well. Usually they do not.

  9. Glenn Fairman says:

    You could have gone to the dance with Ritchie Cunningham, but you wanted Fonzie—-and now you’d settle for Ralph Mouth….and there’s grease all over the car seat. And to top it off, it looks like Carrie’s gonna be Prom Queen……

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Many years ago, we had to program EPROMs for one of our systems, and used a prom-burning program with a long, complicated name. My boss wanted a short version, easy to recall — so I renamed it CARRIE. Fortunately, I never went to any school prom, so I was safe.

  10. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Peter Lawler from The Corner writes:

    Others, beginning with Secretary Clinton, respond: Millions and millions of deplorable American men think and talk like Trump. That’s why the patriarchal code of gentlemen has to be replaced with more reliable means to protect the safety and honor the consent of women. Here’s Trump’s gift to the cause of soft despotism: His tirades against political correctness have caused us to identify the intrusive scripting of said correctness with common decency, with manners and morals. We all need to be protected from guys like Trump. But Trump in many ways is a rather singular case. He seems, for example, to have no real friends.

    He goes on, confirming my own belief that Trump will act to de-legitimize reform, thus strengthening the GOP Establishment. How could it be otherwise?

    As one Democrat wrote on the web: One benefit of Trump’s implosion is that he and he alone will be blamed for the Republican defeat in November. That means that Republicans won’t see the need to reform — to address legitimate populist concerns. They won’t see as an indispensable learning experience the rather incredible success thtat Trump really did achieve in capturing their decadent party. The cause for wonder is not that the trashy incompetent lost in November but that he won all those primaries.

    Rumor is that there are at least two more bombshells to come (not counting the Howard Stern stuff already out). One is described to be as bad as the pussy one. The other is said to be worse. Tomorrow night’s debate ought to be interesting. Trump’s only chance is if she goes into a prolonged catatonic state (where I’d rather she run for president), perhaps with some foaming at the mouth.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      Rumor is that there are at least two more bombshells to come

      As I predicted.

      This stuff is not so difficult. Why then, can’t the Trumpkins see beyond the end of their noses? It appears none of them thought about how this thing would play out. Instead, they swooned over this scoundrel. I am beginning to agree that the Republicans are the “stupid” party. And I don’t mean the RINO’s. Why didn’t any of his Republican opponents have this information during the primaries? Had this been presented then, he would have been long forgotten by now.

      It is a distinct possibility that the Dems have a bunch of these tidbits from Trump tapes. If they do, they will continue to spread them like rice at a wedding and Trump will eventually have to drop out. Of course, by then, it will be too late to recover from this fiasco.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        The rationale, “Vote against Hillary,” is still intact, even if Caligula’s horse was on the ballot against her.

        The other popular rationale is that Trump is a changed man, even a redeemed Christian man, since those words from 2005. Given what he has said about Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Megyn Kelly, and others, this seems a stretch.

        Mr. Kung, Peter Lawler agrees with you about the lack of opposition research by Trump’s Republican opponents (or, I think, they might have had some of this and didn’t want to upset his kool-aid drinking supporters). Lawler believes Trump never had a chance from the get-go:

        Now I too would never vote for Trump. But I’ve never been a psyched up “Never Trumper” either. He’s why: An incompetent, classless buffoon with an incorrigible unwillingness to learn never had more that the faintest ghost of a chance to win the general election. I haven’t lost a moment sleep over what a President Trump would do, because not even in my most anxious dreams have I been able to imagine him winning.

        It’s true, of course, that Trump easily won the Republican nomination. That’s because his most formidable opponents were even more overconfident and clueless. One sign of their incompetence: None of their opposition researchers uncovered such a dramatic piece of disgusting evidence of Donald’s low-life, shamelessly predatory vanity as the tape that emerged in the last couple of days.

        The truth is, I might be able to justify Trump’s crudeness if he was simply competent. It’s said that George Patton could swear like a sailor. But he was competent. Is there any evidence that Trump is: 1) anything other than a man of the Left to his core, 2) not a con man, or 3) marginally competent in politics?

        Stating that you will grab women by their genitals won’t win you any points. But doesn’t the preponderance of the evidence highly suggest that Trump is, to his core, Trump and that all these visions of him promoting conservative polices are just this election cycle’s “hope and change”? I think this is obviously so. To some extent, all politics is a con. Hillary is a con as she demagogues victimhood, demonizes free enterprises, and just generally presents herself as a bastion of moral virtue when she personally is a virtuous trainwreck and makes money by the bucketful from her own corrupt version of the market..

        Our problem is that we have become the kind of people who would consider putting either of these bums into the highest office of the land. Spending once ounce of energy defending either of these miscreants seems unseemly to me.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          In Graves’s Claudius the God, Claudius continues to treat Incitatus well, but removes his pension — and then removes him from the Senate due to his lack of wealth.

  11. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Trump is a megalomaniac. Hillary is crooked. Trump is deranged. He’s a vindictive, petty man with no more substance than measuring cock sizes. Jim Gergaghty makes a good point in reply to another maniacal Tweet by Trump:

    For the better part of a year, the argument from Trump supporters to GOP Trump skeptics was that Trump will appoint better judges, and at least enact some Republican policy goals, while Hillary Clinton would enact none of them. And for all of Trump’s personal flaws, this was more or less logical; select the option of half a loaf instead of no loaf, or just a few crumbs. But this assumed Trump would have a Republican House and at least a closely-held Senate to confirm those judges and offer him good legislation. The argument doesn’t work when Trump decides to attack other Republican officeholders for daring to criticize his infamous comments.

    Even to the most blinkered Trump supporter it must be obvious by now that the only thing Trump is loyal to or wishes to promote is himself. There is no honor in this man (damn little in Hillary as well). He has a severe personality disorder. Here’s his Tweet to those who criticized him for the latest vulgar revelations:

    So many self-righteous hypocrites. Watch their poll numbers — and elections — go down!

    This is the kind of shallow, single-minded creep Trump is. His only measure is popularity. For what it’s worthy, Hillary has a general ideology that a vast majority of Americans agree with.

  12. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    From what I saw of the debate, Trump performed better this time than last. He went after Clinton in a more disciplined manner. As far as I am concerned, his best bit was when he said if he is elected president he would appoint a special prosecutor to look into Hillary’s email lawlessness. I have long thought Republicans should say this.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I didn’t watch, of course, since I couldn’t stand listening to Slick Hilly and her media flacks (Raddataz and Cooper) so long (kind of like Radar O’Reilly’s wife in MASH Goes to Moscow). But Frank Luntz’s focus group certainly seemed to be much more favorable to Trump after the debate (Luntz had gone into it figuring The Donald was done).

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I saw the first 30 minutes non-stop and then went back and forth between the football game and the debate. I agree. Trump did better. And we all know that none of the other Republicans, including Cruz, would have held her feet to the fire.

      But I quickly get bored by such “debates” which aren’t actually debates in the least. Still, it’s a format that can be used to some effect if only Trump (or Hillary) would. But the goal is to simply rattle your opponent (hopefully get them to melt down) and enunciate your hopefully catchy prepared soundbytes to make them seem unrehearsed. And, I guess, to have some overall theme to it since the America public and media seem incapable of anything but vague generalities (thus Trump, I suppose).

      I think Hillary was very good in her opening statements. And I think she more or less maintained the theme that Trump is untrustworthy and unfit for office (true and true, if you ask me…goes for her as well).

      Trump, on the other hand, was in his usual spaghetti mode, throwing everything at the wall to see if something would stick. There was no overall theme to it. No one could possible know what he stands for other than some vague generalities. I’m sure more than a few viewers needed Dramamine. He’s like a boat lurching from one side to the other. There’s lots of motion, but to what end?

      The same isn’t necessarily true for Clinton who very early mouthed the word “diversity.” People know what Progressivism entails and Trump did almost nothing to hit Hillary where it really hurt. His deflection of Pussygate was better than I expected but amateurish. Kung & Nelson consulting would have told him to go right for the throat and, although he admits to being crude (but is now a changed man), his locker-room talk is nothing compared to the brave soldiers Hillary hung out to dry at Benghazi. And then I’d note that our good Marines could probably teach him a few words he didn’t know.

      Oh, dear god, how could anyone not have something like that prepared? His family are political amateurs, and it shows. But then I imagine working with Trump behind the scenes is like trying to train a monkey.

      Final thought: Are men still allowed to vote? The entire debate was aimed at women. Men were a forgotten commodity. Again, I would have had a prepared statement for Trump to defuse Hillary’s vagina-centrism.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        Kung & Nelson consulting would have told him to go right for the throat and, although he admits to being crude (but is now a changed man), his locker-room talk is nothing compared to the brave soldiers Hillary hung out to dry at Benghazi. And then I’d note that our good Marines could probably teach him a few words he didn’t know.

        I was surprised a bit surprised he didn’t do something like this. He could have also hit the reporters and Clinton on the dire state of the world and nation and pointed out, “this is what you people want to concentrate on?”

        • Timothy Lane says:

          He did say something very similar at one point, noting all the problems in the world (such as ISIS and its atrocities), and this is what they’re talking about. He certainly did hit back against the usual biased moderating that we get from the “bipartisan” debate commission.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            You’re right. And he fumbled it. I guess that’s why the pros prepare sound bytes (Reagan did) and some can even deliver them smoothly (Reagan very much did).

            Trump is an amateur, likely unable and unwilling to listen to advice and to properly prepare. Hillary’s opening remark was effective.

            As someone said at NRO, if they turned off the debate after the first half hour (as I mostly did), Hillary came away looking good, stable, coherent, and (for her) presidential. She sent Kung & Nelson political consultant agency a big fat check last month when we gave her the advice not to screech and not to sound like everyone’s ex wife. She took that advice.

            She’s going to win in a landslide. Even Trump supporters would have a hard time figuring out what the challenger to the status quo has to offer. He’s a mess as a debater. And Hillary isn’t much better. But the important take-away is that she didn’t hurt herself and Trump didn’t help himself. He never answered the central question, “Why should I vote for this guy who has no experience in government?”

            He’s running as an outsider, unsullied by the insider status quo. But, good golly, you wouldn’t know it. His “messaging” is weak. He has no theme other than “I’m going to make a better deal” or “I’ll fix it.” This only works on the cult-of-personality zealots who, for one reason or another, see Trump as their Vengeance machine.

            Hillary is Obama’s third term, something Trump pointed out. But is that a bad thing in the eyes of the public? There’s a certain kind of Bush-following-Reagan stability to electing Hillary. Despite her faults and scandals, Trump is the one on trial. Hillary only needs to seem reasonable, and she got that down is spades. Trump really (from what I saw) couldn’t rattle her.

            Had I known nothing of Hillary Clinton, she would have sold me with her opening remarks before I changed the channel (as likely most did after a little while). She was very smart to have such a well-prepared opening.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              Obama has a high favorability rating, but we don’t know how much of that is not wanting to speak ill of the First Black President. (Actually, everyone knows that was really Harding. That’s what the Demagogues said at the time, and they wouldn’t lie about that, would they?”)

              On the other hand, there’s a very high percentage of people who think we’re on the wrong track. So pointing out that Slick Hilly wants to keep us on that track is a good idea.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        Here is the next iteration of the Dems attack on Trump.

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/10/trump-tapes-british-apprentice-producer-under-pressure-to-releas/

        What’s next? He kicks puppies, actually spoke against trans-gender bathrooms, doesn’t like baseball or hotdogs?

  13. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Obama has a high favorability rating, but we don’t know how much of that is not wanting to speak ill of the First Black President.

    Timothy, at this point, I’m not sure that the Orwellianism hasn’t seeped down so far into people’s brains that they don’t know the difference between “actually like” and “required to like.”

    It will be interesting to see the poll numbers after this debate and Pussygate. Rush Limbaugh (speaking to his echo chamber of Trumpkins) is of the mind that people are fed up with these October surprises. They’re fed up with the party (Democrats) who have debased morality then going on like Puritans as they destroy everyone but members of their own party who engage in the same behavior or rhetoric.

    I’m sure that plays well to his narrowing audience. I’m not sure that’s how Mr. and Mrs. America will see it.

    A couple local talk-show guys pointed out that Trump’s attack on Hillary for her illegal email server, while welcome, showed that he didn’t know the barest thing about the event. He didn’t bring up that the she wiped info when their was a subpoena for that info. Too much lawyer-geek turns people off. But he didn’t really get to the essence of her criminality regarding the email servers.

    Who knows how America will vote? One thing that is not in favor of either of these candidates is that they are not much more than hatchet men on either side, mere populist fury, at best. Yes, Hillary did for a while play the part of maternal friend and caretaker. But none of them look America in the eye and come off as personal in any way. They are mere political robots.

    FDR had that personal quality as if he was talking just to you. Reagan had it, obviously. And I don’t mean they have to be overly touch-feely (although Bill Clinton had that in spades). I mean that neither candidate has any kind of direct appeal to Americans as person-to-person. For all intents and purposes, you could program two different computers, one with a Trump OS and one with Hillary OS. And I guarantee you that if you gave programmers a month to do it, they could come up with two AI computers that could take part in the 3rd debate and no one would notice (provided they had life-like animatronic robots whose mouths would move once in a while). One robot could just say “We’re going to have a great plan.” The other could say, “Everything Donald says is a lie.” Add perhaps several dozens variations and you’ve captured the sheer shallowness of these “debates.”

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      A couple local talk-show guys pointed out that Trump’s attack on Hillary for her illegal email server, while welcome, showed that he didn’t know the barest thing about the event. He didn’t bring up that the she wiped info when their was a subpoena for that info.

      He did bring it up, but it a way that many people did not pick up. He said she “acid washed her servers.” It would have been better to simply say she deleted the info, but I guess someone told him that the term “acid wash” was more dramatic.

      I think he should start attacking the whole Washington D.C. establishment as well. Anytime he attacks Hillary on her emails, he should attack the Justice Dept. for being corrupt and protecting Hillary and insiders. He should then stress and re-stress that this would never for regular citizens and that is why he needs to be elected, to sweep out the filthy and corrupt politicians and bureaucrats who believe the rest of us are their serfs. He should personalize this, look into the camera and go through the litany of high crimes and misdemeanors perpetrated and allowed by the FBI and Justice Dept.

      1. Giving all of Clinton’s advisors immunity.
      2. Deleting all information on their computors.
      3. Never questioning Hillary under oath.

      Of course he should mention the other things he said as well. He should say these things slowly and clearly and not get off topic.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        You mean he should have a consistent message (a la Jimmy Carter) of the outsider coming to Washington to clean up the corruption, Hillary Clinton being Exhibit A? And he should give some personalized specifics instead of talking in grand generalities?

        Yes, yes, and yes. (I knew there was a reason your name came first on the Kung & Nelson consulting agency firm door). But this man seems incapable of articulating a clear thought. And this is what we have. Trump is Trump. He doesn’t represent any clear political, social, moral, or economic philosophy other than a sort of “fog of Progressivism and know-it-all-ism” which I find very common amongst the low-information people on the Left (or even not on the Left) online and in real life. They are “experts” at every subject because they know a few sound bytes like a horse who is trained to stomp his foot but has no concept of adding the numbers one and two together.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          You mean he should have a consistent message (a la Jimmy Carter) of the outsider coming to Washington to clean up the corruption

          Yup.

          I don’t understand why the man doesn’t close his debates with something like the following. I believe it would be a huge positive for him.

          Friends,

          Despite what the political-media complex would have you believe, this election is not about me. Their personal attacks against me are merely an attempt to divert attention from what is really going on.

          This election is about them and their fat cat friends in Washington D.C. and Wall Street. It is not about my fitness to serve, rather it is about their blatant and decades long corruption. It is about lying life-long politicians telling you how much they care about you, but in fact not giving a damn.

          It is about presidents and other politicians who come into office poor and leave multi-millionaires. It is about unaccountable politicized bureaucrats who abuse their power, like those in the IRS and EPA. It is about politicians who are only interested in getting elected and re-elected, who do not take their jobs seriously by passing clear simple honest and understandable laws.

          It is about a corrupt system, of which Hillary Clinton is a life-member, where professional politicians work together with big moneyed interests to create and perpetuate a system by passing laws which channel huge money to the elite few and take opportunity from the majority. Which sends jobs overseas, makes insane trade agreements and weakens America’s economic standing for the profit of the a greedy unpatriotic few.

          And this system is given cover by a corrupt media which is happy for the crumbs which fall from the table of the elite. Too many members of this media believe they know better than the rest of us, thus act as gatekeepers and slant or withhold information from the public. Who try to enforce a political orthodoxy which is “of the elite, for the elite and by elite.” Most of the rest are simply venal and don’t want the gravy train to stop, so they will follow the D.C. party line without question.

          I present an existential threat to this cabal. I am not of this group. I do not look down on the American public. I like Americans. I want all Americans and America to succeed.

          So please consider.

          If you are looking for a continuation of this conspiracy, if you are happy with the way things are and the direction in which this country is heading, then I am not your man.

          However, if you do not like things the way they are, if you are not comfortable with the idea of a weakened, second rate America sacrificed to the Globalists for the interests of an international elite, then I am in your corner.

          Time is running very short. The professional politicians, dishonest media and internationalists have done much to bring down our country. I beg you to get out and vote for me and together we can make America great again.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            Don’t call it Washington — George doesn’t deserve the “honor” of having the HQ of the Political Aristocracy named after him. Call it Versailles-on-the-Potomac.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            I would edit it down a bit, but that’s the spirit of the thing.

            Trump may think he’s a genius because the dilettante aggrieved of the right latched onto him, but he is not ready for prime time. He doesn’t need to be “cleaned up” in the sense that would satisfy ass-wipes such as Paul Ryan (who disgusts me). He needs to be cleaned up in terms of clear and consistent messaging. He’s such a hodge-podge of crap when he speaks, it’s a mess. Rush (and others) can stuff words into his mouth the day after, but that doesn’t do much good.

            We’re for hire. Our rates are reasonable.

            • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

              Yes, it could be shortened a bit. But I sent it “as is” without giving it any polishing. Just think! If I can churn that out in about thirty minutes, what could Trump’s team do if they sat down and thought about it.

              That they don’t, shows how un-serious they are.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                No no no. Don’t get me wrong. I took it as a first draft, and a good one. And you being an exemplar of, and advocate for, Western Civilization, further refinement was assumed. (That is, you not being a Leftist or libertarian, it’s assumed that the first thought falling out of your head might not be deserving of being chiseled quite yet into marble.)

    • Timothy Lane says:

      An interesting aspect of the “pussygate” incident has been pointed out: he was a Democrat at the time. Some have suggested he should point this out and say he was just acting like a Democrat. (After all, they never fully grow up, so such talk would be natural for them.)

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        There is an opening at Kung & Nelson Political Consultants. So you’re suggesting that Trump should have had a line prepared that “Democrats do it.” John Kennedy had a string a women that the press aided and abetted. Democrats today promote almost any and every perversion.

        But today, he would say, I am a Republican, and I deeply apologize, etc. I will aim to live up to the party of Lincoln who freed the slaves from the grip of Southern Democrats, etc.

        Please submit your resume at your earliest convenience.

  14. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Too bad that Trump doesn’t have Rush and his viewers coaching him for the debates. They make the point that the Left are the vulgarians, championing it in movies, etc.

    This is why we need the “just right” baby bear porridge. Obviously McCain/Romney was too cold. They wouldn’t confront Obama on anything substantial or frame the argument in regards to his unfitness for office. Trump is too hot. Reagan (or someone like him) was “just right.” He could take it to the opposition, frame the question in a concise and clear way, and often do it with self-confident and congenial humor.

    Trump is just a bull in a China shop. As much as Rush and others believe in “The Great Coming Backlash,” they are more and more in the role of Linus waiting for The Great Pumpkin to appear.

    You want a backlash? You’re going to have to make a clear argument for it. Trump is too blunt of an instrument to do so. And as much as Rush and others are likely correct in the way they interpret things, we need the Republican candidate to do so on-camera, not his lackeys doing show after the fact.

  15. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Glenn, I wish you’d written something like this instead: Donald Trump’s Corruption of the GOP Almost Complete.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      There is an old saying which describes this perfectly, despite what the “Forever Trumpkins” claim. It is;

      If you lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

      That so many do not see the corrupting influence this scoundrel is having is disturbing, exactly because they do not see it. If they only said that he is a scoundrel, but he is miles better than Clinton, the damage might be minimal. But too many lie about him or even worse, praise his sins. After enough repetition, these lies will become facts in their minds. This is how bad habits are formed. Slowly but surely they are paving their way to perdition.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Yes. There’s a big difference between saying that Trump’s words are bad but Slick Hilly’s actions are even worse — and saying that there’s nothing really wrong with what Trump said (even though they all say it was disgusting).

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          I could understand someone saying,

          Hillary is an insanely-power-hungry criminal, who has been in and around the levers of power in the federal government for almost thirty years. Who has used her and her husband’s government positions to enrich themselves fabulously, pervert the course of justice and in her husband’s case molest women, who Hillary then tried to destroy in order to maintain her and her husband’s political careers. She is a globalist Leftist who dreams of open borders from Tierra del Fuego to the Bering Strait.

          The present sorry state of the country is in, large degree, due to the policies she has supported throughout her political life and she now tries to lie her way out of them.

          Yes, Donald Trump is something of an asshole, but given the choice, I’ll be voting for Trump.

          But I have yet to hear this refrain.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            One of the difficulties in political communication, Mr. Kung, is that the politicians are now talking somewhat to the equivalent of Kindergarteners.

            No…please don’t mistake that for an elitist, better-than-thou attitude. But, seriously, could the electorate as it stands understand an argument about why a Supreme Court justice should interpret the law, as written and intended, instead of using it to enact “social justice”?

            What we are losing as a culture is the ability (and willingness) for abstract thought, to think past our own very narrow self-interest and emotions to the longer-term effects of things. To decide important issues in politics requires a healthy dose of reality awareness and a huge dollop of delayed gratification. But we are stuck on “How does this immediately help me?” There can be no mystery why, for instance, we are racking up the debt that we have. We are eating the seed corn, unaware or uncaring that we need that corn to plant next year’s crop.

            It’s not completely clear to me what Donald Trump represents, but he at least represents some people’s desire for a quick fix. For others, as we both know, he is simply the strained peas being thrown against the wall by the angry and spoiled child in his highchair.

            We are, in effect, no longer able to self-govern ourselves. People wonder what cliff we might soon be going over. And a financial cliff is certainly looming. But I think the real line of separation is that we have now delved fully into the oligarchy — in attitude first, but there’s more to come and it is all but unavoidable now. We will more and more be taken care of by others (with “care” being the purview of the caregivers to define).

            We will trust to government because we just don’t know, and don’t care, how the world works. As long as we are free to add to our tattoos, to sit at home jobless and play video games in our underwear, or engage in any of the plethora of meaningless distractions, we will remain dumb and somewhat happy…and clearly ceding more and more control to government to run our lives.

            To some extent the whole “Trump or Clinton” thing should be recognized as the rope-a-dope situation that it is. It doesn’t particularly matter which one of these clowns is elected. They both are just as opposed to the Constitutional order — perhaps one through sheer ego and ignorance (Trump) and the other through dark malevolence (Clinton). But both roads slope the same way.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        That’s extremely good analysis, Mr. Kung.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      An interesting piece, but French seems to think losing to Clinton would be harmless. Those who think that way tend to lose. But he’s right that there should be limits on how far we go to win — “by any means necessary” (a liberal notion) is a dangerous idea. But it’s also understandable that those who are tired of losing to those who act that way might adopt the tactics of those previous winners.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        But it’s also understandable that those who are tired of losing to those who act that way might adopt the tactics of those previous winners.

        What did your mother say? “Two wrongs don’t make a right!”

        I know this sounds naive’, but it is true.

        Perhaps many of those who are tired of losing should look in the f*@king mirror and blame themselves. Maybe if they had gotten off their asses and gotten involved we wouldn’t be in this situation.

        The low road is always easier than the high one. Honest conservatives will always be at a disadvantage, exactly because they are honest and have principles. This is something which they should know and be prepared for. They must work harder and sacrifice. But clearly, not enough will.

        Cheaters generally win unless they are brought to account. No one has been willing to bring our governmental cheaters to account for years now, because like the people of Medellin who were bought off by the drug lords, a large chuck of the American people have been bought off by our “drug lords” in government. And most of the rest have done nothing about it.

        There is nothing new happening here. It is the age old story of mankind and once again, we are flunking the test.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Well said again, Mr. Kung. And regarding unhinged people such as Laura Ingraham, I would say that if you want to beat the Democrats, demand and support a better candidate instead of asking the rest of us to put on such a thick pair of glasses that a jackass looks like Secretariat.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        One comment to that French article had an interesting thoughts:

        In nominating Donald Trump, they went from supposedly being “Democrat lite” to being actual Democrats.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          They have continuously condemned the Dems for immoral behavior and ruinous economic policies, yet they nominated one for their candidate. How schizophrenic is that? Or perhaps just “Bipolar.”

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            I contend, Mr. Kung, that Trump has revealed just how thin our Christian, conservative, and Constitutional beliefs were . . . at least among a great many people.

            “But when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. Before him all the nations will be gathered, and he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.”

            David French said something in that article I linked to that is meaningful and rare:

            The Westminster Shorter Catechism begins by asking, “What is the chief end of man?” The answer is simple: “To glorify God and enjoy him forever.”

            I won’t pretend for a minute that I have ever made that my end. And yet, if we are to look at the big picture and truly evaluate things from a long perspective, it’s obscene to apologize for Trump, to do anything more than recommend holding your nose and voting for him because you sincerely think Hillary would be worse (no fair bet now, if you ask me).

            One of the prime ideas in Goldberg’s book, “Liberal Fascism,” is that the Left politicizes everything. It pains me to see people caught in the political drama — seemingly for the sake of being in a drama. I agree wholeheartedly with those who dismiss the histrionics that if Hillary is elected, that’s the end of our republic. We’ve had worse (Woodrow Wilson). We’ll have worse again. What matters is the wisdom and character of our people. And that is not forwarded by trying to normalize Trump, for that is (as you said) lying down with the dogs and then being surprised that you wake up with flees.

            And imagine if that character is defined by Donald Trump. There is a very strong argument to be made that his takeover of the Republican Party would end all effective opposition to the Left (not that it wasn’t already hanging but a thread with such butt-wipes as Paul Ryan).

            Pray for your country. Work to change things for the better. But do not get too caught up in the political drama. And I’m sure in your case, you do not. But I speak more generally.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              Although in many ways we have had worse presidents than even Slick Hilly, the problem is that she would use the courts to enforce her revolution, something that neither Wilson nor FDR quite did, partly because the Democrats were then an alliance of different views. Note that one of the 4 right-wingers of the early New Deal was a Wilson appointee. Elect Hillary, and say good-bye to the Bill of Rights.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                The Bill of Rights would not be gone. They’re barely functioning as it is (the Obamacare ruling should have been a slam-dunk). Hillary (or Trump, for that matter) would just continue with the incremental erosion. To me it’s an exaggeration to see Hillary as a major change. All throughout the land the indoctrination centers of Progressivism (public schools, the media, and the entertainment culture) continue to crank away. Hillary is arguable more of an effect than a cause.

                A president Trump, weakened (in our terms, probably not his) by the erosion of Republican majorities (or their overturn) will be hard-pressed to get another Scalia nominated even if he desires it (which he does not). Without any talk of originalism from Trump, you can be sure he hasn’t the barest idea of what made Scalia Scalia. He is an ardent enemy of conservatives, as his type are. There is every reason to believe you’ll get a squishy centrist (read: liberal) rather than an originalist. Trump is just not the kind of guy to be bound by law. In that way, he shares the same trait with the Left (which I think is where he is anyway).

          • Timothy Lane says:

            Early in my career here, I did an article on my concept of virulent liberalism — in which dextrophobia leading to paranoia causes liberals to panic at the thought of a conservative victory and to believe that they must do “whatever it takes” to defeat them. I always knew that virulent conservatism could also exist, and to some extent undoubtedly did. And, indeed, that’s exactly what we’re seeing now.

            This is why I’ve always placed such an emphasis on truth and ethical behavior. We here are as concerned about liberal victory as liberals are about conservative victory. But as long as we don’t let partisanship take our integrity away,we remain true to ourselves.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              Early in my career here, I did an article on my concept of virulent liberalism — in which dextrophobia leading to paranoia causes liberals to panic at the thought of a conservative victory and to believe that they must do “whatever it takes” to defeat them.

              I’m a pretty opinionated guy, so I’m in the category of “Hey, you should talk.” But it’s fairly common these days to meet people (right or left…mostly left, in my experience) for whom their politics is a zealous, fundamentalist religion.

              It matters who is the president. It matters greatly. But we shouldn’t invest too much into our politics. I’m not talking about Kumbaya getalong-ism whereby you just schlep along without a solid opinion on anything (the holy “centrists” of Michael Medved and other establishment Republicans).

              I mean that I think politics is inherently corrupt in that it is a game of marketing, deceit, and inflated promises. By all means, be loyal and loving to your dog, your wife, your friends, or your family. But do not give politicians that kind of respect unless they have absolutely earned it.

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                But do not give politicians that kind of respect unless they have absolutely earned it.

                This brings to mind something Sam Rayburn said to Harry S. Truman just after Roosevelt died.

                Rayburn who had befriended Truman when Truman was a junior nobody Senator, went to the White House and said something to the effect,

                “Harry,

                You must be very careful in this office. People will come here praising you to the heavens. They will tell how brilliant you are and how everything you say is golden, that you can do no wrong. They will come in and tell you that you are the greatest man in the world, and you and I both know you are not.”

                To his credit, I believe Truman appreciated that advice.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                Even more important than not putting your trust in princes is not rejecting friends due to their differing views, even if you think their choices are disastrous. That’s where the greatest danger of lost integrity lies, I think, though of course the first can lead to the second.

  16. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    To his credit, I believe Truman appreciated that advice.

    I know you’re reading McCullough’s biography of Truman, Mr. Kung, so this stuff is fresh in your mind. “Morality” in regards to politicians requires various caveats, stipulations, and asterisks. But a politician with the sense that he is not god, is not the savior of the citizens, and instead is the guardian of a long civic tradition, is certainly the kind of moral outlook we should look for and appreciate in a politician.

    The standards are lower, of course, than for, say, a potential spouse. Imagine Laura Ingraham, after a blind date, having such glowing remarks for a man who said what Trump did about grabbing pussies, etc.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      But a politician with the sense that he is not god, is not the savior of the citizens, and instead is the guardian of a long civic tradition, is certainly the kind of moral outlook we should look for and appreciate in a politician.

      And while having the good sense to understand one is not god does not guarantee a politician will be either good or honest, any politician who believes he is god and the savior of citizens will bring ruin upon the people as sure as God made little green apples.

      This is one good reason for term limits. In today’s imperial D.C. I believe it is virtually impossible for any elected official to keep his feet on the ground and a connection with the people. The representatives of the “People” are treated as royalty.

  17. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Even more important than not putting your trust in princes is not rejecting friends due to their differing views, even if you think their choices are disastrous.

    I totally agree, Timothy. Politics is a fever in many people. But the other 95% of them can be quite agreeable. And it’s a conservative truism that, given that our culture has given itself over to Progressivism (especially in the entertainment fields), a conservative has to be able to be magnanimous and “tolerant” (in the way that concept is meant to be used). You just can’t swing a dead cat without hitting upon political correctness, liberal fascism, or just really inane Kumbaya stuff.

    Certainly you noticed that one way that I stay sane is by doing a send-up of this stuff in my movie reviews. I can enjoy a movie…even more so by laughing openly at the stupid Progressive stuff. That’s one reason I tend to wait until movies come to Red Box or Netflix and I don’t go to see them in theatres. Who likes being thrown out of theatres?

    I have no respect for some clown who has a Bernie Sanders sign on his lawn. But I’ll still do business with him or lend him a cup of sugar if he needs it. What I do try to do is do business with people who aren’t ideological kooks. And it’s not that hard because in daily life (unless you have to actually work there), most businesses do not lead with the Progressive crap.

    And I suppose, just like me to some degree, they are just genuflecting to the predominant (Christianity is, for all intents and purposes, dead) moral code. Who knows who the true believers are and those who are just polite collaborators or who simply accept the dominant social morality like little fishies swimming in the fish bowl who never notice the water?

    After all, there is obviously very little upside now going against that moral code since (as I have stated) I don’t think self-proclaimed conservatives or Christians have my back. (People such as Pat Tarwell do, but men and women of his kind of clarity and integrity are becoming scarce. I’m not really good enough to be his friend. But there’s sometimes no accounting for taste.)

    But it’s important to note that there are a lot of people on the Left who are not particularly tolerant. Whether Hillary or Trump is elected, this is only going to get worse.

    • pst4usa says:

      You may not want to admit that Brad, since I came out and signed on to the letter, from some of the Washington Delegation that called for him to step down. I can’t tell you the amount of love coming from the Branch Trumpidians
      Not that I care all that much about being a Republican. I really have been telling folks that if Trump, or even our Republican State Party Chair, are examples of what it means to be a Republican, then that make me a RINO, because what they are and what they stand for is not me in any way. So I now think that the RINO, a fierce and powerful animal, is the right description for some of us. SQUIERL is still the best term for most of the party. Status Quo Unprincipled Incumbent Establishment Republican Liberal. After all who is afraid of a squierl? (I know that is not how it is spelled).

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        This whole exercise in Trump has been revealing, Pat. Again, let me state (although this argument is quickly losing its potency), if you are holding your nose and voting against Hillary, I don’t blame you.

        But that is not the prevailing attitude out there. Either you have some very amoral Republicans glomming onto Trump in order to hold onto power and remain relevant, or you have rank-and-file voters in flyover country exposing themselves as little better than Leftists in attitude as they are willing to put their emotional desire for vengeance above what is fair, good, and right.

        No sane person, despite the many faults and flaws of the Republican Establishment (or the various other candidates), should have voted for Donald Trump in the first place. We’re all upset that the GOP fails to offer adequate opposition to Democrat policies. But replacing that power structure with a nitwit is not an improvement. And you all should have known better.

  18. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    There are a couple thoughtful articles over at NRO right now on this subject. Both are worth a read:

    Evangelicals, Our problem is Spiritual, Not Political by David French

    Social Conservatives Should Begin a Long March Through the Institutions by Avi Woolf

    Also worthy of reading, just to gain a sense of perspective:

    Trump’s Campaign against the GOP by Ian Buttle

    You can read depressing stuff from Thomas Sowell, Jeffrey Lord, Mark Davis, and others, which basically say “Hillary is so bad, voting in Caligula’s horse would be better.” Actually, the problem with some is that they go far past “Hold your nose and vote against Hillary” and actually glorify this wretch of a man.

    But Trump has opened my eyes to a number of things. I consider myself, truth be spoken, a sort of easy-going Comic Conservative. I’m a “social conservative” on many things, certainly an economic conservative, and very much an entertainment conservative. But I always admired Ronald Reagan’s unique blend of eloquence, the ability to condense the ideas of conservative down and communicate them effectively, and most of all his ass-cheeks-not-puckered-too-tightly charm, humor, and general congeniality.

    With the elevation of this clown, Trump, to the Republican candidate, he’s revealed how thin many of these various conservative factions are. Whether they are effected by the “fat and happy” phenomenon that causes so many to back foolish ideas, I don’t know. Certainly some are angry to the point of being deranged. But it’s fascinating how many social conservatives have backed this vulgar clown.

    I suppose embedded deep in human nature is the us-vs-them instinct. If Hillary is perceived as bad, and “our guy” is opposing her, then our guy must be truly virtuous deep down — maybe even anointed by God — and his visible faults are just written off to fallible human nature.

    And that’s fine. But this line of reasoning — the entire partisan instinct to ignore or minimize Trump’s faults — becomes extremely problematic in the sense that: conservatism then is no longer anchored to principle.

    That’s why I say that I don’t believe that conservatives have my back. If they can so easily jettison their principles and actively support (not just hold their nose and vote for) this wreck of a man, then I know they are far less anchored in reason that I had supposed.

    It’s all broken. (Also an article by Scott McKay.) Humpty Dumpty has taken a great fall. The great grassroots conservative base has proven to be but a facade.

    I hope we here at StubbornThings will continue to increase our knowledge and will engage in a little activism when we can out there in the real world. Although I counsel creating a bubble because I do not see prolonged push-back as a viable option, you never know what you might achieve.

    A lot of those articles I’ve read have reflected things we (or I) have discussed here: Bitching might make you feel better but it doesn’t accomplish anything.

    But here we are in the unreality reality. (A Nation in Denial.) I’ll continue to hope for the best but now understand the beast has been unleashed. When power negates principle, we are lost.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I haven’t yet read those articles, but one sounds like it suggests that the Right should do what the Left did — infiltrate the key institutions (particularly the communications media). This is what Philip Crane suggested in his analysis of Fabian socialism and modern liberalism (The Democrats’ Dilemma), and it’s come up in a number of other places (including, I think, here). Of course, it can be difficult to infiltrate the other side when they exclude dissenters, but it’s not impossible.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Here are three alarming things:

        1) People who were supposedly principled conservatives or Christians fell for this clown.

        2) We’re now getting into scorched earth tactics by the Trump team.

        3) Hillary will scorch the Constitutional earth as well.

        Trump is a poison pill that has been swallowed. Looking at his supporters and his own behavior, there can be no doubt now that this is a dark chapter in Republican history…perhaps the darkest. These are not nice people. They are not friends to conservatives or the constitutional order of this nation. They are following a cult of personality. They are destructive zealots.

        Up until now, it was sensible to say “As bad as Trump is, Hillary is worse.” That is no longer a slam-dunk argument. Trump is possibly bringing down the Senate and House as well. And although I’m no friend of Paul Ryan and Establishment Republicans, you must replace them with something other than ashes or Democrats.

        • pst4usa says:

          “If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures.”
          Alexander Hamilton

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            Abso-friggin’-lutely. That really does come into play. Granted, whatever may happen now, as I’ve written, you can expect opposition to Hillary (should she win) to be even weaker. Trump has cut the legs out from under (or weakened) several conservative issues.

            That’s assuming there is a majority in the House and Senate to oppose Hillary (or Trump, for that matter).

            • pst4usa says:

              The Trump campaign apparently has come out and said that since some of these Bed Wetting Republicans, (Their term), will not stand with Trump, then his supporters will not vote for the down ballot local Republicans.
              Now, how is that for brilliance? Win and we lose both the house and Senate, lose, and we lose the house and senate: yeah, he loves this country!
              (note this was just a post on FaceBook, so I make no claim of this being a fact, but it sure sounds like this clown)

  19. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    This is as good a reason to vote for Trump as any.

    http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-election-trump-un-idUKKCN12C0UF

    If the U.N. is against him, he must be doing something right.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      “They love him for the enemies he has made.”

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        I linked to a New York Post article at Drudge which gave a long list of quotes by Clinton and her henchmen which were exposed by Wikileaks when they leaked Clinton’s email last week. My favorite was,

        “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”

        — Hillary in her remarks from a leaked speech to Banco Itau in May 2013

        I don’t know why Trump is not hitting this point more as his remarks on immigration caught fire and put him in front of the other candidates.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          I’m good with the open trade. Open borders, of course, is a problem. But neither Trump, Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, nor Hillary Clinton are going to do much to enforce the law regarding illegal Mexicans and others south of the border. Illegal Swedes with doctorates, however, will still find it nearly impossible to smuggle themselves into America and gain legitimacy.

          Hillary will be the next president of the United States. That’s the bad news. The good news is that she is incompetent. She’s likely to be another Jimmy Carter. That’s also bad news regarding foreign policy and yet it’s doubtful that Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio had anything other than a politically correct view of foreign policy (at least where Islam is concerned which is one of the major foreign policy concerns).

          Regarding “I don’t know why Trump,” it’s been obvious from day one he has not much more than the instincts of a vindictive demagogue with delusions of adequacy. His qualification for office, such as it is, is similar to Hillary’s. It stems from little more than celebrity, not actually competence.

          Opportunity for every person in the hemisphere is a good thing. The problem is, she will define “opportunity” as government control of the economy combined with redistribution of wealth to try to achieve equality-of-outcome.

          Opportunity for those on the right (well…given all the fools who so easily threw in with Trump, there’s no telling what they actually believe anymore), means “You’re free to work hard and pursue your opportunities, but there are no guarantees.”

          As for green energy, you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting some fool who has made environmentalism and “greenism” a fetish. Hey, put me at the head of the line in regards to further development of enery technology. But it should be based on facts, no semi-religious political agendas. I’d love it if someone developed a solar panel that was 40% efficient (20% is generally the tops for the upper-end panels).

          However, science and politics have been corrupted by the desire (and requirement) to put various Progressive feel-good narratives above facts. But we on the right are now thoroughly living in a glass house because of Trump, and one with particularly thin panes. We have ignored who Trump really is in order to advance our own feel-good narrative of what we think he represents.

          Get used to it. Hillary is going to win in a landslide. Although Paul Ryan could have handled it better, he’s right to focus his efforts on maintaining the Republican majority in the House. As perverse of a game as this is (they will likely do little to implement their own agenda…they know only how to obstruct mildly the programs of the Left), it’s better than nothing.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            I’d love it if someone developed a solar panel that was 40% efficient (20% is generally the tops for the upper-end panels).

            Isn’t that about the efficiency of the internal-combustion engine? If solar panels were to hit that level, oil prices would drop like a stone.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              Fusion was supposed to be the “unlimited, low-cost” energy source by now. Hasn’t happened yet. But maybe it could. I’m certainly not up on the technical aspects of that in terms of its long- or short-term viability.

              One thing you aren’t likely to find out there is a rational and calm discussion about energy. And this is proof of the existence of The Religion of Leftism as well as the cult-like programmer so many have fallen victim to or bought into (or some combination thereof).

              We apparently have, of course, all the energy we need for the foreseeable future in clean-coal, natural gas, oil, etc. The only obstruction to using these resources more fully is the irrational belief of the left in man-made global warming.

              Well, if the power goes out, I’ll still have my Edison A100 Diamond Disc hand-crank phonograph. And, really, the retrogrades of the Left won’t be happy until all of humanity has reverted to the foot-powered Flintstones car.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                Note that during the kerfluffle over cold fusion around 1990, many liberals were unhappy at the of possibility of clean, cheap, abundant energy. Their real target is mass consumerism.

  20. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Another David French article that is right on the mark:

    The similarities between the allegations and Trump’s boasts are downright eerie, and these aren’t the only accusations. More women are coming forward, including women who claimed that he strolled into changing rooms at the Miss Universe pageant and ogled the contestants, just because he could.

    Trump supporters are now reduced to stamping their feet about the timing. “Why are we hearing about this only now? The media’s out to get Trump!” Well, so what. Is anyone shocked that a man who bragged so openly about his sexual sins, who lies habitually, and who so obviously enjoys asserting dominance over people with less power would have such skeletons in his closet?

    No, if you’re a Trump fan, this one’s on you. Your eyes were open: You were warned, and you took the plunge anyway. Now you’ve become, as Erick Erickson noted yesterday, the very thing that you were claiming just days ago to hate, the kind of person who excuses multiple accusations of sexual abuse, some of them decades old, in the pursuit of political power.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Maybe. But Rush has a good point that the accusations against Slick Willie and Bill Cosby went back years; no one had any such accusation against Trump before this week. The accusations against Clinton and Cosby weren’t suspiciously timed (Paula Jones, for example, was responding to an article in The American Spectator that mentioned her incident, but with a different outcome), unlike the accusations against Trump. As I said in one of my responses at Town Hall, “What time is it, boys and girls? It’s Tawana Brawley time.” And, as you know, I am NOT a Trumpkin.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        You’ll surely note, Timothy, that yours truly isn’t particularly interested in the soap opera aspect of any of this. Nor do I get Establishment Republican hives because the fairer sex was (at least rhetorically) buffeted a bit, although I acknowledge the reality of today’s politics that unless you put women on a pedestal (while not *saying* that you’re treating them any differently) that your chances of getting elected are less. (This was Rush’s fatal flaw as an ESPN analyst. Everyone was treating blacks with kid gloves and trying to promote them. But to actually *admit* you were doing so was verboten.)

        I don’t care that Trump bitch-slapped Megyn Kelly (rhetorically) because these faux journalists need a good dressing-down by someone. Although whether this makes for good electoral, country-wide politics is doubtful.

        I think it’s likely that the entitlement-minded Trump lives by a different set of rules and has groped women. That makes him a cad, not the devil. I doubt he’s raped anyone, leaving him arguably in a higher class than Bill Clinton for whom “sexual assault” might be apt words.

        Whatever the timeline is, “as you grope, so shall ye reap,” particularly if one is running for president as a Republican. You don’t have the press covering for you. Instead, they are out to get you. So we can go back and forth all day on whether or not the groping happened at all (although he admitted it as normal behavior for him), happened too long ago to matter, or was less than what Clinton did (and what Hillary covered up for). At the end of the day, this doesn’t make for good politics for Trump outside of his obtuse, moral-relevant core supporters who are even now (figuratively) lying in the street with a bullet through their brain, as administered by Trump, while his supporters cheer him on.

        Neither candidate should be honored with election to the highest office in our land. And Trump has shown himself to be so bizarrely dishonest and mercurial that it is no longer a safe bet in my mind that his unknowability trumps Hillary’s certain liberalism. The shadows of Trump are arguably as scary as the realities of Clinton.

  21. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    I would like to make everyone feel slightly better about the upcoming presidential candidates by letting them know something I just read while going through McCullough’s Truman biography.

    One of the presidential candidates in 1948 was Henry Wallace who had been a very prominent part of government in the Roosevelt and early Truman administrations. To give an idea of Wallace’s platform McCullough writes,

    “Wallace proposed turning America’s atomic weapons over to the United Nations, and called for a massive reconstruction program for the Soviet Union to be financed by the United States. He repudiated the Marshall Plan as a marshal plan. He talked of nationalizing the country’s coal mines and railroads.”

    So maybe Trump and Hillary are not the worst candidates to run for the presidency…

    Have a good day.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I didn’t think John Kerry was that old. Yikes. But it certainly lets you know that this anti-American “Progressive” mindset has been rotting us out from within for some time now.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Wallace’s campaign was largely run by communists. He wanted Harry Dexter Wright for Secretary of the Treasury and Alger Hiss to be Secretary of State. For all practical purposes, he would have been Stalin’s man in the White House — though more out of being naive than a genuine communist.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        He wanted Harry Dexter Wright for Secretary of the Treasury and Alger Hiss to be Secretary of State.

        Do you mean Harry Dexter White, aka Harry Dexter Weiss, who, along with Lauchlin Currie, were the highest ranking communist traitors who worked in the Roosevelt and Truman administrations influencing economic and financial policy greatly and helped set up the IMF, World Bank and Bretton Woods Agreement?

        This is something I have thought of writing about for some time.

  22. Timothy Lane says:

    Lately, I’ve seen a few articles speculating that the increasing likelihood (according to the polls, which usually get it more or less right) of the Fire Witch winning might have an interesting reverse effect on downballot races (especially for Congress): She’s so unpopular that voters may choose downballot Republicans in order to provide her with some opposition. I’ve long suspected that something similar happened in 1972.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Whether or not there is data to support it, it’s a political truism that the public will vote into office a House and Senate of the opposite party to the president as a check on the president’s power. Whether statistics bear this out, I don’t know. It’s a giant clusterf**k out there right now. Who, for instance, would need more constraint on their power by a Republican House and Senate, Hillary or Trump?

      • Lucia says:

        If Hillary wins, why would she bother with Congress? She already said she’ll make far more executive orders than Obama did. With Soros backing her, the world is her oyster.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Well, at least for a while, the courts might block some of her actions. But in the long run, I suspect that they’ll place the success of their ideology (success in terms of imposing it, not accomplishing its stated goals) above the rule of law.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *