There's a reason the road is not taken

Full disclosure. I don't hate Donald Trump with anything near the vehemence of many others in my social network. But that doesn't mean I don't think he might be a bad precedent (spelling pun intended, damned if I didn't work for this one!) for our country. And I don't care about his taxes.


The title to this post is a rift on the famous Robert Frost poem, "The Road Not Taken", reprinted here:

TWO roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;	5
Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,	10
And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.	15
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

I half-think this has relevance in this year's election season, as two very distinct choices exist for the voting population. The other half, that thinks this poem isn't relevant, believes a conversation of the demerits of dying in a plane crash or a car crash seem much ado about nothing. But in the political case, it continues to make for great theater.

Back to the poem analogy. Trump is clearly the path "less traveled by", but for many, many Americans, this is a more desirable path than the road we're currently on. The un- and under-employed, the enthusiastic voters of 2008 for whom the ensuing eight years did not bring the "hope" and "change" they wished for. For these disappointed masses, voting for a "continuation of the Obama legacy" is asking to rub salt into a now-chronic open wound. So what can be wrong with voting for the alternative, the "road not taken (yet)"? Well, perhaps plenty. This is no new insight, but the success of Trump the candidate has been in large part due to blaming "others" for the problems Americans face today. Unemployed? It's Mexicans taking your job, not your decision to forgo college in favor of the line job at Carrier. Can't pronounce your primary care doctor's last name? Let's ban Muslims who might take those near-impossible-to-fill physician jobs. The Donald has not brought the "art of the deal" to this election, he's demonstrated his mastery of the politics of blame. Is he guilty for elevating this tenor of discourse in the political arena? If you're a regular guy/girl, the answer is obvious, duh! But here's the perverse irony. If you're Hillary Clinton, the answer is "I never knowingly considered that my hateful rhetoric would incite people to espouse an ideology or take actions that would be construed as unproductive in the National dialogue".

So here's the rock and a hard place, a bully or a parsing liar. I've said repeatedly that in this year of the celebrity election, Secy. Clinton is as wooden on the stump (hah, pun again) as Pinocchio, with all the truthfulness of this guy, minus the charm: 

Four to eight more years of special deals for Goldman Sachs and the other friends of the Clinton Foundation seem like a tough platform upon which to win a general election, but in case voters don't think Hillary cares about the peasants, here's a clip, which I include because it's her speaking and not a media interpretation. Draw your own conclusions (I'm including the WHOLE exchange to bring in the context):



On the eve of losing the West Virginia primary to Bernie, Hillary tried to Clinton-splain those comments, but I think the voters heard her clearly the first time. Don't be surprised if those same voters are Trump voters now.

Tax returns and e-mail servers aside, I continue to believe that the yugge singular determinant of this fall's election will be the belief by individual voters that a given candidate will be more beneficial to one's own economic situation. In Trump's case, will the bogeyman of trade globalization and immigration sway enough disaffected working-class voters to bring him to power versus the establishment elite? It's gone that way so far on the GOP side. In the other corner, will fear of being profiled and discriminated against on the basis of race or religion be enough to overcome an inherent lack of new ideas or inertia? If you think they're both sucky choices, you've come to the right blog!

Roll the dice or stand and hold (sorry, mixing gaming metaphors). On the craps table I give Trump odds akin to the "no pass" line. You win when betting against the table, and if successful, it typically means that others have lost. I think the analogy is particularly apt here, but in the political case the "losers" may be an America as a "beacon of light" to the world. That's a pretty damn big downside. For Clinton, stand and hold is the same as in blackjack. It all depends on a myriad of outcome statistics, but ultimately it's comes down to how the cards are dealt. The only caveat here is that Clinton is not only the dealer, she's the house, so either way as President she's going to win, while the American people will hold any and all losing hands. That sucks as well.

This has been a pretty pessimistic post, sorry about that. I'll try and find some ray of light next time, may be a challenge. Thanks for reading!

Artificial constraints brought on by the media

Full disclosure. Perhaps (hopefully) unlike most of you, I watch a lot of TV news, in particular political commentary. If that sounds like an AA confessional perhaps that's intended, because like alcohol it's a lot of wasted calories and brain cells. And it's actually the main reason I started the Blog, because I was tired of hearing the majority of the talking heads (or "surrogates", in politico-speak) parrot the talking points of their candidate's campaign. Rarely is there a real discussion of policy pros and cons, which may perversely be a good thing, because as it stands no one is really watching anyways, why go ahead and make a bad product even worse by putting people to sleep.

So the blog is my take on the crazy known as American politics. And my first truism: in the absence of rules, there are no holds barred. None. Nada. Falsehoods, personal attacks, non-sequitur innuendo, it's all cool. And similarly, the goal is very simple. Win. No prizes for second place, no participation trophies. Yea, sure, losses can be spun, and even can be used as ammunition for future battles, but winning right now at all costs is the way the game is played. That's a statement, not a moral judgement.

This week I found myself sucked into the "who's going to be the VP" game (both sides), as that was the topic-of-the-week on political TV. Loyal readers of the blog (all 5 of you, thanks!) can look back at my earlier VP predictions, Chris Christie on the GOP side and probably Tim Kaine for the Democrats, along with some conventional sort of justification for both. That's probably logical, which, in retrospect, is probably wrong. Here's why.

Nobody got famous or won anything by telegraphing their intentions to the world, and in this lovely political season that seems more true than usual. So yea, maybe what the Donald says about wanting a "Washington insider" for VP is true and maybe it kinda makes sense, but, gentle reader, think of it this way. Name two times this season when Donald Trump has said something either true or made sense? So I'm beginning to suspect his VP pick won't make the trifecta. Same for Hillary. Tim Kaine is a great pick, if I do say so myself, but the sands are shifting so rapidly I think Clinton-world has to look at the world as it is right now and deal with the progressive hand that Bernie is dealing them. Either way, as I mentioned, the goal is simple. Be in it to win it. So here's what you didn't hear on Meet The Press:

Who does Trump choose for VP, and why? Okay, before the big reveal, who will it NOT be: Condoleezza Rice. Please people, really. She's smart, he's not, and she doesn't need that. Hell, she's much more likely to be the first female president, not VP of The Apprentice. So "true conservatives", it ain't gonna happen, but you'll like my pick, perhaps even more. Drum roll please. To give a Trump campaign and presidency the necessary gravitas and political street cred to play with the big dogs, he would simply win if he can get David Petraeus (US Army, ret.) to be his VP. Boom. Mic drop. Game over. I don't think this makes Trump competitive. I think it makes him President. Sorry haters, I'm just observing. If this pick needs 'splainin, carry on. War hero, an Eisenhower/Schwarzkoph/Powell for our time. Universal respect from our allies (and others) on the international stage. Politically astute, and media savvy. How do the Democrats attack him? But most importantly, in terms of "why in God's name would he even consider the job?", just one word. Unemployed. Pencil it in. He accepts, Trump wins. As much as I'd like to see Christie throwing rhetorical fire bombs on the campaign trail, Petraeus brings the A game to a GOP sorely needing legitimacy.

Okay, it that last paragraph was depressing for Democrats, let's move on. Given the somewhat unexpected early conclusion to the GOP race, the Democrats are facing the reality of competing in the first reality TV general election campaign, against essentially the Bill Clinton (ie naturally gifted womanizer) of popular culture. So yea, they can go ahead a choose a respected and sound politician, well versed in legislation and government, and in doing so can lose and lose badly, or they can get in the game and play to the voting populace. Scanning the globe for a left-leaning populist who can energize the base and draw independents to the voting booths, the name I initially dismissed out of hand now rises to the forefront. Could Hillary choose Bernie Sanders to be her running mate? Would he accept? I'm thinking yes, and while it could be effective for the reasons I mention, it wouldn't be near the strong card a GOP VP pick like Petraeus would make. Why would Bernie say "yes"? In his negotiations he could get assurances for policy positions he wouldn't get simply by getting a voice at the convention, and it would be the highest profile he could reasonably expect to achieve in government. So if it's offered I think he'd say yes. It would lock up a fair number of the Bernie army that might otherwise defect to Clinton, especially if Bernie is allowed to push some of his populist policies (except break up the big banks. Goldman says "uh, no").

The blog is full of conjecture and opinion, but sometimes I like to sprinkle a few facts in there to keep it real. Factually, and including this time, the Presidency has been the Democrats to lose. The coalitions that typically vote Democratic give them just about 215 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency. But, if you believe that history is a accurate predictor of the future then you haven't been paying attention this year. In respect to that numerical Democratic advantage, however, it did occur to me in, the postscript to the GOP campaign, that despite the many misgivings about their presumptive candidate, he really is was the only candidate that has at least a reasonable chance in winning the Presidency, by blowing up the typical model and rewriting the script. The next few weeks, leading up to the GOP convention, will be telling to see if the remainder of the establishment GOP will accept the rewriting of their failed conservative playbook, and if any edits they might suggest will be accepted by their Presidential candidate. But at this point, Trump is holding most of the cards in this hand.

Thanks for reading, have a great week. We'll be back with novel ideas and inflammatory opinions real soon!

Clarity comes to the GOP. Nah, just kidding.

"Government of the people, by the people, for the people..."

This was not, as Bill Clinton once claimed, from the Constitution, but instead was spoken by Abraham Lincoln (Republican, BTW) as part of the Gettysburg Address. Both parties tend to like Lincoln. History does occasionally bring clarity.

Full disclosure. As stated from the outset, I'm a Bernie guy (really too old to be considered a Bernie 'bro'), but barring an indictment (Since when did "willfulness" become a criteria in determining whether someone broke the law? "Sorry officer, I didn't intend to drive 110 in my Porsche, so no ticket, right?") it's now a two person race, and Bernie isn't one of them. A shame, because Sanders/Trump really would have been an epic, yugge, battle between light and dark sides of the (populist) Force in the general election. Damn shame.

"Here's a contrarian idea. In the general election, it's Trump's race to lose, not Hillary's." I wrote this early in the week, just after the Indiana primary, but in the ensuing 3 days the chips have been flying so fast and furious it's hard for me to know if it's still even a possibility, as since then Paul Ryan, the Republican Speaker of the House (of Representatives) gave a kidney punch to Team Donald, with a "not yet" non-endorsement of the GOP Presidential candidate (forget the "provisional" moniker, 'cause that train left with Cruz and Kasich). And, not unexpectedly, Trump has already responded in kind with a forceful riposte, the only unexpected part being that it didn't come across via a Tweet.

Crazy still prevails in the GOP, because before we get to the main event, "Trump v. Clinton", it now seems the undercard of "Trump v. RNC" has become a de facto qualifier fight for the general election. Not, as stated by talking heads and the media, because of ideological differences between Trump-ology and the "conservatives" that run the GOP, but because it's simply all about the Benjamin's. Like "who had plastic surgery", it isn't a topic that tends to be raised in polite political conversation.

Sorry, political purists, American democracy isn't a battle of competing ideologies, liberal v conservative. It's special interest versus special interest, and Paul Ryan's broadside to Trump was intended to show the Donald who has the hand on the money spigot, which is expected to flow to the tune of more than a billion dollars a side for the general election. Likely more money than the Donald could realistically self-fund. And, like Goldman Sachs, that money's not flowing for a 25 minute speech. There are strings attached. Ryan wants to make that clear.

"Conservative principles"? Seriously? It should be a drinking game, like "Hi Bob" for political junkies. As a synonym for "no regulations or corporate oversight" it rolls off the tongue of politicians better because it includes the word "principle", and that sounds nice and principled-ish. The only thing more hypocritical is the use of the phrase "family values". Deep pocketed GOP donors want to know that the Donald Trump they shun as a boorish, nouveau riche, second-rate New York realtor isn't, as President Trump, going to hold a grudge. If they can sort that out he's good to go. But right now that's a pretty big "if".

Here's what I find the singular craziest part of all. "Establishment" Republicans still cannot accept the reality that THIS GUY came straight off the set of "The Apprentice" and went all Jackie Chan on the best and the brightest stars of the Republican Party. And did it all with his ideological arms tied behind his bouffant hairdo. So now, having vanquished all that the GOP could put before him, now Paul Ryan wants him to promise to play nice with the Gamekeepers? Huh? Did Russell Crowe grant a do-over in Gladiator? The Donald is owning the Republican electorate, and sorry Paul, the concerns they voice at the corner bar aren't over the capital gains tax rate or a smaller role of government in their lives. It's if they'll have a job next year, and if they can afford next month's rent. And they are pissed.

Trump has appealed to this swath of voters who are scared and looking for answers. They're impatient (sorry Kasich), not trusting of the previous candidates that promised everything and delivered only for their friends (sorry Jeb), not willing to trust a kid again (Rubio) or a C-suite woman (Carly), and definitely not a used car salesman (lyin' Ted). With a rhetorical style in the vein of the WWE ("Are you ready to RUMBLE!!!"), "Make America Great Again", "build a wall", "ban Muslims", "bring jobs back", has a simple and direct appeal. Is it racist? Does it entice racism? Of course it does. Does it win elections? So far, yes it does. It's the reality folks. Human nature applies in America too.

So why might the Donald become the next President? Because there are Democratic voters out there struggling too, and Bernie's not going to be there to help them. Goldman Sachs sure as hell wont. Just look at what's happened with union endorsements during the Democratic primaries. The vast majority of union leaders came out for Hillary, but overwhelmingly rank and file workers were all in for Bernie. Those disaffected masses are ripe for the picking by Trump. And there are a lot more of them than there are corporate titans that will switch to Hillary. Dollars will help decide.

"Government of the people, by the people, for the people...". The elegance of the quote disguises the complexities in making sausage. Might get messy.

No take-backs. While I'm still heavy (pun-intended) on Chris Christie for Trump's VP, the only potential negative I can see is that Christie is not really a Washington insider. But so far all the GOP candidates I can think of in D.C. are more likely to appear in a cameo on "The Walking Dead".

Thanks for reading! Next time, more specific musings on "how does the Donald win the general?".

Hillary Clinton is Jerry Krause

Full disclosure. Your blogger isn't an ESPN junkie, but he did live in Chicago during the Chicago Bulls championship years, hence the title to this week's post. If you, gentle reader, are a sports junkie, then you may have immediately understood the innuendo behind the title. If not, let me try to use sports history to frame the current political climate.

If you were looking for a recap to the White House Correspondent's Dinner, here's a summary:

http://bcove.me/6zks4ecg

The Democratic talking head Paul Begala is fond of saying, "Washington D.C. is Hollywood for ugly people". My only added comment here is that there's a fine line between satire and ridicule, and people will draw that line differently.

Okay, back to the sport of politics. Jerry Krause was the General Manager of the Chicago Bulls during their heyday, when they won (non-consecutive) 6 NBA Championships. Probably not coincidentally, those teams also featured a reasonably talented guard, "from North Carolina!", named Michael Jordan. Despite their winning ways, there was ever-present a certain degree of animus between Jordan and Krause over a myriad of issues, mostly surrounding the portion of the success attributable to Krause's prowess as a GM (in draft picks) versus Jordan's gifts as a basketball player. Attempts by Krause to claim a share of the championship mantle were met with ridicule by Jordan and likely the majority of basketball fans. Krause was simply not that well-liked for a variety of reasons, but most fans grudgingly give him some credit for his role in creating a championship team around the superstar Jordan. He's talented, but is simply not a star.

<

Hillary finds herself in a very similar position today. An acknowledged technocrat, she's played a significant role in now 2 separate Democratic Presidential administrations, her husband's and now Obama's. But, like Krause, it seems very likely that her role, however large, in both those "teams", will be but a footnote in the much larger biography of two highly charismatic presidents. And again, like Krause, and perhaps many of you gentle readers, being in the position of second/third behind-the-scenes fiddle time and time again, can sometimes simply suck, sitting back and watching the popular kid take all the credit and the glory.

What does this portend for the general election? In my election lifetime the closest I can recall a bureaucrat being elected President was George H. W. Bush (the first one). VP to the GOP demigod Ronald Reagan, Bush had arguably a more distinguished service and political career, but lost badly to Reagan on the charisma front. And ultimately, he lost to the uber-charismatic Bill Clinton after being a one term President. I'm not predicting (today) that Hillary will meet a similar fate, but even the haters can probably concede that Donald Trump is a celebrity "star", albeit in very non-PC orbits (reality TV, tabloid media, etc...). It's no coincidence that reality TV and the media outlets like the National Enquirer and The Drudge Report are popular, as is the Donald. Or, as I like to point out, monster truck shows always outsell the symphony. Always.


For readers who are also sports fans, I've been trying to find basketball player equivalents to the current crop of candidates, based on their roles in their teams/parties. It's an imperfect "science" but there may be a glimmer of truth to the comparisons.

Donald Trump. His NBA doppelganger is Charles Barkley. Sir Charles is both loved and loathed, and has an endearing ability to remain unfiltered under the media spotlight. He (Charles) has had his share of public indiscretions, but what Democrats should find worrisome is that Charles is more popular now than he ever was during his playing days.

Ted Cruz. Had to go to college basketball for his surrogate. Initially I considered Christian Laettner, but in reality, Christian Laettner was talented, albeit despised. No, I think an even better comparator is Marshall Henderson. He played for Ole Miss, and was generally despised, and now plays for the NBA development league. A much better comparison to Cruz, who's 15 minutes of fame starts to draw to a close on Tuesday.

John Kasich. This was remarkably easy. NBA sixth man. Who? Exactly. Sorry John. Sometimes the truth sucks.

Bernie Sanders. Had the hardest time with Bernie, but ultimately, chose a doppelganger who, in the NBA, was simply never expected to be there, much less be competitive. If this were a football comparison, I'd probably lean Doug Flutie, but we're not mixing sports metaphors, so for Senator Sanders we're going with Jeremy Lin. "Lin-sanity" was a lot like what "feeling the Bern" is nowadays, and the Chinese Evangelical baller from Harvard is easily as extraterrestrial as the Jewish Democratic Socialist candidate from Vermont.

So while the Presidential campaigns look forward to November and the general election, I'm working hard to focus the blog on a non-party lines analysis of the party standard-bearers and opining on the strategies and tactics they'll employ to win the White House. So thanks as always for following, buckle your seat belts, because I suspect it's going to be a very bumpy ride.