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?".
No comments:
Post a Comment