The always interesting Angelo Codevilla has a very interesting piece in The Federalist. I don’t know if he is right in “Donald Trump Is The Next Barack Obama,” but he makes a case that is fearful. I would hope that Trump would come out and make the opposite case but somehow I don’t see him, with his brand of destroy-all-opposition interaction, stooping to reassure anyone that he’s not going to be just as a tyrannical as Obama. Recommended.
Much of the activity on the Republican side should be devoted to who can get to Trump first; who will have Trump’s ear. I think Jeff Sessions understands this, hence his endorsement.
Trump is not a details guy. He’s a big picture guy. Details annoy him. They confuse him. He hasn’t even thought about them (but is loathe to admit that).
Do you think he worries about what the bathrooms in his hotels look like (other than being ‘Trumpworthy’)? What kind of cement gets used in the foundation or car garage (other than the ‘right’ kind)? Choices of wallpaper (other than making sure the capital Ts in the pattern are big enough to be seen)? If the fire escape stairs are wide enough (other than to keep ADA activists from jamming up the project)? What kind of plants are in the landscaping (so long as that cute flower that the latest Mrs. Trump likes is included)? No. He has “people” for those things.
If we want him to lean conservative on things that he doesn’t really care about, and that’s going to be a long list, we need to make sure that it is conservatives that have his ear. That’s why much of this savaging of Trump, well deserved as it is, is counterproductive. If Trump is elected, whether we love him or not, he (or his ‘people’) will be staffing the federal government’s “political” positions.
President Trump will be captured by somebody, better it be Republicans than Obama leftovers, Hillary supporters and professional Democrats (think of people like Lois Lerner).
Any serious conservative thinking that what the conservative movement and this country needs is four years of Hillary to teach us a lesson is fooling themselves. This approach didn’t work with the first four years of The One; another four years of King Barry I. Thinking the country will snap out of it in 2020 is foolish nonsense. By then the government will be so large, so powerful and so packed with crazed libtards, that we may very well be past the tipping point. As bad as it is now it will be far worse after four years of another Clinton corruptocracy; this one leavened with open socialism, high-dudgeon racism, enforced political correctness, more Global Warming/green insanity, Title IXmania, “Smart Power” disasters on every continent (including Antarctica), war on men (especially white heterosexual men), war on success, war on Christians, etc.
Trump is not ideal. His vulgarity, shocking immaturity and childishness, egocentricity and narcissism, bullying, ham-handedness are unpresidential. His conduct has not earned him any respect from nor endeared him to sincere conservatives. He may very well be a much larger, angrier version of Jesse Ventura but it is hard to imagine how he’ll be worse than Hillary Clinton; especially if the House is retained by Republicans. Conservatives need to understand that the point in 2016 is to stop Hillary Clinton, by pretty much any means necessary.
Sounds like a law firm but it isn’t. Here’s a pair of recommended reads — one from the smartest man alive as far as I’m concerned, John O’Sullivan. The other is a nice piece on the hollowness and failure of socialism in the United States from Daniel J. Flynn. Don’t worry, it’s not an academic piece. Quite digestible.
As is typical of O’Sullivan, “Trump and the Rise of the Undocumented Republicans,” is a measured, thoughtful piece. It’s a good contrast to the hysterics that are tending to fulminate these days when it comes to analyzing the Donald Trump phenomenon (both pro and con).
Flynn’s “Socialism, the Nightmare That Never Dies,” is a quick tour of socialist politics in the U.S. — a history that never seems to get told by our educational establishment, MSM or Hollywood (which inexplicably idolizes socialism). Bonus money quote: “Capitalism works for men who do. Socialism works for men who don’t.”
You might have caught the tisking about a “study” that came out earlier this week about how Hollywood is nothing but a “White Boys Club” that does not put an acceptable amount of tightly defined minorities on the screen. In the eyes of the authors and all the media liberals clucking about it, that’s a bad thing.
Yes, they actually count skin colors, sexual orientations and the number of men and women on the screen and in the business. It must be a sad, bitter life they lead.
These “studies” come about annually now, usually from people who are in orbit around the Hollywood industry but can’t seem to crack it. So they decide to simply crash the party. They’ve got scripts and need to get them made (or at least optioned)!
They really think that an all-minority, chick-heavy “Big Bang Theory” will work. There’s a reason they haven’t cracked Hollywood. And that’s saying a lot considering how lacking in imagination Hollywood is these days. “Hey, CB! Let’s reboot ‘Showgirls’ but have it gay! That can’t miss!”
You know what else Hollywood is? Disproportionately Jewish, gay, liberal, politically correct, hailing from and/or living in the L.A. and New York City areas. Also, movie industry folks are educated at a handful of colleges and are often the children of liberal elites or well-connected people. I did not see the study authors crabbing about any of that.
You know what you see even fewer of in Hollywood or on the silver screen than the so-called “ignored” folks in the study? Positive portrayals of Christians, small town folks, Southerners, conservatives, Republicans, businessmen, openly heterosexual males, etc. You don’t see a lot of those people invited into the business either. I don’t think that’ll be remedied anytime soon. I know this point is way over the head of the authors of the study.
Hollywood is not, never has been and never will be an equal opportunity employer. But nothing is stopping the study authors from starting their own movie companies and making their own movies. If they are so sure of themselves and that they have a handle on the undiscovered audience, have at it! That’s the American way, not strong-arming someone.
As I occasionally mention, I watch a lot of college sports — generally focusing on smaller colleges and avoiding the big college/ESPN mafia.
So I see a lot of those college promo videos that appear during commercial breaks of the games. You know them, State U. is a school of unique individuals who will make a difference by leading the way to the glorious future of the college graduate through college work. These are always accompanied pictures of smiling, multiracially-balanced youth working hard in the lab, the inner-city or Africa; raising their hands in class or working with a child or poor, darker-skinned person. They look to be employed by an NGO or a large corporation in a money-losing operation. Occasionally they look beatifically to their wise professor for guidance.
These things are stamped out of a mold. They differ only in the background music and pretty tree-lined campus and ivy-covered building shots.
I want to see a real video. No, not one of booze-hounds and directionless slugs; indebted fools and legacy losers; screaming sports team fans; deranged PC fascists and “professors” who would be better employed as warehouse workers. Rather, I’d like to see a video that says we can provide you with an education that will help you do well but you’ll have to work hard here and in the adult world. In the adult world you’ll probably not cure cancer, bring world peace or provide free magical unicorn energy to Africa but you can start a worthwhile business or obtain a job where you can support yourself and a family along with being a positive contributor to your community and not be a burden upon society. Mostly, it’s up to you.
I think I’ll be waiting a long time for that video.
And then there’s this. As I was writing this up on Sunday, St. John’s was playing Seton Hall in college basketball.I had it on in the background. I don’t have a dog in that fight.
When I was younger, St. John’s teams were known as the “Redmen.” That got changed in the mid-1990s because someone was upset that “Redmen” could be construed as derogatory towards Indians. SJU did use an Indian mascot though he was in no way degraded. So to pay penance, they chose the supremely lame “Red Storm” and eventually chose “Johnny Thunderbird” as a mascot. Apparently the PC police did not considered the thunderbird appropriation as an insult to Indians. Go figure.
SJU and its students also have a tradition of being called “Johnnies.” Why they haven’t adopted that name is beyond me. St. Bonaventure has wisely adopted the unique name “Bonnies.” Who else is called Johnnies? But wisdom from colleges is no longer a safe expectation these days.
In the wake of Donald Trump’s solid win in the South Carolina primary many are screaming that Trump can’t win in a general election. In response, I’m going to reiterate my posting of “Trump Can Win” and add a little to it.
It has to be acknowledged that Trump has high negatives but then so does Hillary Clinton so that’s pretty much a wash between the two. Additionally, I don’t think that his high negatives will transfer into votes for Hillary. One might find a lot of Republicans not necessarily voting for him but voting for other Republicans on the ticket because Republicans in general look to be very enthusiastic for the upcoming election. If Trump tries to make peace with some of his Republican opponents (by picking a high-profile Republican such as Cruz or Rubio as his VP) he might even recoup some of those votes. Remember earlier last week he was supposedly having a “spat” with the Pope (started by the Pope though that was generally left out of the news) but by the end of the week Trump was declaring the Pope a great guy (without addressing the issue at the heart of the ‘spat’). That’s Trump — he can turn on a dime and his supporters don’t seem to notice anything beyond the positive aspects.
His supporters are clearly enthusiastic while Hillary’s are mostly of the robotic lever-pulling Democrat faithful. Look at a Hillary Clinton rally and it looks like a meeting of the National Education Association. That’s her supporting diehards, chunky older women who work for or depend upon the government. Sprinkle in a few blacks who identify themselves exclusively by their skin color, the professional representatives, not necessarily the self-identified membership, of select other “racial” groups and the sexually confused along with a large hunk of the mainstream media. She has so far failed to put together the Obama coalition and it looks highly unlikely she’ll be able to cobble together 100% of it. Failing that her election becomes problematical.
The Democratic national coalition of the last 20 years has relied on high enthusiasm of the core (Hillary fails that); enthusiastic and ignorant youth (will The Bern’s kids go to Hillary or stay home?) and, increasingly, disproportionate, support in select cities. The latter is needed to overwhelm vast Republican support in suburbia and rural areas (witnessed in those famous ‘sea of red’ county and Congressional voting pattern maps). Can the Democratic inner city vote fraud machine replicate its hyperenthused Obama efforts for Hillary? I doubt it.
As I noted earlier, other than Florida and Virginia, maybe North Carolina, Hillary cannot win any Southern state. The traditional Republican states in the Midwest and West are likely Trump locks too, especially if he takes a pro-business approach in things like mining, timber, oil/energy, agriculture, etc.
Trump brings additional advantages in some of the old “industrial” states. The Democrats have been treating them as redheaded stepchildren for awhile. It could be Trump’s convenient semi-traditional populism versus Hillary’s academic socialist populism in states like Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York.
Looking at the complete disaster that is Rahm Emanuel’s Chicago and suddenly Illinois becomes a bit more competitive. Hillary may have been born there but she dissed them for New York and the Dems are heavily dependent upon winning big in Chicago to win the state. How enthusiastic will the Illinois Dems be when Obama makes only a single campaign appearance for Hillary in the last week of the campaign?
The desperate and deceptive media attempt to hang the Flint, Mich., water problems around Gov. Rick Snyder’s neck isn’t accidental. Democrats (and their media auxiliaries) know that the depopulating of Detroit has weakened the state’s Democrat advantage putting it into play for a populist Republican whose irascibility becomes a positive. Oh, and eventually it will be common knowledge that Flint has been run by Democrats for decades and the water problems can be placed at their feet.
In Pennsylvania, traditionally, Democrats run up a small margin in Pittsburgh and a huge margin in Philadelphia (a poster child for vote fraud). Most of the rest of the state leans solidly Republican. Like rural and suburban Michigan, I think Trump’s faux-populism plays well in the Keystone State. I don’t see any enthusiasm for Hillary there (or in any of these listed states).
And, again, much the same can be said for Ohio, with Cleveland being a smaller version of Philadelphia.
New York and New Jersey are very likely to be friendly to Trump. Hopefully, by November, New York City’s experiment with bringing back the nightmarish 1970s pre-Giuliani New York will have awakened enough people to mitigate that fat nut of Democratic parrots that live there.
Hillary Clinton may be forced to deploy a large portion of her time and vast resources to defend those states.
The big point is that for all of Trump’s flaws, Hillary can’t take advantage of them. In fact, she shares many of them. If Trump were facing someone popular or different, then he could be routed but he isn’t. He’s facing an even more flawed candidate — one who generates minimal enthusiasm among her supporters and has no geographical base to operate from. Oh, and one that should be indicted and convicted of major crimes, but that’s another story.
I’m not a Trump cheerleader. I think he’ll make a terrible president (unless his scorched-Earth-style campaign really is nothing but political theater), but he’ll be better than Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders; no matter how much he disappoints supporters by turning out to be the big government/ex-Democrat dilettante he likely is.
Here’s a pair of must reads.
It is pretty much impossible to parody someone like John Kerry. How this American version of Monty Python’s Upper Class Twit ever ascended to the heights he has will always remain one of the great mysteries of life. This particular example concerns Kerry traveling to Hollywood to talk with rich Hollywood producers and filmmakers on how to “message” better on the anti-ISIS front. The blind leading the blind analogy leaps to mind. Hey, instead of making America-bashing movies (e.g. ‘Green Zone,’ ‘The Garden of Elah’), how about making pro-American movies? Ones that end with a bunch of ISIS recruits meeting horrible, pointless deaths at the hands of the good guys (Uh, Hollywood, that would be the United States). Matthew Continetti at the Washington Free Beacon has the farce.
Number two is Friday’s take from Ammo Grrrll at Powerline. She’s great, something along the line of an updated, hardcore conservative Erma Bombeck. I couldn’t agree more with this:
“And I will never — no, not ever — vote for candidates on the basis of the color or shape of their skin or any other tribal marker, including being Jewish. The very idea is anathema to me. It is not ‘time’ for a woman or a gay person or a transgendered Olympic athlete or a wise Latina, just BECAUSE they are one of those things. It is waaaay past time for honest, patriotic, qualified, Constitution-upholding candidates who are ‘brave, courageous and bold’ and I don’t care if ALL or NONE are from a grievance-monger category.”