Tag Archives: Political campaigns

Fisking Hillary

Here’s Hillary Clinton’s op-ed for USA Today on why people should vote for her. It’s really kind of simplistic. An intern probably write it. I’ve added a few comments.

In January, America is going to have a new president. Things are going to change — that much is certain. [But, Hill, I thought things under you and O were great. Why do they need to change?] The question is, what kind of change are we going to have?

We can build an economy that works for everyone, or stack the deck even more for those at the top. [Which is exactly how Hillary wants it since she’s at the top.]

We can keep America safe through strength and smarts [Smartpower! How’s that worked out? It hasn’t.] — or turn our backs on our allies, and cozy up to our adversaries. [All of which is a perfect description of the Obama foreign policy, much of which you’ve been involved with intimately.]

We can come together to build a stronger, fairer America, or fear the future and fear each other. [Aren’t you the candidate telling every minority you can find that if you aren’t elected they’ll be in chains or pregnant and without an abortion mill within a stone’s throw?]

Everything I’ve done, as first lady, senator, or secretary of State, I’ve done by listening to people and looking for common ground, even with people who disagree with me. [Seriously, you said that with a straight face?] And if you elect me on Tuesday, that’s the kind of president I’ll be. [Lady, you must have the face of a stone if you didn’t break out into laugh after that howler.]

Here are four priorities for my first 100 days — issues I’ve heard about from Americans all over our country. [Is this ‘hearing from Americans’ meme poll-tested. You seem to be hitting it like a drunk hits the bottle.]

First, we will put forward the biggest investment in new jobs since World War II. [Wait, we gotta start a World War to get the economy moving? Isn’t Trump supposed to be the warmonger?] We’ll invest in infrastructure and manufacturing to grow our economy for years to come. [Is this ‘investment’ going to be bigger than Obama’s ‘Stimulus’? How’d that work out?] We’ll produce enough renewable energy to power every home in America within a decade. [Are you drunk right now? Who told you anything like that was remotely possible?] We’ll cut red tape for small businesses and make it easier for entrepreneurs to get the credit they need to grow and hire — because in America, if you can dream it, you should be able to build it. [How can you cut red tape if you are going to expand the administrative state? And where are these loans coming from?] We’ll pay for it all by asking the wealthy, Wall Street and big corporations to finally pay their fair share. [Oh, I see. Soak the rich. You are aware that the rich already pay a disproportionate amount of taxes? Of course you are. You’re just cynically manipulating the unintelligent but very envious supporters now.] And this commitment will go far beyond the first 100 days. Creating more good jobs with rising incomes will be a central mission of my presidency. [Um, you do understand that you can no more command that than King Canute could command the sea?]

Second, we will introduce comprehensive immigration reform legislation. [Why does ‘immigration’ need to be reformed? There’s nothing wrong with the laws we have that enforcing them wouldn’t fix.] The last president to sign comprehensive immigration reform was Ronald Reagan, and it was a priority for George W. Bush. I’m confident that we can work across the aisle to pass comprehensive reform that keeps families together and creates a path to citizenship, secures our border, and focuses our enforcement resources on violent criminals. [There’s nothing listed here that wouldn’t be enabled by simply enforcing the current laws.] This is the right thing to do, and it will also grow our economy. [What, it doesn’t cure cancer too? Lay off the hallucinogens.]

Third, to break the gridlock in Washington, we need to get secret, unaccountable money out of our politics. [Like the money that has enriched you and the Democratic Party?] It’s drowning out the voices of the American people. [How?] So within my first 30 days, I will introduce a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. [Because you want all political speech to be approved by a government that you and your bureaucratic minions control? The First Amendment is very clear.] We should be protecting citizens’ rights to vote, not corporations’ rights to buy elections.[So you admit that corporations are buying the presidency for you?]

Fourth, we need to get started on end-to-end criminal justice reform. Too many people have been sent away for far too long for non-violent offenses. [No, many if not most of those people also had weapons charges against them but they pleaded to lesser charges. You’re just lying to get more felons sprung so they can vote for Democrats.] I believe our country will be stronger and safer when everyone has respect for the law and everyone is respected by the law.[‘Everyone has respect for the law.’ Does that include you? Your husband? Cheryl Mills? Heather Samuelson? David Kendall? Jake Sullivan? Jimmy the Weasel Comey? Et al.]

There’s so much more we need to do together, and we certainly won’t get it all done in the first 100 days. But we’re going to roll up our sleeves and get to work for American families — and I’ll never, ever quit. [I’m pretty sure you’ll quit when you’re dead. And why families? What about us single people?]

I want to be president for all Americans — Democrats, Republicans and independents; Americans of every race, faith and background. [Is this going to be like Obama’s everyone? Where some everyones are more equal than other everyones?]

My opponent has run his campaign on divisiveness, fear and insults, and spent months pitting Americans against each other. [Holy cow! Did you not read what you just wrote above? Oh, nevermind, I forgot, you’re a liberal so hypocrisy is your middle name and self-awareness is a concept to you like grasping the 47th dimension is to the average human being.] I’ve said many times that Donald Trump has shown us who he is. Now we have to decide who we are. [Admit it, that last sentence is a nod to Obama.]

Because it’s not just our names on the ballot this year. Every issue we care about is on the ballot, too. This is about who we are as a country — and whether we are going to have change that makes us stronger together, or change that pushes us further apart. [That whole self-awareness thing really is hard for you, isn’t it?]

It all comes down to this. I love our country. [So why are you so eager to turn into a socialist hellhole?] I believe in our people. [Actual Americans or your little clique of entitled elites? I’m thinking you are really referring to the latter.] And I think there’s nothing we can’t achieve if we work together and invest in each other. [Always have to work in that money angle…]

Change=Socialism

I was amused hearing Hillary Clinton castigate Donald Trump because he wants to “Make America great again.” According to her he was implying that it is no longer great. She (and Michelle Obama, the newly crowned Pericles, taking the crown from her husband) insists that America is great right now.

Yet, coming out of the other side of Hillary’s mouth was a series of promises of “change” for America. So, Hill, if it’s so great why the desperate need for “change”? Or is this just a buzzword that polls well with our idiot Millennials (and Gen Xers)?

It’s acknowledged that the “change” pitch is aimed at Sanders’ socialist lumpenproletariat, which of course means that Hillary is actually covertly peddling socialism (as Obama did in his 2008 campaign). She’ll make great use, as Obama did in 2008 with “race,” of masking that with the “Making History” cloak enabled by their practice of identity politics.

I’m also amused about her running a campaign on “competence” and “foreign policy successes.” Like “honesty” and “trust,” those are two terms that one can’t seriously associate Hillary Clinton with. Yet one characteristic of the modern liberal is the belief that one simply has to assert something for it to be true. Its actually truth is immaterial in comparison to the assertion.

We’ve already suffered nearly two terms of one such president.

The Great Uniter

Yeah, that’s Hillary Clinton.

Listening to her after her Indiana primary loss droning on how she’s the only one “who can unite us,” clearly referring to the country as a whole, not just the Democratic party. Then she proceeds to tear into everyone who disagrees with her, notably Republicans. Now that’s unifying.

You know that if a Republican were this hypocritical and dissonant he’d be savaged by the press.

Look, I know that Hillary Clinton is just cynically mouthing the pablum that animates the Dembots, but just listening to her flat, rote, lecturing delivery is pure torture. Real torture, not the “torture” referred to in Democrat “Not-Who-We-Are” terrorism talking points. Make terrorists listen to Hillary and they’ll talk!

As bad and awful as Trump is and will be, Hillary is so much worse.

Bernie the Heartless Corporate Thug

It’s funny that Bernie Sanders has suddenly announced that he’s laying off campaign workers as his campaign fizzles and “they aren’t needed anymore.” Is it your greed, Bernie?

Isn’t the Bern the one always complaining about companies laying off workers that “aren’t needed anymore”? Isn’t he the one saying that those companies should keep the workers, whether they make economic/business sense or not? Isn’t Sanders the Socialist the one advocating lifetime employment with a single firm? Doesn’t he demand that laid off workers be given like six-months’ notice and a great severance package? I don’t think any of that happened for Bernie’s now turfed-out workers.

Ya’ know, I think Bernie might be a hypocrite.Is that too mean?

Notice how the leftists always exempt themselves from the policies they demand of others…? This story of heartBern should be a big story but it won’t be.

Well, I guess it’s okay since they weren’t replaced by nonunion foreign workers in India, Mexico or China, right? That would be really bad.

In related news, one of Bernie’s dream countries, Chavezuela, has just announced rolling blackouts for the next month+ and a two-day work week for government workers. Looks like they doubled down on Bernie’s four-day work week idea. Woooo!

Looks like all the cool socialistas are crapping out these days.

Trump Can Win 2

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.

Trump Can Win

I am of a different mind than many on Donald Trump’s viability in a general election. I actually think that should Trump attain the Republican nomination, the election would be his to lose.

The main reason I think that is because I think Hillary Clinton, assuming she is the Democratic nominee, is essentially at Peak Hillary with the voting public. That is, she’s a known quantity. You either love her or hate her. There is no middle ground. Those who are going to vote for her are locked in. If you haven’t been deterred by her corruption, incompetence, pathological lying, greed and bloodless ambition by now then nothing is likely to dissuade you. Similarly, she’s also well-known to independents, so anyone still skeptical of her at this point, is going to require a lot to pull the lever for her. And those who dislike her are not going to change their mind. I think that she has big problems getting more than 45% of the vote and likely much less — the diehard of the Democratic party. She doesn’t have much in the way of upside.

In comparison, Trump has a great deal of upside. Beyond the immigration issue, voters don’t know that much about him. His mission is to keep a Republican coalition, motivate Republican-leaning independents and not alienate others, at least to the point they vote for Hillary. That last point is very important and is what the election will hinge upon. If Trump behaves himself and doesn’t seem too scary to free-floating “Independent” women (ones that aren’t voting for Hillary out of sisterhood considerations), he should be in good shape.

He also may very well present some other Electoral College problems for Clinton. He could fracture some of the reliably Democrat northeast and put Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Connecticut and New York into play (forcing Clinton to expend resources in those states). He’ll almost certainly sweep the South and solidly Republican states of the Midwest and West. Does he help in blue collar parts of Ohio — enough to eliminate the huge Democrat advantage in Cuyahoga County (Cleveland area)? He might play well in Michigan too, disrupting another expected Democrat state. Be realistic, what Republican state would likely to defect to Hillary Clinton (or Bernie Sanders)? Admittedly some moderate and establishment Republicans might sit on their hands and not show up to vote but I think that by and large those will be in states where Republicans are strong to begin with and it won’t matter. Squishy Republicans in more moderate states (like Pennsylvania) might be outnumbered by Democrats defecting to Trump.

Here are some caveats.

Trump’s scorched Earth campaign style could seriously damage him with many Republicans — keeping some of the most reliable Republican foot soldiers and funders on the sidelines (Trump might self-fund but all those downticket candidates aren’t self-funding and they’ll be looking for support that might not be there if Trump has turned the campaign into a charnel house). Trump does not understand that a presidential election is about a lot more than the presidency. As bright as his smile is, if he doesn’t maintain the Republican army, he loses, no matter how many “other” voters and Democratic defectors he brings on.

He could blow it with a wacky vice presidential choice. I expect him to avoid any of his serious competitors — Cruz, Rubio, notably. He hasn’t shown the ability to tolerate anyone who might take any light away from him or stand on their own two feet. That might also eliminate Carly Fiorina and Chris Christie because the media might pay too much attention to them. He’s also done a lot of demonizing of his competitors, building ill will with their supporters. But politics does require some ability to let things slide off your back. Cruz and Rubio would seem to aid in more than intellectual firepower, they help deliver major states. However, Texas is already in the Republican category but Florida might benefit from a Rubio choice. Does Christie bring New Jersey over? Does Fiorina dent Hillary’s female support? If Hillary doesn’t win the female vote by 15+%, she almost certainly loses because the population of Hillary-voting Beta males isn’t that big.

I expect Trump to think outside the usual VP box. I doubt he’ll choose anyone with real gravity (takes away light from The Donald) so that probably takes out of play a number of current politicians. He could even look to the Democratic party in an attempt to coopt Hillary’s support and appear as a “national bipartisan candidate. I would not put it past him to offer the job to Bernie Sanders (though I doubt he’d take it). I’m thinking Trump will look for his version of Perot’s Adm. Stockdale (a truly good man but well past his prime, as he recognized). Trump could also go with someone who would be grateful to be back in the game — Rudy Giuliani or maybe grab a “Democrat” outer moon like Bob Kerrey.

No matter what Trump will likely make his VP choice one of the most scrutinized ever.

There’s a question as to how much influence the mainstream media could have in the upcoming election. So far the kid glove slaps they’ve made at Trump have not amounted to anything. But make no mistake, if he’s the nominee, starting 10 seconds after the nomination the greatest assault upon one human being in history will begin from the major newspapers, TV news operations, liberal advocacy groups, et al. It will be unlike anything ever seen before as the media and other Democratic operations try to slime and negatively define Trump in an effort to push Hillary Clinton into the White House.  What was done to Sarah Palin will look like a peck on the cheek in retrospect.

One Trump weakness that has yet to fully manifest itself is, what does Trump believe in? What will a Trump presidency do? Beyond something about immigration, even his most fervent supporters are at a loss to say exactly what President Donald will do. As he begins to fill in the blanks, will he turn off supporters and dampen ardor? Is he the big government guy he looks to have been in the past? What about a $19 trillion deficit? What about a big government that seems to be at war with the citizenry? Does he really think Kelo was a good decision? He’s lived all of his life and done all of his business in big cities, does he have any clue to what western state Republicans are talking about when they complain about government control of land and resources? What about EPA overreach? What does he think of “Quantitative Easing”? Big Business subsidies such as ethanol and green energy pork barrel or cookie-pushing entities like the IMF? What about the Dept. of Education and its effective nationalizing of the student loan business? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Obamacare? States and local rights or increasing Washington interference into every single aspect of our daily lives? Will he undo all those Executive Orders that King Barry I has lived by? There’s so much more yet Trump has been cagey on most of this by waging a campaign of invective — a negative campaign rather than a positive campaign.

Or can he run an Obamesque campaign and be a tabula rasa wherein supporters read into him what they want to hear?

The biggest threat to the Trump campaign’s success is Trump’s own mouth. How long before his egomania and big mouth finally wear out its welcome? Campaigns that burn so brightly burn out quicker. Trump has made few friends. At this point in the campaign that’s not yet a red flag, but soon he’s going to have to start reeling the rhetoric in — before he turns almost everyone into an enemy.

Politics is ultimately a team sport, something Trump does not seem to have learned. He will need dozens of friendly surrogates in the general election campaign since he can’t be at all places at all times. Who’s going to man the get-out-the-vote operations if you’ve pissed off much of the Republican establishment? Laugh all you want GOP establishment-hating Trumpsters, but if you want Trump, the Insult the Comic Dog, to be president, you’ll need state and county party operations to do the heavy lifting. Look what happened in Iowa with a Trump operation that many simply expected to work.

Obama played it brilliantly in 2008 by playing the team game and only becoming the self-centered lone-wolf we have in the White House now after he was inaugurated.

Trump’s mouth might also get him in trouble with “independent” voters. People often don’t mind if you insult the other guy but when you turn your mouth on something they hold dear… Independent women are notoriously fickle and often take an emotional approach to candidates. Looking/acting mean or angry can turn them off. And the approach will wear on all voters over the months. Trump Fatigue could set in before the election.

It could, amazingly enough, even allow Hillary Clinton to gain sympathy. We know how good the Clintons are at confusing the public and neutering opposition long enough to escape.

Will Hillary Clinton Be Indicted?

That is not to be confused with “Should Hillary Clinton be indicted? To which the answer is a resounding, Yes!

At this moment, I think it’s at or less than a 4 in 10 chance she’ll be indicted. That is, less than 50-50.

It has to be understood that the governing principle here is pure politics. As long as she remains the presumptive Democratic nominee AND as long as she remains politically afloat she is untouchable.

While that remains in effect, no matter what the FBI does or says or pushes for nothing will move forward from the Dept. of Justice. Even if the FBI pushed for an indictment, DOJ would just move into a version of the old North Carolina basketball version of the Four Corners stall tactic. Attorney General Loretta Lynch or some PR flunkee would talk about how they are seriously examining the issue and don’t want to jump to conclusions, especially considering that this would affect a presidential election. “We don’t want to play politics!” they’d say. (The late Cap Weinberger and Tom DeLay would find that laughable.) Then they’d run out the clock. (No one would ask the obvious question, ‘So, are you going to indict if she’s elected?’ ‘If elected, will she be able to pardon herself?’)

However, if the good ship S.S. Hillary begins to list seriously, either in the primaries or in the general election, things could change. If she’s underwater and dragging the down-ticket candidates down with her, there could be a sudden indictment to push her off the stage (and Sloe Joe Biden substituted). But using the “Lautenberg Option” would require her to be in a huge amount of trouble (poll numbers in the low 30s, likability in the 20s, minority voters depressed and, most importantly, fundraising drying up).

Remember, these craven people brazened out the Paula Jones/Monica Lewinsky thing (along with several other impeachable offenses) — Nothing to see here! Time to move on! — so they have no compunction about acting in a purely self-interested manner — political civility be damned!

I’ll toss out one possible subterfuge, a quickie plea deal. Hillary could always take a fast plea deal to shut all of this down immediately. With a friendly DOJ, she’d get a slap on the wrist, pay a little fine and not even admit to guilt and the investigation would go no further. She’d explain that it is all in the best interest of the country to move on, she’s real sorry that anyone was offended and she won’t hold it against the Republican-run FBI. Obama or Lynch would crow, “See, our justice system works!” The Democrats and the MSM would sing with a glee how noble she is and the campaign would turn a whomping negative into a positive.

I think this would be better exercised sooner rather than later but knowing the short-term mentality of the low-information voter, Hillary could probably wait awhile.

And speaking of completely soporific pandering (along with sheer delusion), check out the New York Times’s endorsement of this unindicted criminal kingpin. Talk about living in Bizarro World….