Headlines

These headlines are real ... they have all been discovered on Internet news sites. Guess which ones came from Politico?

JP Morgan's Dimon: Repatriation will create 'QE4'-like stimulus

Pakistanis suspected of hacking Congress had access to everything

500 sanctuary cities in USA ...

College removes scales from gym after students complain it's 'triggering' ...

Amy Schumer's Netflix special flooded with one-star reviews, 'I've had migraines that were funnier'

Breitbart relishing new found power to torment Paul Ryan

Drudge wants Trump to gut National Weather Service

Obama tried to take Andrew Jackson off the $20. Now Trump is visiting his grave ...

Senate kills rule limiting drug testing for unemployment benefits

Mother and son become father and daughter ...

Trump made $150 million in 2005 and paid $38 million in federal taxes

Luminous green ice growing in Antarctica ...

The Template Test

"It's a Barnum and Bailey world, just as phony as it can be" -- E.Y. Harburg and Billy Rose

When the cerebral David Brooks of the New York Times looked over Obummer in 2008, he knew he would make a good president because of "the crease in his pants." Chris Mathews was equally smitten with this candidate because he "sent a tingle up his leg." And Joe Biden was sold on Obummer when he recognized him as a "clean, articulate, bright Aftrican American." (This quip also got him a cushy job for eight years.) These three political decisions were made not on studied judgments ... but on the basis of feelings. Templates were held up to this candidate and he passed their quick profile tests. Unfortunately, these template judgments were wrong. Obummer has been one of the worst presidents in a long unfortunate history of simps, scalawags and scoundrels who have occupied 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Of course, there have also been great men who have been President of the United States. But, using the template test, many of them would not have passed muster. I'm thinking particularly of Harry Truman, Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln.

What happens as a result of voters' preference for using templates to pick presidents. Obviously candidates are preened, poked and posed into predetermined templates in the hope of getting elected. A very good example of this is Hellary Clinton. If one compares what this woman was like as Secretary of State ... frumpy, disheveled, detached, almost lazy ... to what she has become today. Clearly her handlers have reshaped her into a slick robotic presidential candidate ... both in appearance, demeanor and rhetoric. This remake is designed to appeal to voters who can't be bothered to look beyond her staged appearance ... her template. To me, this artifice of reforming candidates into templates is so Hollywood, so tinsel town, so Lady Gaga ... that I want to flee to someplace genuine, like a petting zoo.

I think I'll stop here ...

Throwing the Dice

I hate to be so slavishly supportive of anyone's political opinions, but I need to reference once again The Diplomad and the logic behind his choice to vote for Donald Trump ... see: Why I Will Vote for Trump. Please read his blog post and all the comments that swing back and forth between support and skepticism. His audience is generally quite well informed and eruditely expressive.

Basically, W. Lewis Amselem (The Diplomad) states that he recognizes that Trump is not the perfect candidate and there are reasonable doubts about the degree to which Trump might follow through on his rhetoric. I also understand that voting for Trump amounts to a throwing of the dice ... but no matter what the probabilities are in this gamble, they are still better than the result we would get from Hellery ... particularly since her campaign promises are so onerous.

In many ways I see a similarity between this upcoming election and Ronald Reagan's in 1980. Back then I held my nose and voted for his opponent, Jimmy Carter, using the rationale of "how can a B-grade movie actor make a good president?" I was wrong and plan not to be so naive this time around.

Anyone who has been reading this blog knows that I have had plenty of problems with Trump's performances ... but generally not his policies and priorities. I realize that, if Trump wins in November, he, like Andrew Jackson, will bring a certain coarseness to the White House. And I also would expect that he will not follow the Tea Party line with many of his decisions. (I particularly worry about his Supreme Court choices.) But I think that this is the unfortunate price that must be paid to get our nation back on the tracks and moving forward after 7 1/2 years of spiteful governance.

No matter how poorly Obummer has ministered to our nation since 2009, I am certain that Hellery would put a Clinton Foundation stake through our heart. And the fact that the Europeans are in her corner is enough evidence for me that she would be a disaster.

So, in November I too will cross my fingers, spit three times and pull a lukewarm lever for Trump.

Afterward: Insofar as Trump bringing a certain coarseness to the presidency, it seems that, since two out of our last three presidents were basically low-lifes, the American people have gotten somewhat used to such poor behavior.

Frustration

I understand Brent Bozell's frustration at Donald Trump's being the presumptive nominee of the Republican party ... see: his Open Letter to Conservatives. But desperate times require desperate measures and it appears that most of blue-collar America doesn't agree with Bozell's assessment of the situation. Yes, Trump is too often wrong on style but right on substance and this has turned many voters off (like my wife). Even I have spent a considerable amount of this blog space criticizing Trump's vulgarities. But now, resolving myself to his eventual nomination, I am forced to concentrate on his approach to the real issues of our time.

If Trump were to be elected ...  which I now consider highly likely ... how would he govern? I believe that he would go a long way toward solving our economic malaise through tax and regulation reform. (He is even against the carried interest tax loophole enjoyed by the hedge-fund nabobs,) I also believe he would find ways to fix our immigration and international trade problems ... in a tough but rational way. And I expect that our fiscal debt goblin would be put back in the closet through spending cuts and economic growth. Yet he would still rebuild our defense capabilities and put apprehension back in the minds of many the bad actors in the world.

But how would Trump handle the social issues that conservatives, like Bozell, are so focused on? Here I am not so sanguine. I expect that he will disappoint many righties in how he reforms Obamacare and Common Core ... and his Supreme Court picks may not be the best. (Wouldn't it be great if he used Ted Cruz as an adviser in this process?) And his approach to solving entitlement  reform could well be too tempered by the brickbats being tossed at him by the liberal media.

And the Trump administration probably will have its share of faux and real scandals ... just because his management style has often allowed the fringes of society to have a chair at the table. And he will come out of the White House a lot wealthier than he was when he went in.

Will Trump be another Ronald Reagan? No, but he may be a modern-day Andrew Jackson, also a rough and tumble politician ... and put Old Hickory's picture back on the double sawbuck in the process. And the best part? Lena Dunham, Rosie O'Donnell, Michael Moore, and lots of other goofy glitterati will soon be living north of the 49th parallel.

Women’s Suffrage

At a July 4^th party last night I made the comment, half in jest, that I thought giving women the vote was a mistake … to the startled gasps of most in the room. I say half in jest because, even though I know this is a losing cause, there are arguments that might still be made on both sides of this “settled law.”  Nothing has 100% positive results and I believe that the 19^th amendment is recently exhibiting its downside … in particular a relatively recent and persistent gender gap ... see: New York Times Article.

Yes, I know that many of you now have steam coming from your ears … and are vowing never to read another thing I write … including the rest of this blog.  But bear with me, please.

Clearly there were many excellent presidents who were elected because of the female vote; FDR, and JFK come to mind. But then again, I believe that females were also instrumental in electing Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama (twice) … and, to my mind, as a result of knee-jerk feminism. One can also make the argument that Bill Clinton’s bad-boy image helped many females pull the voting lever for him two times too. Whether he was a good or bad president is still open for debate … but he clearly was better than the other two I have mentioned. And let us not forget that an all-male voting population did elect quite a number of presidential lemons before 1920 … Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson, James Buchanan and Franklin Pierce … to name just a few.

I know making generalizations is dangerous, but I believe that many … but clearly not all … women vote with their hearts and not with their heads. And I believe that politicians try to take advantage of this propensity when they callously put forward issues like “the war on women.” Perhaps I can be (wrongly) accused of being a misogynist, but no sane Republican politician cares to be tarred with that brush. If a female were to vote for a Democrat purely because she believes that she will have her birth control pills paid for by the government, then she is a silly and willing victim of this demagogy.

And I also know that, if Hillary Clinton runs for president in 2016, millions of voters, including a number of males, will vote for her just because she is a woman. And, if she doesn’t run, which name comes up next most often? … the female Senator from Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren, that woman with Amerind cheekbones … a double whammy for the emotional voter. Does this not prove that savvy political operatives feel that gender is now a bigger vote getter than experience and qualifications? (Just as race was, I firmly believe, a big political plus to the voters in 2008 and 2012 … and we see what a mare’s nest that this voter naiveté has caused.)

Does this mean that I would never vote for a woman? Of course not. I can name many woman politicians whom I have admired … Maggie Thatcher, Barbara Jordan, Golda Meir, Condoleezza Rice … probably just as many as I can name outstanding male solons.  But this does beg the question: Have we now a population of callow voters who do not know … nor care to know the issues confronting this country … and will let their emotions govern how they vote? And I do believe that a statistically significant higher percentage of this voting bloc is likely comprised of women? This is my point regarding women's suffrage.

Perhaps, a 28^th amendment?  Just kidding …