USA Today Has Saved Me The Trouble, Except…

I don’t know about you, but I am greatly relieved this morning (not).  The USA Today has told me how to vote in the coming presidential election.  I am supposed to listen to this bastion of journalism and vote for Hillary Clinton.  And the USA Today is not alone; more and more entities that deem themselves wiser than me are telling me to ‘dump Trump’.  This is the same USA Today organization that now owns the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which I confess I still read.  That newspaper had already become a shell of its former self, which wasn’t much to write home about, to begin with, and I am now supposed to lap up the wisdom brought to me daily by USA Today.  I need to rid myself of this tactile need to touch something that makes my hands dirty each morning.  I guess I could snuggle up with a piece of carbon paper (I am showing my age again) and simply watch television.

I am immediately suspicious of any group or entity that professes to openly tell me what I should think and what I should do in the polling place.  I believe I am capable of making my own decisions, at least for now anyway, and I resent the implication that I’m simply too dimwitted to be able to handle that responsibility properly.

Were this my first presidential election, and were I not at all comfortable with the world of politics, I might fall victim to this siren’s song and vote as the USA Today urges.  It is not my first shot at electing a President, I do not have difficulty in deciding for myself for whom I’ll vote, and I wouldn’t be likely to take the advice of this organization even if I felt incapable.

With that sliver removed from beneath my fingernail, maybe we can continue.

I have difficulty with those who seem easily able to forget the history of Bill and Hillary Clinton, assuming they were around to have seen that history lesson as it unfolded live and in color.  The idea that the substantial baggage that is dragged along behind these two people can simply be ignored because of Donald Trump is mind-boggling.  That seems what people encourage me to do, though.  The argument usually begins with “I know there are issues that you have to get beyond with the Clintons, but…this Trump guy is dangerous.  You can’t possibly be serious about voting for him.”

This phrase is possibly going to grate on you, but Donald Trump is easily the significantly lesser of evils.  He is almost angelic in comparison to Bill and Hillary Clinton and now Chelsea, who has learned the ‘ride the gravy train’ mantra very well with her cushy Clinton Foundation gig.  A Foundation that merits investigation, by the way, but the FBI, seemingly suddenly unable to deal with anything remotely pointing to a Clinton, appears happy to let that pass as well as all the other things it has let pass so that Hillary can claim her rightful position as the first female and second Clinton family President.

If all this were not so serious, it would make a great sitcom.  Although, even sitcoms have to have some level of believability, so it probably wouldn’t make the grade.

This may prove to have been the most important presidential election certainly in our lifetimes.  There are three or four new Supreme Court justices that will likely be chosen during the next eight years, for example.  Where are the Ronald Reagans when you especially need them?  Donald Trump is obviously not a Ronald Reagan but he is significantly superior to Hillary Clinton, even with the ‘tough business guy’ warts he brings to the party.  The idea that we are supposed to simply neglect/forget all the Clinton baggage, both old (read Rose Law firm records, cattle futures, bimbo eruptions) and new (read Benghazi and e-mail server, etc.) and make her the first female President is ludicrous.

So, the USA Today wasted its effort on me, and I hope hundreds of thousands of others, with its urging support for Hillary Clinton.  And, by the way, there are a lot of other self-imagined thought leaders of some importance who are rapidly losing their impact on me as they, too, choose Hillary.  If they cannot reason through a Hillary versus a Donald, I can’t be bothered with their recommendations as to whom and what I should support. Nor will they hold my attention at any time in the future.



How The “Game” of Politics Is Played…

Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), the U.S. Senate Minority Leader shows us just how the political “game” is played by an action he has mimicked over and over again during his ‘career’.

Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) is being challenged for his seat by former Senator Russ Feingold, a Democrat whom Johnson defeated, and has all he can handle to retain that seat this Fall.  Feingold has made a living elsewhere since he was unseated by Johnson nearly six years ago as he waited for the opportunity to go after that seat again.

This version of the political “game” involves a bill that Sen. Johnson championed which quite simply would’ve permitted terminally ill patients to choose to receive experimental drugs, not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), if they desired in their fight for life; it was nicknamed the ‘Right to Try’ bill.  Beyond all the bulls—, the truth of this matter is quite simple:  Sen. Reid (D) wanted to deny Sen. Johnson (R) this victory on the floor of the Senate simply because he didn’t want Johnson to have anything about which to brag as an accomplishment in his race against Feingold (D).

This is, unfortunately, too often how the “game” is played.  Sen. Reid hides behind whatever smoke screen he chooses to use as his ‘defense’ for this action, but the real reason is blatantly clear…Sen. Reid is essentially saying to the terminally ill who would’ve seized this opportunity, “tough crap!”  Reid, of course, uses this or that excuse, but the truth of this matter is simple: Reid doesn’t care about anything or anyone except politics and his political buddies.  I have to say one thing about Sen.Reid: he is consistent.  His practice of politics has always had this taint to it and he has been re-elected over and again, so one must assume his constituents approve of this kind of activity thus they, too, are guilty by association.  So be it.

The political arena has become more and more a simple game of ‘gotcha’.  Scant attention is paid to the truth especially at higher levels of competition as we’re witnessing in the current Presidential race.  This too often tarnishes people in a ‘guilt by association’ manner even though they may be as pure as the driven snow, or at least innocent of some charges.

We voters stand as part of the accused in this guilt by association arena IF we do nothing about the manner in which the game is played.  We obviously are unable to do anything about the voters in Nevada, but we certainly can do something about elections in Wisconsin in this case, or wherever it is that we live and vote in this country.  If we do nothing, we are as guilty as Sen. Reid.  We might condone Reid’s actions but that will come back to bite us if we do since those actions will be mimicked and we’ll eventually be on the losing end of some battle that was near and dear to us.  If we permit this to be reduced to a Democrat vs. Republican kind of thing and pass it off as merely part of politics, we are as guilty as Sen. Reid is/was.

So, what should ‘candidate’ Feingold do in this situation?  He should take the high road and admit this is a common tactic especially for Sen. Reid and decry the use of such tactics, and he should pledge to avoid them if he is re-elected after this six-year hiatus.  It looks as though he could do that and probably improve his position although he is running a very tight race as it is.  Will he do that?  I doubt seriously that Russ Feingold will have anything to say about this and, if he does, it will probably be something along the lines of “everybody uses these tactics in Washington” since he can ill-afford to go up against the Senate Minority Leader as a senator much less as a mere candidate.

Back to the terminally ill people who have been denied this opportunity for hope.  Who will they have to defend their interests against such tactics?  It certainly will not be on Sen.Reid’s agenda.  If he is defeated, Sen. Johnson will not have lived politically to fight another day.  If Feingold is re-elected after being forced to sit out for a term, will he step up to the plate with some kind of bill that will at least acknowledge the politically shoddy and deceptive parliamentary dodge that may be the reason he is again going to Washington?  Don’t hold your breath.  So long as there is a Minority Leader Reid willing to engage in such crummy tactics, this tactic will go on.  This is what gives politics, at least at this level, such a foul reputation.

Remember that this same Senator Reid voted for ObamaCare along with all his Democrat cronies.  Remember that a Sen. Feingold had he been there at the time, would’ve also cast his vote for ObamaCare since all Democrats were strongly urged to vote in that manner in the middle of the night when the vast majority of we voters were asleep.  Remember that there was not a single Republican vote cast for that bill.  Remember that ObamaCare is in a death spiral that may end in its crashing and burning.

Maybe it is best if we let former Senator Feingold continue to enjoy his retirement from the Senate.

Is Hillary Receiving Special Treatment?

A very simple question:  Is Hillary Clinton receiving special treatment in terms of the inquiries theoretically being conducted or already having been conducted on various aspects of her conduct?

That ‘special treatment’ can come, of course, from different quarters.  The mainstream media certainly can accord a favorite person kid-glove handling.  Lester Holt would seem to bear out that possibility given his performance, or lack of same, during the first debate between Hillary and Donald Trump.  He did seemingly everything he could to avoid placing Hillary in a compromising position with his questions, as well as by his favorite target for ‘fact checking’ having been Donald Trump.

Federal law enforcement agencies can also provide favored people with special benefits such as totally ignoring potential criminal conduct.  The FBI comes to mind as does the lack of a real federal investigation and real prosecution of Hillary Clinton’s e-mail escapade.  It is difficult to conceive of any more favored handling of a potentially bad situation, than the handling of Hillary’s e-mail issues.  The Clinton Foundation also ought to present a ripe target of opportunity for discovery but that is obviously not going to occur. ‘Power for sale’ is only a target if it involves Republicans.  This is ‘pay for play’ personified.

Congress can certainly play a role in such favored treatment.  Witness the Benghazi cover-up/refusal to prosecute at the congressional level.  The outright abandonment of the people in the U.S. diplomatic offices in Benghazi as it was brought under attack, and the fact that earlier repeated requests for increased protection by the chief diplomatic officer in that location were repeatedly ignored and never featured on page 1 of any newspaper.  The Republican attempts to bring these actions to public attention were drowned out by partisan shouting in Congress and by the lack of press interest given that this would be damaging to the prospective Democratic candidate for President.  The Republicans were ridiculed for even entertaining the thought of investigations with teeth.

It is increasingly more difficult to avoid coming to the conclusion that in Hillary Clinton’s case, the FIX is in!  The President will have nothing to do with this since she was his appointee as Secretary of State.  Congress will not be permitted any sincere and sustained involvement by the Democrats who specialize in tarring and feathering anything threatening to their position.  And, most obviously, there will be no sustained effort to learn the truth by the press.  They took their feeble shots across the bow and then backed off as we expected they would.  If Donald Trump tries to bring this case back before the public, he will be drowned out by the hue and cry of  the press, and will be skewered as having given up any rightful role to serve as President of the United States.

Hillary Clinton brings a virtual lifetime of deceit, lies, questionable conduct, quick money through cattle future investments about which she knew nothing, actual dead bodies that we seem to have lost track of, the Rose Law Firm documents, a philandering husband who just happened to be that while he sat in the Oval office himself as well as having left a trail of used females behind in Arkansas.

The Clinton family is Teflon-coated.  Nothing sticks.  No one bothers to raise these old questions because they’d be ridiculed into submission.  Hillary’s health is passed off as a non-issue.  Bill apparently works the deal for no legal punishment by strolling aboard an aircraft in Phoenix and speaking with the Attorney General (but only about the family, of course).

And yet, the press is only interested in what it might be able to develop about Donald Trump’s dealings that can be used to further damage him as a candidate.  There is a total absence of any investigation of Hillary Clinton, and there is seeming absolutely zero likelihood there will be any investigation.  The woman passes out and the press regrets it even has to mention this.  I presume a hangnail on Donald Trump’s finger would conjure up all kinds of potential maladies that might follow such a happening.

That the press sees no favoritism by it in the whole scenario is ludicrous, and speaks to the bias that clearly exists and which clearly drives the reporting.  Back to the title:  Is Hillary Receiving Special Treatment?


We See What We Want To See…

The first Clinton/Trump debate is behind us.  Depending upon which publication one sees and of what persuasion we were going in, s/he won the debate.  So there; that settles that.  What really happened?  Donald Trump got an education and he will not likely forget that education in future debates.  Hillary Clinton was Hillary Clinton and she’ll not soon change her stripes.

She has warts and he has warts.  It is almost impossible to live as long as they each have lived, in the environments in which they have lived, without collecting some of the barnacles of life on their respective hulls.  We all knew that, so there was no startling revelation in any of the pronouncements from either.

Donald Trump needs to get over the idea that Hillary is a woman and go after her as he would any competitor in the arena of politics.  He will suffer greater damage if he does not do that than he will if he does do that.  He might simply give notice that he recognizes this is a battle for the hearts and minds of American voters and that he will treat future debates as just that; there’ll be no kid gloves just as there’ll be no “sucker” punches.

Hillary Clinton is purely and simply a target rich opportunity and she has placed herself in this position by the life she has led.  She is not a shrinking violet; she is more like a bothersome nettle that keeps on giving.  If Donald Trump really wants to be elected President, he has to show the voters that he is serious but do so in good taste.  If she chooses to go after Trump on some building deal or another, he might simply remind her of some of her skeletons from Arkansas days and of the e-mail server fiasco, etc.  Both their life histories should be fair game.  They each drag that baggage along behind them as do we all every day of our lives.

The press is also complicit in this ‘debate’ thingy.  Each major press outlet has its own preconceived ideas of these two people, and, frankly, the preconceptions seem much more favorable to Hillary Clinton than they are to Donald Trump.  While Trump cannot ‘take the bait’ and confront the press, he must demonstrate that he understands the reality he faces.  Lester Holt is not and was not apolitical, and future moderators likely will not be apolitical.  That is very likely an impossibility.

The idea that a person who has his or her own political belief system is sitting in judgment of another as a “fact checker” is ridiculous.  The last I heard was that there was to be none of this ‘fact checking’ by the moderator, but, apparently, that is not a hard and fast rule as evidenced by Lester Holt last evening.  I believe that each of us can ably serve as our own fact checker.  We do that every day during the high political season.  If we do not, we are nothing but sponges soaking up whatever is dumped on us.

I believe Donald Trump did not win last evening.  If I am gracious, he might’ve tied.  But there is really no such thing as a tie in politics.  Politics is rough and tumble.  It is not for the faint of heart.  There is no ‘she is a female’ defense; especially for a female who has fought at least as many political battles as has her opponent, and who has demonstrated she knows no bounds in political infighting.  Hillary Clinton has been given so much slack it is virtually unbelievable.  Benghazi.  Top secret e-mails on a private, NON-SECURE server.  Cattle futures.  The Justice Department (FBI) bending over backward to save her bacon.

It is sickening, BUT it is what it is and that isn’t going to change.  If she is elected President, that will be a black day in our history.  Donald Trump has some issues but he is, issue-wise, a lightweight when compared to Hillary Clinton and the league she has played in for years.

Apparently, the Political Professionals Have Already Decided…Since We’re Too Simple…

We simple voters are to be protected from ourselves, and this time around that is apparently much more important than ever before.  Donald Trump is a candidate and the political pros simply cannot bring themselves to accept that we voters might just decide we prefer him over Hillary Clinton and all that she represents.

We simple voters get too hung up on the history of Hillary and Bill Clinton after all.  We are supposed to have rolled over and permitted ourselves to be the walking path for Hillary’s victory.  They’re just simple country folks from Arkansas who only have our best interests at heart.

We simple voters are supposed to have concluded that the Justice Department certainly would not be playing to a political favorite by ignoring facts galore, at least as we see those ‘facts’.  Bill Clinton’s innocent visit aboard the aircraft in Arizona was just that, an innocent visit to talk about grandkids and other family stuff.  Except this ‘family’ stuff might be closer to La Cosa Nostra family stuff truth be told.

Now we simple voters are being prepped for the ‘debates’.  Even if Donald Trump scores some points, we can’t possibly let that influence the outcome of the election.  After all, elections are there to be won and sometimes it takes more than simple votes to win an election.  Sometimes it takes a party.  Sometimes it takes a machine.

By now, we simple voters should’ve had time enough to see plainly that this is Hillary’s time.  She is obviously the person who has toiled faithfully.  She has waited for her turn to sit in the Oval office.  She has suffered untold pain and suffering during her wait.  She has lived through that nasty thing where lives were lost as she and others in the current Administration dithered and made up stories to cover the rationale for the Embassy being overrun.

We simple voters threaten to get in the way of destiny.  Just who do we think we are?  The very idea that we could be thinking seriously of voting for a person who has never run for office in his life, a person who hasn’t paid his dues, as if it were our right, is foreign.  This shows just how simple some voters can be; simple enough to believe that this is a democracy and that we voters will decide whom we wish as our leader.

We simple voters might just be tired of doing what the political machine tells us is the smart play.  The last smart play has cost us dearly over the past eight years, and now we’re being served up another prospective smart play?

It has to be almost unbearable to be the smartest person in the country and to have all we dunderheads so simple we have difficulty tying our shoelaces.  Maybe we really are simple.

Maybe we simply desire honesty rather than obfuscation.  Maybe we’d prefer a guy who is a little more down to earth.  This current ethereal presidency has gotten a bit tiresome, and to think the powers that be have already ordained who is to follow is just too difficult to swallow without a lot of chewing.

Maybe we simple voters just need to be left to our own rewards, good or not-so-good and vote our hearts.  We seem a bit tired of the mind games we’ve endured for these past eight years.  I have been looked down upon way too often as a conservative in these past eight years.  What has befallen us is not my fault as a conservative.  I might not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I do know that I don’t need to continue hitting my thumb with a hammer in order to have pain enough to take my mind off whom I should vote for this time around.

The liberals have had their turn and it didn’t work so very well from my perspective.  The very idea that I can solve my personal political issues by voting for Hillary Clinton simply does not fly.  Frankly, I am not at all sure we, as a country, can survive another eight years of liberal rule; and, Hillary would bring just that since she knows no other tricks.

Political Conspiracy Theories?

There seems an abundance of theories floating on the Internet that relates to what might happen if Donald  Trump actually won the coming national election (perish the thought from these theorists’ points of view).  Most of them seem to concern President Barack Obama simply refusing to leave office with him invoking some kind of privilege that would actually permit that to occur based on Trump’s inability to govern properly based on the opinion of the current President.  These hypothetical statements are typically shown with a frowning President Obama pictured.

An apparent Army Field Manual, FM3-39.40, is referenced as the enabling doctrine and is discussed as the type of intervention made in foreign countries by our military where stability of leadership is requisite.

This hypothesis requires quite a leap of faith to reach from where we are ruled by laws to where we would be ruled essentially by a dictator who would control our country for our own good, of course.  Somehow Congress is forgotten in these hypothetical positions as are other protections that would likely be invoked before such a thing happens.

We are a country ruled by law.  We have prescribed methods for determining our leaders and those involve polling booths and voters and very public counting of ballots, etc., etc.

Yet, I imagine there are people who think this could really occur in America, and who see this threat as being just beyond the horizon.  There is the Internet that is capable of feeding this theoretical movement, and there are some who would be very happy if President Obama were to refuse occupancy of the White House to a ‘President’ Trump.  I can even think of a handful of members of the House and maybe even the Senate who might be willing to get behind such a movement if they saw it as the birth of another type of civil rights movement.

Yes, liberals have their own “wing nuts” just as do we conservatives.

I have difficulty in finding the root reasoning behind these theories, and just what it is that people espousing this stuff think they’d be gaining if such an event were to occur, other than for a continuation of the term of Barack Obama while the country would apparently then have time to come to its collective sense and realize that it should’ve elected Hillary Clinton instead of Donald Trump.

This shows us just how important our system of determining our leaders is and why we have such strict controls over votes cast and counted.  It shows why proper identification is required of voters who desire to cast their ballots.  It shows us there is a fringe element that can concoct almost anything given enough time.

It should remind us of our absolute responsibility to cast our personal ballot in each and every election, both the really big deal elections and the not-so-big deal elections.  It should remind us of the need to think for ourselves and not just subscribe to every cockamamie thought from a wing nut, no matter the politics of that wing nut.

We need to reflect on the simple fact that eight years is long enough for any one person to occupy the Oval Office, no matter his or her politics.  It isn’t fair to us or to the person in that office for a longer period.  We see how those office holders age; we see the pressure that exists whether we agree with the person or disagree with the person in the office.

No, we don’t need for President Obama, or any other President, to arbitrarily decide that the winner can’t be trusted to govern.  ‘We The People’ have made our decision and that decision stands whether or not we as individuals agree with it.  And, we need to remember that individuals at every level of government and our military have sworn to uphold the Constitution.

These fantasies have no place in our country…Internet or no Internet.  All this having been said, remember just how important your individual vote is in our country.

The First Debate Promises…

This coming Monday evening we will be treated to the first debate between the two major candidates for President of the United States, and that will be hosted/moderated by Lester Holt.  Hillary Clinton has been working on her approach and cramming on all the possible topics, while Donald Trump says he’ll just appear and be himself.  I suspect that Mr. Trump has been doing a little more than just getting ready to ‘appear’; at least I hope he has been taking this seriously.  The first debate promises to be very, very interesting and I’ll be glued to the screen.

Rather than just the two contenders, there are the two contenders and a press professional who is equally as concerned with his performance as are the two candidates.  In fact, Holt does not get a re-do as each candidate might be able to effect if he or she stumbles over an issue or two.  Holt is in the spotlight and he has to deliver.  I have no idea of Lester Holt’s political leanings but I am sure he has political leanings.  It would seem, to me at least, to be impossible for a person who has hung out at the upper levels of politics and who has survived this long not to have political opinions/leanings.

If he were asked, Lester Holt would tell us he has no idea for whom he’ll vote, and that whatever his political leanings might be those will not enter into the debate management nor the questions and follow-ups he’ll be dishing out.  Neither candidate would believe that but neither will likely defame Mr. Holt; at least not before the debate has run its course.  Although with Donald Trump on the stage we might need to avoid a rush to judgement in this regard.

Hillary Clinton is not my choice, just to be clear about where I stand if that is of interest to you.  I will be on the proverbial ‘pins and needles’ as I watch Donald Trump perform…and that is what we’ll be watching, two performances…actually three performances including Lester Holt.  Hillary will be expected to have her ‘stuff’ together.  She has been at this game for a long, long time and she has been a direct observer for a long, long time given her husband’s political career.

She has been the Secretary of State and has hobnobbed with the leaders of the world in that role as well as her role as First Lady.  She will be expected to be error-free and she may well emerge without having committed any errors.  She has some extensive personal and political baggage, as well, and that may prove to be problematic for her in the course of the debate.

Donald Trump will be expected to have his ‘stuff’ together but people will be on the edge of their seats waiting for the gaffes.  He has not been doing this ‘political thing’ for long at all.  He might be given a couple of passes for errors committed but there won’t be more than a couple, and those will probably be couched in terms designed to make him seem the village idiot, the fellow who just doesn’t have what it would take to be the President of the United States.

So, this first debate may well be rough and tumble before the evening is over.  Lester Holt may have his hands full trying to be a moderator.  Either or both candidates certainly have it in themselves to be disruptive bullies.  I earnestly hope that Donald Trump resists such urges since giving into that impulse would give everyone the “I told you so!” moment that many will have been hoping to find.

I hope that we see a well-reasoned Donald Trump who might make some grimacing faces over a few of Hillary’s answers, but who will act the role of a potential chief of state that is both a serious thinker and a quick wit.  Trump is not only vying for his spurs as a convincing candidate for the highest office in our country, he is also being rated for his ability to avoid the displays of bombastic temperament for which he is famous or infamous as you prefer.

I believe that Donald Trump has the ability to emerge as the decidedly preferred candidate; I hope he displays that ability by remaining calm, cool and collected as the old phrase goes.  That will drive Hillary Clinton nuts since she’ll be working to get him to be a vocal wingnut in front of the nation’s viewers/voters.