I'm getting worried that Trump is starting to believe his rhetoric on trade. A Trump that actually believes the nonsense that comes out of his mouth is almost as dangerous as a Sanders administration would be. With this in mind I put together these four simple points that would ensure a Clinton victory in the November and marginalize both of the political extremes
1. The DNC needs to allow the remaining Super Delegates to openly support Clinton ending the race now. It is common knowledge that they do and the Sanders Campaign has only strengthened their support for Clinton over the past few weeks. There is no positive gained by allowing the charade that it ever was a race to continue.
2. The DNC needs to shut Sanders out of the convention. His supporters aren't going to vote for Clinton anyway and they can only cause trouble for the Democrats in the general election by forcing the platform too far to the left much as the Tea Party forced the Republicans too far right. The three states that matter in a general election, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, are not going to be swayed by "progressive" ideas.
3. Openly court the anti-Trump Republican establishment. Give Mitt Romney a prime time speaking slot at the convention. He could deliver a "whatever divides us is smaller that what unites us" speech aimed the pro-business socially moderate Republican voters in swing states. Clinton should also comment that Romney would make an excellent Treasury Secretary.
4. Tim Kaine as V.P.
Friday, May 20, 2016
Monday, April 4, 2016
No You Cannot Have A Pony or Why Government by Compromise is Necessary
Once again the tired old "politicians are dishonest" mantra is being bandied about, mostly at Secretary Clinton, with little forethought or reason behind it. The fact that Secretary Clinton is, for the most part, basically honest is completely ignored by her detractors. The fact that her detractors often vehemently support one of three politicians who could at best be considered honest in the strictest George Costanza sense of the word would be amusing if they weren't so dangerous.
That the supporters of Donald Trump, who don't even believe that Trump is honest (he's not which is why found himself in so much trouble over abortion lately since he is pro-choice but has to pretend to be anti-abortion), or Senator Cruz who is either the GOP's Costanza or just doing an excellent job of playing the roll, he always wanted to be an actor,
dislike and distrust Secretary Clinton is to be expected in this day and age. It is unfortunate that we have a political environment were opposition has been replaced by enemy however it is what we have.
It is another thing all together for the supporters of the left wing Costanza, Bernie Sanders, to hate Secretary Clinton and call her a liar for acting like a responsible adult. People on the left dislike Secretary Clinton because they see her as someone who will say anything to get elected and wont follow through on her promises. She wont. What they are missing is that neither will Sanders, nor will Cruz or Trump. No Candidate promising anything that requires massive tax increases or eliminating the IRS or the Department of Education will be able to fulfill those promises.
Forcing candidates to take stances they do not believe in and that the majority of the country doesn't share then being angry with them when those stances are not acted on is what causes dishonesty in politicians. If a politician was honest and admitted to the voters that manufacturing jobs are never coming back not because of outsourcing but due to automation said candidate would have no chance at being elected. When that candidate is elected and there are no new jobs the candidate is called a liar and criticized for breaking a promise. A promise that the candidate knew (Trump) or should have known (Costanza) was lie but made because the voters expect to hear it.
It is the voters who demand these promises be made in order to win a parties nomination that are responsible for their own disappointment and disillusionment. The United States has a population of 320 million spread out over 50 very distinct states. These are in effect 50 different countries each with their own culture, values, and needs. This is why a "Political Revolution" is not going to happen. One need look no further than the election of 2012 to see evidence as too why expecting change is foolish. President Obama won 62 percent of the electoral college while only winning 51 percent of the popular vote. While that was an electoral landslide it was in no way political mandate. One has to go back to 1972 to find a time in which a President won more than 60 percent of the vote which would constitute a mandate. For the record that President was Nixon.
What makes this country work, and it does work rather well, is that the government is, by design, limited. If one group with minority values, be those the values of the tea party or the progressive movement, finds themselves in a position to actually push those values on the rest of the nation that does not share them than we will at best see a government shutdown at worst out in out revolt. We are a nation of compromises. If activists on both sides are unhappy then the system is working correctly. If the nation were to elect a President who insisted on large tax increases coupled with huge spending increases tried to pass a budget with a congress where members of both parties were philosophically opposed to large tax increases (don't kid yourselves even the Democrats wouldn't vote for Sanders tax plan) the federal government would shutdown. If the President were to dig in their heels and refuse to compromise there could be a constitutional crisis unseen since Andrew Johnson was in office.
In order to keep the lights on and prevent a greater economic collapse than the one in 2008 the nation requires leaders that are willing to compromise with the opposition. While some out there may consider them mediocre
they are in fact statesmen. A President has to not only be the leader of those who voted for them but those who did not. It is amusing that the spouse of the last President to leave office with an approval rating above 70 percent and who herself would be an excellent leader and carry on that tradition is so demonized. Bill Clinton excelled at being leader of those who didn't vote for him and we need a president like that again.
While I do not agree with Secretary Clinton on many issues, I still prefer Kasich, I see her as a strong leader who would manage the country the way an executive should. The other three out there act like petulant children who take their ball home when they don't get their way. It is that kind of childish behavior that is so damn dangerous. The nation needs a President that passes a budget and vetoes all the dangerous legislation that congress can think of.
Oh and before Sanders supporters get angry at me for describing him as George Costanza don't forget who Costanza was based on
That the supporters of Donald Trump, who don't even believe that Trump is honest (he's not which is why found himself in so much trouble over abortion lately since he is pro-choice but has to pretend to be anti-abortion), or Senator Cruz who is either the GOP's Costanza or just doing an excellent job of playing the roll, he always wanted to be an actor,
dislike and distrust Secretary Clinton is to be expected in this day and age. It is unfortunate that we have a political environment were opposition has been replaced by enemy however it is what we have.
It is another thing all together for the supporters of the left wing Costanza, Bernie Sanders, to hate Secretary Clinton and call her a liar for acting like a responsible adult. People on the left dislike Secretary Clinton because they see her as someone who will say anything to get elected and wont follow through on her promises. She wont. What they are missing is that neither will Sanders, nor will Cruz or Trump. No Candidate promising anything that requires massive tax increases or eliminating the IRS or the Department of Education will be able to fulfill those promises.
Forcing candidates to take stances they do not believe in and that the majority of the country doesn't share then being angry with them when those stances are not acted on is what causes dishonesty in politicians. If a politician was honest and admitted to the voters that manufacturing jobs are never coming back not because of outsourcing but due to automation said candidate would have no chance at being elected. When that candidate is elected and there are no new jobs the candidate is called a liar and criticized for breaking a promise. A promise that the candidate knew (Trump) or should have known (Costanza) was lie but made because the voters expect to hear it.
It is the voters who demand these promises be made in order to win a parties nomination that are responsible for their own disappointment and disillusionment. The United States has a population of 320 million spread out over 50 very distinct states. These are in effect 50 different countries each with their own culture, values, and needs. This is why a "Political Revolution" is not going to happen. One need look no further than the election of 2012 to see evidence as too why expecting change is foolish. President Obama won 62 percent of the electoral college while only winning 51 percent of the popular vote. While that was an electoral landslide it was in no way political mandate. One has to go back to 1972 to find a time in which a President won more than 60 percent of the vote which would constitute a mandate. For the record that President was Nixon.
What makes this country work, and it does work rather well, is that the government is, by design, limited. If one group with minority values, be those the values of the tea party or the progressive movement, finds themselves in a position to actually push those values on the rest of the nation that does not share them than we will at best see a government shutdown at worst out in out revolt. We are a nation of compromises. If activists on both sides are unhappy then the system is working correctly. If the nation were to elect a President who insisted on large tax increases coupled with huge spending increases tried to pass a budget with a congress where members of both parties were philosophically opposed to large tax increases (don't kid yourselves even the Democrats wouldn't vote for Sanders tax plan) the federal government would shutdown. If the President were to dig in their heels and refuse to compromise there could be a constitutional crisis unseen since Andrew Johnson was in office.
In order to keep the lights on and prevent a greater economic collapse than the one in 2008 the nation requires leaders that are willing to compromise with the opposition. While some out there may consider them mediocre
While I do not agree with Secretary Clinton on many issues, I still prefer Kasich, I see her as a strong leader who would manage the country the way an executive should. The other three out there act like petulant children who take their ball home when they don't get their way. It is that kind of childish behavior that is so damn dangerous. The nation needs a President that passes a budget and vetoes all the dangerous legislation that congress can think of.
Oh and before Sanders supporters get angry at me for describing him as George Costanza don't forget who Costanza was based on
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)