Free Markets, Free People

Dilemma

Thomas Sowell observes:

The “Super Tuesday” primaries may be a turning point for America — and quite possibly a turn for the worse. After seven long years of domestic disasters and increasing international dangers, the next President of the United States will need extraordinary wisdom, maturity, depth of knowledge and personal character to rescue America.

Instead, if the polls are an indication, what we may get is someone with the opposite of all these things, a glib egomaniac with a checkered record in business and no track record at all in government — Donald Trump.

If so, the downward trajectory of America over the past seven years may well continue on into the future, to the point of no return.

Donald Trump is the wrong guy at the right time (much like Obama in 2008) and that, at least to me, is what is so dangerous about this manifestation of anger that is suddenly sweeping the country, at least on the right.  We get another 4 years, at least, of incoherence and dangerous ineptness.  About the only hilarity would be the Republicans initiating impeachment proceedings on a “Republican” president … and I could actually see that happening.  So watch who Trump names as VP if he’s the nominee. By the way, I’m fine with the anger and like the movement, just not happy with the choice of “candidate” to represent it.

Not that the alternative is any better.  If you want a high level grifter in the White House,  Clinton fills the bill.  In Clinton’s case it’s influence peddling among many other things:

In June 2009, Clinton emailed Neera Tanden, a former Clinton campaign operative, then a top aide to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and now the president of the Center for American Progress.

Clinton wanted Tanden to arrange a meeting between three doctors and Nancy Ann DeParle, the White House official leading its health care reform efforts.

“I can arrange it, no worries,” Tanden assured her. “I know Dean Ornish from the Obama campaign,” Tanden said, referring to one of the trio.

Ornish is a high-dollar Democratic donor. According to federal campaign finance records, he’s given more than $700,000 to Democratic campaigns, party organs, and outside groups since the 1990s.

His organization, the Preventive Medicine Research Institute, previously received $3.5 million in earmarks courtesy of then-House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), one of the recipients of his political contributions.

Ornish has donated to both of Clinton’s presidential campaigns, and co-hosted a fundraiser for the campaign in 2007. He is also a high-dollar donor to the Clinton Foundation, having given between $100,000 and $250,000, according to the Foundation’s website.

Tanden apparently arranged the meeting between Ornish and DeParle. “Thanks for following thru,” Clinton wrote five days later.

We’ll be back to selling the Lincoln bedroom, and why not?  They got away with it the last time.

What’s interesting is not that the two probable choices are so awful and are likely to do irreparable harm, but that on the right, there’s an open revolution going on and on the left it is the blessing and intrenchment of machine politics designed to “win” at any cost and certainly ignoring any moral problems with their candidate.  The right is so mad they’ll take anyone who spits in the establishment’s face and the left is committed to fixing the establishment even more firmly in Washington DC.

~McQ

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

23 Responses to Dilemma

  • Wouldn’t it be awesome if we lived in, say, Luxembourg, and it was all just academic conversation we could have over some steins of beer?
    Alas –

  • Bruce, I have heard many “republicans” state their dismay over Donald Trump. I share their sentiment. Yet anyone other than Clinton is preferable (Sanders could not control his own party).

    The difference between a horrible Republican and a horrible Democrat is that the national press, all of entertainment, and most of our coastal elites (redundent I know) will contort themselves into bone-breaking positions to protect the first female President just as they have protecting Obama.

    With a Trump Presidency, I suspect the media after 8 years of lavish tongue bathing, would return to their job.

    Not so with Hillary:)!! super zyxmyn

    • Bains, I hear you, but I’ve got to tell you I don’t want either of them and one, to me, is no better than the other. There is no “best of two bad choices” in this race if those two turn up as their party’s nominees. Impeachment may end up saving the nation depending on who each names to be their VP. You have to admit, it would be classic if the first woman president was impeached for “high crimes and misdemeanors”. As for Trump, the irony (and enjoyment) would be him impeached with his own party in power.

    • Both Clinton and Trump are on either end of the “quid pro quo” (something for something) gravy train of crony capitalism that permeates all of DC.

      Clinton is the dispenser of “something” while the Clinton Foundation acts as the banker in the deal. Trump is the receiver of “something” (he has admitted to this with the Clintons).

      They are both part of the problem not the solution.

  • to expound a bit further I recently spent some time up north. The stupidity amongst my lifelong friends and new acquaintances is mind blowing. They hate Donald Trump as much as I do, but they really fear Ted Cruz. Crusades and such, all the while forgetting that their tacit approval of all the Che’s of the world lead to millions of deaths. They were well intentioned after all – they ignore history and absolve themselves.

    Their encouragement of totalitarian domination, in their minds is justified by “good feelings.”

    And they refuse to see just how corrupt Hillary Clinton is. Our national gutless press perpetuates this.

  • George W. Bush could have saved the GOP from all this. His bipartisan immigration plan in 2007 would have ended immigration as a big issue, and probably assured that the Republicans would get the Latino vote, or a large portion of it. Instead of being near civil war, the GOP would likely be the dominant party. Instead the anti-immigrant furor started which, inexorably, has led to Trump.

    • Illegal immigrants.
      You use a passport to go to Italy?
      Yeah, thought so.
      When you came back did you use a passport to get back into the U.S.?
      Yeah, thought so.

      • Which of course says nothing about the issue. Bush’s plan would have not only saved us from Trump, but I suspect you wouldn’t have President Obama now. The Republicans harmed their brand and you know that eventually reform will be passed. Reagan passed an even more “liberal” reform back in the 80s, so it’s not like this was a principle the Republicans couldn’t compromise for pragmatic reasons. So you won the battle…but at what cost?

        • The issue is illegal immigration.

          Do you really think “Americans” can’t make a distinction between illegal immigrants and their legal immigrant grand and great grand parents?

          Did you not use a passport, it says everything about the issue. It is the issue.
          We cannot have open unlimited immigration, we can’t keep p handing out amnesty for illegal immigration.

          If enough people rob banks perhaps we can declare the ones we haven’t caught innocent and release the ones in jail.

          • Bingo.

            I use this analogy: squatters in your home.

            No way anyone would tolerate that; yet, as a nation we’re supposed to, and pay them (in benefits) on top of it.
            Enough.

            I’m going to vote for Trump.

            I admit it’s a dice roll. with say 2 chances in 10 of success.

            However, With the other Candidates I KNOWwhat I’m going to get. In fact, I’m not even allowed at the crap table to throw the dice. With Trump I get to throw the dice. Could be the worst vote in my voting history. Could be the worst POTUS in history. Could be could be. Right now I’ll take could be could be over I know I know.

            If I want something to change, I have to vote for it. Or be ready to join the revolution; this course may be the ultimate outcome but I have to try the first.

          • You miss my point. Regardless of whether the policy choice was good or bad, POLITICALLY the choice not to go the Reagan route and have a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants was the biggest tactical mistake of the GOP. It assured Obama would have two terms, set up horrible demographics in future elections, gave a voting bloc to the Democrats (the fastest growing) that otherwise would have trended Republican, and gave the GOP the Trump movement. Even if Bush’s policy was bad policy, politically it would have been gold for the GOP. So weigh the costs and benefits – if you had gone the Reagan route you’d have illegals who nonetheless were rewarded, but you’d have GOP strength, no Trump, and probably no Obama. So weigh the costs and benefits…

          • “Even if Bush’s policy was bad policy, politically it would have been gold for the GOP.”
            You’d make a good 2016 GOPe Republican.

            It’s not supposed to be about the stinking party and it’s success and political ‘gold’.
            I care not one whit for a ‘party’, it’s supposed to be about the country.
            I don’t vote Republican because it’s Republican, their false advertising said they were the party that would be less likely to act like Democrats.
            Since they have become a watered down version of the Democrats, AND a party of useless featherbedders, then neither party is of any use to me and I’ll vote for neither except to slow the train ride to socialist idiocy.
            If by some strange miracle the Democrats went insane between now and choosing Hillary and nominated an acceptable candidate, I’d vote for that candidate.

            I’m not interested in which team wins so long as the country wins.

          • The lifeboat method of helping the world was a failed model that was pushed for in the 70’s and common sense prevailed. Now that 70’s rejects and their children are at key ages in our society, its not surprising we see it argued.

            Ultimately for Democrats the underlying agenda is to swell the voting ranks. Anything else is fluff to cover over a near seditious act.

          • Fair enough, Alan – but pragmatically you’ll probably get immigration reform you oppose down the line anyway, plus you have a much stronger Democratic party and Trump. If you weigh the costs and benefits for the country not just of one policy but the consequences of making the choice to reject Bush’s plan, well…. But I get what you say. I think Bush’s policy should have passed, it would have been good for the country IMO. But then the Democrats would be weaker and we may not have had Obama, who I consider the best President in recent times. As for swelling voting ranks – if Bush’s plan had been passed, the GOP would have gained lots of Latino voters who trend conservative anyway, and would have seen the GOP on their side. So if this swells Democratic voting ranks, well, that’s a gift from the GOP.

          • Voting for the Dems and lots of cheap labor for the Republicans – the two sides of the ruling elite’s coin.

            The important thing is to keep the Ponzi schemes floating with a hoard of new suckers long enough for the guilty to get away before the prols realize they’ve been bilked and the system breaks down.

            We need scads of new Social Security payees to prop up the system in the same way we need the healthy young to fund the Obamacare system by paying in and not making claims for coverage.
            What’s wanted is a mass of ‘investors’ who won’t be eligible to draw their benefits for another 30 or 40 years.
            By then all the current kick the can down the road government b*tards will be dead, forgotten or safely retired so they won’t have to deal with the American storming of Washington.
            No one is going to drag Paul Ryan or John Boehner out of his retirement home in 30 years and run him up a street light pole for helping bankrupt the public, they won’t even remember who he is.
            And they know that.

          • The Republican war on Trump seems misguided to me. Strategically he’s the best chance to beat Hillary, and if they were to push him out, that would risk a backlash against the GOP that could hurt them down ticket and risk the Senate and even the House. Now they’re assaulting him with every insult imaginable, and if he survives, that gives the Democrats ammo in the general election. The GOP should probably embrace Trump and ride the wave he started – though now it may be too late for that. However, since I am neither Republican nor a Trump supporter, I won’t complain!

        • We have a right to be selective about immigrants, and they do not have the right to self select.

        • .” Reagan passed an even more “liberal” reform back in the 80s, s”

          So why do we need “immigration reform” again? What has changed?

          • Uh….perhaps…..certain people lied and promised to increase border enforcement/funding and then didn’t fund it once they got the amnesty half of the deal?

    • They said the same thing in 1986 with Reagan. Just ask Alan Simpson.

  • The country needs an enema.

    Trump is the hose.

    DC is where the hose gets stuck.

    All the GOP had to do was take the loss on amnesty. They insisted on ramming amnesty shills down our throat. What happens next is not our faults.

    Trump 2016 to teach people a lesson

  • A knife that was purportedly found at the estate of O.J. Simpson is in the news and has ‘purportedly’ spiking