Would a Hillary Indictment Be a Gift for Both Parties?

Would a Hillary Indictment Be a Gift for Both Parties?  If you listen to the political pundits, the average opinion would seem to put a possible Hillary Clinton indictment over her email and Clinton Foundation issues at around 40-50 percent.  How much of that is Republican wishful thinking is anyone’s guess.  It would certainly seem like a stretch to imagine that in today’s politically-charged WDC environment and given their lame duck status, Obama appointee and FBI Director Comey would recommend an indictment to Obama appointee and Attorney General Lynch and that she would then proceed to instruct the DOJ to pursue an indictment against Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic Party nominee for President.  However, as the leaks from the cases progress from a drip to a steady stream, the independence cred of Comey continues to come under scrutiny, and the intrigue between Obama and the Clintons continues to marinate, the possibility of an indictment cannot be easily dismissed.  Many Republican stalwarts and leaders are licking their chops in anticipation of the possible indictment; dreaming of running against a 74 year old socialist in 2016.  Many Democrats are similarly in angst, fretting that their already flawed candidate may be mortally wounded by her legal baggage.  I will now submit for your consideration that a Hillary Clinton indictment might very well prove to be a gift to both parties.  Let me explain.

The past several presidential elections have clearly demonstrated to me that I am beyond useless when it comes to predicting election outcomes; that being so, I still have a very difficult time envisioning Hillary Clinton winning a national election for President.  I do not believe that the minority vote, mainly Black and Hispanic, will fall into lockstep support for Clinton.  There is no way that she appeals to Black Americans as has Obama and there is a decent chance that the ultimate Republican nominee will garner at least a respectable percentage of the Hispanic vote, immigration issues notwithstanding.  Hillary is a terrible candidate and carries more baggage than Kiss did on their world tours.  The most damning tell to me is the consistent polling that indicates between 50 and 60 percent of the electorate do not see her as honest and trustworthy; hard to pull the lever for that kind of President. I had previously thought that the only way Hillary might win in 2016 was if the Republicans nominated Trump.  I still do not believe he will win the nomination, but I now believe that even he, blustering buffoon that he is, would defeat Hillary in 2016.  Most staunch Republicans are so consumed with their Clinton animus that they are openly cheering for an indictment without looking past the event itself.

These must be truly miserable days for pragmatic and long-time Democrats.  As chaotic as the Republican nominee debates have been, the Democratic debates have been equally lethargic.  With a choice of Hillary or Bernie, the obvious selection has always been, and continues to be, Hillary.  However, even the most faithful Democrat must be slowly realizing that Hillary is very damaged goods and is ever so painfully being exposed as the ruthless, unconscionable, greedy politician that she is.  For all of the excitement and enthusiasm that Sanders has generated on the campaign trail, it is beyond doubt that he will ultimately prove to be little  more than a uber-liberal distraction leading up to the main event. 

If indeed Hillary Clinton is indicted, what will the Democratic Party do?  Does anyone really believe they will go into the 2016 general election cycle with a 74 year old socialist at the head of their ticket?  Is it even conceivable that they would advance a candidate that is under federal indictment?  There is an old saying that the golden rule means that them that have the gold makes the rules; this is never truer than in politics.  If Hillary is viewed as mortally wounded by an indictment (which you would have to assume to be the case), then what would the Democrats do?  Is it not reasonable to expect them to change the rules as needed to make certain a candidate they viewed as more viable than Bernie represents their party in 2016?  And would it not also be logical to assume that the primary individual for this selection would be Vice-President Joe Biden?  And if Biden were to be the immaculate candidate for the Democrats in 2016, who better to serve as his Vice-Presidential candidate than Elizabeth Warren?

Although the 2016 Presidential election will be decided by Independents and moderate Democrats, there can be little doubt that the leadership and financial sponsors of the Democratic Party have shifted far leftward; not all the way out  to the Bernie Sanders end of the spectrum, but a whole lot past the centerline.  Warren is clearly ambitious and Warren is clearly the darling of many in the liberal zone of the Democratic Party.  She would not only suit the sponsors and the party leaders, but she would also be a sop to the obviously-upset Sanders supporters.  A Biden one-term pledge would provide additional incentive for Warren’s late entry.  Given what we know about the political landscape today, it is not outrageous to say that a Biden-Warren presidential ticket would be much stronger than a Clinton-??? presidential ticket.   That ticket would certainly be more appealing to the new liberal segment of the party that seems to be in full possession of enthusiasm and excitement at this time.

I have said all along that the Republican leadership should stay the hell out of the primary process and let the party members select their candidate.  Be it Trump, be it Cruz, or be it Rubio….let the process play out.    Democrats might well take the same advice regarding Hillary’s legal issues.  If in fact she ends up being indicted, the Democratic Party might very well be in better shape to compete with an alternate candidate in 2016.

Follow new posting announcements on Twitter at "centerlineright".

Superman Audition vs. PanderFest

Superman Audition vs. PanderFest.  After watching the last Republican and Democrat debates, I am left with an empty feeling.  With all the problems this nation and the world face, it is rather dismaying to see that our next President will likely come from this bunch.  I can best describe the Republican debate as auditions for Superman, while the Democrats engaged in a PanderFest.

Over the last two decades, there has been so much American blood spilled into the sands of the Middle East that any candidate who advocates a hawkish (granted; that is a relative term) foreign policy should have to be forced to meet with no fewer than 25 families orphaned in some way by a Middle East combat death and, in addition, meet some of the boxes coming home from the Middle East with our most precious resources contained therein.  With all of the Republican chest-thumping that was taking place, I expected someone to rip their shirt open in a mad rage and expose a big “S”.  This rushing to convince the electorate of exactly how tough you are and how you won’t let America be pushed around has gotten completely out of hand.  While Obama’s facile foreign policy of “leading from behind” has been exposed for the shallow, weak failure that it is; it has also demonstrated to anyone paying attention that the United States of America’s role on this planet has clearly evolved.  Although we remain the most powerful military force in the world, the complexities and consequences of using that power has severely diminished its utility.  That power, while still in existence, now requires an equal amount of judicious application combined with a heavy dose of unequivocal, simple, and consistent messaging about the principles that America stands for and when we will choose to apply that power.  If Obama has demonstrated nothing else, he has shown the peril in leaving a leadership vacuum in world opinion.  While the eyes of the world were focused on him in his role as America’s leader, his eyes were focused on the mirror in self-admiration.  That failure to step up and assume the pre-imminent position in the quest for freedom and decency in this world has been largely responsible for the mayhem and chaos we now see on a global scale.  Republicans would be well served to contrast themselves less with the vapid and lame military leadership of Obama and focus instead on exactly how they would marshal the overwhelming military force of the United States to try and restore some order to this world.  For all of his failures, I will grudgingly concede to Obama that he is dead-on when he says that we cannot be the world’s policeman and we should not engage in nation building.  Unfortunately, he fails to grasp that walking away from these aspects of foreign policy alone will not result in a betterment of the world order.  You must still lead in a principled and strong fashion; a task at which he has been an utter failure.  As far as the Republicans are concerned, I would like to see more emphasis on the world leadership part (an area where they are deficient) and less emphasis on the military application part (an area where they are excessive).  America must be strong and we must maintain our position as the unchallenged military presence in the world; and, on rare and select occasions, we must apply that capability to achieve well-defined goals of principle and self-interest.  But we must also understand that we can no longer just wave an AK and expect the world to quake.  There is a complex and diverse mix of nations, leaders, and agendas that will continue to increase the difficulty and importance of our President’s voice being one that is reasoned, deliberate, and respected.

The Democratic Party that I grew up with has got to be rolling over in its grave after witnessing the ongoing debate between the Democratic contenders.  It is in the grave for certain.  Seven plus years ago, I thought that surely there remained some remnants of that old belief system and that given time and sufficient provocation by this president, they would raise their voices and attempt to swing their party back towards a left-center bearing.  Alas, those voices were never raised and Rome burned while they fiddled.  The three Democrats that we are left with from which to select a presidential nominee are good, better, and best socialists.  Hillary has totally disregarded the very essence that made her husband a successful President by tacking ever more to the left; essentially abandoning any semblance of pragmatism and compromise.  At first I thought this was simply a ploy to secure the nomination and once achieved, she would tack back a bit to the right.  However, upon examining her lifelong resume and record, I tend now to think that perhaps we are seeing Hillary unchained.  She is a very liberal politician, has always been so, and if she wins, will no doubt serve as such.  O’Malley has never made any pretense to being anything but far left and he is damned proud of it; he is very comfortable in his liberal skin.  Sanders is exactly what he and everyone else says he is; a socialist.  He is anathema to everything this nation was conceived as, stands on today (unsteadily), and hopes to be in the future.  His continuing strength in this primary race, be that as it may be, is an incredible indictment of Hillary and her weak standing among Democratic voters.  All three of these candidates have been, and continue to be, engaged in a contest to give away as much stuff from the government as possible.  Plain and simply, they are trying to buy their way into the White House with yours and mine tax dollars.  I cannot detect one bit of caution or restraint in anything they say or promise and they are oblivious to any notion of fiscal restraint.  If the Republicans are chest-thumping, the Democrats are wallet-pumping.  Collectively, the Democratic nominees’ willingness to promise everything to everyone and mortgage the future of our children on their generosity is breath-taking.  

The Scales Fall From My Eyes.

The Scales Fall From My Eyes.  I was watching Fox News this morning while feasting on bagels and coffee and had a moment of revelation.  Obama’s foreign policy, and policies in general, have always left me in dismay; but apart from his arrogant and narcissistic bent, I have often puzzled as to what motivates him to think the way he does.  Is he simply oblivious to the truth or is he a liar?  Does he choose to fiddle while America burns or do the ashes please him?  Is there a “power behind the throne” or is this really his vision for our country?  I go from one belief to the next without ever fully understanding what makes this man do what he does.   Watching John Bolton on Fox News gave me a moment of clarity.  Now Bolton is typically a bit too far right for me; and he is always way too hawkish for me.  But the man is obviously gifted with experience and knowledge and to ignore what he says would be foolish.  This former U.N. Ambassador is obviously a very intelligent person. 

Whether I clearly understood the points Bolton was trying to make or not, they helped me reach a moment of clarity in what I see as Obama’s motivations.  Although imperfect, here is my best analogy of Obama’s thinking.  You own an apartment in a rather large complex.  The complex has a myriad of different tenants from all walks of life, diversified in every sense of the word, and you really like where you live; you have formed personal relationships with many of your neighbors.  However, over the last few months, there has been a recurring problem.  Late at night, some of the neighborhood youths have been throwing rocks against the outside walls of your apartment.  Aside from the noise, you worry that your windows will be broken and even worse, if left unaddressed, the issue may escalate into something much more dangerous than rocks against the wall.  With the cooperation of neighbors and the police, a few kids have been identified as rock throwers and been dealt with.   But there are so many perpetrators that for every one you set down, another two or three pop up.  At some point, the police tell you that they simply do not have the time or manpower to constantly monitor the rock throwing and although you, with the help of the neighbors, can identify the group of kids that are guilty; you cannot nail the specific rock thrower at a specific time. 

You are faced with two choices.  Accept the fact that rocks being thrown against your wall late at night will be part of your life for the foreseeable future.  Learn to adjust to it.  Begin sleeping with ear plugs.  Turn the television or the radio volume up a notch or two.  Tell the neighbors that want you to pursue the delinquents to calm down and go home; there is nothing to be done and it is simply life as it will continue to be.  Your other choice is to tighten the bonds that join you with your neighbors.  Form a watch group or invest in some trail cams to capture the violators.  Cooperate with the police by helping to supplement their limited resources while continuing to focus on the problem.   Along with your neighbors, begin an investigation in the neighborhood in an attempt to find out exactly who is doing this and if that is accomplished, then deal directly with those individuals.  In other words, pursue the source of the problem and deal with it directly.  It strikes me that our president has chosen the former path in his foreign policy. 

He simply accepts the chaos and turmoil in the world as inevitable change.  He does not see America as capable of dealing with the issues at their source and chooses instead to work on solutions that cope with their consequences; like an afflicted man spending a lifetime treating symptoms rather than seeking a cure.  Much like his global warming obsession, he views the international violence and terrorism as natural progressions of the human evolution and seeks to find calm, deliberate ways to turn up the television and radio.  He seeks out like-minded leaders, both domestic and foreign, to scheme with; while demagoguing those who do not share his perspective.  He is what we call a “game manager” quarterback in the NFL.  One who takes what is given, makes the easy choice every down, and never takes a risk or makes a bold play.   Game managers do pretty well sometimes and if they are surrounded with exceptional talent, they on occasion will rise to championship level.  Unfortunately, Obama is not surrounded with exceptional talent.  He is surrounded with incompetent ideologues that have no conception of their own foibles and are not interested in discussing them.  Game managers can quickly become dangerous liabilities as the competition level rises.  In this situation, a game manager will take the team down into a descending spiral of confusion, failure, low morale, and extremely poor performance.  It typically results in a new quarterback, a new coach, and perhaps even a new general manager. Fortunately, one way or the other, that will be occurring in 2016.  The bad news is that we have about one more year left in this season and it will take quite some time to rebuild the organization to some type of competent level.

As an aside, Bolton was followed on Fox News by Josh Earnest.  After listening to a few moments of Mr. Earnest, I encourage any restaurant owner in the WDC area to contact him as soon as possible.  Hash slingers of his lofty skill level are few and far between.  I hear he may become available sometime in the next year or so.

The Year of Living Dangerously.

The Year of Living Dangerously.  This is the title of a 1982 Australian film starring Mel Gibson.  That, my friends, is where we are and what we have to look forward to. 

With the worst president in my lifetime still in office and trying to cram every legacy-building executive action imaginable into his final year, there is absolutely no telling what we might see.  With the Democrats and Republicans trying to select their candidates to succeed this charlatan, there is no telling what we might hear.  With the Middle East in chaos, Putin unchained, North Korea watching the sands of the Obama hourglass trickle down, and China simply being China, there is no telling what might happen.  In my lifetime, I don’t believe there has ever been a time when our planet is facing more uncertainty than it will in 2016.  I realize that statement takes into account times of war; but somehow, someway, those conflicts seemed more defined that today’s turmoil.  The causes and the good guys/bad guys definitions seemed somewhat clearer then than they do now; the ability of evil forces in this world to exist and operate seemed to be met with a stronger coalition of common cause in the past.  Wasn’t it a more defined resistance to universally acknowledged bad behavior?  Everything today is so muddled, so confused.  Everyone has an agenda and the technical ability to put forth their agenda so very persuasively.  Political correctness oftentimes persuades (not prevents) even sincere and well-meaning people from being open and honest about the grim realities facing our nation and our planet. 

We truly exist in a world where there is six degrees of separation.  More than ever before and on an accelerating basis, the nations of this world and all the peoples they represent are interconnected; bundled up in a shrinking space where walls of privacy and secrecy are crumbing, fundamental cultural differences are being thrust into the open and creating necessary adjustments that are simply difficult to manage, and where a sorting out of values is being performed on a real-time basis.  Where common interests once existed, we now have impenetrable borders (both physically and psychologically) where the first reaction is not what serves the common cause, but what serves my cause.  Obama endeavors to seek his legacy through shallow, transparent, overt, and audacious independent actions meant to highlight his endless wisdom and super intelligence; while his true legacy is swirling around the vacuum he has created in American governmental competence and Global leadership.  The United States has not always been right in its international initiatives; but it has typically been guided by a moral compass that is pretty well grounded towards true north.  Without that leadership, a discord and self-serving mentality has permeated this planet and the small, painfully ignorant, people who run it. 

At a time when New Year’s resolutions are the flavor du jour, I will be the spoiler who sees the wrong instead of the right.  Are there many things to celebrate in this world?  Of course there are; true miracles happen every day.  The forces of good are alive and well in our lives and continue to work in every way to make this a good and decent place for all.  But when each of us takes that next quiet moment to speak with our God, we had better include a plea for wisdom and strength to see us through this next year.  There is evil in this world and that evil is empowered as it has never been before.  The leadership of the force that must counter this evil is splintered, distracted, incompetent, and naïve.  Many times in the past, the simple power of good has been sufficient to unite disparate forces and overcome the challenges that evil has presented.  Will that simple power be enough to overcome the next challenge that evil presents?  Will the varied members of good be able to agree on the definition of right and wrong and will their resolve be adequate to meet the force thrust upon them by an evil that has abilities and resources heretofore unheard of in history?  

In so many ways, and in the sands of time, year 2016 may be a watershed moment in the history of this world.  Can we somehow sufficiently still the tempests that roil the planet in order to formulate a pathway to better times?  Will the events that are ongoing be forestalled and allow enough time for reconsideration and consolidation of effort?  Or, are we locked into an irreconcilable period of time where events have simply gone too far and must play out to their ultimate and disastrous ends?  And most importantly, in the midst of this turmoil, can America find the wisdom and will to select a leader capable of dealing with the challenges that lie ahead for this nation and the world?

* For updates on new postings, follow Centerlineright on twitter.