Question for Our National Parties: WTF?

Question for Our National Parties: WTF?  This piece is not intended to be an obituary for the Trump presidential campaign.  As I have written before, I consider this race to be absolutely wide open and subject to any number of events that could ultimately decide its winner.  But what has led to a significant number of Republicans refusing to support Trump as their party’s nominee; many of them actually and openly supporting Clinton?   What has led to the Republican Party nominating an idiot for President in 2016?    Why have the Democrats nominated a person who is undisputedly viewed as dishonest and untrustworthy by a majority of Americans?

Even though it is all conjecture (what else is blogging good for?), a strong argument could be made that had the Republicans nominated any one of three or four other candidates for President, that person would now be enjoying a significant polling advantage over Hillary Clinton.  She is, without a doubt, the weakest Democratic candidate for President selected in my lifetime.  Now I don’t blame the Republican Party leadership for nominating Trump; Trump actually won that nomination in spite of the Republican Party leadership.  It was the Republican Primary voters who nominated Trump and I will address that later on.  I will blame the Republican Party leadership for their weasel behavior in failing to support their nominee and, in many instances, openly betraying their Party membership and actively supporting Hillary Clinton.   It remains a mystery to me how any rational person can use the fitness standard to eliminate Trump for President while giving Clinton a pass on the same standard.  If Trump can manage to keep his mouth under control, institute some modicum of discipline in his campaign, and manage to create some positive momentum that will close this race or even push him ahead in the polls, it will be interesting indeed to see how many of these Republican leaders who deemed Trump unfit when he was losing reevaluate his fitness for President when his prospects look a bit brighter.  Having said all of that, there are a couple of issues that have surfaced in this primary season that should be addressed and might lead to a better selection process in future years; both in method and in the quality of the nominee.  These issues apply equally to both parties, but they seem more apparent in the Republican Party.  Flawed as she is and as difficult to understand why no Democrat could muster any meaningful opposition to Clinton, one can see how a politician with her resume, organization, and history could acquire her party’s nomination.  It is a far greater mystery how a political non-entity (perhaps even a closet Democrat?) like Trump could ride in out of left field and seize the Republican nomination.  When a Presidential Election is widely acclaimed to be the choice between the lesser two evils, it is clearly time that the Republicans and the Democrats reexamine their methods and processes for selecting their presidential nominees.  Here are two places to start.

As I have written before, it is insane for members of an opposing party to participate in the selection of another party’s nominee.  There are open primaries, where everyone can vote in any primary they choose.  There are semi-closed primaries, where only party members and non-affiliated persons can vote in the selection of their party’s nominee.  And then there are closed primaries, where only party members may participate in the selection of their party’s nominee.  These rules vary from state to state and sometimes the line is actually blurred between these three categories.  Perhaps a good example of the inordinate influence this system can affect is this year’s New Hampshire primary.  That primary result, along with his poor debate performance, created a hole for Marco Rubio from which he could never escape.  One could make a pretty decent argument that absent the New Hampshire Primary, Marco Rubio might very well be the Republican nominee for President.  Democrat Party members should select the Democratic nominee for President.  Republican Party members should select the Republican nominee for President.  If you want to vote in either one of these primaries, join that party.  This is not an affront to democracy.  If you want to run for President, you need not run as a Democrat or a Republican.  Democrat and Republican primaries, nationwide, should be closed affairs.  The addition of non-party participants in these events distorts and devalues their results and leaves them open to various types of manipulation.  ‘Nuff said.

The primary season for both parties is a bizarre and byzantine process of various rules and methods that requires a huge amount of cash and a sizable organization to gain any prospect of success.  There is nothing illegitimate about each Party making their own rules and creating special categories for their delegates.  As long as the party leadership reflects the party membership and the rules are understood by all contestants up front, then let the games begin.  The status of the Democrat super delegates and their apparent allegiance to Clinton was unsavory.  The constant drum beat of various Republican Party leaders to change the rules after it became obvious that Trump was going to win the nomination was detestable.  But the facts are that the Democrat super delegate rules were in place prior to the primary season and the Republican delegate rules were not changed to wrest the nomination from Trump.  My point is this: Even though each Party has the right to establish their own rules, both systems are terribly flawed and they result in less than desirable results.  Delegate rules need to faithfully reflect the results of the actual state votes in each primary; that is a principle that is clear and should be easy to understand.  Additionally, both parties need to come up with a system that while not excluding legitimate candidates from the competition, will limit the number of candidates to a reasonable number (4, 5,6??) prior to the process becoming fully engaged and meaningful (the time of the Party debates).  Now I can appreciate that this might be a “chicken or the egg” conundrum, but once again…the parties make the rules and this could be worked out in a fair and reasonable fashion.  Once the candidates are defined, there should be a series of regional primary contests (i.e. Southeast, Midwest, Northeast, etc.) that are held over a period of time that will permit each candidate to consolidate and better utilize their campaign resources in order to target a manageable number of states and media markets.  Each state in the region can independently conduct their primary on a common date and the collective results will then impact the race accordingly.  Although available cash will always have an inordinate influence on primary outcomes, this method should make it easier for a lesser-funded candidate to be competitive.  The goal should be for all candidates that begin the primary season to finish the primary season.  The game should not end at half-time or the end of the third quarter because of a sound bite or a single dramatic debate performance or an unexpected state primary result.  It should be a testing ground that reveals the best candidate for the party and encompasses the entire nation; giving voters an adequate opportunity to evaluate each and every candidate.  And while providing a reasonable amount of time for exposure, consideration, and travel; it should also be completed over an efficient stretch of time and leave ample opportunity for the ultimate winner to define their message to the voters in anticipation of the Presidential election in November.

No system will ever be bullet-proof and there will always be instances where the process can be gamed.  But the fact that the American public is now faced with a choice of selecting either an Idiot or a Crook as our next President is just wrong.  If our national parties have any integrity at all, they are presently working on revisions such as these to their primary process so that the caliber of our presidential candidates will more closely resemble one that selects the best among us for leadership, as opposed to giving the rich and corrupt the chance to further their own egos and self interests.

Clueless In the Elephant Room

Clueless In The Elephant Room.  It appears that the Party Convention bounces have played out and the race has tightened up.  Several polls reported a very large Hillary lead following her coronation, but most recent polls indicate those are likely the result of a dead cat bounce and the main stream media effort to put some early space between Clinton and Trump.  There is very little certain in American politics these days; but one thing that is certain is that the next Presidential Election is not yet decided.  With candidates of this quality, a public relations bomb could explode at any time.

Hillary Clinton’s dedicated supporters are a very odd collection of individuals, as I suppose are all political constituencies.  There are those capital “D” Democrats who will vote the party line regardless; I believe this group of people has gotten smaller in both parties over the last couple of decades as voters have become a bit more independent and less loyal to the Party line.  There are some radical feminists who will hold Hillary up as the Messenger Arrived and will overlook every single flaw she possesses simply because she is of the female gender.  There are true liberals who have studied policy and performance and realize full well that Hillary’s Administration would be a continuation…yea, perhaps an escalation…of Obama’s Liberal agenda quest.  It is not surprising that any of these aforementioned groups of voters might be supporting Hillary Clinton.  Any conventional candidate (make no mistake, Hillary Clinton is the ultimate conventional candidate) would find similar special interests comprising their group of base voter support.  But this time around, for this particular Presidential Election, Hillary Clinton has an unusually large number of voters in her camp that heretofore have been rather small in number and influence; she has a lot of “hold your nose” voters on her side.   Given Clinton’s long resume of government experience and the obvious flaws of Donald Trump, one should not be surprised that at this point in the election, many people view her as the lesser of two evils.  On the surface, she might appear to many as a lesser risk in the White House than Trump.  The thing that mystifies me is the apparently large number of these people who are of the Republican persuasion; many of them being leadership or wealthy donor variety.  One cannot read a headline or open an article without seeing another U.S. Republican Representative who has announced they will not be supporting Trump.  The Bushes, Mitt Romney, Cruz and Kasich, the Koch brothers…all have thrown the cold shoulder at the Donald.  Hell, they haven’t just thrown a cold shoulder; they have lowered their shoulder and applied a blind side, right on the knee cap, personal foul type of hit on Trump.   Invariably when this event occurs and we read of another prominent Republican personality withholding their support for Trump, they do not extol the many virtues of Hillary Clinton as the logic for withholding support.  They simply toss a few offhand remarks that seem to infer, sometimes succinctly and sometimes blatantly, that Donald Trump is not fit to be President.  How remarkable that this myriad collection of saints and angels who have somehow maintained a pure and righteous conscience throughout their political careers have finally found a Republican candidate they cannot bring themselves to support.  Would that each of these preening and self-aggrandizing hypocrites offer up a list of the many Republican candidates they have supported over their lifetimes; knowing full well that amongst the names on the list will appear characters far more detestable than Donald Trump.  Why, at this moment in time, have they decided to draw the moral line in the sand?  What, in the obscene and scurrilous world of American politics, is so terrible about Trump that their sensibilities are simply overwhelmed by the prospect of pulling the lever for Trump?  In the instance of each one of these people, one should ask themselves…Is Trump that much more corrupt and flawed than Hillary and if not, what is the motivation for these people to withhold their support for the legitimate Republican candidate and essentially aid and abet the effort of Hillary Clinton to be our next President?  Considering the extensive record of the Clintons and their “pay to play” form of governing, what can Hillary offer these folks that Trump does not?  Can it be a sincere form of outrage that Trump is such train wreck of a candidate that he does not deserve at least a modicum of party deference in his effort to end the last eight years and future eight years of liberal governance in America?  Trump is undeniably the Devil that many Republicans suspect; but Clinton is damn sure the Devil that many Republicans know.

In my lifetime of sixty plus years, I do not believe I have ever known a candidate held in lower public esteem than Hillary Clinton.  Even the ardent Democrats that I speak with and consider friends support her out of motivation other than admiration and respect.  Americans are yearning for a reason not to vote for Hillary Clinton.  They are making a careful assessment of Trump and trying to decide if he could keep it between the ditches if elected.  She has made little effort to conceal that her quest for the Presidency is a thrust borne of blatant personal ambition and greed and will no doubt be a continuation of Obama’s liberal policies.  On both counts, I am convinced that the majority of American voters do not want this for our nation.  Hillary is playing a hide and seek game of campaigning; simply sitting on a perceived lead and giving Trump all the rope he needs to hang himself with.  It is hard to argue with the wisdom of this strategy and it appears at this point in time to be headed towards a successful conclusion.  The puzzling thing to me is the decision by many in the Republican Party to essentially help Hillary tie the noose around the Donald’s neck.  Can they not see that Congressional numbers will do them no good if Executive Power and Supreme Court opinions are aligned against them?  Do they really think that if Hillary Clinton is elected President, they will have a good opportunity to defeat her in four years and then install their mechanism to unwind the nanny state status of our country?  Really?  As lame as I am as a political prognosticator, there is no doubt in my mind that if the Republicans had nominated Rubio, Kasich …even Cruz, then they would find themselves with a significant post-convention lead in this contest.  Hillary Clinton is that flawed as a Presidential choice.  Instead, they chose a reality TV personality with a big mouth to represent their party.  Their bed is made and it should be slept in.  The inexplicable thing is that so many Republicans now, having made their bed, are looking longingly across the hall at the Democratic bed and eyeballing a place on the mattress.  They should take a long pause and think carefully…bed hopping oftentimes leads to unintended consequences and most of them are not very pleasant.  If Hillary Clinton is elected President in November, the course of this nation will be determined for the foreseeable future in a very predictable fashion.  Every Republican within earshot will be bitching and whining every step of the way as Hillary unwinds her liberal agenda; but they have no quarter to complain.  If Hillary Clinton is our next President, it will be the Republicans who elect her.