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.

On A Clear Day, I Can See My Barn.

On A Clear Day, I Can See My Barn.  Over the next three months, American voters will be deciding who they will choose to lead our nation for the next four to eight years.  It is not a reach to say that the candidates available for that choice are two of the most flawed in history.   Some have even gone as far as to say that the vice-presidential candidates for each party are superior to their presidential candidates.  Perhaps so, but the choice remains either Trump or Clinton.  There will likely be many from each side of the political aisle that will remain home in protest on Election Day.  Bernie’s legions and the army of Cruz will not totally accept the candidates that vanquished their idols.  Will this advantage break for either Trump or Clinton?  Not likely.  It is more probable that an equal number from each party will abstain in protest.  As perhaps never before, at least in modern history, this will be an election where the winner can legitimately be labeled the “least of two evils”.  

There are many today who know exactly who they will vote for in November.  Their visceral dislike for one candidate or the other is cemented in their consciousness and nothing that occurs between now and Election Day will change their mind.   These “already decided” voters might very well be in equal numbers for each party.  That would leave the “yet to decide” voters to determine our next President.  That group would be composed of Independents, crossover voters from each party, and yes…the members of each party who remain voteless in protest.  In reality, a Republican non-vote for Trump is indeed a vote for Clinton; and likewise, a Democrat who chooses not to vote for Clinton might as well be casting a vote for Trump.  It could be that close.

If this election cycle has proven nothing else, it has proven the remarkable limits on the abilities of political prognosticators to accurately predict election results.  When all is said and done, I suspect the same will be true of pollsters.  All that being said, it is such good sport to speculate on how this race might end, especially with a race that promises to be very entertaining (or depressing?), that I will render a notion or two about its possible results.

Hillary Clinton has been a government addict her entire life.  With the exception of her brief and controversial work at the Rose Law Firm, her entire professional life has been involved in some form of civic performance.  It is amusing that the Democratic National Convention attempted, once again, to reintroduce her to the American public.  I hardly think there are many among us who do not have a pretty solid opinion, one way or the other, of Hillary Clinton.  It is also true that her extensive experience with governmental affairs is a two-edged sword; it both qualifies her for public office and exposes her weaknesses and failures in public office.  From her First Lady of Arkansas chapter, to her First Lady of America chapter, through her New York Senator chapter, to her Secretary of State chapter, she has worn many hats and costumes.  The opportunities to promote and advocate for varied causes and principles have been plentiful and one can simply read the history pages to arrive at a verdict on her effectiveness as a public servant.  The more relevant, not my meaning but the reality of the situation, aspects of her many adventures in elected office will be her many brushes with controversy, corruption, and legal gymnastics.  Whether or not Hillary Clinton should currently be residing in a big house somewhere with “three hots and a cot” is a matter of opinion; but the fact that she has so often been associated with matters of questionable ethics must pose a cautionary concern to any person considering her for the top office in our nation.  While she will proclaim her resume as great presidential qualification, she must also answer the many questions left unresolved by her scandalous adventures.  Clinton’s argument of competence will have to be proven beyond the list of offices she has held; a list of accomplishments will be necessary.   She will have to either effectively address the public mistrust that so many hold for her and win them over to her abilities or convince the people that Trump is so incompetent as to pose a real danger to the nation; leaving herself as the only logical choice.  One other balancing act that will test Clinton’s political skills will be the tricky feat of clinging to Obama’s support by essentially painting her election as a third (and fourth?) Obama term while also convincing a clearly uneasy American citizenry that she has the recipe for necessary changes; changes that will address the many troublesome issues that have flourished under Obama and are currently vexing this nation.  No matter what else she or her campaign managers might say or do, Hillary Clinton will represent Obama and his policies and the WDC establishment in general; she is the personification of status quo and business as usual.  Her task will be to spin those connections in a fashion that casts a favorable light on their continuation.

While Donald Trump cannot be painted as a career politician or even a politician at all (in the conventional sense), I have no doubt that an effective argument can be made that he has gamed the government system no  less than Hillary Clinton has over his lifetime.  The difference is that his gaming has been from outside of government.  As with Hillary, careful and thorough research will no doubt find ample proof of Trump’s dalliances with moral and ethical ambiguities.  It is easy to picture that each other’s charges of character failure will be basically off-setting and will garner neither an advantage of any worth.  Trump is a new phenomenon in American politics that most observers are still trying to figure out.  How much of what he does is calculated and intentional and how much is simply “seat of the pants” spontaneity and Donald simply being Donald?  Throughout the Republican Primary season, political insiders tried to solve this mystery and the fact that Trump now stands as the Republican nominee speaks to their inability to effectively answer that question.  This is the double-edged sword that Trump bears.  His seeming obliviousness to accepted political behavior and correctness is no doubt a large part of his appeal to many of his most ardent supporters.  But the risk that he runs every time he goes off script (which is MOST of the time) carries a high price and could be that particular sound bite that ends up destroying his campaign for President.  Just as Hillary will tout her varied public office experience and simultaneously be forced to defend her possible conflicts of interest, Trump will crow about his business acumen, his outsider status, and at the same time be forced to explain his corporate bankruptcies in that context.  Can this man convince the American voter that he is competent to be President?

As the title of this blog suggests, on a clear day I can see my barn from my front porch.  There is not much between here and there and I am certainly far removed from WDC and the political power epicenters of the American establishment.  But this I do believe: Two arguments will likely decide who will be our next President.

Either Hillary Clinton will convince voters that in spite of the reservations that most people hold about her public and personal records regarding honesty, corruption, and abuse of power, she nonetheless represents a more competent choice for President.  She will try to persuade people that even if they do not agree with her policy positions, she will put seasoned and capable people in charge of governmental departments and agencies and the machinery of this nation’s administrative systems will begin to function with some greater degree of efficiency and effectiveness.  Oh…and while she is attempting to convince people that she is the sane choice, she will be trying to convince people that Trump is a raving lunatic and is the insane choice.

Or Donald Trump will convince people that Hillary Clinton represents business as usual.  She represents more of the nanny state intrusions into our private lives that Obama has spent eight years pursuing.   He will try to tie her to Obama’s many foreign policy failures and attempt to lay the blame for today’s global chaos at the feet of President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton.  He will say that our government needs to be changed in order to function properly and that change must come from someone with a new perspective; an outside the government perspective.  He will not be specific, but will instead simply emphasize all the domestic and foreign policy maladies that ail this great nation and indicate that he knows how to fix them.  He will say, repeatedly, that Hillary Clinton’s quest for the Presidency is simply a naked reach for an opportunity to fuel her greed for money and her thirst for power; a chance to rename the American government as Clinton’s Playground.

Are people so fed up with the status quo that they will take a chance on an outsider?  Are people so frustrated with government that they will franchise someone to implement unspecified wholesale changes?  Will people be so distrusting of Hillary Clinton and her aversions to the truth that they will discount her litany of government experience?  Can Trump manage to go three months without that damning fifteen second sound bite that will cripple his campaign and convince people he is a loose cannon?  Can Hillary mange to play a three month long game of dodge ball with her scandals; keeping the focus on her opponent and off of her problems?  Has Clinton learned from her extensive government experience how to make it work better; or has her extensive government experience jaded her and made her even more susceptible to her appetite for power and corruption?  Has Trump’s burgeoning capitalist conglomerate given him a fresh insight as to how government might be modified to make it more functional; or, is he so indoctrinated in the bottom line obsession and greed that drives corporate America that he is unable to see any other business model?   If this election is framed as competence versus change, which way will the American voters choose?  On a clear day, I can see my barn.  On even a really clear day, I cannot see the answer to that question.

Government Policy on Disclosure.

Government Policy on Disclosure.  In a recent press conference, State Department spokesman John Kirby stated the following: There were no rules governing this sort of action in the past, so I find no reason to press forward with a more formal or deeper investigation.  What matters to me – and I take it seriously – is our commitment to transparency and disclosure.  This remark by Kirby was in response to the discovery that the State Department had deliberately edited out selected portions of a prior State Department news conference archive record at which State Department official Jen Psaki had essentially admitted to hiding the beginning date of Administration negotiations with Iran; all while trying to sell Congress and the public on the wisdom of the Iran Nuclear Agreement.   This Kirby admission came only after the State Department had previously blamed the archived video deletion on a glitch.  In other words, the State Department lied about lying and then tried to cover up their lies.  Oh…and Kirby said “I take this very seriously”.   Obama and his Kiddie Korps are on parade once again.

Psaki is one of the primary faces for U.S. foreign policy.  Her prior experience includes various press and communications roles in the Obama Administration.  She is also married to a deputy finance director at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.  If you think about it, you can easily recall not too long ago when she and her fellow official Marie Harf were putting in a lot of face time before the press.  It just so happens that Harf actually served as the Acting State Department Spokesperson prior to Mr. Kirby being selected for that job.  Her consolation prize for losing that spot turned out to be the job of Senior Advisor for Strategic Communications to Secretary of State John Kerry.  She was the leading Administration official on the Iran Nuclear Deal communication strategy team. 

Add to this dynamic duo the esteemed Ben Rhodes, who recently revealed in a highly publicized interview that the Administration misled journalists regarding the correct timeline of U.S. negotiations regarding the recent Iran Nuclear Agreement; thus using (in his words) the young and inexperienced reporters to create an echo chamber to parrot the Administration’s line on the talks in an attempt to sway public opinion.   Rhodes is the same fellow whose previous claim to fame was serving as driver and gopher for various political campaigns while attempting to write the great American novel.  I believe Mr. Rhodes’ current title is Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications and Speechwriting for U.S. President Barack Obama.  He was also an Advisor on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on the Iran Nuclear Deal.   He is married to one of Senator Boxer’s chief staff members.

These are the people…Rhodes, Psaki, Harf… that Obama has chosen to help administer one of the most critical strategic agreements in our lifetimes?  This is the group that will help to form a nuclear agreement with what is likely the most radical nation in the Middle East?  This is what America has gotten from the Obama Administration; a group of arrogant, idealistic, and naïve yuppies that are more than willing to drink the One’s kool-aid and carry his luggage.  They obviously share his philosophy on ethics and as Kirby said…a commitment to transparency and disclosure (cough, cough).  For all intents and purposes, these are bright and witty college grads that moved directly from the campus into the political process.  They have never evolved intellectually or emotionally beyond their collegial adolescence and fit in quite nicely with the balance of Obama’s school of imaginary reasoning.   Their entire universe revolves around themselves, those that are just like them, and those that will do anything to be one of them.  They live in a shiny WDC bubble where all value is placed on style and all spoken prophecies are self-fulfilling.  Is it any wonder that they are some of the most arrogant and conceited individuals ever employed by the U.S. government and harbor nearly zero regard for any allegiance to the constitution and government’s inherent responsibility, and accountability, to the citizenry?

In the last few days, Hillary Clinton’s right-hand gal Cheryl Mills was deposed regarding the ongoing Clinton email scandal.  Mills was Clinton’s Chief of Staff when Clinton served as Secretary of State.  Mills has been associated with the Clintons ever since Bill’s impeachment hearings back in 1999.  In Mills deposition, she was asked approximately 250 questions.  She brought seven lawyers with her.  She responded to 182 questions with “I don’t know”.  She responded to 40 questions with “I don’t recall”.  Does any sane person actually believe that a Clinton Administration would be any more committed to transparency and disclosure than the Obama Administration has been?  Does any sane person actually believe that a Trump Administration would be any more committed to transparency and disclosure than the Obama Administration has been?  Based on the way he has lived his life and conducted his business, one can only imagine the carnival atmosphere of a Trump presidency.  He won’t even disclose his tax filings or be forthcoming about his faux college enterprise. 

There is absolutely no reason for any American citizen to credit our government, ALL of our government, with any degree of integrity or honesty.  Veronique De Rugy has an excellent article on this subject at @ http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/436105/government-trust-larry-summers-washington-post-accountability.  Morality, ethics, and any grasp for the concept of accountability flew out the doors of the White House and the Capitol a long, long time ago.   Obama has fully embraced and taken to new levels the seedy corruption and greed that Republican and Democrat Presidents before him have created and nurtured.  At this point in time, we are left with the vaporous hope that either Trump or Clinton will restore some degree of integrity to our Executive Branch; that one or the other will replace Obama’s corps of college glee club appointees that litter this Administration top to bottom with some people who have experience, intelligence, and some semblance of honor.   Damn slim hope.

It is often said that a fish rots from the head.  If we compare our government to a fish, the decay has extended well past the gills and is moving rapidly towards the tail.  This nation celebrated Obama’s initial presidential election as a chance for new beginnings.  His supporters were absolutely giddy with the hope and change mantra that he so enthusiastically put forth.  Even after four years of reality that pretty well demolished his façade of genius, the American public still yearned for that change and gave him one more term.  They were mistaken; tragically so.  He has naively continued his attempt to systematically dismantle many of the very principles that created this country and have made it great.  He has forsaken responsibility and leadership for idealism and rhetoric.  And now…we apparently look to Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump to cleanse the government of Obama’s useful idiots, restore function and common sense where none has existed for decades, and lead this nation back to a global position of admiration and respect.  Are we all really that stupid?

Moral Evolution?...How About Leadership Devolution?

Moral Evolution?…How About Leadership Devolution?  Well, our sophomoric president is globe-trotting again.  These days find him in Japan telling the world that it needs to morally evolve.  In his inimitably condescending, patronizing, and didactic fashion, he once again held himself out to be the self-proclaimed patron saint of America and wanted all within earshot to understand that he was far better and more enlightened than his home nation or any of the leaders who had come before him.  Once again, I shudder to think how these foreign leaders think and speak of him in private after his pompous escapades.  This man has taken our nation backwards in so many ways and it seems certain that he will continue that effort, at an accelerated pace, for the balance of his term in office.   For a man who is morally bankrupt, intellectually transparent,  and painfully devoid of any intestinal fortitude, he does more second guessing of courageous leaders than anyone I have ever seen.  Our president is not qualified to judge whether the White House coffee is hot or cold, much less the life and death decisions made by our war-time presidents from eras past.   His “BIG I, little you” brand of moral superiority has long outlasted its amusement quotient. 

The great leaders I have known, both personally and in a literary sense, are those men and women who stand in the arena with you.   They are the ones who rise above petty differences and manage to bring people together in spite of principled disagreements.  They are the ones who inspire by their actions, not by their bravado.   They are the ones who recognize the price of every action taken, and can fully appreciate the cost of inaction when leadership is required.  A great leader makes a choice, states plainly why that choice is made, and steps forward to be held accountable for the consequences of his or her action.   They make deliberate decisions, but are unafraid to acknowledge mistakes and are big enough in character to change course when necessary.   A truly great leader will provide those he or she serves with moral and ethical leadership that truly inspires and encourages all who follow to aspire to something better than they presently are.  And when a great leader inspires, the inspiration comes from being one of the many and speaking from their perspective; not from being a holier-than-thou narcissist who speaks from above to the masses huddled down below.  Our president is none of these things.  He postures and primps, he harrumphs and belittles, his feet are forever planted in sand, he is inherently lazy and the only voices to which he pays heed are the nonsensical musings that he generates himself. 

It is bad enough that our nation has been cursed to have this man as president for the last seven and a half years; it is downright insufferable that he must showcase his pitiful competence around the globe.   For all of the damage Obama’s leadership has inflicted on this nation and this government in a domestic sense, the far more unsettling and potentially catastrophic cost is what it has done, and continues to do, to our country’s global relationships with friends and foes alike.  In due time, the American economy will rebound; the DOJ will once again come to grips with its proper role of enforcing the law as written as opposed to trying to create a liberal nirvana through executive order; the American people will eventually learn to, as a good man once said, judge their neighbors by the content of their character and not the color of their skin…without the ham-handed and bigoted bludgeon of the federal government.   In spite of what Obama has wrought, there will once again be jobs for those looking to work, compassion for those unable to work, and accountability for those who are able but refuse to work.  As low as we have sunk, this nation will recover domestically because of its inherent strength and principle.  But in the dangerous environment of world politics and power, where every day seems to rest on the hair-trigger mentality of some despot in a foreign land, we can only hope and pray that America’s brief (in the sands of time) respite from world leadership will not leave a permanent scar.  How much of the capital that the United States has earned over the decades with our most precious blood left on foreign lands has been frittered away by this idealistic lightweight?  We can only hope and pray that our next President will have the intelligence, the character, and the courage to lead this nation back to prominence as the leader of freedom and dignity for all, international respect for all peoples, and the willingness (God forbid) to make the hard decisions when no one else will.

Things That Make You Go Hmmmm.

Things That Make You Go Hmmmm.  As Donald Trump continues his apparent primary victory tour in an effort to consolidate Republican support, Hillary Clinton continues to lose primary contests to Bernie Sanders; and yet, everyone has apparently moved on to the national Presidential race between Trump and Clinton.  There are occasional articles about what happens if Hillary is indicted, or what happens if her poll performance continues to deteriorate, or what happens if there is a right-wing Republican effort with an alternative candidate; but it appears the electorate at large is coming to terms with what likely shapes up to be an extremely entertaining, and perplexing, 2016 Presidential contest.

Kentucky held its Democratic primary this past Tuesday.  Bernie Sanders is an avowed, 74 year old Democratic socialist from New England who has at times proposed income tax rates up to 90 percent and endless federal social programs that will literally explode an already burgeoning federal debt.  On Tuesday in Kentucky, this man received over 200,000 votes and lost the primary to Clinton by approximately 2,000 votes.  A SOCIALIST received over 200,000 votes for PRESIDENT in KENTUCKY this week.  You tell me…is Bernie that good, is Hillary that bad, or are Kentuckians that crazy?  I can see Bernie winning Louisville and Jefferson County, but running this well statewide is nothing short of remarkable.  Sanders has now defeated Clinton in 11 of the last 14 Democratic primaries, yet Clinton remains the prohibitive favorite for the Democratic nomination.  I continue to marvel at those who perpetually portray the Republican primary process as a strange brew while accepting the Democratic primary as normal.   There is nothing normal about either party’s primary campaigns and the message that appears to come through loud and clear on both sides is that…people…want…change.

Just a few months back, the NRA was trying to decide which conservative they would support this year.  Would it be Ted Cruz, or Rick Perry, or Marco Rubio, or some other right-wing-card-carrying disciple that espoused their mantra in an acceptable fashion?  This week, also in Kentucky, the NRA enthusiastically embraced The Donald and gifted him with their 2016 Presidential Endorsement.  This is the same candidate that over the last several months has held no fewer than half a dozen different positions on gun rights.  This is the man who has likely contributed as much, or more, campaign dollars to anti-gun-rights Democrats as he has to pro-gun-rights Republicans.  Once again…is Trump that good, were his Republican opponents that bad, or is the NRA that crazy?  Like the NRA, we have seen several individuals and groups who had previously vowed NEVERTRUMP break over and begin to cozy into the Trump enclave.  To  his credit, Trump has changed his campaign message to provide cover for these wayward conservatives to come home to Trumpland; the latest being his list of potential Supreme Court nominees who all just happened to be Republican nominated conservatives.  Just how effective can Donald Chameleon Trump be in bringing these disgruntled conservatives back into the Republican fold?  Will he bring home more Republicans than Hillary will bring home the Sanders supporters?

Just a few weeks back, Hillary was well ahead of Trump in national polling and national Democrat leadership was nothing short of smug in their anticipation of running against the Donald.  Now, the majority of most recent national polls (Rasmussen, Fox, ABC/WP) show Trump leading Clinton and panic is beginning to seep into the Democratic establishment; the very same panic that has been growing in the Republican establishment ever since it became obvious that Trump was going to be their nominee.  Hillary Clinton likely has the largest amount of negative baggage that any national political candidate has every possessed.  It is hard to imagine a scandal or charge that could not be leveled, not proven, against her.  This is a result of her experience; her record as an activist college student, conniving attorney, Gubernatorial First Lady, Presidential First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State.  She is the bad choice that is known.   She is the proud possessor of a double-edged sword that simultaneously represents her greatest asset and her greatest weakness.  Since he has never served in public office, Trump’s past record is mostly suspicions based on very public events and circumstances that produced fleeting headlines, but very little investigation.  You can bet your farm that those investigations are well under way as we speak; and you can rest assured that there is plenty of ammunition in there to keep Trump under a constant barrage until the first Tuesday in November…with heavy artillery.  But until these forays into Trump’s past bear fruit, Trump’s baggage will fall into that zone of accusation and innuendo; he is the bad choice we suspect.   Ultimately, either candidate will be quite able, and certainly willing, to hurl any and all slimy, nasty, immoral, corrupt, illegal, fantastical, well grounded, and baseless accusations towards the other with absolutely no reservation.  Can you just imagine the upcoming debates between these two?  It will be like having two knights in armor with an endless supply of small rocks to throw at each other.

At this point in the process, there exists the possibility that the ultimate Presidential contest might even feature someone other than Trump or Clinton; but as things stand today, they are the contestants.  It is going to be entertaining, as well as disgusting, to observe whether the American voter prefers the devil they know or the devil they suspect as their next President.   Either way, I suppose we will end up with one hell of a President.

For new posts alert...follow on Twitter @ centerlineright.

Spontaneous Emotion in Sports.

Spontaneous Emotion in Sports.  I have mentioned before the ongoing discussion in MLB about the proper amount of spontaneous emotion that should be allowed in the game.  Celebratory post-play antics by players of all professional sports have come into vogue and have become fodder for fascinating debates between old-school players and fans versus the newer generation of players and fans.  Personally, the first taste I ever got of this phenomenon was back in days of the Houston Oilers and Billy “White Shoes” Johnson.  His end zone dances were something to behold and I had never seen that type of on-field celebration before.  The moment of joy behavior pioneered by Johnson is now commonplace in the NFL, it spilled over into the NBA several years back, and is now the topic du jour in MLB.  Before making my comments about this subject, I urge all readers to remember two things about professional sports: First, there are many, many gray areas in sports; even in the written rules.  So many times, a decision is made in the moment of battle and is later judged with the benefit of hindsight.  There are a lot of clearly right/clearly wrong calls made in sports; but there are also a lot of subsequent what if judgments made concerning those calls that are truly unfair and simply don’t take into account the prominent role that chance plays in sports.  Secondly, we have to remember that professional sport is a game.  Yes, it is a gargantuan business making billions of dollars; it is bad and nationwide. While noble at its heart, it is certainly not pure in spirit.  It impacts a world of people in very significant ways.  But…it…is…a…game.  It is entertainment.  Whether we like it or not, sports has evolved and will continue to evolve in an independent fashion; only a portion of it can be orchestrated.  All changes will not be good, all changes will not be popular; but changes will be made and will occur.  Learning to roll with these changes is one of the keys to the enjoyment of sport. 

One problem I have with spontaneous emotion in sport these days is the fact that a good deal of it simply is not spontaneous.  Players make their livings both on the field and off the field; for many, the off the field business ventures dwarf their on the field earnings.  For this reason, the players are super aware of their image and their limited opportunities to mold that image in the eyes of the public.  Each player is well of when their game will be televised to millions of viewers and many of them, if not most, plan in advance how they will behave if they make a sack, score on a pick six, hit a walk-off homer, hit a game winning three, or make some other spectacular play.  In other words, a good deal of the spontaneity has been removed from these celebrations because they have become so calculated.  

As a fan, I react to plays in an emotional way.  I overly celebrate the routine stop on third down for my home team defense.  I bounce around the room and act a fool when a four point lead is expanded to six by a routine layup.  This is the great thing about being a spectator; we have the liberty to celebrate anything and everything in the most outrageous fashion imaginable.  But those players on the field, those athletes in the arena, they have to stay focused, they have to stay aware, and they have to maintain intensity.  The celebrations that we see now from many players for routine plays are even more extravagant that those we see from athletes making great plays.  A grade of “A” is meaningless if most of the class gets an “A”.  It is rather transparent that the enthusiasm for the celebration is greater than the enthusiasm for the game when one celebrates a routine third down tackle five yards past the first down marker.  It really makes you wonder…Did this guy have this little dance all planned out beforehand and figured that this might be his only chance to play it out?

When a celebration is truly spontaneous, there is no doubt about it.  When Jose Bautista hit his seventh inning, three-run homer in the fifth game of the 2015 ALDS, there was no doubt in anyone’s mind that his bat flip was spontaneous.  Old school or new school, both schools understood that it was one hell of a play and Bautista was in the moment.  It is hard for me to understand how this type of sincerely spontaneous celebration of a great play can do anything but raise the excitement quotient of the sport, no matter what sport it might be.  As long as these moments occur following great plays, they can be a positive evolution of any sport.  But if they get watered down by the pathetic and awkward machinations of chest thumping and flexing that follow so many routine plays these days, the entire subject of spontaneous emotion in sports will become detrimental to the game and ultimately degrade the fan experience.