This should disqualify Donald J. Trump for the presidency, should in fact effectively end his candidacy. If Ohio Governor John Kasich is to be believed--and why shouldn't he be--Trump's plan is to become a figurehead president, essentially in charge of American morale, while his Vice President does the work.
This is hardly a complete surprise as an eventuality. But it is a shocking thing to find out in advance. Nobody ought to really believe that Trump wants the day-to-day grind of the job of the Presidency. He wants the title, the prestige, the ego-stroking, the political "happy ending" (double-entendre intended and encouraged). But this means this cult of personality frothing at the mouth for Donald J. Trump, celebrity? Would be getting TRUMP stamped on the front of the White House, while President Pence runs things.
That ought to freak out anyone who isn't a far right-wing social conservative. That ought to become the biggest news story going. It should be drowning out Mike Pence's speech (which is happening as I type this). Hillary Clinton should hit this, and hit it hard: Donald Trump has no intention of doing the job of president. [Excerpt] Trump's offer to Kasich to be running mate: Be in charge of both domestic, foreign policy CLEVELAND — John Kasich could've become America's chief operating officer, the most powerful vice president in U.S. history, if only he'd said yes to becoming Donald Trump's running mate, several Kasich sources told The Dispatch.. .
Cruz prepares to eat his wife. Image from source, MSN
I didn't expect it, did you? No other embarrassing loss prior to tonight could shake Ted Cruz before Tuesday night. But there, right after one of his patented "victory from defeat" (and let's not forget God before country) speeches, Ted Cruz up and quit. And right after picking the equally unlikable Carly Fiorina as his running mate, too.
But there he goes. Old squiddy face is going back to the Senate, and leaving John Kasich to. . .what. . .tilt at a few more windmills? Try to swoop into the convention and steal the nomination? I can't see it.
But this whole thing has been so bizarre, end-to-end, who the hell knows anymore? The only thing we know for sure is that we don't know for sure. [Excerpt] Ted Cruz drops out of the Republican presidential race Ted Cruz, the insurgent Texan whose presidential campaign was fueled by disdain for Washington, dropped out of the 2016 race Tuesday night, removing the last major hurdle in Donald Trump’s quest to become the Republican nominee for president. . .
Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Bernie Sanders and their (mostly) creepy crews of spokespeople can spin it however they want. Joe and Mika can snark their way to other conclusions. Trumpettes and CruzControllers will continue to fight about it, as will #ImWithHer vs. #FeelTheBern crews.
But barring a shocking event--and I mean shocking, like the GOP fever dream of a Clinton indictment, the revelation that Trump is Kang or Kodos--It's Clinton vs. Trump in November. I believe that 90% of the speculation that says otherwise is nothing more than the desire for there to be a horse race to talk about, and a desire to keep hope alive among Bernie supporters and Donald Trump loathers.
Let the record show that if that out-of-left-field event does knock either of them out of their obvious shoo-in status, I'd still support Bernie. I voted for Hillary in the Ohio primary, but I'm by no means a "never Bernie" voter. I'm a lot less decided on the other side's slate. All of them are awful. I think Trump is the easiest for Hillary to defeat. I think Cruz is scarier as an actual American policy maker, and Trump scarier as a world leader. I think Kasich is the least scary of the three to imagine as president, particularly on a world stage. All three would result in an arch conservative Supreme Court for as much as a generation, possibly for the rest of my life. I don't want to see that.
In the general, again, unless there is some sort of shocker, the Democrat wins. Very likely, now, HRC. And, love her or hate her, seeing her address the nation, or appearing before a foreign country? She's the only one I think I could stomach well for four or eight years.
I'm a bit puzzled by the media reactions to New Hampshire, and frankly, over the whole presidential campaign. Even voices I like and respect seem to have blind spots, and odd analysis. Here are my short takes.
Hillary Clinton: Hillary lost New Hampshire by somewhere around what she was predicted to by polls and speculation. There were no particular surprises that I could see. And she gave a decent speech, congratulating Bernie Sanders on his win, and rousing her supporters. I have no idea what all of the hand-wringing was about, from pundits and journalists. Should she lose South Carolina? New story.
Bernie Sanders: The only thing surprising about Bernie's performance was that he finally got some decent coverage. I think the astonished reactions may have had something to do with the press largely ignoring him and his events, and then being forced to witness that he has support akin to Trump's. But, of course, with far more substance, and with followers who are considerably more informed, and demanding politically. That's not to say I don't have significant issues with the "Bernie Bros."
John Kasich: That my Ohio Governor Milquetoast came in second is the absolute flip-side of front-runner Trump, showing that there are more nutbars in Vermont than we thought, but that they're are people who respond to what by contrast seems normal, sensible. He's not. But he's eminently preferable. Marco Rubio and Jeb! Bush: Both continue to be plagued by saying or doing the "wrong" thing in the eyes of the press. Bush continues to be barely a footnote, and Marco, after a strong finish in Iowa, has been assailed as a talking-point regurgitating robot. Anything and everything considered a mistake or error for these guys wouldn't even register if Trump did or said it. I'd take either of these guys over Trump or Cruz. But I wouldn't be happy about it.
Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Chris Christie: The field is being culled, and only Ben of these three remains standing. I'll be shocked if he isn't the next to go. Chris Christie I'll be sorry to lose. Bully that he is, I think I liked him best of the worst.
Ted Cruz: Cruz is far and away the candidate I'd have the hardest time dealing with if he won the general. He's a disingenuous Dominionist, bent on eliminating the wall between church and state. He's unctuous, creepy, and just plain awful. Fortunately, he won the Iowa caucus, and that is usually the kiss of death. I'm hoping so.
And finally. . .
Donald Trump: The media is going into convulsions (likely only rivaling those of Reince Preibus and the rest of the GOP establishment), self-flagellating over having treated Trump as a clown and a sideshow. Newsflash, news people: He is still a clown and a sideshow. Oh, he may continue to do very well. He may very well win the nomination. And--to my increasing horror--the voters of the United States may have hit peak Idiocracy centuries ahead of schedule, and lead to his eventual election. I hope not.
While the media continues to mea culpa all over itself over the wrong thing, what they should be doing is actually turning their syntax parsing onto him. His speeches--regularly played in their entirety on cable news, regardless of their newslessness--are filled with repetition that makes Rubio's current drubbing completely unjustified. They aren't even speeches at all. They're ad libbing, and bad ad libbing at that. They're akin to Sarah Palin word salad, but half as entertaining. [Story continues below]
Trump's "victory speech" in New Hampshire, if you subtract his thanks to dead and living relatives and his skeevy staff, was more of this empty, crass, 5th-grade level blather. No other candidate in the entire race (or any other) would survive this horrible speech. At best, anyone but Trump would suffer a days-long dissection of its awfulness, to speculation of his dropping out, or dire warnings that he must course-correct. Not Trump. They don't even mention it.
But here, don't take my word for it. Read a few verbatim quotes from the "speech." Tell me this is presidential. Tell me this wouldn't disqualify anyone else. Try to parse any of it for coherency. It's terrible.
Godwin's Law: (or Godwin's rule of Nazi analogies) is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"—that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism. -- Godwin's Law - Wikipedia
Godwin's Law has moved beyond internet message boards, and is now generally used as a discussion-ender in general. You invoke a Hitler or Nazi analogy, and you lose the argument. Nothing, the feeling goes, is on par with Nazi Germany. It's the ultimate in lazy and/or hyperbolic comparisons. Trump broke that rule, but in a different way than he tends to break all others: He himself negates it by himself becoming his own Hitler analogy. And it's difficult to argue with. Especially when his own GOP opposition thinks so too.
When I lived in Nevada, I assumed our governor, Brian Sandoval was going to make a 2016 play for the White House. Given how many GOP candidates there are, I suppose he might as well. Now, I've moved to Ohio, and my new governor, John Kasich is going to run. He'll be the 17th major candidate to declare, when he makes it official on Tuesday. For now, I have this Twitter post to show that he's actually going to do it.
I'd say his odds are long to make a splash. But he does have a little residual FOX "News" mojo, though I think opponent Mike Huckabee--also a FOX veteran--may have the edge there. Good luck, Governor. If this plays out like 2012, you'll at least have a shining moment for a week or so before the campaign is over. And truthfully? If I had to pick a GOP candidate? You could do worse. So much worse. He still would trail behind even the lowest polling Democrat for me, though.
Looks like John #Kasich has figured out what he'll say in tomorrow's "special announcement" at Ohio State pic.twitter.com/qzNHdodEM2
When you hear Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh trying to turn the Ohio lemons into lemonade, don't believe them. This was a big issue, nationwide. What Ohio did in defeating the anti-union measure proves that the people don't just have to sit and take these extreme laws and lawmakers.
Now, the passage of a law allowing Ohio to opt out of "Obamacare" is a bit troubling. I'm not sure exactly what it means (is there a Kasichcare?), but it will be interesting to watch as the Affordable Care Act takes effect in states that haven't opted out. I just hope my Ohioan sister and her family aren't getting gypped here.
[Excerpt]
Ohio Issue 2 Results: Voters Repeal Controversial Collective Bargaining Law
. . .What could these results mean?
They could mean that Democratic-leaning groups like, say, unions, can get
organized and get out the vote, both important skills leading up to the 2012
presidential election, particularly in a swing state like Ohio. That energy and
organization could also help Democrats get two other referendums on the November
2012 ballot and approved. But then again, that election is a year away. . .
John Kasich, one of Ohio's least popular governors. Image from TPM
I have no stake in the Ohio anti-union law, though I was born and raised in central Ohio. Even then--when John Kasich was a local politician--I thought Kasich was a giant douche. When he hit FOX "News," I knew I was correct in my assessment. And when he became Governor of my home state, he proved it to the nation. As I said, I have no dog in this fight, and I've never been in a union. But I'm crossing my fingers, lighting a candle and speaking in tongues, hoping that this law goes down in flames, and Kasich's legacy does too.
[Excerpt]
Poll: Ohio Set To Vote Big Against Kasich’s Anti-Public Employee Union Law
A new survey from Public Policy Polling (D)
shows Ohio Democrats and public employee unions likely to win a big
victory on Tuesday in the referendum on Republican Gov. John Kasich’s
anti-public union bill, SB-5. . .
A while back, I wrote about Naomi Wolfe, an author who has outlined the similarities between the United States and fascism in other countries throughout history. She's a remarkably intelligent woman with a lot to say, whether you agree with it or not. John Kasich, subbing for Bill O'Reilly, never gave her the chance to lay out her case.
In a textbook FOX "News" example of their take on "fair and balanced," Kasich brings on someone with an opposing view, and then scarcely lets her speak. Take a look, and then read our previous piece for a little clarity.
And check out NewsHounds for their piece on the video.
