May 9, 2016

"I am endorsing Hillary, and all her lies and all her empty promises," said P.J. O'Rourke.

"It's the second-worst thing that can happen to this country, but she's way behind in second place. She's wrong about absolutely everything, but she's wrong within normal parameters."

137 comments:

Bob Loblaw said...

That's the kind of endorsement I'd want for my campaign.

n.n said...

SNAFU? Forward!

cubanbob said...

Endorsing Hillary? Funny from a guy who is famous for writing "Parliament of Whores". Must be dementia since clearly he forgotten or is no longer capable of understanding who Hillary Clinton is and was. Trump isn't a traitor. Clinton is. I prefer his oafish fingers near the button rather than Clinton's treacherous fingers.

buwaya said...

In-group loyalty.

rcocean said...

Another Liberaltarian shows his true colors.

Time to donate all my PJ O'Rourke books to library.

Char Char Binks said...

Genital warts and all.

Original Mike said...

"Another Liberaltarian shows his true colors."

WTF does that mean?

coupe said...

He claims to have a short attention span. So it goes...

Emery said...

I still say the Republicans have nothing to complain about. Hillary Clinton is the best Republican candidate in years.

Jonathan Graehl said...

Drama queen. Clever writer though.

YoungHegelian said...

While I strongly disagree with O'Rourke, I can admire his choice & how he framed it.

What I simply can't comprehend are the people who actually like Hillary & are enthusiastic about her. Trust me, they exist.

whiskey said...

https://youtu.be/Sokkp7NA8NA

Roughcoat said...

Not so clever anymore. And not for a long time. He was clever in the 90s. Ever heard him on "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me"? He's painfully unfunny. He chuckles while he talks, as if he finds himself so very amusing. Painful.

Bob Boyd said...

Rapper Azealia Banks begs to differ:

"[Hillary Clinton] talks to black people as if we're children or pets.
I REALLY want Donald Trump to win the election.
I told you guys Bernie Sanders didn't have the clout. I told you all he wasn't going to be the nominee.
Trump is an asshole but he's not been groomed and programmed on some mkultra tip to DO & SAY what the establishment wants him to, Trump just wants the U.S to be lavish ... for all of us. I can f— with that."

She responded to objections that Trump is a racist:
"So am I ! .... lol. Racism/Racialism is sewn into the fabric of our nation. It's just who the f— we are. Trying to be all PC and pretending as if we aren't racial/racist is not good for culture. Censorship is boring. Censorship is trash. Television and Movies are even boring now because of it. No one can say anything anymore."

Why is she not voting for Hillary?
"Hillary has been GROOMED for the presidency. She's another one of the establishment's robots here to carry out an agenda. I can't stand herrrrrrr."

Rhythm and Balls said...

She's basically the same Goldwater Republican she grew up supporting.

Jack Wayne said...

PJ has "Noonaned" himself. Or, another Rube self-identifies. Or, this is what virtue signaling looks like from a conservative.

Michael K said...

Parliament of Whores come to life,

Meade said...

I'm endorsing Bob Boyd's endorsement of Azealia Banks's non endorsement of Hillary.

Chuck said...

"If you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it is free..."

P.J. O'Rourke, delivering "The Liberty Manifesto" at the Cato Institute, 1993.

“Health care is too expensive, so the Clinton administration is putting a high-powered corporate lawyer in charge of making it cheaper. (This is what I always do when I want to spend less money- hire a lawyer from Yale.) If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free.”

For O'Rourke do go the route of endorsing Hillary, knowing better than anyone about his own history with his own most-famous quote, it really says something. And that something is that there is something so personally repellent, so deeply and insultingly ignorant about Trump, that policies take a back seat.

I can't speak for George Will, Rich Lowry, Bill Kristol or the guys at National Review, but I sense that there is a lot of the "personal" in their refusal to accept Trump. I am not saying that's right, or wrong. And there is a lot of that with me. As it stands, I won't vote for a Clinton, and I expect that Trump couldn't possibly screw up a Supreme Curt nomination like a Clinton can. But I just hope that my vote for Trump won't leave a stain, and that it can be washed out (with generous disinfectant) post-Trump.

traditionalguy said...

That shows Hillary's secret weapon at work. She mightily calls out for a sympathy fuck vote that she poses as if it's due to her because of vast right wing conspirators and and vast left wing unfaithful husbands and all liberals.

It might just work unless Trump totally exposes her night and day.

M Jordan said...

@Roughcoat "Ever heard him on "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me"? He's painfully unfunny. "

To be fair, is anyone not painfully unfunny on that preening, smug show?

Bob Boyd said...

Meade said...
"I'm endorsing Bob Boyd's endorsement of Azealia Banks's non endorsement of Hillary."

It's a rejection cascade.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Hillary is paid by the same interests that pay off basically every other (establishment) Republican.

If you want war, you've got it. She's been paid to do it.

If you want Wall Street's interests over Main Street, you've got it. She's been paid for that, also.

Whatever she says about minorities and women is lip service, because the gov't can't really do much more about that. She might not know that, but she can't do anything more than she's always done when reminding us constantly about her fancy double-X chromosome thing, and all the wonderment that comes with that.

Hell, she even talked about abortion restrictions! You don't say!

Trump is actually representing more ideologically flexible grassroots GOP nationalists who might be less bellicose or willing to shill for the financial overlords. So he is, ironically, more likely to give in to liberal interests when they suit the country.

Hillary is too afraid to appear not tough enough to bomb any country that "says mean things to us". She is too afraid of not appearing tough enough to tell those unemployed and underemployed MALES (and females) that they're getting in the way of her Wall Street power base.

If you like the way the country's economy and military have been run, vote for her. Like she says, she's just trying to continue Obama's wonderful third term.

And Bill will be her instructor on virtually everything, as she flat-out admitted to having NO political skills (and obviously, vision). If you like what Old Whitehead did to lead up to 2001, or 2008 - it's Team Clinton all the way.

I mean, they're already losing Appalachia. But that's no reason for you Dick Morris disciples to back down.

Go with the lady who's going with the guy who went with Dick Morris. Unless you actually care about the country, of course.

robinintn said...

That sounds like high-level trolling to me.

David Begley said...

He borrowed the line from the Catholc baptismal rite made famous to non-Catholics in "The Godfather."

Clyde said...

Choose! Choose the form of the Destructor!

Clyde said...

Hint: There ain't no Stay Puft Marshmallow Man in this race.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

Yes, O'Rourke has be-Noonan-ed himself.

Trump may say and do strange things - more say than do. At the end of the day he is often right.

O'Rourke says Hillary is wrong about absolutely everything, but wrong within normal parameters. What O'Rourke misses is that today's normal parameters are wrong.

Government lying to sell it's programs (Obamacare, Iran agreement, Bengazi) is wrong, but normal today. Government routinely using outside email to avoid FOA is wrong, but normal today. White house press corp populated entirely by adherents of one of the two major parties is wrong, but normal today.

Mark said...

No, Jack, it isn't virtue signaling, it's rational analysis. I'm voting Gary Johnson for President, but there's zero reason to believe Trump is actually conservative, and lots of reasons to keep his hands off the levers of power. A vote for Trump is a vote for America's Caligula. I'll take a bad ruler over a mad ruler, sorry.

Gahrie said...

Go with the lady who's going with the guy who went with Dick Morris. Unless you actually care about the country, of course.

I bet you vote for her in November.

Meade said...

"It's a rejection cascade."

v.1702, from cascade (n.). In early 19c. slang, "to vomit."

Clyde said...

I was watching Fox News early this morning, and the interviewer had on a couple of pollsters. One of them was Doug Schoen, and the interviewer asked why Bernie was still in the race. The pollsters replied that he was still in it to raise money, gain power and influence the platform at the Democrat convention. Schoen noted that there was also the possibility of the "FBI primary," and that that if something "hit Hillary" then Bernie would be around to scoop up the Democrat nomination. And then, unbidden, the perfect image came to mind, and I knew exactly who Bernie is:

The image was the scene from "The Wizard of Oz" where Dorothy comes out of the house after the tornado and discovers the squashed witch, with only her legs and the ruby slippers sticking out from under the house. Bernie is Dorothy; the house is the FBI indictment (still hypothetical at the moment); the dead witch is Hillary, of course; and the ruby slippers are the Democrat nomination. A perfect analogy, should it actually happen.

Achilles said...

PJ Orourke wants to go to all of the good NPR parties.

chickelit said...

His prior support of Jeb! is the tell that it's personal.

Henry said...

O'Rourke does a good job of delivering his endorsement with zero enthusiasm. Whenever I run into an enthusiastic patron of a candidate in this election cycle I'm immediately inclined to vote for the alternative.

The Trump supporters in this thread are a good example. Never hung poison on a fouler toad.

Once the Trump haters show up, he'll look better.

YoungHegelian said...

@Clyde,

Mad props on the "Dorothy/Oz" analogy!

Schoen noted that there was also the possibility of the "FBI primary," and that that if something "hit Hillary" then Bernie would be around to scoop up the Democrat nomination.

It is simply unbelievable the level of denial that the Hillary-ites evince on the question of the email server. Absolutely unbelievable, as if the FBI under the Obama DoJ has about 140+ agents investigating this issue simply out of a spirit of political spite!

What really pisses me off? If Trump or Cruz was in the middle of an investigation involving 140 FBI agents, it would be on A1 of the NYT every day & NPR would be reminding me every 10 minutes. If it was Bernie, it would be on A1 every other day & every 30 minutes.

Tank said...

As AA says, sometimes nothing ...

wholelottasplainin' said...

"That shows Hillary's secret weapon at work. She mightily calls out for a sympathy fuck vote that she poses as if it's due to her because of vast right wing conspirators and and vast left wing unfaithful husbands and all liberals.

************

If Hillary really wants a sympathy vote to push her over the top, she should simply poison Bill just a couple of weeks before the election.

I'd have a food taster if I were in his shoes.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Too true, YH. Too true.

Unknown said...

Is it irony? He called her Satan in the endorsement.

holdfast said...

On foreign policy, Hillary would probably be ok. Not great, but better than Obama - I think she's less like to conspire with the Mad Mullahs to deceive the American public.

On the USSC, if she gets to make 2 or more appointments (including the Scalia seat), then he USA as we know it is over. The only Constitutional right left will be to abortion. That's it - 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th all pretty much gone.

Trump will be a tornado of craziness and disaster, but he will be unfocused and ADHD.

Meade said...

@Clyde, I think you're on to something but you've got the wrong witch, wrong scene. It's the later scene, where Trump throws a bucket of water in an attempt to put out the fire Hillary has lighted on the out of work West Virginia coalminer's Carhartt jacket. Trump misses the jacket but the water drenches Hillary and we all know what happens next. Trump discovers there is no place like Trump Tower and endorses Gary Johnson for POTUS. THE END.


holdfast said...

Based on the Banks' quote, I think I'd vote for her for Senate. Oh, I think she's overly obsessed with race, but kudos for at least being equitable about it. And her description of how the Dems condescend to blacks is spot-on.

wildswan said...

"O'Rourke says Hillary is wrong about absolutely everything, but wrong within normal parameters. What O'Rourke misses is that today's normal parameters are wrong."

This is how I see it. Everyone who thinks that the past trajectory of the country is the present trajectory can't see why Trump is rising. Everyone who sees 90 million not working, under employed or uberized since 2008 knows why there is a Trump. Republicans living in the past say they will support Hillary because they think she isn't as far off the trajectory of the country as Trump. But I think Trump got onto the changed trajectory, the country as it is and it is carrying him toward the White House.

I'm not a fan, how could I be, he supports Planned Parenthood in his heart. But I think that if the issues of the country aren't dealt with then we will get someone much worse than Trump in the next election - or maybe not in an election. And Hillary will not deal with the issues - she thinks she can just be corrupt like Bill in the Nineties and it will be OK. Not any more. Not after 9/11 and the 2008 crash, not after the mess Obama is making of things.

YoungHegelian said...

@holdfast,

Trump will be a tornado of craziness and disaster, but he will be unfocused and ADHD

I don't think so, & here's why. If you're a big swinging dick of a business honcho & you buy into some business that's not historically been your metier, waddya do? The first thing you do is to find experts in that line of work from outside the firm, who owe their allegiance to you & you bring them in. The second thing you do is find guys within the firm who are good at what they do, with a proven track record, & then bribe & cajole them to your side. Why? Because you know if you go through with a chainsaw in the cause of implementing your "vision", you'll end up gutting the company & have no chance of even turning a profit, much less a "vision".

I think this is what Trump will do. I expect Trump appointments will be "conservative", not in the sense of "right wing conservative", but in the sense of he will choose folks who are big & accomplished names in their fields. I expect to see the old business adage of "No one ever got fired for buying IBM" (yes, I'm that old...) writ large in the Trump administration.

tim in vermont said...

I hate it when R&B basically kills the thread by saying everything worth saying.

The normal parameters are wrong.

Chuck said...

Achilles said...
PJ Orourke wants to go to all of the good NPR parties.

What a profoundly perverted joke that is, in a thread that was otherwise about Trump and the Clintons. While it might be funny to muse about P.J. O'Rourke at an NPR party, we have the real-life, you-can't-make-this-stuff-up example of Mr. Donald J. Trump bribing the Clintons to come to his 2005 wedding (his third) with a donation to the Clinton Family Foundation:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-money-drew-hillary-clinton-wedding/story?id=32936868

mccullough said...

Hillary is pretty close to W in terms of policy and competence. So if you liked the W years, won't be much difference.

Joe said...

"...but she's wrong within normal parameters."

The goalposts of normal must have been relocated to Pluto.

Anglelyne said...

O'Rourke still around? I vaguely recall that he had prematurely entered "annoying Boomer past his best-by date" territory a long time ago. (Otherwise known, as noted by Gritzkofe, above, as "the point of no longer being able to discern that 'the normal parameters are wrong'")

mccullough said...

O'Rourke's lifestyle, just like other commenters on the right, has been fine under W and Obama and will be fine under Hillary. Their kids' lifestyles are fucked but they'll be dead by then so what do they care.

Jim Nicholson said...

Nice to see all the fascist lackeys are lining up for Trump here at Althouse too.

Frankly, I'll vote for Hillary. And I've voted Republican since Reagan's first term. Whatever her faults, she's not batshit insane and utterly ignorant.

Paul said...

At least Trump is very smart and he is NOT lazy. Hillary has shown with Benghazi and the emails (among many other scandals) she is stupid and lazy.

No, I'd prefer someone else than Trump but he is miles ahead of Hillary.

madAsHell said...

Frankly, I'll vote for Hillary.

Fuck you, troll!!

AJ Lynch said...

I think O'Rourke lives in Connecticut so it won't matter how he votes.

EMD said...

I'm voting Gary Johnson for President,

I wish Johnson had more charisma. Very dull.

YoungHegelian said...

@Jim,

Whatever her faults, she's not batshit insane and utterly ignorant.

No, she's not. It's just that there's just a very good chance that either she or at least one of her immediate entourage is a traitor. And I don't want those people anywhere near the Oval Office.

If you think I'm full of shit than you really, really need to overlap the two Venn diagrams of that damn email server & that money-laundering operation called the Clinton Foundation & see what comes out.

And, I'm sorry, Republicans who voted Republican "since Reagan's first term" do not call their fellow Republicans "fascist lackeys". Sorry, guy, shit like that's the tell.

William said...

I will vote for Trump, but I can see where O'Rourke is coming from. Hillary is a slow, dependable failure, but Trump has levels and dimensions of WTF that make any predictions about his presidency unreliable. I don't think he's crazy or stupid, but he's said a lot of things that are wrong and obnoxious. If you don't have doubts about the Donald, you're not paying attention. On the other hand, he's got Hillary, the media, and the BLM crowd actively campaigning for him so how can you resist........Our system of government has many redundancies and safeguards. I think we will survive either candidate. We survived Obama. It's true that Obama has been a catastrophe for the people living in the Middle East, but in the spectrum of American politics, he was no worse than Buchanan and, by some metrics, more successful than Hoover. We'll continue to muddle through with either Trump or Hillary.

Howard said...

Dogs Like PJ (Waters, Gilmour) 17:06

You gotta be crazy, you gotta have a real need.
You gotta sleep on your toes, and when you're on the street,
You gotta be able to pick out the easy meat with your eyes closed.
And then moving in silently, down wind and out of sight,
You gotta strike when the moment is right without thinking.

And after a while, you can work on points for style.
Like the club tie, and the firm handshake,
A certain look in the eye and an easy smile.
You have to be trusted by the people that you lie to,
So that when they turn their backs on you,
You'll get the chance to put the knife in.

You gotta keep one eye looking over your shoulder.
You know it's going to get harder, and harder, and harder as you
get older.
And in the end you'll pack up and fly down south,
Hide your head in the sand,
Just another sad old man,
All alone and dying of cancer.

exhelodrvr1 said...

That logic might be valid if it were 2008. But after 8 years of Obama? We might not be able to recover from 4-8 years of Hillary. Now we still at least have a chance.

Fabi said...

Bob Boyd's "rejection cascade" just cost me some Ketel One through my nostrils. It was worth it!

Fabi said...

It's been less than a week since I lined up for Trump and I'm already a fascist lackey! Do I get a t-shirt?

Diamondhead said...


"And, I'm sorry, Republicans who voted Republican "since Reagan's first term" do not call their fellow Republicans "fascist lackeys". Sorry, guy, shit like that's the tell."

Yeah, they also don't call their fellow Republicans "betas" or "cucks."

mccullough said...

Have to love all the W voters lambasting Trump. Maybe Trump will do something crazy like blow up the deficit or attack a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Maybe double the size of government. The GOP brand has been shit for a long time. Maybe Trump will improve it. He couldn't make it worse.

gadfly said...

"This man just can't be president," O'Rourke said, alluding to the nuclear codes the commander-in-chief takes control of upon assuming office. "They've got this button — this briefcase. He's going to find it."

Exactly what I have been saying for months, but PJ just has this magical way of getting his point across. An untrained adolescent with his hands on dangerous weapons of mass destruction is not a pleasant imagining. God help us if this really comes to pass.

Static Ping said...

I'm voting Gary Johnson for President,

I wish Johnson had more charisma. Very dull.


I wish Gary Johnson was actually a Libertarian.

mccullough said...

So what country is Trump going to nuke? Saudi Arabia?

grackle said...

She's wrong about absolutely everything, but she's wrong within normal parameters.

“Normal parameters” = conventional, politically correct parameters – which pretty much describes O’Rourke’s humor. Gentle, readable, light-hearted, normal parameter stuff. I prefer Bill Burr.

http://tinyurl.com/nxwsrs8

I can't speak for George Will, Rich Lowry, Bill Kristol or the guys at National Review, but I sense that there is a lot of the "personal" in their refusal to accept Trump. I am not saying that's right, or wrong.

Good writers, all. Enjoy reading and watching them when they are not jumping off ideological cliffs. But hysteria, tantrums and blatant hyperbole have taken them over. I hope it’s a temporary madness. Kristol goes pimping for a third party. George Will wants us to vote for Hillary. They are suffering from temporary political insanity. It’s one of the more extreme symptoms of TDS(Trump Derangement Syndrome).

I believe Trump obviously offends them on several levels.

Each of the above see themselves as representing the intellectual basis for conservatism and see the GOP as their institution to be guided and directed into certain directions and toward certain principles of their devising which are subject to their interpretation. Not real members of the intelligentsia themselves, they are nevertheless three of the more important popular purveyors of conservative thought in today’s media.

Trump ain’t intellectual. Oh, he’s intelligent. In fact I’m coming to believe Trump is an Einstein of communications. Or a Frankenstein, depending on your viewpoint, but I doubt he even knows who F. A. Hayek was – or Leo Strauss.

And I believe each probably see themselves as sophisticated, urbane and cultured. Will quotes Shakespeare and has been known in his more pedantic moods to refer to ancient Greek philosophers. Trump has no such pretensions, to put it mildly.

ellamentary said...

Young Hegelian, actually, I stand with Jim I probably wouldn't have called other posters "fascist lackeys" but I also would not assume that those to whom Jim was referring are in fact "fellow Republicans. I would not call Trump himself a "fellow Republican," that's for sure. He's been a D, an R, and third party at various times in his adult life. He chose R this time around because he felt he could more easily manage a hostile takeover of a weakened enterprise on the Republican side of things. But he is not a Republican in the way that PJ is, that Paul Ryan is, that either President Bush is, that I am. He is an opportunist who is using the Republican party to advance his own interests. As such, I do not owe him any particular loyalty. I agree with Jim that he is "bat-shit insane and utterly ignorant." I agree with PJ that Hillary is the lesser of these two evils.

mccullough said...

George Will fancies himself an astute fan of baseball but he knows nothing about that either. Guys like Will are pissed at Trump because their time is over. Symbolic conservatism is dead. Reagan revived it for a bit but it's now gone. Of course the country hasn't been conservative since 1928. But the death of symbolic conservatism really seems to bother some people.

mccullough said...

The Republicans are weak because of guys like W and Paul Ryan. Trump put the GOP out of its misery. Now the country club republicans can become country club democrats like most of them have over the past 25 years. The taxes are a bit higher but the deficits are still high so it's not much of a change. Still plenty of war with Hillary but since the country club republicans don't serve and neither do their kids, nothing to worry about.

Achilles said...

PJ Orourke, George Will, Kristol etc. are what happens when you spend your time with a set of principles that aren't attached to anything. Will argues his points cogently and effectively on the TV shows and in his articles.

Then he goes home to his DC house. He sees only people "like" him. He goes out to whatever social events people who make 6 figures in DC go to. He has never been to a Mexican league soccer game. He has never been on an actual construction site with people that work there. He has never been to a trucker bar at an interstate exit. And he certainly has never been to the dark places in Chicago.

And all of the people "like" PJ Orourke and George Will are going to vote for hillary. They have these principles that have never been connected to actual human beings. So when us idiots out here go and nominate a buffoon like Trump against their constant braying they have only one possible reaction.

All of the people they hang out with think we are stupid too.

Chris N said...

I could live with someone fairly experienced on defense (Bush Sr., Eisenhower...?), someone who'll allow the economy to grow and realize the depth of our fiscal issues and outstanding promises while taking advantage of trade opportunities. There sure is a lot of Beltway Bloat and those who profit most from it,

Someone who wants to reform immigration, try and especially get all the smart skilled people who want to be here here, and respects the sovereignty and suffering of many people who've already built what's here, someone who recognizes the importance of family and economic opportunity, growth and the appeal of America.

A decent, rather humble, but also shrewd and wise person into public service for decent reasons but has better things to live for...someone who gets business and won't take shit from those who give us Mostly Shit, but someone who'll focus more on alliances in a dangerous world full of opportunity and risk...

Uncool, into free and vigorous speech and not necessarily into the latest moral cause but practical when it comes to retail politics and public sentiment...

A short, rather silly wish-list right now...

Chris N said...

Oh, and someone who gets tech enough (engineer for a few years but no technotopian, lawyer but no trial lawyer or DC lifer or academic for too long) Someone not beholden to special interests and who'll keep the rules basic and simple, stupid, rewarding the people responsible, decent and smart enough to run their own affairs and clear about rule of law punishment for those that can't, or won't

I really must be drunk on my daydream...

Brando said...

"Yeah, they also don't call their fellow Republicans "betas" or "cucks.""

There is something sort of disturbing about people who have to unnecessarily sexualize their insults. It reveals something that should be left in the basement.

Brando said...

"Our system of government has many redundancies and safeguards. I think we will survive either candidate. We survived Obama. It's true that Obama has been a catastrophe for the people living in the Middle East, but in the spectrum of American politics, he was no worse than Buchanan and, by some metrics, more successful than Hoover. We'll continue to muddle through with either Trump or Hillary."

That's why I don't care much about whether Hillary or Trump wins--they're both awful and have no business in the White House, but we have enough checks and balances to prevent too much damage. And even if we had a "good" president, odds are against our system enabling anyone to fix our budget or regulatory climate anyway. So sit back, have a drink, watch the campaign for its entertainment value, and delight in the fact that either of one group of obnoxious people are going to be very disappointed in November (though the other group will of course be insufferable).

Brando said...

"O'Rourke's lifestyle, just like other commenters on the right, has been fine under W and Obama and will be fine under Hillary."

Is his lifestyle under threat if Trump gets elected? If so, how?

Is it possible, even if you think O'Rourke is wrong about Trump, that he's just expressing his opinion on the man and not fearful of losing some personal advantage? After all, he could just as easily shill for the man as Hannity has done.

Brando said...

"Have to love all the W voters lambasting Trump. Maybe Trump will do something crazy like blow up the deficit or attack a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Maybe double the size of government."

That's fair--one of the reasons for the rise of Trump is the fact that the GOP never really reckoned with the unconservative deviations of Bush. If nothing else, this campaign season should expose a lot of that.

Birkel said...

I called mccullough a moby quite a while back. Going to move forward and put that point on the old scoreboard.

tim maguire said...

O'Rourke's analysis is right--there is a limit to how much damage a Hillary presidency can do. She is an establishment creature, she will run an establishment White House. There is no limit with Trump, he is a complete wild card. Anybody who thinks they have a sense of what kind of president Trump might be is smoking some mighty fine weed.

Until I get to this: cubanbob said...Trump isn't a traitor. Clinton is.

I can't vote for a traitor.

You know what limits Trump's damage? He is a patriotic American. You can vote for Trump and not reject fundamental principles of what it means to be a republic. You can vote for Trump and not reject the Enlightenment. You can't do that with Hillary.

tim in vermont said...

An untrained adolescent with his hands on dangerous weapons of mass destruction is not a pleasant imagining

Well, we had one for eight years, but he liked 'em so much he first nixed a missile defense base that could have somewhat defended Europe from Iranian missile attack, then he stopped trying to prevent Iran from building same. I can't see how the risk from Trump is greater than that. Sorry. I just can't.

tim in vermont said...

Obama's foreign pollcy is what one would expect had Ethel and Julian Rosenberg had somehow become co presidents. Look for more of the same from Hillary.

Brando said...

"You know what limits Trump's damage? He is a patriotic American."

Whether he's actually patriotic is a matter for debate, but even if he was that does not limit the damage he could do. Even a well-intentioned person can completely wreck your car if he doesn't know how to drive it.

The fail-safe for Trump or Hillary in the White House is Congress and the Courts, as weakened as both of those institutions are.

tim in vermont said...

well-intentioned person can completely wreck your car if he doesn't know how to drive it.

Just imagine the damage somebody not "well-intentioned", at least as we understand the term, as in looking out for the people of the United States, can do. We have seen a lot of it in the past eight years.

Get over it, we are a democracy, our side lost the first battle, but the war remains.

ellamentary said...

Achilles, you posit, probably correctly, that Rourke and Will are out of touch with the common man, do not hang out at trucker bars or construction sites. This is, to your mind, some sort of condemnation, one you do not suggest applies to Mr. Trump, who is equally not at home at a Mexican soccer league or the "dark parts of chicago." I do not understand how you and your fellow Trump supporters can argue that he truly has the common touch, rather than simply being able to manipulate the masses by appealing to their basest instincts. So those of us appalled by this man's rise are supposed to welcome him as a party leader because he wins the "rather have a beer with" test for lots of people? Sorry, I'm not persuaded and that does not make me a snob, nor does it make me arrogantly out of touch.

Trump is temperamentally unfit for the highest office in the land. He is, for example, thin-skinned beyond belief, even eclipsing Barack Obama in that regard. He personalizes everything and reacts to anyone who does not immediately fall in line with his wishes like a tired 2 year old in a grocery story, by pitching a fit and lashing out. The world leader this most calls to mind is Kim Jong-Un.

His recent remarks about Hillary as Bill's "enabler" are a case in point. When Chris Cuomo asked him about these remarks, Trump first complained that the journalist--- yes, journalist--- had not begun the interview by congratulating the candidate-- yes, candidate--- for his success in becoming the presumptive nominee. He wants his reporters showing proper obsequiousness, apparently. Then when they were sparring about his comments about the Clintons, Trump explained that he went after Hillary on that issue in the way tht he did as "retribution" for what she had said about him. Yes, retribution was his word. And that's disturbing to me. He feels personally insulted (or so he claims) and his response is to exact retribution. (and that ignores the fact that while he always claims he is just a counter-puncher who never starts these things, he frequently launches his insults without any discernible provocation.) Well, Mr. Trump, the president of the United States should not waste time trying to settle personal scores by seeking retribution against perceived slights. I do not want a president who views the world through that lens. I'll leave that to North Korea, thanks.

exhelodrvr1 said...

"there is a limit to how much damage a Hillary presidency can do. She is an establishment creature, she will run an establishment White House"

A limit? Hardly. Consider the impact of likely supreme Court nominations, open borders/amnesty, and the foreign policy fuck-ups.

rehajm said...

The deck chairs need to be here not there.

tim in vermont said...

I do not understand how you and your fellow Trump supporters can argue that he truly has the common touch, rather than simply being able to manipulate the masses by appealing to their basest instincts.

So basically the masses should not be upset that their betters have decided to re-engineer the electorate for the Democrat machine and flood the low skilled workplace with cheap competition? Maybe their "basest instincts" have to do with the effects of the law of supply and demand and of the true motivations for erasing a border? Naah!

out of touch with the common man, do not hang out at trucker bars or construction sites. This is, to your mind, some sort of condemnation,

Exactly, no sense getting distracted by the cries of pain from the base lumpenproletariat who should suffer the policies imposed on them in dignified silence and continue voting for the hammer that is hammering them! Smart people like you don't like democracy, well, it is the worst system, except for all the others, and I am willing to ride this ride to the end.

Paco Wové said...

"The deck chairs need to be here not there."

Exactly.

Leave the boat? Are you mad!?

tim in vermont said...

Amazing how the Trump haters dehumanize and visualize "the masses" as infantile morons who need to be ruled, but not consulted.

I wonder why these people are mad?

Paco Wové said...

"there is a limit to how much damage a Hillary presidency can do"

I find it far more likely that Trump, if he managed to get elected, would spend his term not very effectively trying to deal with being part – part, mind you, not some sort of caudillo or dictator – of a system that is mostly hostile towards him. As such, I suspect the limits to his damage are far smaller than Clinton's.

tim in vermont said...

Stop making sense Paco! Don't you know that all of the fine young men in our military under Obama are just itching to don the jack boots and start oppressing their neighbors and families!?!

Although the people that Trump gives the willies to are the same people that lobby every day in some way large or small for the government to be more powerful. It's almost as if they are stupid.

damikesc said...

I ain't voting for Trump...but endorsing Hillary? That is some grade-A idiocy there.

Fuck, endorse Gary Johnson if endorsing peeps is so damned important to you.

"Another Liberaltarian shows his true colors."

WTF does that mean?


If you make the mistake of reading Reason, the only conclusion one can come to is that Libertarians are basically Progressives who dislike a few of the rules, but will always knuckle under to government domination if they agree with the cause.

AprilApple said...

Sorry Balls, No member of the GOP touches the level of criminal that is the Clinton Crime Family.

AprilApple said...

The Clinton Crime Family will institutionalize Obama's lawlessness and kick us further down the corrupt road to crony socialism.

Clinton will be our Corrupt South American dictator.

If Trump manages to find the briefcase with the codes and accidentally blows us all up, he'd be doing us a favor.

TCom said...

Everyone spouting off about how Trump is going to run off with the nuclear football, hide in a closet and start launching just advertise to informed people how truly ignorant they are.

Ever heard of the Two-Man Rule, silly gooses?

Also, the person saying Trump is "unfocused". Guffaw. Unfocused people don't put up towers in the biggest cities in the world. That takes a BIT of focus.

Why is it that the Trump haters routinely expose themselves as the most uninformed and knee-jerk out of all of us? I think they're just projecting their faults onto Trump.

MikeR said...

So much ridiculous stuff about Trump. It never ends. I see zero evidence that he is a sociopath, so don't spout the same idiocy about nuclear war that every politician on both sides said about their opponents in the Cold War. At least I know what Clinton wants to do: everything bad for the country. With Trump it'll probably be 50-50.

Rusty said...

" Whatever her faults, she's not batshit insane and utterly ignorant."

I know you're being serious which makes that statement all the more hilarious. Hillary is one metal coat hanger away from a full batshit melt down.

TCom said...

Trump is by far the safest option.

1. The press will not ignore him like they will Hillary. This alone is worth voting for him.

2. The only thing between him and the elite's wrath is the support of the people. Name another candidate so bound to the people they represent in recent history.

3. He has no reason to be doing this other than a sense of personal pride in his ability to do something about a problem he sees. He isn't doing this for money. He's made a ton of enemies. He's not here to sell our secrets like Hillary. His ego is a benefit, because it is motivation to make the people propping him up satisfied. If he betrays the people, he is done and he knows it.

Sounds like a pretty good choice to me. The haters just can't comprehend someone who doesn't sit around pondering William F. Buckley all day. He just gets the best people, asks tons of questions, and watches them like a hawk. He has been an executive all his life. This is what he is good at.

Rumpletweezer said...

The list of people too stupid to vote is getting longer.

Brando said...

"Just imagine the damage somebody not "well-intentioned", at least as we understand the term, as in looking out for the people of the United States, can do. We have seen a lot of it in the past eight years."

Nothing I've said is an endorsement of Hillary--far from it. I know the damage she would cause. I just don't think we can underestimate the damage Trump would cause as well. Two intolerable choices this fall.

But the sun will still rise after November, and while either of these crooks will do damage, we live in a largely 50/50 country that prevents anyone from exercising too much power, regardless of their dreams of grandeur. It'd be nicer to move in the right direction, but it is what it is.

Meanwhile, for entertainment value, I'm hoping this gets good and nasty. Enough to make us forget these people are good friends.

Gusty Winds said...

Hard to ignore this morning Quinnipiac Swing State Polls

FLORIDA: Clinton 43 - Trump 42; Sanders 44 - Trump 42
OHIO: Clinton 39 - Trump 43; Sanders 43 - Trump 41
PENNSYLVANIA: Clinton 43 - Trump 42; Sanders 47 - Trump 41

Trump is doing better against Clinton than Sanders. Wonder how the Democrat Superdelegates feel about all this?

Bill Kristol and Charlie Sykes must be having a coronary.

mtrobertslaw said...

Hillary is motivated by one thing--love of power. Trump is motivated by one thing--"making America great again." I have doubts whether Trump will be successful in realizing this, but I have no doubts about Hillary. She is a corrupt soul and no good can come from such a person exercising power.

Birkel said...

Gusty Winds:

The 15-18% in those polls that are uncommitted seems unreasonably high. This is especially true when the candidates have 100% name recognition.

But still very interesting.

amielalune said...

Brando: ".....we have enough checks and balances to prevent too much damage."

That is demonstrably not true. Have those checks and balances done anything to remotely stop Obungle and his agenda?

The media will give cover to Hillary just as they have for Obama; she will have proven once again she is above the law because she's a Clinton, just as he is because he's a "black" man.

In contrast, the media will hold Trump's feet to the fire on everything he does, good or bad. No thinking non-leftist/socialist/communist person could really think they would be remotely the same.

Henry said...

Trump is motivated by one thing--"making America great again."

First our hero tried buying real estate in Manhattan. That made him feel great, but sadly, it did not make America great. America continued to be not so great, especially compared to himself. They one morning, epiphany! The thing to make American great again was a casino in Atlantic City. Forget Manhattan. The only good thing about Manhattan he told his spaniel, is that it is next to New Jersey. Manhattan will never make America great again.

The casino in Atlantic City was a big success! Even when it went bankrupt it went bankrupt in a big way! New Jersey was awesome. The governor could shut down Manhattan whenever he wanted. But the casino did not make America great again. The truth was, even if you condensed all of New Jersey into a single-shot energy drink, it would not make America great again.

Now came the idea that should have changed everything. A reality show! Not just any reality show, but a reality show that would make America great again. People would watch the reality show and learn the secrets of the deal, from the greatest mastermind of dealiness there was. Himself! Warren Buffet lived in a cornfield. What an idiot. No one was asking Warren Buffet to star in a reality show.

It was the best reality show ever, starring himself. But seasons went by and America did not become great again. It began troubling his makeup sessions. He made quizzical expressions at the great jellied ham of his face in the mirror (what a face!). Why wasn't America great again? After all his efforts, why did America remain not so great?

What else of himself could offer? What? What?

Mike said...

1. There is no limit to the damage a decidedly liberal SCOTUS can do. Hillary has already signaled her desire to curb 1st and 2nd amendment rights and gone so far as to say Citizens United would be a litmus test. And we've already seen how the left bloc votes in lockstep now. How much bolder and they would be with two more fellow travelers!

2. Trump has operated in the "real world" as well as "reality TV" for a long time, yet Hillary's experience is all about government and leveraging government for her personal enrichment. He also used the laws and regulations to his benefit, but he wasn't in the back room writing them to his benefit like she has been and done. She is pathologically secretive: secret healthcare task force in 1993, secrets she stole from the Rose Law Firm in 1992 and hid until 1996 in the White House, secrets of the rapes and other assaults her husband has perpetrated on at least two continents and two islands and which she helped keep secret, her arrogant refusal of any and all FOIA requests, her "I don't recall" testimony in the mid-1990s when she didn't have any memory of anything she had done in the course of firing career travel office employees and putting in her Arkansas friends, her secret server set up in 2009 for the sole purpose of evading FOIA and giving herself control over information that by law belongs to the federal government not its employees, her secret squirrel Sid "Vicious" Blumenthal who sent her secret reports and secretly worked for her in violation of a direct order from Obama. In contrast, Trump has operated private and public companies in a most visible way.

What else do you need in order to see Trump as the lesser of two evils?

Brando said...

"That is demonstrably not true. Have those checks and balances done anything to remotely stop Obungle and his agenda?"

They may not be stopping him as much as some would like, but if you think he's getting whatever he wants just spend some time talking to Obama fans and other leftists. His immigration plan was blocked by the courts, he hasn't been able to get anything done on guns despite all the mass shootings and media exploitation, he couldn't get any of the Obamacare fixes necessary to extend the risk corridors (and that there is making the system collapse as insurers drop out), and forget climate change legislation. And while he let the Bush tax cuts expire on amounts over $400K, keep in mind he didn't have to do squat--the GOP in passing that law in the first place put in a sunset provision. Keeping the cuts for amounts below that is a lot more than we would have seen if the Dems had a supermajority in 2013.

There's a lot to complain about with Obama pushing his executive authority, and Hillary and Trump would do the same--but without an allied Congress or Courts even that authority is limited. If you want to see what it'd look like without such limits, look at LBJ in the mid-'60s or FDR in the '30s.

Brando said...

"Trump is motivated by one thing--"making America great again.""

If we're going to take Trump or Hillary at their words, then both are trying to do the best for this country. I could just as easily picture a Hillary fan saying she's going to fight for regular people. But there's little evidence either of them puts anything before their own ambition.

Birkel said...

Brando:
Slight correction. There is absolutely no evidence that Hillary pursues anything beyond her own ambition.

Trump offers more than zero. On that score, Trump is infinitely better. It's math.

Henry said...

Trump also offers less than zero. By the same math that's infinitely worse than zero.

But why are you dividing?

Why America / Trump and not America ^ Trump? Make America Squared Again!

Bill Peschel said...

Brando says: "That's why I don't care much about whether Hillary or Trump wins--they're both awful and have no business in the White House, but we have enough checks and balances to prevent too much damage."

This is why you should vote for Trump.

Because now there aren't that many checks and balances. A president who says, "I'll sign this bill, but I won't enforce this this and this for reasons"? That should be a call for impeachment. Instead, it's normal.

A bureaucracy that decides carbon dioxide is a pollutant and should be regulated? That decides Title IX is not just about equalizing participation in sports but a call to try men for rape without the standard legal protections? A politicized IRS that attacks Tea Party groups and destroys the evidence without consequences? We're here too. The federal government telling states what laws they should pass? Hello North Carolina.

If you want to avoid the creeping fascism of a centralized government, you want Trump to win. All of a sudden, we'll get the White House press corp finding their ethics. The New York Times will have new causes to fight. Ben Rhodes will get five figures giving speeches about how great it was under the Obama administration.

Bill Peschel said...

Brando: "His immigration plan was blocked by the courts"

That part of it, but not the orders to the Border Patrol to stop enforcing the law. And states still have their "sanctuary cities." It's only when he tries getting bills passed that he runs into problems.

And Obamacare may be spinning downward to its grave, but it's not there yet, and it's going to cause an almighty crash when it does.

Birkel said...

Henry:
Less than zero is impossible. That is your preference showing.

Henry said...

Less than zero is impossible.

How so? What is your baseline?

Scott M said...

Trump is motivated by one thing--"making America great again."

You misspelled "ego" and used three more extraneous words.

Birkel said...

Henry is innumerate.

Henry said...

Birkel is elementary.

What is your metric?
What is your baseline?
What are your units?
Why divide?

Birkel said...

Henry does not understand zero.

Henry said...

Henry cannot read minds.

Brando said...

"That part of it, but not the orders to the Border Patrol to stop enforcing the law. And states still have their "sanctuary cities." It's only when he tries getting bills passed that he runs into problems."

Right--I'm not saying creeping extensions of executive authority aren't a problem--clearly it does matter more these days who is in the White House than it used to simply because of the size and power of the federal government. But Congress and Courts can box that in at least somewhat (and could do more if they really asserted their muscle--which they often don't, because there's this sense of "I don't mind abuses so long as they're performed for my side" which enables the Sotomayors of the world to greenlight executive encroachments if they're for "good" things).

With luck, we'll weather the Trump or Hillary presidency. And if we don't, then we sort of brought it on ourselves.

Birkel said...

Henry cannot read, apparently.

Birkel said...

Henry: "But why are you dividing?"

Have you considered why that question was nonsensical, given what I typed @ 9:21 am?

Henry said...

This is silly stuff, but as I read it, you made three assertions:

Hillary = 0.
Trump > 0.
Trump > 0 = infinity.

I question your second assertion. What if Trump < 0?

I also question your algorithm. Why is the difference between Trump and zero an infinity? My mistake was to assume you were throwing a divide by zero into the mix, which has a semblance of math as opposed to just yet another assertion.

But stating that Trump is better than nothing is not math. It's a proof by assertion, a logical fallacy. Nothing is a high standard.

Birkel said...

Now, Henry, you are becoming boring. I asserted that anything times zero is zero. Therefore if Trump is greater than zero, he is infinitely better than Hillary.

Hillary = 0 (beyond her own ambition)
Trump > 0
Therefore
Hillary * infinity < Trump
QED

Your Trump hatred makes you thick. Ask around, I am no fan of Trump, Henry. But I am a fan of clear thinking. You are doing it wrong.

Birkel said...

Brandon above:
"But there's little evidence either of them puts anything before their own ambition."

5/10/16, 9:14 AM

The little evidence Brando referenced indicates his belief in greater than zero for at least one of them. My "correction" was that Hillary had zero and Trump represented the non-zero portion alleged in his quote.

Keep up, Henry.

Birkel said...

Brando...

Henry said...

So my first critique is actually correct.

William Chadwick said...

This is pretty much O'Rourke's shtick (and I speak as a fan of his writing): he's like Yogi Bear, only his mantra is "I'm smarter than the average Republican!" I think there's also a strong desire to be one of the cool kids.

Birkel said...

No, Henry. You offered a different opinion. Correct is the wrong word.

Big Mike said...

The problem is not Hillary's lies and broken promises. The problems are:

1) Her personal corruption, which is open, monumental, and unprecedented since the 19th century.

2) Her warmongering.

3) Her casual attitude towards data security

4) The raw stupidity -- there is no better word -- embodied in storing sensitive information on a weakly protected server. In this she is clearly an individual who is not at one with the realities of the 21st century.

So O'Rourke is wrong.

Brando said...

"The problem is not Hillary's lies and broken promises. The problems are:

1) Her personal corruption, which is open, monumental, and unprecedented since the 19th century.

2) Her warmongering.

3) Her casual attitude towards data security

4) The raw stupidity -- there is no better word -- embodied in storing sensitive information on a weakly protected server. In this she is clearly an individual who is not at one with the realities of the 21st century.

So O'Rourke is wrong."

O'Rourke simply thinks he understands Hillary better, and can quantify her level of awfulness, while Trump is likely to be far more awful in ways O'Rourke isn't willing to risk.

Far as I see it the level of known awfulness of both of them is so extensive that it's almost like debating whether you want your car burned before or after you drop it from a cliff. Either way, that car's screwed.

Birkel said...

Henry:
Let us sum:
1) You mistakenly suggested dividing.
2) you have a different opinion.
3) Your opinion is not a fact.

We good?

Sam L. said...

The Shark, It Hath Been Jumped.

tim in vermont said...

If Hillary finishes remaking the electorate, those of us with a libertarian bent better start thinking about communes on large tracts of land.

buck said...

Come on, P. J., you're better than this.

Quaestor said...

P.J. is going hate his new friends.