Bushes Polarize Like Progressives

Given the unanticipated election of Donald Trump, it's difficult to determine which establishment faction is more perturbed, liberals or old guard Republicans. Despite clear and unambiguous Clintonian corruption, neither “side” seems capable of respecting the democratic process when one of their own is not in the winner's circle. Thus, to them, the people's will—and, by extension, the fate of the nation be damned!

The childish cattiness that has resulted is expected of Democrats. They're myopically focused on reelection, but little else. What political party wouldn't be furious over losing over 1,000 officeholders during the Obama era—including, stingingly, the presidency? Yet, what's unseemly is for GOP stalwarts to publicly chastise their party's current standard bearer. For example, George W. Bush said, “This guy [Trump] doesn't know what it means to be president.” How's that not calling the kettle black? What happened to the generations-long tradition of remaining silent regarding one's presidential successors? Likewise, what of Ronald Reagan's Eleventh Commandment never to speak ill of another Republican? So much for honoring “the rules” of political discourse.

In truth, if Mr. Bush was going to “go there” he's waited eight years too long—and picked the wrong target. Recall, as a go-to excuse for Barack Obama's own multitude of failures, he conveniently “blamed Bush”. Specifically, Mr. Obama called his predecessor's deficit spending “unpatriotic” and “irresponsible”. For that demonization, the younger Bush has reason to be incensed. Not at Trump, but at the Democrat's hypocrisy for running through almost twice as much as he: 4.9 versus 9.3 trillion. If that's not egregious enough, what of Mr. Obama's cash payment of 1.7 billion to the pro-terrorist Iranian regime? Why was “W” as silent as a church mouse when actual presidential mismanagement—and malfeasance—transpired? (Is his anti-Trump fervor sour grapes for thwarting his brother Jeb's presidential prospects?)

As was widely reported, shockingly 41 voted for Hillary Clinton, and 43 voted for “none of the above.” How out of sync can two former Republican presidents be? In a recent speech “W” obtusely said, “At times, it can seem like the forces pulling us apart are stronger than the forces binding us together.” With their polarizing rhetoric on full display, isn't the Bush clan doing precisely that? Furthermore, doesn't their brand of divisiveness have the same negative impact as that of any progressive?

Naturally, the Bushes are free to squawk, and uselessly wring their hands. So, too, is the rest of the unsettled GOP establishment. However, piling on is a fool's errand that only makes matters worse. After all, thanks to the hard left MSM, untruths and distortions about Trump already run rampant. And unlike either Bush, at least President Trump has the courage to fight back against these false narratives rather than “dignifyingly” taking them. (Defeated Mitt Romney epitomized that failed philosophy.)

That both former presidents surnamed Bush would now speak out against a sitting president shows disdain for established decorum, and the voice of the electorate. With the nation coming apart at the seams during the disastrous Obama years, they collectively made not a peep. Apparently, for these beltway blue bloods, unjustly trashing Trump is a favorite pastime. That the Bushes partake shows their loyalties truly lie with the insulated political class (regardless of party affiliation) rather than with the voters. Moreover, as their sentiments are indistinguishable from that of Democrats, party labels are rendered meaningless. Herein, to any clear-thinking person is proof of the necessity of electing Donald Trump. The political pendulum has indeed swung far away from dynastic families—and, in 2016, an entitled insider. That maddening reality—as much as the brash billionaire himself—is deliciously driving the D.C. ruling elite daffy.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

“Santa” Trump Toys with Romney

“The degree of difficulty in Romney's dive last night was greater than a reverse 4½ somersault in tuck position. Stunning flipflop” - November 30^th tweet by ABC News analyst Matthew Dowd on Mitt Romney's complete Donald Trump attitude reversal

When you're a President-elect billionaire—and the world literally is your oyster—what's wrong with a little payback as political sport? Perhaps some subtle score settling for a willing dupe with a history of being manipulated by Democrats? Therefore, what's more fitting than to have this outspoken naysayer publicly humiliate himself with his smirking flip-flopping?

A delicious fate for Mitt Romney: a modern-day GOP Benedict Arnold. In retrospect, was his blistering rant criticizing Mr. Trump last March actually Shakespearean jealousy for a man who ultimately accomplished what he failed to achieve in 2012? To this end, Mitt acknowledged:

“By the way, it’s not easy winning. I know that myself. He did something I tried to do and was unsuccessful in. He won the general election and he continues with a message of inclusion and bringing people together, and his vision is something which obviously connected with the American people in a very powerful way.”

Actually, anyone familiar with winning knows it's easy. It's the losing part—holding grievances—that's tough (ask Hillary!). In this light, publicly condemning Mr. Trump as a “phony,” a “con man” and a “fake” sounds like self-serving sour grapes. Without a shred of proof, how is Mr. Romney disloyalty to the person who became the voters' choice not character assassination?

Ah, the difference eight months and an election make. Today, this brown-noser finds Mr. Trump's dining company to be “enlightening and interesting and engaging.” This dynamic proves that red meat at dinner (in the come-on chance to become Secretary of State) has attracted from the woodwork Mr. Trump's most pesky political housefly. Now, it's sweet revenge to hear Mr. Romney buzzing a radically different tune: that of The Donald's praises.

Out of touch, two-faced Romney epitomizes establishment Republicans: the polished, weak willed status quo. He's another creature of Washington: precisely what Mr. Trump ran against. Therefore, it's sheer folly for anyone to believe Mitt's in serious contention for anything besides further disappointment. In fact, on the campaign trail, Mr. Trump declared:

“I said the guy is a stone cold loser, he choked and when you're a choker, you can never give a choker a second chance. It's too important. A choker is a choker.”

With such a pressing need for a new beginning for the country, why would Mr. Trump hamstring himself with someone he views in this way? Mr. Romney's failed track record in 2008—as well as his unsubstantiated Trump criticisms in 2016—cannot be disregarded. It's obvious Donald Trump doesn't suffer losers or fools—beyond perhaps toying with them a bit. Therefore, logically, this holiday season sycophants like Romney top Santa's naughty list. That roster doesn't include the next Secretary of State.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Forgettable, Regrettable Republican Turncoats

“I want my chance to fail as miserably as the Mitt Romney campaign failed. Romney lost eight of nine swing states, won 6 percent of the black vote and only 27 percent of Hispanics. I want my chance to do as poorly.” – Kellyanne Conway, Donald Trump’s new campaign manager, making light of establishment Republicans humiliating losses in the past two presidential elections

Despite a seemingly endless litany of scandals and policy failures at home and abroad, the only reason why Barack Obama was gifted a second presidential term is because some 4 million conservatives stayed home on election day. In retrospect, they were convinced the Romney-Ryan ticket wasn't loyal to Republicans, and time has proven this assessment true. How else does one explain Mr. Romney's violation of Ronald Reagan's “11^th Commandment” never to speak ill of fellow Republicans? Yet, his error is far more insidious than that. Perhaps for spite at the rejection of his own 2012 candidacy, Mr. Romney has done all that he can to publicly thwart the overwhelming Republican choice in 2016:

“Frankly, I think we have a good reason to believe that there’s a bombshell in Donald Trump’s taxes. I think there’s something there. Either he’s not anywhere near as wealthy as he says he is or he hasn’t been paying the kind of taxes we would expect him to pay, or perhaps he hasn’t been giving money to the vets or to the disabled like he’s been telling us he’s doing.”

Without a hint of irony, this oblivious “gentleman statesman” parroted the same scurrilous charge (non-payment of income tax) against Donald Trump that was wrongly leveled at him by the smarmy former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). From the slander-shielding Senate floor on August 2nd, 2012, Reid claimed:

“As we know, he [Romney] has refused to release his tax returns. … So the word is out that he has not paid any taxes for 10 years. Let him prove he has paid taxes, because he has not.”

Of course, such statements were all lies. After Obama's reelection, Mr. Reid smugly rationalized his dishonesty to CNN's Dana Bash: “He [Romney] didn't win, did he?”

November's upcoming presidential election is a simple binary choice—without a third option. (After all, that was the purpose of the robust primary season and 16 Republican candidates.) Regarding the clear winner of that process, Donald Trump, establishment Republicans fall into three equally unacceptable camps. The first is Mitt Romney's outright criticism. The second is exemplified by “not ready” Paul Ryan's coy, tepid and waffling support. The third is the Bush Family's silence (a non-endorsement conclusively demonstrated by two former U.S. presidents—Republicans both—who boycotted their own party's convention). One and all, these are the actions of self-absorbed turncoats. Anything less then full-throated support of record-breaking Donald Trump is de facto support of Hillary Clinton: the most crooked politician ever to be within a hair's breath of the Oval Office.

Much as insulated Republican elites would dearly love a face-saving third option to hide behind, there isn't one. Regardless of party affiliation, they have been utterly corrupted by the rarefied air of the beltway bubble. Therefore, in function, they are no different from Democrats. These are servants of the status quo; and that's what scandal-immersed Hillary guarantees: an Obama third term. Indeed, why would they advocate for an outsider when that posture inherently threatens their own power bases? They are precisely what is wrong with the GOP.

This absolute tone deafness to the people's suffering (under the disastrous Obama years) neatly explains the Trump phenomenon. So, their quiet support of Mrs. Clinton is no mystery. To a person, these entrenched RINOs have forgotten their purpose as representative voices for average citizens. The Bushes, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan (and their entitled ilk) have been at the pinnacle of American political power. Unfortunately, by their collective behavior they are ingrates, demonstrating no honor or patriotism to our country when power is not within their greedy mitts. Instead, they nurse petty, personal beefs with Donald Trump rather than standing with the change-demanding electorate. Thus, these “public servants” do only what's good for them: America's future be damned. And if Hillary Clinton is elected, it will be.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

“Catty” Romney: Democrats' Dupe

Mitt Romney has joined the Bushes' sour grapes chorus. Same as Jeb this election cycle, Mr. Romney is obviously still smarting from 2012—and his own failed presidential bid. Like the Bush Family—and his former RINO running mate (now House Speaker Paul Ryan)—Mr. Romney seems determined, for sheer spite, that Donald Trump should share his same loser's fate.

Ironically, Mitt Romney is drawing from the same bag of Democrat's dirty tricks used against him. Recall the false charge of not paying taxes (for more than a decade) was insanely parroted by current Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. Yet, this Republican fop told Fox News: “I think we have good reason to believe that there’s a bombshell in Donald Trump’s taxes. I think there is something there.” Even if true—and the facts are presently unknown—isn't that something the opposing party is supposed to disclose?

Astonishingly, this dope's diatribe doesn't end there. Mr. Romney has also accused the Republican presumptive nominee of naked discrimination: “Presidents have an impact on the nature of our nation, and trickle-down racism, trickle-down bigotry, trickle-down misogyny, all these things are extraordinarily dangerous to the heart and character of America.” This is unsubstantiated slime from a “fellow Republican” who states: “I wish everybody in the Republican Party had rejected Mr. Trump and chosen someone else.” That's a contemptible attitude.

In retrospect, given Mitt Romney's “character,” is it any wonder that 3 million conservatives (with instinctual cold feet) avoided voting for this weasel? More to the point: why does the GOP habitually eat their own? Democrats never publicly criticize each other. Furthermore, why is it that establishment Republicans completely ignore the will of the people who elect them? As a case and point is undermining Donald Trump, the voters 2016 standard bearer. Why have the Bushes and tag team Romney-Ryan betrayed the electorate?

For his part, Mr. Trump has not earned tepid primary victories, he's achieved resounding ones. Among a field of 17 other impressive candidates, The Donald won 37 state contests, and a record-breaking 13.4 million votes. Finally, there's a bulldog on the political landscape: a fervent defender of all good things American. Yet, these self-important, indulgent alley cats do nothing but spray and hiss at the loss of their own influence.

As a result, these loyal party (not people or country) apparatchiks are de facto Hillary supporters. A non-vote for Donald Trump is a vote for his corrupt, insider opponent. No other reasonable conclusion is possible. The latest illustrative example of Republican misconduct: a backroom deal to dump Trump at the convention has been gleefully reported by The Washington Post. These entrenched elites are precisely what is wrong with our political system. That's why an outsider like Donald Trump is so essential come election day in November.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Invasion of Political Body Snatchers

“It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.” - Ronald Reagan

Why does the Washington Times consistently allow know-nothing liberals—the Oren M. Spieglers of the world—to speak for conservatives? After a robust Republican primary of 17 impressive candidates, the voters have made their choice. That selection—unconventional Donald Trump—has accrued more votes than former nominees Mitt Romney and John McCain. In America true political power still resides with 'We the People.' Therefore, Mr. Ryan's coy, Johnny-come-lately “support” doesn't demonstrate patriotism (as Mr. Spiegler wrongly claims), but contempt for it.

Despite what ever personal reservations he is privately entitled to, Mr. Ryan's long-forgotten duty is to us, not himself. Yet, his entrenched elitist resistance shows he “knows better.” Therefore, the House Speaker is no longer a public servant (a representative). He's been in Washington so long he fancies himself a de facto overlord. Is it any wonder that average citizens want an outsider (beyond the body snatching beltway) for president?

Though has actions, Mr. Ryan doesn't believe in the “traditional tenets of the Republican Party” either. Beyond lip service—to ideals like limited government or his broken promise to repeal Obamacare—he hasn't “made a career out of railing against” the ills of government, he has enabled them. Recall, Mr. Ryan's been in office since the tail end of Bill Clinton's presidency (1999) and all through the economically disastrous Obama years. Further, who else but he has recklessly and irresponsibly approved 2 trillion more to the nation's Chinese credit card? In truth, during Mr. Ryan's entire time in Congress, the country has already had budgets “wildly out of balance and add[ed] trillions of dollars to the deficit.” Therefore, anything billionaire businessman Trump likely does will be an improvement. Yet, a vote for Hillary is for an economy-killing, Obama-preserving third term. It's mad hatter lunacy: the wrongheaded decision to ram the same intractable iceberg that sunk the RMS Titanic.

Speaking of a monstrous block of ice, Mrs. Clinton, as president, is not the “lesser of two evils.” Not by a long shot. A habitual liar under multiple federal investigations for corruption, influence peddling—and perhaps even Server-gate treason—is preferable? After the editor who approved publication of Mr. Spiegler's propagandist “Hold Ryan accountable” is subdued and heavily medicated, the men with straitjackets should be immediately dispatched to that author's Upper Saint Clair, PA address. One expects this utter nonsense from the progressive Washington Post, but not from their evidently body snatched counterparts at the Washington Times.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

2016: “nice” losers, nasty winners

The presidential candidate of Midwestern nostalgia, Ohio governor John Kasich, is a nice man. Unfortunately, the 2016 election cycle is a meat-grinder: equal parts unpredictability and contentiousness, not decency. Therefore, “nice guy” candidates like the highly likable and eminent Dr. Ben Carson, in the same Kasich mold, trail badly in the polls. In any case, the electorate is disillusioned by the establishments of both political parties, as well as the propagandist, one-sided MSM that carries the Democrat's swill of half-truths, misleading statements by omission, and outright cover for lies (like Joe Biden's 1992 "misunderstood" objection to an end-term Republican president making a Supreme Court nomination.) All under Mr.Obama's golf-playing watch: 10 trillion in additional debt; almost 8 more years of economic downturn; 93 million able-bodied Americans unable to find employment; Democrat's pandering to Radical Islam, illegal aliens and Black Lives Matter; Europe awash in 60 million migrants and the Middle East on fire with terrorism. And lest I forget our pro-Islamic president's crowning legacy: the high probability proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East under the control of Iranian ayatollahs.

To any clear thinking person, is it any surprise that everything is “throw the bums out?” (This means you too, House Speaker Paul Ryan, with your “fresh start” 2 trillion dollar budgetary capitulation to Democrats.) In 2016, it takes no genius to realize that voters are fed up to their eyeballs. Consequently, Kasich's fond Americana of homemade apple pies or “I Love Lucy” reruns is out-of-step with the timbre of the country. The long-suffering silent majority is awake, and the political landscape rightfully trembles: a mobilized army is at the Republican ballot box. This unique phenomenon (with obvious causes and contrarily unforeseeable results) is the real life manifestation of “Network” fictional newscaster-prophet Howard Beale's justified rage at the system. Simply put, like him, we're 'mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore.'

Make no mistake: this is a year of unprecedented, hardscrabble political blood-sport. Therefore, genteel non-brawlers for the presidency like Mitt Romney (who had his chance 4 years ago) not only need not apply, they should keep silent by invoking Ronald Reagan's 11^th commandment of not speaking ill of fellow Republicans, even primary-leading Donald Trump. After all, we don't need 3 million uninspired conservatives staying home as they did for the “elder statesman of 2012” who gifted Mr. Obama his disastrous second term.

Beyond that, it is a mistake to assume the “mad as hell” ire is just a “guy” thing. Historically anti-suffrage Democrats' bray today about unfairness to women such as the gender pay-gap, but in Hillary Clinton's State Department (that mysteriously “lost” 6 billion) as in Mr. Obama's White House, the hypocrisy of paying women less for the same work is still firmly entrenched. Yet, outrageously, it is not Democrat's being demonized for their real life records of actual economic discrimination. It's the aforementioned nice guy, John Kasich, whose innocuous statement (“of many women who left their kitchens to go out and to go door to door to put up yard signs for me,”) relates to his memory of first running for political office in 1978.

His words are not descriptive of his current view of the role of women in 2016. This rabid MSM distortion is exactly what I mean by the press's “misleading statements.” Rather than faithful and objective reporting decades long gone, the fourth estate intentionally omits context—and actively misconstrues what is said—to mean something never intended. It is also no coincidence that all of these yellow journalistic “dirty tricks” benefit Democrats. How else could a scandal-laden, habitual liar (under as many as three federal investigations for corruption and influence-peddling) be a lock for her party's presidential nomination?

In psychological terms this disgraceful political dynamic is classic projection. Blaming “others,” specifically Republicans, for the precise mind-set, behavior and policies that they themselves are guilty of. In any case, if it is acceptable to take Kasich to task for his off-the-cuff statement regarding a woman's political role in 1978, it is fair game to also mention a highly relevant front-running Democrat's example. Of course, I coyly refer to 1998's “Zipper-gate” scandal: Hillary's spouse Bill and his paramour, the then blue dress-wearing 22-year-old intern, Monica Lewinsky. My point: seduced by a powerful older man (a U.S. president no less) was that impressionable young woman championed by Hillary—today's “women's rights icon”—or mercilessly criticized by her as a “narcissistic loony toon?”

The subsequent DNA evidence of Bill's extra-marital dalliance proved Hillary's assessment untrue (as with her future, similar misstatements on Benghazi, Server-gate and “Clinton Cash”). Yet, propped up by the media (same as Obama), her false narrative as the “wronged wife” persists to this day. Indeed, Hillary's history of withering attacks on the cadre of women of Bill's '90s “bimbo eruption” demonstrate the pair are no respecters of anything related to women. Further, politicians with the Clinton surname are much more deserving of a prison stint rather than a “rosy” reward of taxpayer-funded habitation in the White House.

All of the above demonstrates that American politics is a dirty, ego-driven business. Unfortunately, the kind and well intentioned get crushed underfoot. The unfair treatment of Kasich (and Carson) is a case and point. There is no room in the current political climate for these men of authenticity. However, as a voice of reason, the role of vice president remains a real possibility to temper the Machiavellian passions of the next U.S. president.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Pruden: promoting politics or fiction? (Wrong predictions: Hillary won't run & Romney will join the 2016 presidential race)

One wonders whether weekly Washington Times columnist Wesley Pruden sees tweety-birds when he makes his Twilight Zone political prognostications. Case and point: recall his January 15th column entitled "Why Hillary won't run for president." Well, she is (and outrageously still leads in national Democratic polls despite persistent obfuscation and the likely criminality of Server-gate: the 21st century version of the Nixon Watergate tapes).  Fast forward to today's analysis of the political landscape, "Now the real fun is about to begin" where Mr. Pruden laughable claims that Mitt Romney may be jumping into the 2016 presidential race due to Jeb Bush's flagging popularity.  Did he forget the other 13 Republican unmentioned contenders currently registering in the polls already vying for the nomination or did he take a page out of Brian Williams' helicopter-under-fire playbook and for kicks-and-giggles spin a tall-tale?

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/15/wesley-pruden-why-hillary-clinton-wont-run-for-pre/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/24/wesley-pruden-with-joe-biden-campaign-2016-fun-abo/

Trump: chauvinist not misogynist

The powers-that-be at Fox News are ratings geniuses and the proof is in the pudding: Twenty-four million people (7.9 million in their prime advertising demographic of 25 to 53); the highest-rated non-sports cable telecast of all time and the most-watched presidential primary debate ever. The contest, moderated by Megyn Kelly, Bret Baier and Chris Wallace, was lively and exciting, pulling no punches (which is exactly as it should be).  I had expected little more than a vacuous beauty contest, but what was clearly demonstrated was the astonishing breadth and depth of the Republican bench.  Any one of them would make a superior leader to the dead weight we have now or the progressive, Sal Alinsky, big government radicals populating Hillary's inevitable coronation.

I applaud Megyn Kelly for her pointed, prosecutorial questions directed at front-runner and political lightning rod Donald Trump.  When Ms. Kelly said, “Mr. Trump, one of the things people love about you is you speak your mind and you don’t use a politician’s filter. However, that is not without its downsides, in particular, when it comes to women.  You’ve called women you don’t like “fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals” her assessment was a fair one.  It was also a viewer's bonanza: Mr. Trump should well know anything transmitted in the Twitter universe (or on the internet) is “out there” forever in the public domain.  And when running for U.S. president—a big boy or big girl job if ever there was one—virtually any question under the sun regarding public statements, actions or behavior of a candidate should be fair game.

For all of his vast material resources, Mr. Trump is ego-driven, lacking humility and any semblance of class.  His wealth and social position—which he freely lords over the less successful (a.k.a. everyone else) that he feels attacked by—makes the basis of his chauvinism (or feelings of superiority) economic posturing.  Therefore, while the target of his vitriol can be, and often are, successful women like Megyn Kelly or Rosie O'Donnell, it is not exclusive to that category of person.  He is actually an equally opportunity offender (much in the same crude mold as provocateur and shock-jock Howard Stern) and not a true misogynist in the traditional sense of the word.

Republicans need a bold contender: a non-politically correct truth-teller to reclaim the White House in 2016 that much is obvious.  As past is prologue, in 2012 Mitt Romney lacked a fighter's passion and failed to inspire 3.5 million Republicans to the polls.  However, Mr. Trump is the other extreme, a brawler who likes to fight for its own sake.   I suspect that lack of measured restraint—a plus when intimidating in business, but a deadly character flaw in the finesse of politics—is likely to ultimately be his Achilles heel.  In the long run though it does not matter, in the flameout of “The Donald's” afterglow, attention will fortuitously be cast on the legitimate hopefuls like Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson.

Fox News got the whole enchilada: tough, thought-provoking questions and candid candidate responses, a spirited debate for the record books, high viewership and a likely kingly sum in advertising dollars.  Beyond that and despite ill-founded objections, the event was balanced.  While it is true that some candidates got more attention or face-time than others, no undue favor was evident to any candidate.  Contrast that to the typical fare of the MSM that is hopelessly biased in favor of Democrats (think of the Romney-Obama debate when moderator Candy Crowley interjected her pro-Obama opinion into the proceedings regarding when Benghazi was first labeled a terrorist attack.)  Indeed, Fox News' program is the new gold standard in political debates and should readily be copied by the other networks.

My only disappointment is that Mrs. Clinton (Socialist Bernie Sanders and the motley crew of other nondescript Democrats) was not on that stage to take an even more well-deserved grilling.  Benghazi, Server-gate, Charity-gate, Planned Parenthood, other lies and alibis: my mind boggles at the forever lost possibilities.  Does anyone seriously believe that future MSM moderator-led debates will challenge the Democrats in any meaningful way or ask them anything remotely controversial?

It will be a yawn-fest: a typical liberal press love-in like the soft consequence-free cocoon the coddled Mr. Obama has enjoyed for the last six and a half years.  The American people will learn nothing new and the myths and propaganda of the Democrats will be carefully reaffirmed.  One hopes Mr. Trump will still be around the debate stage to shake things up with Hillary.  I doubt he has the temperament to be president in 2016, but to knock Mrs. Clinton off of her precarious perch is a job he was born to do.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Deconstructing the Trump phenomenon

From the perspective of all of us “average Joes,” I think it is fair comment that virtually anyone running for U.S. president these days is, by definition, a shameless self-promoter—with something of a God-complex—or a loose screw.  With the multitude of problems in the world, who would want the pressures that come to bear or that fish bowl existence?

Although likely to flame out as shooting stars are wont to do, Mr. Trump is channeling the very real “I’m mad as hell and I’m not gonna take this anymore” sentiments of the unhinged UBS news anchor Howard Beale (a fictional character played to Oscar glory by Peter Finch in 1976’s Network).  And the political powers-that-be on both sides of the aisle better take heed: it is not the first time a long-shot political neophyte has caused a populist phenomenon that has led to the White House.   

That being said, the MSM is squarely taking aim at “The Donald,” busy crafting another superficial bogeyman of a monopoly comb-over caricature (only minus the mustache and the monocle).  This is the same playbook effectively used to pigeonhole Romney as an out of touch/white/rich/Republican elitist.  Sound familiar? However, unlike Mr. Romney (who was too busy playing the gentlemanly elder statesman to take the gloves off and fight for the presidency), Mr. Trump gives as much guff as he gets. 

Whether viewed as good, bad or indifferent, Donald Trump is the genuine article, himself: a colorful, bombastic creature of Capitalism—and the fundamental American principles of freedom, self-determination, free-speaking and respect for law—rather than a bowing apologist traveling the world on bended knee (Obama) or the blasé blamer of Benghazi (Hillary) on the nonsensical, a video.

I don’t know if the scribe of “The Art of the Deal” is truly electable—only time will tell­—but there is no doubt more than six years in that the American people have gotten a raw deal at every turn with the disastrous Obama administration.  Mr. Trump has the skill set to do much better: in the true Machiavellian fashion of exaggerating one’s hand, outright lying or otherwise outmaneuvering one’s opponent across a bargaining table, Mr. Trump excels.  And unlike the leading Democratic nominee (who has likely bartered favorable government influence to cronies to amass a personal fortune known as the “Clinton Cash” scandal), “The Donald” has a legitimate and undisputable track record of success.  After all, one’s name doesn’t end up on the side of Manhattan skyscrapers for nothing.

Detractors of Mr. Trump criticize him for his brashness (as if plain-speaking is some kind of Orwellian thought-crime in the Democrat’s politically correct nomenclature), because of his willingness to shoot from the hip by call things what they actually are.  An important example: border-jumpers are an underclass of illegal alien “invaders,” not misunderstood immigrants.  That is precisely what is causing “The Donald’s” surge in the polls.  It turns out Americans find refreshing people who take the common sense approach (little seen inside Washington’s elitist beltway bubble) of forcefully articulating what the suffering, silent majority of average citizens, like me, is thinking.  The surprise here is one needn’t have the warmth or charisma of a Ronald Reagan; one resonates to the truth of the message even while remaining unsure about the caliber of its speaker.

Indeed, Americans are beyond fatigued with the “don’t trust your lying eyes” mantra of hell or high water agenda-driven progressive Democrats.  The electorate is starved for truth-telling leaders who will level with them, especially when most circumstances in the future are likely to be quite dire.  That’s not Barack Obama and it’s certainly not Hillary Clinton: Democrats who have gotten a complete pass for every equivocation, every outright lie and every sleazy scandal thus far.  

Similarly, the MSM attacks Mr. Trump for his social status, but largely ignores the fact that “public servant” Hillary is also famous and fabulously wealthy, living in mansions, riding in private planes and limousines.  Certainly, Mrs. Clinton’s lavish lifestyle does not disqualify her from her obsessive presidential ambitions.  However, the difference between the two is as Mr. Trump is already a self-made  billionaire—possessing all the money, fame and power of perhaps an incorruptible Midas—while Hillary (and her aptly named former president hubby, Bill) have repeatedly attached dollar signs to their self-serving loyalty.

In many ways, Mr. Trump is the wild card in American politics.  But, so was Barack Obama when America took a terrible gamble on him, twice.  Yet, “The Donald” is not likely to be the petulant, empty-suited, dilettante of a joker Mr. Obama has turned out to be or the entitled, greedy, “queen of mean” that is Mrs. Clinton’s reputation.  If elected, maybe Mr. Trump will actually work for the greater good of the average American.  If so, that’s more than most currently in public office are doing.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Romney's lesson lost on Hillary (re. Joseph Curl, February 1, 2015)

I congratulate Joseph Curl on his brilliant Political Theater column "The lesson for Hillary in Mitt's decision."  His comparison of real life political figures to the fictitious title character of classic American cinema, Citizen Kane--a seriously flawed man of not only of extreme hubris and material wealth but also a certain myopic self-obsession and empathetic emotional bankruptcy--is telling.  Whether or not these seemingly universal impulses of political leaders stem from some deep-seated psychological need for public adoration is interesting.  However, I have no doubt that this selfsame desire has its foundation in the ego's need to control others.  As another astute Washington Times columnist Monica Crawley recently opined, Ms. Clinton, the likely Democratic contender for president, would "walk over her grandmother" to succeed Mr. Obama.  In the case of the Clintons, their compulsive self-serving power-seeking rises to the level of an art form; a specific parallel between them and Citizen Kane.  Also, like the adulterous Citizen Kane whose political ambitions were ultimately thwarted by scandal, Ms. Clinton will have many strikes against her like age (she will be 69 in 2016), a paper thin resume of any actual accomplishments and the looming political baggage of Benghazi.  Unlike Mr. Romney who has the class to step aside so that the Republicans can nominate the most viable candidate, nothing will likely dissuade Ms. Clinton.  Republican detractors will be smeared as misogynists; an absurd fiction dutifully disseminated by a sycophantic liberal mass media that will cover for her at every turn.  As an example, Benghazi will be portrayed as "old news" and a non-issue.  Ironically, Citizen Kane, a newspaper publisher, could not muzzle the press that publically exposed his peccadilloes.  Ms. Clinton will have no such problem.  Like Romney, she should step aside for the good of the country: if the last six years has proven anything it is that America does not need another community-organizing Saul Alinsky liberal in the White House and the resulting continuation of cultural and geopolitical chaos.

Notes:

Re. paper thin resume: As Senator, Hillary had only a total of twenty bills passed. Of those, fifteen were purely symbolic in nature. (Dick Morris: Hillary's 'Paltry' Senate Record)

Re. Saul Alinsky: In 1969, Hillary Rodham wrote a 92-page senior thesis for Wellesley College titled "There Is Only the Fight . . . ": An Analysis of the Alinsky Model. The subject was famed radical community organizer Saul Alinsky.

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

Why Hillary can and will run (How Washington Times columnist Wesley Pruden has it wrong)

It's a rare occurrence for Wesley Pruden to read the tea leaves so wrongly, but in this case his wishful thinking is tantamount to hysterical blindness.  It is a pop culture axiom succinctly expressed by the Oracle character in the Matrix movie: 'What do powerful men [or women] want?'  The answer: 'more power.'  In the battle of dueling Washington Times columnists the women have it when Monica Crowley correctly points out in her brilliant "Hillary and Obama" piece of Thursday, January 15 that Mrs. Clinton would "walk over her grandmother" to succeed Mr. Obama as president.  In the case of the Clintons, their obsessive self-serving power-seeking rises to the level of an art form.  I have no doubt in their private moments to this day that the Clintons—who are legendary for holding grudges—still grouse about the fresh-faced political upstart that was the Barack Obama phenomenon of 2008 that stole "her" prize.  Unlucky for them, Mr. Obama was an attractive, articulate blank slate that the average person could, and did, literally tie his hopes to, and a better narrative: the first Afro-American president.  That trumps the first woman president narrative by a mile, and besides Hillary has enough political baggage to make Samsonite jealous.  In any case, thanks to Bubba's actions of a few years ago I knew the fix was in—that Mrs. Clinton was positioning herself for a 2016 run—back in 2012.  Indeed, given their longstanding political grudge why would Bill stump for the very person that prevented his spouse's ascension to the White House during the 2012 Democratic convention?  The answer lies, I suspect, in a political calculation; something at which the Clintons excel.  If Romney ran successfully against Obama's weak record and won, the likelihood of Republican control of the executive branch for eight years would likely end Hillary's window of opportunity.  (She will be 73 in 2020.)  Better to use Bill's "good-ole-boy" persona and honey-tongued charm to woo the voters and shore up Obama who would be out in four years.  Mark my words, Mr. Pruden: Hillary can and will run.  Her playbook will alternately play the gender card or the victim card of long-suffering wife as it suits her.  It will be a one-note Virginia Slims political campaign of "we've come a long way, baby" and phrases like "breaking the glass ceiling" will be used.  Republican detractors will be smeared as misogynists; an absurd fiction dutifully disseminated by a sycophantic liberal mass media.  Democrats know: say the lie loud enough, and loud enough, at it filters down as truth to the low-information voter.  The fact that Ms. Clinton public persona is shrew-like or that she lacks Bubba's political gifts or is a polarizing political force á la Obama is irrelevant when the press will cover for her at every turn.  As an example, Benghazi will be portrayed by Mrs. Clinton simply as "old news" and a non-issue; more road kill in the rearview mirror of the relentless Clinton political machine.  A multi-millionaire using phrases like "dead broke" may be an inartful lie, but Mrs. Clinton is exactly right when she states that it will "make no difference" as most Democrats exist in a consequence free zone of an adoring, biased press.

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/15/wesley-pruden-why-hillary-clinton-wont-run-for-pre/