Saturday, December 31, 2016
A Tourist Spot?
This sign is supposedly from a road in a remote part of Australia. Yikes. Think I'll stay in the designated tourist areas!
You Say You Want a Resolution V
It's really hard for me to realize that I've been plunking away on this little blog for 5 years. Yikes! But they say time flies when you're having fun. And it has been a bit of fun. Not sure how many are reading but the stats say there are a few of you out there, so like most other things in my life, as long as it continues to be fun, I'll continue to do it.
I've got a few fun little weekly features, but only one annual feature. I try and put a list of resolutions down this time of year and see how it goes. You can see 2012 here, 2013 here, 2014 here, 2015 here. If you take the time to look at them, you'll a few successes and some failures. But it's not bad to think about these things. And like the meme says, it's not going to change my life or enhance world peace. So here goes.
But first let's take a look at resolutions for 2016 and how I did:
Focus--I fully admit to sometimes spreading myself too thin and getting involved in a multitude of activities. But sometimes I just can't help it. There's a lot of stuff to do! But in 2016 I'm going to really try and focus. I'm going to say no to some things. I'm going to pick and choose what I do and don't do. I really need to pay more attention to some things and less to others. Not naming anything, but I know what those things are. I'd say this was a moderate success. I did try and not take anything new on, but it was difficult to sluff off some things. Early in 2017 that will change as I will lose one of my big responsibilities.
Weight and Exercise--This seems perpetual. I've done a pretty good job but need to continue. Losing weight and exercising go hand in hand. And they are both good for you. So why don't I devote all my attention to it? You got it...human nature. It's a never ending battle but I'll keep at it. Meh! Some good, some bad. Need to continue. But with every passing year it gets more difficult.
Get back on the bike--This is a subset of above. I've backed off the bike because of a few terrible accidents that hit close to home. But I really miss it. So I've got to get back out there. Hope to do that soon. Right after the New Year last year there were a couple of fatal bike accidents close to home. That made this one diffiult on the home front. But I'm slowly getting out. I try and pick very safe and deliberate routes. So I hope it will increase.
Hobby--I describe a lot of the things I do on this blog and so you're probably saying what the hell is he talking about? I admit that I love a lot of things and have a lot of fun doing them but I'd really like to devote some time to something unique. Something fun and maybe a bit productive. And this might help with the focus. I've thought of getting a boat but don't really want that. Seems like it could be a money pit. And the West coast isn't really conducive to the kind of boating I'd want to do. I've thought of collecting something, but don't really think I have the personality for that. Can't see me sitting around watching my model trains cruise in circles. Or collecting stamps. Or baseball cards. Or...whatever. We already have determined our travel schedule and are pretty happy with that. I do play golf but that isn't really what I'm talking about. So I happened on something that I think would be fun. Back in the 1970s I owned a Triumph TR-6 British sports car. It had it's problems but it was the coolest car I've ever owned. Loved it. And I'm a SoCal guy so you know I love cars! But like I said it had it's problems. And I was a young guy with a young family in the midst of my career without any discretionary money. So I got rid of it. But it holds fond memories for me. So I'm thinking it would be really fun to get a fully restored TR-6 and be able to cruise around in it. Not sure it will happen, but it's something I'd like to do. Abject failure. Didn't do it. The wise one in my life nixed it. And after some thought can't say as I blame her. So I'm still pondering.
Guitar--Okay. Here we go again. Taking lessons on line definitely isn't the way to go for me. So I need to find an instructor. After the holiday hubbub settles down, I'll look for one. If anyone knows a good instructor in the San Diego area, let me know. Abject failure. I still need an instructor. Life seems to keep getting in the way. Still on my list.
Pay more attention to the blog--I get lazy. I sometimes just throw up a photo. Need to stop doing that. I'll make every attempt to pay more attention and devote more time to the blog. It is good for my mind and fair to anyone reading. Hopefully, you'll see improvement. Think I've done better. The crazy election helped because there was so much material. But that's not for me to judge. If you think so, then good.
Declutter and unsubscribe--I have proclaimed this resolution previously but it bears repeating. It is amazing to me how much crap I collect, both in the computer and in my physical space. I (we?) seriously need to declutter. And part of the declutter venture is taking all my old photographs and scanning them in to a computer file. I've had that on my to do list for a long time. I hope that in 2016 I can finally get started on that. Is this just human nature or what? I've done this to some extent but not nearly to what I had hoped. So I still need to work on this.
So for 2017 it seems like I have a few holdovers and one new one:
- Weight and exercise: Perpetual resolution. Gotta keep poking away at it.
- Get back on the bike: This will happen. No excuses. And with getting rid of some other things, think I'll have more time for it. Key is moderation.
- Guitar: If anyone in the San Diego area knows a guitar instructor shoot me a note.
- Rotary: I've been elected as President of my club to start in July. I really like Rotary and am honored that the club has seen fit to elect me President. I'm going to put a lot of my energy into doing the best job possible. We have a great club and I'd like to do my part to make it better.
And that's it. I tend to get ambitious and declare too many. So I'll focus on those. Check back next year to see how it went.
Update: I forgot one! And it's an important one.
Update: I forgot one! And it's an important one.
- This is really number 5. I need to reduce my participation in social media. It's sort of addictive. So on FB, Twitter and the like I'm going to try and just be an observer. I'll reduce my presence and I hope thereby reduce my participation. We'll see how it goes. And it might result in paying more attention to the blog. Who knows?
Thursday, December 29, 2016
Wednesday, December 28, 2016
With Friends Like the United States...
...the argument could be made that you don't need enemies. So this is what it has come to. For the longest time I just thought Obama, Kerry, and the sycophants that surround them were just bunglers, unlucky, and really not very visionary. Well, shame on me. They knew what they were doing all along. It wasn't that they made a mess of so much of our national security strategy (what there is of it) but that they must have done it deliberately. How else do you explain the unbelievable actions over the last several days to stab one of our oldest allies, Israel, in the back.
If you haven't heard about this you've got to be living under a rock. Last week a resolution was going to be brought to the U.N Security Council condemning Isareli settlements in the West Bank. This is something that the U.S. should not allow. No way. We have to have their backs. So what did we do? We abstained. We didn't even have the courage of our convictions. Shameful. And then Netanyahu found out that we were really behind it all the time but in a cowardly fashion denied it. And then today that moron Kerry gives a 70 minute speech lecturing Israel on the two state solution. So now we are stuck. We can't go back on our policy so that between now and Jan 20th, if there are other demands we will have to be consistent. That the Obama administration took this stand is beyond comprehension. That they did it with less than a month to go to innaugeration day is mind-boggling. And that they did it at the U.N. and thus giving that corrupt institution some hand in Israeli-Palistinian negotiations is naive in the extreme.
It seems obvious to me that the Palistinians could have peace if they wanted it. But they don't want it. They embrace Hamas. They embrace Fatah. They are internally fractured. The refuse to acknowledge Israel's right to exist. They continually engage in random rocket attacks against Israel. It would be like Mexico launching random rockets into San Diego from Tijuana every night. We wouldn't stand for one, let alone night after night. Israel has practically begged them to come to the table. But their leaders refuse. And now we stab Israel in the back.
Here's a good thing to think about if you know nothing else. If the Palistinians laid down their weapons, stopped the bombardment, rejected terror, and came to the table to seek a reasonable solution, what would happen? They would get peace, that's what. If the Israelis laid down their weapons, opened the borders, destroyed the settlements, and came to the table to seek peace, what would would happen. I think we all know that it would be a bloodbath.
I'm confident that this will not stand. But it really show's Obama's cards. He is not only ignorant, he is dangerous.
A Bleak Future
Some of these memes really crack me up. I'm sure this is a huge exaggeration. But then again, I guess pondering a new future could be devastating...
Tuesday, December 27, 2016
There's Daredevil and There's Stupid
I don't know if this guy has a reserve chute on his back that we can't see. Hope so. But either way this is just plain stupid.
Not This Week
Everyone who's an NFL fan knows that the Cleveland Browns are pathetic. They haven't won a game this year. 0-14. Pathetic. That is until this last Sunday when the Chargers came to town. They beat the Chargers 20-17. The Chargers (like every other team) started with so much potential. But it was not to be. They have a losing record, an unbelievable number of injuries, and the owner is threatening to move them to Los Angeles. That's all bad. But to lose to Cleveland? Arghhhhhhh!
Name Tags
This is rather risky. Maybe she just has it in her hand and can slap it on when she sees the right guy. And the neat handwriting indicates she is sober. So she knows what she's doing. I love a girl with a plan!
Because Pizza!
This conjures up many different thoughts. Was the reception really so bad that they could leave for a slice of pizza in some place with formica tables and chairs? Someone paid for the reception. Wonder if they are looking for them? Cake. Did they get any cake? So I guess they don't like dancing? After a long day getting married, there is something else I'd rather be eating than pizza! And on and on and on...
Too Small
I love it when the cut-off tee shirt is just a tad bit too small. Results in interesting views.
Let Me Help You With That
I'm trying to imagine the conversation. "Honey, I'm just too fat for the laptop to fit on my lap and I need to finish this game. Would you mind letting me use your back for a desk? It'll only take a minute."
Jackass!
Jackass!
Survival
This couple obviously lives in a serious neighborhood. Nothing wrong with being prepared. And after what the U.S. did to Israel in the U.N. last week, who can blame them for thinking they've just lost a long time friend. That would make anyone be ready for anything. Maybe things will change after January 20th!
Never Too Late
Getting your shit together is really sort of a fundamental requirement in life. Get knocked down? Get back up and get your shit together. And it's never, ever too late.
Freaking Out
After the Nov 8 election there were a lot of people who just freaked out. They actually thought that our world was coming to an end. You remember all the protests by the know-nothings about the election that lasted maybe a couple of weeks. And then the establishment got involved and they tried a recount with full support of Ma Clinton and the Dems. And then they decided to make the Russians the reason and claimed that Trump has something to do with that. Of course, all the damning info in the hacked emails was true, but they sorta glossed over that. When that didn't work and Trump actually did better after the recounts, they turned to celebrities and the media to hype a campaign to get the Electors to change their votes, which was never going to happen. So it's been one losing proposition after another. I figured that they must be getting tired of all this bullshit. I naively figured that they would eventually accept the election and rally behind our new President. After all, that's what a lot of did in 2008 when Obama won. He wasn't my guy, but he was my President. But I've been visiting some of the liberal media sites, blogs and websites and it isn't letting up. I know that I at this from a particular perspective, but the hate and vitriol is pretty shocking. And this from the folks who rail against any kind of name calling. But I've got some news for them. Some bad news. It's not going to change. Trump will be President. The Republicans control both houses of Congress. Under Obama the Dems have lost more power than literally anytime in history. So get used to it. Or don't. Just keep hating. Let me know how that works out for you.
Monday, December 26, 2016
Climate Change
It seems like the issue of climate change is accelerating in dialog as the days go by. The media would have us believe that there are two camps. The first is the enlightened group of scientists, politicians, celebrities, and the rare business-person who buys it, lives it, is scared by it, and wants to dramatically change our culture and economy to avoid it. The other camp is populated by the few scientists who are ignorant, politicians who want to pander to their troglodyte constituents who don't know any better, one or two celebrities who may never work again, and the vast majority of business-persons who don't give a shit about it as long as they are making money. Two camps. No in between. You are either enlightened or you're an idiot.
Of course, that's not entirely right. There are some who beleive that there are impacts to the environment being exacerbated by man and we should figure out what to do about it and how urgent our actions need to be. We generally believe that before we shut down whole industries and impact virtually every aspect of our life, we ought to have pretty firm ground to stand on. And we believe that there are some good, prudent steps that can be taken to minimize the damage. We generally believe that innovation needs to be applied to the use of fossil fuels so their impact will be minimized but that for the foreseeable future, we are going to need to rely on them.
As I've watched this dialog unfold over the last few years and as Obama has embraced it and started to create winners and losers in the field, I've been a bit perplexed as to why he and other politicians would embrace such a drastic strategy. These are smart people, surely they know that that the urgency needs to be tempered with analysis. And then I happened on an article by one of my favorite analysts, George Friedman. It is actually a reprint of an article he did a year ago at the end of the Paris climate accords. Don't know why I missed it other than there was so much being written at the time, but as usual, he has a different take that makes sense to me. You can read it here. By the way, if you''re not reading his site, Geopolitical Futures, then you're missing a bet.
But anyway, his argument is that the debate on climate change and what to do about it is eerily similar and really the same thing as the debate between capitalism and socialism. It's akin to how much do we want the state to define and control our lives and how much freedom do we want. If the climate change zealots get their way, we will shut down industries, governments will make decisions on winners and losers, and money will be redistributed. But under capitalism, the free market reigns, personal responsibility and ambition are valued, and there are winners and losers. There isn't equality of outcome, but there generally is equality of opportunity. When capitalism rose in the 19th century there was an outcry that it would result in social and economic catastrophe. It was generally thought that the elites and intellectuals have to rule, make decisions, and take care of people. Well, we have learned that isn't quite right.
Friedman's analogy seems to me to be spot on. 7 billion people living on earth will have an impact. How that will unfold and the urgency to do something are still questions that need a whole lot of analysis and discussion. And as always, follow the money. Unfortunately, the zealots have now created an environment in which reasonable debate is difficult.
Sunday, December 25, 2016
Thursday, December 22, 2016
The Beach Boys
50 years! Wow. These guys played in my high school gym when they were just starting. Grew up with them. Good vibrations indeed!
Christmas Card?
So I wonder if this was the photo on their Christmas Card? If so, that's pretty brave!
India
No one ever said they could spell very well. But it's a good lesson in one little letter totally changing the meaning of something.
Fifth Wheel
Don't know the story here. Could be anything. I prefer to think that she showed up with Steven or William and there was no time to make her a proper stocking. But wait til next year. Or maybe, she's just a fifth wheel and they are trying to tell her something. Or maybe she just got pissed and made it herself. Don't know. But during a time of rejoicing, I will keep thinking it's innocent!
Seahawks
Watched the Seahawks last Thursday night. Hideous uniforms. I mean hideous. I kept asking myself...what were they thinking?
A Key Question
Not so much anymore, but I imagine that old devil has scratched his head a few times at my shenanigans.
Cabinets, Recounts, and Recriminations
The last few weeks have been like no Presidential transition that we've ever seen. Amongst all of the things that have happened, there are a few things that stand out to me. The first is the method that Trump has used to stock his cabinet. It has really taken on the trappings of a reality show. I think that is a bit because he's proven larger than life, a bit because the media is on the lookout for anything that they can use against him, a bit because he is quite a showman, and in large part because the people seem interested like never before. I mean, when is the last time you remember caring about who will be appointed Secretary of the Interior or Commerce or Labor or most of the other positions. I get State and Defense, but the rest are usually pretty anonomyous. But not this time. Every move seems to be a show. I'm not sure that's great...but it's fun to watch.
As to his cabinet, I'm generally pleased with the selections. Each one of them seems to have expertise in the area that they'll be in charge of. They've all demonstrated that they can be successful. They all are generally respected. Oh, the Dems will go apoplectic and claim that the sky is falling for each of them, but it will generally be to no avail. Remember, Harry Reid took away the ability to filibuster Presidential appointments so all they need is a majority. And the Republicans control the Senate. As Obama famously said, "elections have consequences". The media will pick up the narrative and try to trash every one of them. But again, it will largely fade away.
The second big thing that has happened is that the media doesn't seem to be getting any smarter. For the life of me I don't know why they let Trump play them like a fiddle. It is so obvious. They are not aquitting themselves very well in this post-election time. I thought that they would do the analysis, figure out how he operates, and respond accordingly. But no. He is still making them look like fools.
And speaking of fools...the whole recount hysteria and attempt to influence the Electors was stupid and embarrassing. It was never, ever going anywhere. And this is another example of the media just not getting it. How they covered it and how much they covered it was so, so naive.
Another thing that I cannot beleive is that the Dems are doing so much naval gazing. I've heard stories about Hillary considering running again. Please, please do it! As much as I'd like to never here of her and Bubba in public life again, it would be sweet to see her lose again. But I just can't beleive she'd do it. And the Dems seem to have no new answers. Their standard bearers seem to be Bernie and Biden. Really? And the head of the DNC might be Ellison, a Muslim who has time to the Muslim Brotherhood. Really? Okay...if that's what you want to do. Knock yourself out.
And then there are the celebrities. I really don't spend too much time thinking about their idiocy, but the media thrusts them and their whiney pleas in our face so much, that it is difficult to ignore them. Why can't they just do their job. And just as bad are all the Libs who just can't accept the Trump win. I've really never seen anything like it. I've said this before but it bears repeating. When Obama won in 2008 he wasn't my choice. I had grave reservations about his direction, experience and focus. But even though he wasn't my guy, he was my President. So I gave him my support. Now, he lost me pretty soon, but I started out giving him the benefit of the doubt. So I hope that as we get closer and Trump assumes the Presidency and the sky doesn't fall, that a few of the self-rightous libs will get off their high horse, and give him a chance!
Sunday, December 18, 2016
Dunkin
If you didn't see SNL last nite check this out. Pretty funny. Especially if you're from Bean Town!
Thursday, December 15, 2016
Convertibles
You just don't see back seats in convertibles much anymore. This is a real throwback. And I think it looks really good!
News You Can Use
Wednesday, December 14, 2016
Democrats
Mark Hemingway has an article over on The Federalist Papers that is just too good to not share. I'm copying the whole thing below. Every once in a while one of my favorite authors hits the nail on the head. This would be one of those times! Read and behold:
3 Dumb Arguments About Donald Trump’s Win Democrats Need To Stop Making Immediately
Why are Democrats doing everything in their power to make sure Donald Trump runs roughshod over them and wins so much he gets sick of winning?
By Mark Hemingway
DECEMBER 14, 2016
Since the election, Democrats have really been down in the Trumps. Despite the tantrums and protests, it strikes me that Democrats must be okay with this state of affairs. Sure, they claim he’s Hitler with a spray tan, and on some level they might even believe this. But short of establishing that half the country are total masochists—the safety word is “MAGA”—why are they doing everything in their power to make sure he runs roughshod over them and wins so much he gets sick of winning? Because that’s what Democrats are doing.
If I wanted to discredit an entire political party, I’d do exactly what Democrats, grassroots and party bosses alike, are doing: whining and making excuses at every opportunity, right up to insisting there must be some fantastical way to overturn a decisive electoral drubbing.
The first step here should be to shut up and do some meaningful self-reflection about why Democrats lost. Yet precious few smart and influential Democrats are actually doing this. To paraphrase Mark Twain, it’s better to remain silent and be thought a loser than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Even worse, the bellyaching about Trump’s victory has become tired and predictable even as it amounts to little more than wishcasting. Now is the time to be honest, so I implore Democrats, if you catch yourself making any of the following arguments about why Trump shouldn’t be president, check your party before you wreck your party.
1. Clinton Won the Popular Vote, Or the Electoral College Is Unfair
Yes, we know she got more than two million more votes than Trump. But the popular vote is never how presidential elections in this country have been decided. It’s called the “United States” for a reason. Nearly the entire premise of the U.S. Constitution—including the Electoral College—is setting up a system of government such that in a large country with as many striking regional and political differences as ours, one state can’t dominate the rest.
Clinton’s margin of victory in California was 4.3 million votes. The rest of the country has good reason not to want national elections to be determined by California alone. Maybe next time have your candidate set foot in Wisconsin? Maybe next time nominate a candidate who’s not so terrible that she runs only a point or two ahead of Donald Freaking Trump in national elections?
Further, many of the arguments against the Electoral College don’t really address the constitutional rationale for its existence. Simply venting in the Washington Post that the Electoral College is a “medieval relic” seems ill-advised. Besides, what does this progressive argument make of the popular vote? Is it somehow preferable to be saddled with a relic from the sixth century B.C.?
This brings us to another problem with shrieking, “Hillary won the popular vote!” Look around the country. Just how popular are Democrats these days? Not very. Thirty-three states now have Republican governors. Republicans have control of the Senate. A third of the Democratic congressional delegation comes from just three states—California, Massachussetts, and New York. Here’s what the House of Representatives map looks like, and does this look like a national party to you?
You can moan about the Electoral College all you want, but to get rid of it, you need to do one of two things. One, pass a constitutional amendment. Or two, have the states come together and decide on a new system for allocating electors. Either way, Democrats need to win a helluva lot more elections to make either of these things possible.
Regarding the reallocation of electors, that’s extremely unlikely because, oh yeah, Republicans control the legislatures in 32 states, and Democrats control the legislatures in just 13. This means that if Republicans come to control 38 legislatures, which is difficult but not unthinkable the way things have been trending, they could call an Article V convention and start passing their own constitutional amendments without any support for Democrats.
At the end of the day, even with Clinton’s popular vote margin, the fact is more Americans are voting for Republicans at the local, state, and federal level. If you’re a Democrat, this total electoral dominance by Republicans should scare the stuffing out of you. But when you’re losing the game, you need to play harder—you can’t just make up new rules as you go along.
2. James Comey and the FBI Wanted Trump Elected
It’s conceivable, per Nate Silver, that the Comey letter in late October gave Trump momentum and possibly swung the election. But my response, like most Americans, is “So what?” If you’re worried about an FBI investigation influencing a presidential election DON’T NOMINATE A CANDIDATE UNDER FBI INVESTIGATION. And you really, really, don’t want to nominate a candidate under investigation whose top aide’s husband is also being investigated by the FBI for child pornography who is also allegedly in possession of emails relevant to the candidate’s FBI investigation that he’s keeping on the same computer as his grody sex pics.
Seriously, stop and read those two previous sentences again, and think about why any normal person would be in any way sympathetic to this predicament. As to whether the Clinton email investigation was warranted in the first place, if you take this argument seriously I beg of you to ask one of the millions of Americans who’ve dealt with the rigmarole of getting a security clearance whether they think there’s an obvious double standard.
As to the possibility of Comey playing politics, if he was out to get her why didn’t he recommend charges initially? The political influence with the Clinton email investigation ran only in one direction, and that benefited Clinton. The attorney general in the position of bringing charges, Loretta Lynch, was appointed a U.S. attorney by Bill Clinton and later worked for a law firm connected to the Clintons for years. President Obama formally endorsed Hillary Clinton when the FBI investigation was still ongoing. That should have been grounds for a special prosecutor. The issue isn’t that Hillary Clinton was betrayed by Comey; the issue should be that she skated. Lest we forget, they were chanting “lock her up” at the Democratic convention as well.
Finally, there’s my favorite argument that many a well-known Democrat has made regarding her email server: “There’s no proof Hillary Clinton’s server endangered national security.” Now proof that it did is not a requirement for violating the law. But let’s get this straight.
On one hand, Democrats have spent the last several months arguing that Clinton did nothing to endanger national security, presumably because we can be certain that Russians couldn’t hack into the server that everyone’s favorite abuela was keeping in the closet right the behind the Rubbermaid containers full of Christmas ornaments.
On the other hand, Democrats are now demanding we need a thorough congressional investigation right now because of concerns Russian hackers may have penetrated our entire electoral system across several states to steal the election. In fact, UFO enthusiast and Democratic capo John Podesta—I’m beginning to think these two avocations are not unrelated—is demanding some pronouncement about how terrible the Russian hacking was before the Electoral College votes ratify the results so they can presumably respond by something something something President Hillary!
Pick one of these arguments and stick with it, please. Anyway, this brings me to the third argument.
3. The Russians Are Coming!
I don’t want to be too flippant here, because Russia is a serious threat and I have no doubt that they want to meddle in our elections. The fact that top Trump aides might be, say, laundering money for Russian mobsters makes a lot of people understandably queasy. Republicans in Congress agree with Democrats that Russia’s attempt at influencing things unduly needs investigating.
However, the evidence that Russians had any real impact on the actual election results is embarrassingly scant and wildly disproportionate to the amount of supposedly legitimate media outlets and public figures taking the idea of Russian hacking seriously. If the roles were reversed, I have no illusions that the media and their Democratic allies would be pretty dismissive of this given the lack of hard evidence.
As it happens, on October 18 no less than Barack Obama mused, “There is no serious person out there who would suggest that you could even rig America’s elections, in part because they are so decentralized. There is no evidence that that has happened in the past, or that there are instances that that could happen this time.”
Further, the media wasn’t always troubled by American presidents cozying up to Russia:
Also, isn’t the fact that Russia is so hostile to us now and allegedly undermining our elections a pretty damning judgment on the competence of the woman in charge of overseeing Obama’s “Russian reset” if the point of that was more friendly relations? The charitable interpretation here is that Russia is, for whatever reason, so afraid of Clinton that they tried to undermine the election. But there was also a time, not that long ago, when intimidating Russians by calling them our “number one geopolitical foe” was a bad thing in the eyes of the media. Oddly, I’m not seeing too much contrition over what they did to Romney (this is about it), even as they are now in an unjustified panic.
Then again, we’re talking about a party that has an 80-year history of claiming Republicans were exaggerating the threat of Russia. In fact, “60 Minutes” ran a report about the effort to get Obama to pardon the Rosenbergs on October 16, three weeks before the election and 63 years after they were executed. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, we have all manner of evidence conclusively proving the Rosenbergs were spies. It’s not even a remotely controversial matter, unless, apparently, you’re a member of the media.
It seems as if the media only cares about Russian threats insofar as they harm Democrats’ electoral chances.
Now, there is one tangible precedent for the Russkies intervening in our elections. That’s because Ted Kennedy actually asked them to interfere in the 1984 election. For some strange reason this revelation wasn’t the first thing that inexplicably failed to, uh, sink Ted Kennedy’s career. Rather, it’s a story most Americans never even heard about.
It seems as if the media only cares about Russian threats insofar as they harm Democrats’ electoral chances. To hear Democrats screaming about the threat of Russia now, after ignoring the problem for decades, isn’t something that ordinary Americans are going to pay much attention to—at least not without more evidence and some real contrition regarding their about-face on the Russian threat.
I don’t see that happening soon, because too many Democrats with a megaphone are convinced that something sinister is going on. As filmmaker Joss Whedon noted, “The crafty move was forcing the Dems to debunk voter fraud, so when the Trump/Putin cabal ACTUALLY COMMITTED it, we’d sound hypocritical.” Whedon’s right about one thing—Democrats do sound hypocritical. The obvious explanation isn’t Putinist conspiracy, but that Hillary Clinton was a terrible candidate with more corrupt baggage than the Kardashians on safari. (But if it makes Whedon feel any better, Hail Hydra!)
Anyway, you may not want to believe I have good intentions here, but if you can’t accept this tough love, consider it tough snark. I really do believe America needs a functional opposition party. That, however, will require accepting some criticism as valid and, yes, probably some compromise in response to that criticism. Recall that just eight years ago, Democrats had total control of Washington—assuming Republicans will be in power forever is folly.
However, a month after the election they’re still publishing op-eds in the Los Angeles Times headlined “Why the Democrats don’t need an overhaul.” The longer Democrats are in denial, the longer their road to political recovery is going to be. They don’t have to like what happened, but for their own good, Democrats need to stop seriously entertaining arguments that Trump’s victory was invalid.
Mark Hemingway is a senior writer at The Weekly Standard. Follow him on Twitter at @heminator
3 Dumb Arguments About Donald Trump’s Win Democrats Need To Stop Making Immediately
Why are Democrats doing everything in their power to make sure Donald Trump runs roughshod over them and wins so much he gets sick of winning?
By Mark Hemingway
DECEMBER 14, 2016
Since the election, Democrats have really been down in the Trumps. Despite the tantrums and protests, it strikes me that Democrats must be okay with this state of affairs. Sure, they claim he’s Hitler with a spray tan, and on some level they might even believe this. But short of establishing that half the country are total masochists—the safety word is “MAGA”—why are they doing everything in their power to make sure he runs roughshod over them and wins so much he gets sick of winning? Because that’s what Democrats are doing.
If I wanted to discredit an entire political party, I’d do exactly what Democrats, grassroots and party bosses alike, are doing: whining and making excuses at every opportunity, right up to insisting there must be some fantastical way to overturn a decisive electoral drubbing.
The first step here should be to shut up and do some meaningful self-reflection about why Democrats lost. Yet precious few smart and influential Democrats are actually doing this. To paraphrase Mark Twain, it’s better to remain silent and be thought a loser than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Even worse, the bellyaching about Trump’s victory has become tired and predictable even as it amounts to little more than wishcasting. Now is the time to be honest, so I implore Democrats, if you catch yourself making any of the following arguments about why Trump shouldn’t be president, check your party before you wreck your party.
1. Clinton Won the Popular Vote, Or the Electoral College Is Unfair
Yes, we know she got more than two million more votes than Trump. But the popular vote is never how presidential elections in this country have been decided. It’s called the “United States” for a reason. Nearly the entire premise of the U.S. Constitution—including the Electoral College—is setting up a system of government such that in a large country with as many striking regional and political differences as ours, one state can’t dominate the rest.
Clinton’s margin of victory in California was 4.3 million votes. The rest of the country has good reason not to want national elections to be determined by California alone. Maybe next time have your candidate set foot in Wisconsin? Maybe next time nominate a candidate who’s not so terrible that she runs only a point or two ahead of Donald Freaking Trump in national elections?
Further, many of the arguments against the Electoral College don’t really address the constitutional rationale for its existence. Simply venting in the Washington Post that the Electoral College is a “medieval relic” seems ill-advised. Besides, what does this progressive argument make of the popular vote? Is it somehow preferable to be saddled with a relic from the sixth century B.C.?
This brings us to another problem with shrieking, “Hillary won the popular vote!” Look around the country. Just how popular are Democrats these days? Not very. Thirty-three states now have Republican governors. Republicans have control of the Senate. A third of the Democratic congressional delegation comes from just three states—California, Massachussetts, and New York. Here’s what the House of Representatives map looks like, and does this look like a national party to you?
You can moan about the Electoral College all you want, but to get rid of it, you need to do one of two things. One, pass a constitutional amendment. Or two, have the states come together and decide on a new system for allocating electors. Either way, Democrats need to win a helluva lot more elections to make either of these things possible.
Regarding the reallocation of electors, that’s extremely unlikely because, oh yeah, Republicans control the legislatures in 32 states, and Democrats control the legislatures in just 13. This means that if Republicans come to control 38 legislatures, which is difficult but not unthinkable the way things have been trending, they could call an Article V convention and start passing their own constitutional amendments without any support for Democrats.
At the end of the day, even with Clinton’s popular vote margin, the fact is more Americans are voting for Republicans at the local, state, and federal level. If you’re a Democrat, this total electoral dominance by Republicans should scare the stuffing out of you. But when you’re losing the game, you need to play harder—you can’t just make up new rules as you go along.
2. James Comey and the FBI Wanted Trump Elected
It’s conceivable, per Nate Silver, that the Comey letter in late October gave Trump momentum and possibly swung the election. But my response, like most Americans, is “So what?” If you’re worried about an FBI investigation influencing a presidential election DON’T NOMINATE A CANDIDATE UNDER FBI INVESTIGATION. And you really, really, don’t want to nominate a candidate under investigation whose top aide’s husband is also being investigated by the FBI for child pornography who is also allegedly in possession of emails relevant to the candidate’s FBI investigation that he’s keeping on the same computer as his grody sex pics.
Seriously, stop and read those two previous sentences again, and think about why any normal person would be in any way sympathetic to this predicament. As to whether the Clinton email investigation was warranted in the first place, if you take this argument seriously I beg of you to ask one of the millions of Americans who’ve dealt with the rigmarole of getting a security clearance whether they think there’s an obvious double standard.
As to the possibility of Comey playing politics, if he was out to get her why didn’t he recommend charges initially? The political influence with the Clinton email investigation ran only in one direction, and that benefited Clinton. The attorney general in the position of bringing charges, Loretta Lynch, was appointed a U.S. attorney by Bill Clinton and later worked for a law firm connected to the Clintons for years. President Obama formally endorsed Hillary Clinton when the FBI investigation was still ongoing. That should have been grounds for a special prosecutor. The issue isn’t that Hillary Clinton was betrayed by Comey; the issue should be that she skated. Lest we forget, they were chanting “lock her up” at the Democratic convention as well.
Finally, there’s my favorite argument that many a well-known Democrat has made regarding her email server: “There’s no proof Hillary Clinton’s server endangered national security.” Now proof that it did is not a requirement for violating the law. But let’s get this straight.
On one hand, Democrats have spent the last several months arguing that Clinton did nothing to endanger national security, presumably because we can be certain that Russians couldn’t hack into the server that everyone’s favorite abuela was keeping in the closet right the behind the Rubbermaid containers full of Christmas ornaments.
On the other hand, Democrats are now demanding we need a thorough congressional investigation right now because of concerns Russian hackers may have penetrated our entire electoral system across several states to steal the election. In fact, UFO enthusiast and Democratic capo John Podesta—I’m beginning to think these two avocations are not unrelated—is demanding some pronouncement about how terrible the Russian hacking was before the Electoral College votes ratify the results so they can presumably respond by something something something President Hillary!
Pick one of these arguments and stick with it, please. Anyway, this brings me to the third argument.
3. The Russians Are Coming!
I don’t want to be too flippant here, because Russia is a serious threat and I have no doubt that they want to meddle in our elections. The fact that top Trump aides might be, say, laundering money for Russian mobsters makes a lot of people understandably queasy. Republicans in Congress agree with Democrats that Russia’s attempt at influencing things unduly needs investigating.
However, the evidence that Russians had any real impact on the actual election results is embarrassingly scant and wildly disproportionate to the amount of supposedly legitimate media outlets and public figures taking the idea of Russian hacking seriously. If the roles were reversed, I have no illusions that the media and their Democratic allies would be pretty dismissive of this given the lack of hard evidence.
As it happens, on October 18 no less than Barack Obama mused, “There is no serious person out there who would suggest that you could even rig America’s elections, in part because they are so decentralized. There is no evidence that that has happened in the past, or that there are instances that that could happen this time.”
Further, the media wasn’t always troubled by American presidents cozying up to Russia:
Also, isn’t the fact that Russia is so hostile to us now and allegedly undermining our elections a pretty damning judgment on the competence of the woman in charge of overseeing Obama’s “Russian reset” if the point of that was more friendly relations? The charitable interpretation here is that Russia is, for whatever reason, so afraid of Clinton that they tried to undermine the election. But there was also a time, not that long ago, when intimidating Russians by calling them our “number one geopolitical foe” was a bad thing in the eyes of the media. Oddly, I’m not seeing too much contrition over what they did to Romney (this is about it), even as they are now in an unjustified panic.
Then again, we’re talking about a party that has an 80-year history of claiming Republicans were exaggerating the threat of Russia. In fact, “60 Minutes” ran a report about the effort to get Obama to pardon the Rosenbergs on October 16, three weeks before the election and 63 years after they were executed. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, we have all manner of evidence conclusively proving the Rosenbergs were spies. It’s not even a remotely controversial matter, unless, apparently, you’re a member of the media.
It seems as if the media only cares about Russian threats insofar as they harm Democrats’ electoral chances.
Now, there is one tangible precedent for the Russkies intervening in our elections. That’s because Ted Kennedy actually asked them to interfere in the 1984 election. For some strange reason this revelation wasn’t the first thing that inexplicably failed to, uh, sink Ted Kennedy’s career. Rather, it’s a story most Americans never even heard about.
It seems as if the media only cares about Russian threats insofar as they harm Democrats’ electoral chances. To hear Democrats screaming about the threat of Russia now, after ignoring the problem for decades, isn’t something that ordinary Americans are going to pay much attention to—at least not without more evidence and some real contrition regarding their about-face on the Russian threat.
I don’t see that happening soon, because too many Democrats with a megaphone are convinced that something sinister is going on. As filmmaker Joss Whedon noted, “The crafty move was forcing the Dems to debunk voter fraud, so when the Trump/Putin cabal ACTUALLY COMMITTED it, we’d sound hypocritical.” Whedon’s right about one thing—Democrats do sound hypocritical. The obvious explanation isn’t Putinist conspiracy, but that Hillary Clinton was a terrible candidate with more corrupt baggage than the Kardashians on safari. (But if it makes Whedon feel any better, Hail Hydra!)
Anyway, you may not want to believe I have good intentions here, but if you can’t accept this tough love, consider it tough snark. I really do believe America needs a functional opposition party. That, however, will require accepting some criticism as valid and, yes, probably some compromise in response to that criticism. Recall that just eight years ago, Democrats had total control of Washington—assuming Republicans will be in power forever is folly.
However, a month after the election they’re still publishing op-eds in the Los Angeles Times headlined “Why the Democrats don’t need an overhaul.” The longer Democrats are in denial, the longer their road to political recovery is going to be. They don’t have to like what happened, but for their own good, Democrats need to stop seriously entertaining arguments that Trump’s victory was invalid.
Mark Hemingway is a senior writer at The Weekly Standard. Follow him on Twitter at @heminator
