Dana Carvey as the Church Lady on Saturday Night Live characterized Tuesday’s presidential election by asking, “Do we vote for a bitter female android from the ’90s, or a riverboat gambler with a big tummy and an orange head?”
The fact that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are the Democratic and Republican (In Name Only) choices for president represent a failure of the parties. As you know, the fix has been in for Hillary for literally years, and neither Bernie Sanders (who was a Democrat In Name Only) nor anyone else had a chance of getting the Democratic nomination. Trump was not the choice of more than half of Republican voters, yet due to the GOP leadership’s failure to tell Trump to leave and run for president on his own independent dime, the question Tuesday is how bad Republican losses will be besides Trump.
Neither Hillary nor Trump should be president of anything. We know from her Wikileaks what she really thinks about her non-supporters. We also know how carelessly she treats national security issues in her quest for more Clinton Cash and more Clinton power. Every one of Slick Willie’s “bimbo eruptions” (all of which were sexual assaults since they were all coerced) were aided and abetted by Hillary to enhance her own power. Barack Obama and Hillary are first and second on the list of Presidential Candidates Who Hate their Opposition. (She makes Richard Nixon look like a piker in comparison.) Her definition of “Together” is “Bow down and do everything I tell you to, right-wing scum, and then die.”
The problem, of course, is that Donald Trump is every bit as bad, though in different senses. There are people voting for Trump because they believe what he says about blowing up the political system. The problem, of course, besides Trump’s inability to act like a man should, is that every position he has has been changed multiple times (sometimes in the same day, such as abortion rights). That makes him impossible to trust.
I’m not sure if this is a vote for Trump or not, from Newt Gingrich, reported by Recallarama Ground Zero:
On NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said that if Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump becomes president, the country will end up like Madison with an assault on labor unions.
“If Trump is elected,” he said, “it will just be like Madison, Wisconsin, with (Gov.) Scott Walker. The opposition of the government employee unions will be so hostile and so direct and so immediate, there will be a continuing fight over who controls the country.”
As for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, Gingrich predicted that if Clinton gets elected, the criminal investigations will be endless.
“I think that we are in for a long, difficult couple of years, maybe a decade or more, because the gap between those of us who are deeply offended by the dishonesty and the corruption and the total lack of honesty in the Clinton Team,” he said.
“And on their side, their defense of unions, which they have to defend, I understand that. But that will lead to a Madison, Wisconsin, kind of struggle if Trump wins.”
When moderator Chuck Todd remarked that Gingrich painted a pretty drastic picture, Gingrich said, “I wish it wasn’t true, Chuck, I wish it wasn’t true.”
If not Clinton or Trump? I wouldn’t vote for Jill Stein, who flip-flops on vaccinations like Trump and apparently believes cellphones cause cancer, for dog catcher. I was willing to vote for Gary Johnson until, well, he opened his mouth. (Religious freedom is a trap, you know.) I ended up voting for Evan McMullin, because unlike Trump he has taken actual conservative positions consistently. Trump has zero chance of winning Wisconsin (he couldn’t even win the GOP primary), therefore my vote for McMullin doesn’t affect Hillary’s chances at the White House.
There is a U.S. Senate race in Wisconsin, the repeat of the 2010 race in which voters fired Sen. Russ Feingold, the phony maverick. Johnson is about four years late getting out to see voters and adopting a higher public profile.
However, all you need to convince you to not vote for Feingold is to remember what Sen. Feingold was like. He was famously the lone Senate vote against the Patriot Act, knowing full well it was going to pass anyway. His vaunted “listening sessions” were as phony as Feingold. Ever hear a remotely conservative statement from an attendee? No. Ever hear a remotely conservative statement from Feingold? No.
Moreover, Kevin Binversie observes …
Let’s just look at a few situations, or issues in Campaign 2016, where Feingold’s phoniness has been on full display for all to see.
Campaign Finance Reform
Where to begin?
For a man who built his reputation on being “Mr. Campaign Finance Reform,” it’s amazing how quickly he turned his back on the issue. From setting up his own political operation which doubled as slush fund and jobs program for his most loyal political staffers, to completely abandoning his “Garage Door Pledge” once and for all, these moves highlighted Feingold’s new found love of campaign donations.
He can blame Citizens United all he wants, but it’s not the Supreme Court that caused him to raise and spend around $25 million when the campaign is said and done. He didn’t have to do that; and in past races he hasn’t.
But by far the biggest sign of Feingold’s phoniness in campaign is a repeat offense. Back in 1998, just as now, Russ Feingold publicly called for all third-party groups to stay out of the race. Then, when things got really bad for him – or they needed to cripple his Republican opponent – they came in at the last minute to come bail him out.
Oh, this time he tried to provide cover for himself with his so-called “Badger Pledge” against outside group interference, but everyone knew that just as in 1998, it was all for show. Now we’re in the midst of a $10 million (or more) ad blitz; half of which is there to help ensure he doesn’t blow it.
So let me get this straight. One of the 60 votes which gave us Obamacare AND believed it didn’t go far enough without a public option believes we should trust him with fixing it?
Apparently that’s the case if you believe your television . Not only does it appear as though Russ Feingold is finally admitting the law doesn’t work, but also that this time he’s going to work across the aisle and make sure the job is done right “this time around.”
You know, it’s the sort of thing which never happened in 2009 and 2010 when Obamacare was passed into law. Back then, Feingold willingly went along with everything Obama and company wanted. His only complaint was that it didn’t go far enough towards single-payer.
To have Feingold now tell us that he’s here to fix the very damage to the health care system he caused is like having a home contractor come back to do your windows after they’ve leveled your house’s ground floor. It’s just not a wise idea, and frankly you’d rather have their contractor’s license striped than see them hired for one more job.
Reason for Running
Why exactly is Russ Feingold seeking his old Senate seat? Of all the questions involved in the Johnson-Feingold rematch, it’s the most obvious and the most unasked.
You listen to the man long enough and you’ll always get some diatribe about “Listening to the people of Wisconsin” and so on. If that were the case, he would have accepted the 2010 outcome and moved on with his life. Clearly, he didn’t hear them in 2010; more likely, just didn’t like the answer he got.
It doesn’t take much looking to find any liberal publication, in Wisconsin or nationally, to see that they view his 2010 lose as a “fluke result of a wave election” or some grand miscarriage of electoral justice. It is what has clearly driven him, his ego, his most loyal staffers, and his sycophantic media enablers throughout this campaign.
Oh all the phoniness of Russ Feingold, circa 2016, it is here where he takes the grand prize. In his concession speech on election night 2010 , Feingold said “The people of Wisconsin have made their decision, and I must respect it.”
The truth is, he never has respected that decision. If he did, he wouldn’t be on the ballot today.
If Feingold returns to office, Wisconsin conservatives will be disenfranchised once again in the U.S. Senate. It is bad enough to have U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D–Wisconsin) in office, but two of the same ilk will mean conservative issues will die on the Senate side of the U.S. Capitol, as they did during Feingold’s 18 years in office, which were the last 18 years of Nobody’s Senator but His, Herb Kohl.
The other reason to vote for Johnson and not Feingold is the importance of the Republican Party’s retaining the U.S. Senate to stop Hillary. (And the House of Representatives as well, so vote accordingly in your House race.) It is well documented that Feingold’s definition of “maverick” consists of (1) slavish adherence to the Democratic line unless (2) a more leftist position can be found. Maybe that fits some twisted definition of “maverick” to the likes of The Capital Times, but not to normal people.
There are, of course, legislative races. No Democrat deserves your vote until that Democrat explains (1) how to balance the state budget better than Republicans without (2) raising taxes and with (3) cutting taxes and the size of government, both of which remain far too bloated in this state. Republicans haven’t done a good enough job, but Democrats, as we all know from the disaster of 2009–10, will do far worse if given the opportunity.
There are also a few school district referenda, which are up to the reader to determine. Democrats have been claiming that there are too many school referenda, as if voters should never be consulted whether their school districts need more of their taxpayer dollars. The revenue-limit referenda in the IT world is a called a feature, not a bug.
Cast an informed vote today, if you haven’t already.