Friday, November 04, 2016

100 Hours -- And At Least Four Years

After sixteen wretched months of obsessiveness, nasty insults, and bitter recriminations [and that's just in this blog! -- Ed.] it's time to sketch a more-or-less serious, cogent analysis of the choice before us. Let's see if we can get through this with a minimum of f-bombs and scatological references, shall we? Okay then.

A few things need to be stipulated right up front, by of reiterating something I have held firm (giggity) on from the very start of Clownstick's candidacy. The consistent volume and vituperation of Drumpf's supporters add no value to their man's campaign. Ordinarily you'd say this was just more evidence of the pernicious corporate media cherry-picking the most objectionable people they could find, and casting them as the typical supporter.

But even the sympathetic thumb-sucking pieces can't avoid the fact that these people are dumber than a bag of rocks. I couldn't possibly bear to read yet another insufferable limo-lib fish-out-of-water jeremiad, peppered as it is with idiots festering in a broke-ass, cancer-ridden swamp, yet stubbornly insistent on voting against themselves until the day they keel over at fifty-five or so, obese and embittered.

Cracked's David Wong, normally a solid, concise writer, spends many words composing his hard-times-country-mouse-getting-back-at-snooty-city-mouse exegesis, yet fails utterly to describe -- or even guess at -- the inherent hypocrisy underpinning it all:  how is it, for fuck's sake, that a bunch of rural jerkoffs who are enraged at smug urbanites thinking they're so damned smart, decide that Drumpf, the epitome of an over-privileged city slicker who looks down on everyone, even cares about them, much less is their best bet?

Wong is right about one thing:  these folks will be around long after Drumpf is gone, win or lose, and politicians of both parties need to find ways to bridge that gap. Of course, what will actually happen is that Democrats will make some overtures, and be obstructed by Republicans, who at this point can only stay in business by stoking those grievances and making shit up. But when these fine rural folk thrive on nasty bullshit, again it's very difficult to find much sympathy for them.

The majority of the supposedly liberal corporate media have failed utterly, and nowhere is this more evident than in their coverage of the past week. The Republican Party is running a candidate who has said and done dozens of things that ended many a past campaign; who has a racketeering trial later this month; whose entire "business" history is a documented list of failures and frauds and grifts; who appears to either be deep in the pocket of the Russian intel services and mafiya, or their unwitting dupe; who has tacitly welcomed and encouraged the white-power knuckle-draggers on the margins of American society; and more and worse. And yet they have fixated on a letter released by a hack that says and proves nothing. This is unconscionable.

David Fahrenthold of the Washington Post and Kurt Eichenwald of Newsweek have each published multiple scathing exposes of the inner workings of Drumpf's business and "charitable" entities. His foundation is a cheap, grubby, money-laundering shop that functions as a tax dodge for its contributors and operator, where Drumpf literally uses other people's money to buy paintings of himself, peddle influence to elected officials, and throw himself quarter-million-dollar parties at his own resorts to give himself humanitarian awards and reimburse himself for the privilege. But these instances of actual journalism got short shrift from their colleagues. Shame on them all.

If you wrote it all up as a movie script, it would be rejected as too unbelievable. Drumpf is probably the only Republican candidate Clinton could have beaten and she is probably the only Democratic candidate he could have defeated. Yet here we are.

But as bad as Drumpf is (and make no mistake, he's a fucking piece of shit), and as bad as the media monkeys are, in the end it always comes back to the supporters. Forget "good-bad" value judgments; what characterizes these fools most is that they appear unable to think or reason or speak with even a glimmer of sense, perhaps because most of them haven't read a goddamned book since they dropped out of high school.

"Deplorable" is too polite a word for someone who wears a t-shirt calling the opponent a cunt, with his wife and young children right next to him at the rally. I honestly couldn't care less about that asshole's concerns and frustrations; chances are he's frustrated because he can't admit out loud that he's as useless as a bump on a pickle.

These women are no better, with their hopeless, incoherent responses; someone might want to tell respondent Allison Doyle, who claims she's "never heard about [Drumpf] cheating," that he bragged about it in one of his books, and that his open philandering on his first wife was well-known at the time. Again, where do you find people this willfully stupid? It's one thing to be disengaged and decide it's all a mess and you don't want to keep up with it so you're just ignorant and staying out of it, but these women are all voting for Drumpf. There is intention there.

So the polls are tightening, and folks are getting antsy. Can it really happen, can this vile thug slither his way into power? Yes and yes.

Here's my semi-educated guess on the result:  Clinton wins, albeit narrowly. She's got the better ground game and fundamentals, and millions of people had already voted early by the time Jim Comey decided that being a party hack was more important than his country's well-being. In the end, we'll probably owe it to all the Latino and black voters that saw Drumpf for what he is, and were more motivated than usual.

In the end, it doesn't really matter after all. Because unless Clinton wins by a massive landslide (and maybe even then), the Democrats also need a filibuster-proof Senate majority to get anything done, and that's just not going to happen. And if Drumpf does manage to win, then it's all over, not only because of the destruction he will wreak on the very foundations of this country, but because it would mean there really are enough self-destructive morons to tear it all down, just to watch it burn.

I don't think he wins; I still think she squeaks through. But the wolves will be at her throat from day one, and it will make what they did to Obama look like a walk in the park. This has been the pattern for over a generation now, and it will not stop unless and until the Democrats go scorched earth on them. It wouldn't hurt to throw some money out to the boonies once in a while too.

No comments: