The Republican Endorsement of Hillary Clinton?

Who says politics isn't a team sport? It seems everyone has a team. Of course, that team is theirs and how everything revolves about them. However, once in a while, these various "teams" come together in a common cause. In this cause, that common cause is Donald Trump and the team name should be something like "Who's Not Supporting the Republican Party Nominee?". I think people would be surprised by who isn't onboard with Team Trump. We know Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell isn't. 

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, who had been in the "no" column has given a very lukewarm endorsement while 34 other Republican House members have said nope. Former Secretary of the State, Condi Rice isn't and neither are Ted Cruz and Mario Rubio. Former GOP Presidents George H Bush (and his wife Barbara Bush), Jeb and George W Bush aren't. Two time GOP loser Mitt Romney isn't and neither is John McCain. Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg isn't. Neither is the Koch Brothers and many more. Most of those who have, with a few exceptions like Chris Christy, have given only a "limp fish" endorsement of Trump; many adding that they will not actively support or hinder his campaign. The Republican National Committee too has offered a less than stellar endorsement of their nominee.

In short, the Establishment GOP is not crazy about the guy who beat their handpicked candidates, so they intend to punish their conservative base (you know, the "common folk" who voted for Donald Trump over the "Rich Old Boy" network's choices) by not helping Trump. The GOP Establishment has taken every opportunity to take a swing at "The Donald" they can. 

It's even being humored that the now infamous "locker room tape" leaked to the corporate press came from within the Republican Party Establishment which wouldn't surprise me a bit. The same goes for many of these women stepping forward with allegations of sexual harassment by Trump (no police reports were ever filed or mention ever made to others). Some are wondering if these women are being paid to fabricate or exaggerate their claims. Regardless, they are getting their fifteen minutes of notoriety at just the right critical time for the Hillary camp. Coincidence?

There's been only a few times in US political history where a political party ruling clique has set out to sabotage its own Presidential nominee's campaign. The first came with the implosion of the Whigs which coincided with the breakup of several smaller "third parties" such as the Free Soil Democrats and the America "No-Knowing" Party, which later came together to form the Republican Party in 1856. 

The second time is when Republican Howard Taft failed to live up to expatiations (at least in Teddy Roosevelt's eyes) and when he refused to step aside to allow "Teedy" to run again, TR bolted from the GOP to form a new political party, the Progressive Party, or as was better known as, the "Bull Moose Party". In the first instance, it marked the end of the Whig Party and the other smaller parties and birth of the GOP. 

It's second Presidential nominee was Abraham Lincoln, who presided over the breakup of the United States and a civil war which followed. In the second instance, it severely damaged the Republican Party and split the conservative and moderate vote, which then threw the election to Democrat Woodrow Wilson, who, despite his promises to the contrary, supported entry of the US into World War I.

As most political junkies know, and as common sense would tell you, fractions and factions in politics are commonplace. After all, you're dealing with super rich spoiled brats with ego's the size of Montana (sounds like professional sports). Everyone of them think their Wall Street's gift to America. But usually there are the backroom deals just before or during the party convention which attempts to plaster over these differences. 

It there that vice presidents are selected, along with cabinet post positions the other key offices in exchange for support, favors, or money. However, that didn't happen in this case; at least as far as we know, although Mike Pence as Trump's running mate could have been the result of a backroom compromise with the GOP elite (which may explains the bizarre behavior of Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio afterwards).

I think that in the current situation, we have a similar recipe for disaster. First off, these current and former Republican "leaders", by their refusal (and ego driven temper tantrums) to support their nominee are making a de facto endorsement of Hillary Clinton. 

By the RNC not actively supporting Donald Trump, they too are endorsing Hillary by default. The others, with their tempt "endorsement" are saying to voters of all stripes that they have no confidence in their party's nominee and, thus, support the other candidate; in this case, Hillary Clinton. 

Either way, should Clinton win the election, the Republican Party and all of its elected representatives will no excuse to criticize either Hillary or the Democratic "leadership" over the next four years. How could they when they won't support their own nominee and are making implied endorsements of the other party's candidate? Of course, I'm sure some are just that hypocritical that they'll try.

But not all of this is on the Republican Party. The Democrats are facing a similar though less publicized problem. The Millennials, who are the nation's largest (and still growing) demographic voting bloc, strongly supported Bernie Sanders, or at least, Bernie's proposed political agenda. 

Many were highly upset when Bernie failed to do as well in the primary as they though he would, so needless to say, they were highly miffed when they learned that Hillary Clinton and the DNC (Debbie Wasserman-Schultz in particular) had conspired together to fix the Democrat Primaries and later, the Democratic National Convention.

 True, Wasserman and some others were immediately fired, Hillary's camp turned right around and hired them as campaign advisors. The result has been more Millennials leaving the Democrat party and joining the majority of voters as independents (the GOP has already faced a similar exodus when it began forcing out its moderates in the 1980's who went on to join ranks with the Indies).

The end result is an electorate which strongly disapproves of either party's presidential offering combined with a sustain and exceptionally high disapproval of the Washington politics in general. 

The public has long understood that the political process was corrupt and broken beyond repair. Now it's being played out for all to see. Even down ticket candidates on both sides are trying to distance themselves from the two nominees and their party by emphasizing that they are "independent", "non-partisan" or "independent thinking" (which is not only an oxymoron since they are running on a corporate party ticket but disingenuous as well). 

The only real winners out of this will be the third parties such as the Libertarians and the Greens; perhaps especially so since most Millennials seem to gravitate to one or the other of these two parties in terms of their party platforms. I think too that the American People themselves may benefit by leaving the duopoly created and financed by Wallstreet and promoted by their corporate media. Meanwhile, should either of the two corporate sponsored candidates win in November, America is in for a very rough next four years.



Which Republicans Oppose Donald Trump: A Cheat Sheet



List: Which Republicans oppose Trump and Why



Republican Party Spends $0 on TV Ads for Trump



Mike Pence "disappointed" with Republican leaders not backing Donald Trump

Have We Become Weiner Roasted?

Ok, so now "former" Congressman Anthony Weiner has resigned. Big deal. He still walks away with a multimillion dollar pension for the years he spent in Congress. Is that right? Should someone who disgraced the office of Congress still be entitled to receive a pension package worth millions, and all funded by taxpayers?

Well, if we denied money to everyone who ever disgraced Congress, or for that matter, elected office, there would be damn few former (or even some current) representatives getting a penny, and perhaps that is would be a good thing. Taxpayers would save a boat load of money and maybe the wrongdoer wouldn't sleep so comfortably at night. Still, we need more than just another long drawn out pathetic "I'm innocent" story in the hopes of duping the public, usually followed by the well worn public apology and self imposed treatment center (I liken it to some misbehaved child's self imposed trip to the principal's office).

So, what it is with these people any way? Is it arrogance? Is it greed? Narcissism? Perhaps we should see them as victims of a increasingly hedonistic society. After all, look at many of professional athletes. They've been coddled since high school. They were often excused for bad behavior, bad grades and they've done alright. Hollywood is busting at the seams with stories of overlooked (or sometimes encouraged) bad behavior by pampered and usually mediocre actors and actresses. Their bank accounts look pretty good too. TV shows and video games resplendent with glorified "anti-hero" types. You don't even had to be an aspiring actor or athlete to have your bad behavior overlooked. You just have to be part of some media accepted misunderstood minority group whose "social values" doesn't correspond with the rest of society's. So, why not politicians? Why should they be held to higher standards of moral behavior when less is expected of the rest of society's role models?

The answer is, in my opinion, to be found in our recent past. There was a time when we could look up to certain individuals, like our pastors, teachers, judges, and yes, even to many of our elected officials. We had larger than life heroes like Audie Murphy, John Wayne, Humphrey Bogart, Edward G Robinson, James Cagney, Randolph Scott, Gregory Peck, and the list goes on. We could trust our teachers to actually teach our children, not seduce them. Discipline was expected in school. It wasn't a day care for young adults that it has now become. You studied. You learned. And you succeeded because of your efforts, not because you were failed up to the next grade to protect your self-esteem. Society thought it more important that you could read, write, do arithmetic at your grade level than being stupid and feeling good about it. There was nothing "cool" about poor grammar and purposefully mispronounced words; your underwear handing out, or infantile gestures.

People were expected to put in an honest day's work for a living wage. We can thank our grandparent's unions for that. They weren't afraid to strike for safe working conditions, an eight hour day or a realistic wage. But they weren't afraid to work for those concessions either. They didn't expect anyone to give them anything for free. It was called a work ethic. People didn't expect handouts. In fact, they were often ashamed to take them. Nowadays, there are many who "demand" that society support them. For some unexplained reason, they believed they are "entitled" to have others---usually taxpayers---pay their way. The same thing could be said about have children at 16 or even 14 and expecting their parents to raise their grandchildren. Back then, it was called taking personal responsibility for your actions. It was instilled at home; in the religious institutions of our choice; in school; and reinforced by society. Lying is almost common practice. Be it on your resume, to the police, to the judge, to parishioners, or to the media. The bigger the better. The longer the more coverage. The same goes with cheating.

If you messed up, you often went to prison. Prison was a place you didn't want to be, and you couldn't wait to get out. And you did your level best never to go back again. Prisoners didn't get their choice of meals. There was no "cafeteria" plan. You grew a lot of what you ate and was very grateful for anything else. There weren't any desserts. There were no televisions, radios, or stereos. There were no state of the art gyms. The only weightlifting was moving heavy rocks from spot to another. By the time you went back to your cell, all you wanted to do was sleep. Respect was something you gave the guards.

Much of that is gone today. Bad behavior is not just tolerated, but encouraged or even rewarded with multi-million dollar book deals, and countless media coverage and interviews (often paying interviews). Your "15 minutes of fame" could even land you a movie deal. It's no wonder individuals like Mr. Weiner act the way they do. Get caught; Lie about it for as long as possible; Confess and/or quit when finally you have to; Negotiate your own penalty and keep the money. It's a tired and true script for modern society, just "insert name here". We're long passed double standards, and are headlong into narcissism and greed as the society's norm; consequences be damned. It's all around us. Just turn on the TV, rent a movie, or pop in a video game. No doubt we'll be seeing the feature again. And don't forget the weiners.