Because The Conservative Machine Is Swiftboating Hillary Clinton, We Must Share Videos Like These . . .

[This post is about the video.  I encourage you to watch it.  The intro has gotten longer than intended, so skip it if you will and watch the video.]

Every time the Republican nominee tweets 'crooked' in front of our future president's first name, 'crooked' embeds itself a little deeper in people's brains. He knows that repetition of a lie eventually becomes truth for many people.

Benghazi hearings and email 'scandals' show how little the other side has on Clinton.  The 'crimes'  she's been accused of are, at worst, minor offenses compared to what the Bush administration did regularly.  They really have nothing serious on Clinton.  Well, being a woman is probably her most serious crime in many Republican eyes, but most know they can't say that directly.

All the attacks so far on Clinton are part of the political weaponry of the Republicans - honed by people like Roger Ailes, who has just stepped down as head of Fox News for decades of sexual harassment.

It is the vicious fabrication of lies to bring down an honorable candidate.  They took war hero John Kerry and 'swiftboated' him until their draft-dodging candidate beat him in 2004. Such irony!  The party of the military, the party that despises draft-dodgers, the party that exalts 'war heroes,' slandering a hero so their draft dodger president would win.

Swiftboating is now part of the American political lexicon, like gerrymandering. Wikipedia says:

"The term swiftboating (also swift-boating or swift boating) is a pejorative American neologism used to describe an unfair or untrue political attack. The term is derived from the name of the organization "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" (SBVT, later the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth) because of their widely publicized—and later discredited—campaign against 2004 U.S. presidential candidate John Kerry."

No candidate is perfect.  You can't reach the political level of a presidential nomination from a major party without having had made compromises along the way.  Nixon actually was a crook.  He authorized breaking into Watergate and physically stealing files from the Democratic party files and lied about it repeatedly.

Today, it appears Russian government sponsored hackers electronically broke into the Democratic party files and leaked them the day before the Democratic convention.  And the bigger fallout is on candidate Clinton, not on the Russians, or the Republicans who are hoping to benefit from this.

That's not to say Clinton is without flaws.  None of us are.  We have to weigh the strengths and weaknesses in each candidate and figure out who will be the best president.  The Republicans are swift boating her flaws into capital crimes.

But her opponent's flaws are so numerable and egregious and his strengths are so few that leaders of the Republican party - including former Republican presidents - stayed away from the convention.  Clinton is one of the best qualified candidates we've ever had, yet much of the American public thinks she's a crook, and  one delegate at the Republican convention called for  a firing squad.  (Does he know that we don't use firing squads any more?)

But I would argue that Hillary's skills, like any woman who reaches the highest levels in her field, are at least 50% better than most males at this level and her heart, as the video below demonstrates, is in the right place. (Her opponent's heart?  Does he even have one?)  Her fight with Sanders was mainly about policy, particularly about economic policy - PPT and regulations of the financial industry.  I lean with Sanders on those issues.  And even though the emails show bias against Sanders, it's nothing like the bias against Trump inside the Republican National Committee was.

What's probably most galling for the Republicans is that they FAILED to stop Trump even while trying to change the rules to do so.  Meanwhile the Democrats' SUCCEEDED in stopping Sanders because their rules already included super delegates.  What I've seen revealed in the emails so far happens in every campaign.  Newsflash:  People in DNC had favorites among the candidates.  Is anyone really surprised?  Officials have to appear neutral, but they mostly know who they favor.  It's no surprise.  What's surprising is that the media is treating this like a major scandal.    In any case, Clinton's the candidate now and has to be the choice in November for and people with the USA's best interests at heart. (I'll give a pass to people living in states like Alaska where the outcome is clearly red or blue already.)

The faithful's minds are set - on all sides.   But the undecided and leaning folks are reachable.  . So while the Republicans make foibles into indictable offenses and launch a fleet of swift boats against Hillary Clinton, we need to share those tributes that show a different Clinton than the Republicans would have voters believe.  I urge you to watch this video and share it.



Meryl Streep tells us of the side of Hillary Clinton that we normally don't hear about - how she visits women leaders of grass roots organizations in all the countries she visited as Secretary of State, and how important that was for women everywhere.

[I proposed in a previous post that the Republican candidate's name should not be voiced at the Democratic convention this week.  I'm going to try to follow that suggestion here this week as well.  Nothing could disturb him more.]

[Sorry, reposting - Feedburner stuff.]

How About A Trumpless Democratic Convention?

I have two suggestions for the Democrats as they prepare for their convention next week.

1.  Go Trumpless

Trump has managed to get hours and hours of free media coverage for the last year.  The media has found his outrageousness both irresistible and profitable.

The Democrats shouldn't continue that.  'Trump' is a word that shouldn't be uttered once.  They can talk about about what they would do and how they would do it.  They don't have to spell out how different their vision is from Trump's.  Trust the viewers to fill it in themselves.

You know, nothing would upset Trump more than being totally ignored.  Well, they can't ignore him, but they don't have to mention him and that will have the same effect.  A Trump free media week will show Americans how wonderful that is.  Though by Thursday night, probably Trump will be trying to crash the convention just so someone has to say his name.


2.  Include the lowliest delegates in the prime time programing.

Trump said

"I alone can fix it."

Clinton belittled that idea today when introducing Tim Kaine.  Well, her nominating convention should demonstrate she really means it.  

I'd also suggest that instead of non-stop celebrity talking heads, they also let the convention delegates  be more than a mindless crowd of extras that cheers, boos, holds signs, and chants slogans.


Take some of that prime time to put the delegates in the spotlight.  Let them form small discussion groups and have the cameras follow real discussions of real issues by real people.  Highlight the voices of the people who are Clinton's partners in getting her elected.

Plagiarism Is The Sincerest Form Of Flattery

In academia, plagiarism is one of the greatest sins.  Students who copy others' work without crediting it get failing grades.  Researchers who do that can lose their jobs.

Copyrights and trademarks in business are ways to fight stealing of others' ideas.

But everyone's creative work is influenced by one's environment.   Picasso is often quoted, "Good artists copy, great artists steal." (But The Quote Investigator shows there were many antecedents to that thought.)  And different people - as Twitter proves daily - can independently come up with the same thought.  I haven't googled the title of this post, but I'm guessing I'm not the first to come up with this idea today.*

Did Melania Trump plagiarize Michele Obama's 2008 speech?  Well, if I found a student's paper that had such close echoes in another document, I would have given her an F.  But that's the harsh rules of academia.  You can check the video showing the two candidates' wives side by side and decide for yourself.  But I think it's besides the point.

The Democrats aren't technically wrong in charging Melania with plagiarism.  But politically, they should have just said:  "She's copied Obama."  What greater sin could a Republican commit?


Of all the things that Trump has said and done in the last year, and the way the media has shone the spotlight on all his outrageousness,  this copying of Michele Obama's speech is really small potatoes.

Importantly, though, is that Trump's speech writers were stupid enough to so blatantly copy and think they could get away with it.  What does this foretell of the work that would be done in a Trump administration?   I think of students who were surprised that I figured out they had plagiarized.  In most cases,  the lifted portions are usually much better written than the surrounding text that the student wrote, and they stand out like a spaghetti stain on a white shirt to someone with any sense of writing style.  And a quick google search can locate the original.

But Democrats shouldn't be too smug here.  I'm sure that Republicans are busily searching for speeches they can use to show that Michele Obama's words came from somewhere else too.

*After writing that sentence I did check.  What I found on page one of google were several related items that said, "Plagiarism isn't the sincerest form of flattery."

Why plagiarism isn't flattery. (2011)
Why plagiarism isn't the sincerest form of flattery.  (2013)
Plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery.  (2012)

Republican Platform To Restore America To The Good Old Days (TIC warning)

Let's see, so far:

No abortions. Ever.

Climate change is a hoax.  Coal will be a clean energy source again.

Bible in the schools, except for the pornographic parts. Since porn is a 'public menace.'

Gay marriage,  bad again.  The anti-regulation wing stopped the call for extra closets in all housing so gays can return.

Even unmarried hetero partnerships will be bad again.

They aren't finished yet.  Look out for:

Free guns to all white new-borns.

Repeal of the 19th Amendment.  And other laws giving women rights over their personal and financial affairs.

Reopening of WW II Japanese internment camps for undocumented immigrants and their terrorist friends.

Return of segregation (I don't think the pro-slavery folks will have enough votes, but who knows?)

Constitutional amendment to exclude human beings from the 'person' category.

Oh yeah, watch out minimum wage.  And maybe businesses can even get child labor back.


Apparently Trump is being hands-off here.  According to the NY Times article,

"That allowed conservative activists like Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, to exert greater influence. Mr. Perkins’s hand could be seen in dozens of amendments on issues like gun control, religious expression and bathroom use."

I'm beginning to think that Perkins' sharing the name of the actor who played Norman Bates is no coincidence.  Can you say Psycho?

He's giving Clinton a great Republican platform to run against.



TIC- tongue-in-cheek

Musings On The Trashing Of Clinton

Let's see, Hillary Clinton is corrupt.  We know this because every time Trump tweets her name he puts "Corrupt" before her name.

STOP!  I've been thinking about a post for the last couple of weeks.  One that would basically say, "Why all this fuss about Clinton's email?  First it was Benghazi, now it's email?  Why do so many people say she's corrupt in polls?  Duh.  Cause Trump keeps tweeting 'corrupt Hillary'.  Over and over and over and over again.

Email?  Give me a break.  She used a private email account.  OK.  That's what they have.  No intention.  No leaks that caused any harm.  Now, I'm all about following the law and all that, but no one gets to the presidential candidate level without leaving a trail.

And I think about how in 2004 the contest was between a Vietnam war hero and a draft dodger, and the Republicans managed to smear the hero with the Swiftboat campaign, and they're trying to do something similar with Clinton.  And they've managed to get the corrupt word stuck to her.

BREAK.  New thought.
There was a tweet I saw the other day:

My gurl headed to #juneau just walked past 4 senators in 1st class and then sees our governor in coach. #OfCourse. #Akleg

15 retweets26 likes

I responded.  Something like:  if you have enough mileage, they bump you up to first class for price of coach.

Others responded:  Agreed, but appearances matter. 

I added:  Appearances are important, but getting below the surface is more important.

The original tweeter responded:  Oh Gurl, I know how upgrades work but take it from someone who used to sing in malls, appearances matter.

0 retweets0 likes

Yes, appearances matter.  So, were the 4 senators in first class because they  paid for first class with state money?  Or they've flown enough that they get bumped up to first class when there are seats available?  And did the governor get bumped up to first class, but chose, for appearances, to stay in coach?  

The answer is, I guess, it doesn't matter,  Appearances matter.  

BACK TO CLINTON.  

So, I'm thinking, yeah, appearances do matter, and Clinton's team know what happened to Kerry in 2004.  They're attacking Trump regularly.  

The campaign has become attack, attack, attack.  Everyone loses in that kind of campaign.  I'm still thinking about how 'corrupt' has become attached to Hillary.  Is it because Sanders and Trump are changing the rules of the campaign and so the old ways, where politicians' compromises necessary to get to the top were basically ignored or seen as business as usual?  Or because Clinton's a woman and so she's held to a higher standard than men?   Or that Trump's 'corrupt Hillary' campaign is working?  Or a combination of all three?  

NEW SIDETRACK.

I google:  If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes truth.  (I'm assuming you can see the connection between this thought and Trump's 'corrupt Hillary' tweet campaign.)

It gets me to a post on "Goebbels quotes."   Whoa.  I didn't mean to get to Nazi stuff.  Everyone freaks out when you reference Nazis as though you are saying "X is a Nazi."   

What do I do now?  I read the post.  At the bottom:

Misattributed[edit] The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success. 

Actually from "War Propaganda", in volume 1, chapter 6 of Mein Kampf (1925), by Adolf Hitler 

If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself. 

Attributed to Goebbels in Publications Relating to Various Aspects of Communism (1946), by United States Congress, House Committee on Un-American Activities, Issues 1-15, p. 19, no reliable source has been located, and this is probably simply a further variation of the Big Lie idea
Variants:
If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it.
If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.
If you repeat a lie long enough, it becomes truth.
If you repeat a lie many times, people are bound to start believing it.
Attributed in "The Sack of Rome" by Alexander Stille, p. 14, and also attributed in "A World Without Walls: Freedom, Development, Free Trade and Global Governance" (2003) by Mike Moore, p. 63

What does that all mean?  That it's in Mein Kampf?  That it's really from "The Sack of Rome"?

So, reluctantly I google:  Mein Kampf volume 1 chapter 6 which gets me here.
So I search for "lie " in chapter 6.  And I get some stuff. The chapter is titled "War Propaganda" and discusses how English war propaganda in WW I was so much better than German propaganda.  But how do I know the translation is any good?  So I search for Mein Kampf in German.  (I studied in Germany for a year at the time when overseas students had to take all their classes in the local language.  My German's not great, but it's good enough, especially with all the online help these days, to see if the translation is accurate.)

Das Volk ist in seiner überwiegenden Mehrheit so feminin veranlagt und eingestellt, daß weniger nüchterne Überlegung als vielmehr gefühlsmäßige Empfindung sein Denken und Handeln bestimmt. 

The great majority of a nation is so feminine in its character and outlook that its thought and conduct are ruled by sentiment rather than by sober reasoning.

Is the translation any good?  It's amazingly good.  Not because it's a literal translation - which would make little sense in English - but because it takes the meaning and renders it in good clean English.  I checked the next couple of paragraphs, and it stayed good.

Diese Empfindung aber ist nicht kompliziert, sondern sehr einfach und geschlossen. Sie gibt hierbei nicht viel Differenzierungen, sondern ein Positiv oder ein Negativ, Liebe oder Haß, Recht oder Unrecht, Wahrheit oder Lüge, niemals aber halb so und halb so oder teilweise usw. Das alles hat besonders die englische Propaganda in der wahrhaft genialsten Weise verstanden – und berücksichtigt. Dort gab es wirklich keine Halbheiten, die etwa zu Zweifeln hätten anregen können. 

This sentiment, however, is not complex, but simple and consistent. It is not highly differentiated, but has only the negative and positive notions of love and hatred, right and wrong, truth and falsehood. Its notions are never partly this and partly that. English propaganda especially understood this in a marvellous way and put what they understood into practice. They allowed no half-measures which might have given rise to some doubt. 

Das Zeichen für die glänzende Kenntnis der Primitivität der Empfindung der breiten Masse lag in der diesem Zustande angepaßten Greuelpropaganda, die in ebenso rücksichtsloser wie genialer Art die Vorbedingungen für das moralische Standhalten an der Front sicherte, selbst bei größten tatsächlichen Niederlagen, sowie weiter in der ebenso schlagenden Festnagelung des deutschen Feindes als des allein schuldigen Teils am Ausbruch des Krieges: eine Lüge, die nur durch die unbedingte, freche, einseitige Sturheit, mit der sie vorgetragen wurde, der gefühlsmäßigen, immer extremen Einstellung des großen Volkes Rechnung trug und deshalb auch geglaubt wurde. 

Proof of how brilliantly they understood that the feeling of the masses is something primitive was shown in their policy of publishing tales of horror and outrages which fitted in with the real horrors of the time, thereby cleverly and ruthlessly preparing the ground for moral solidarity at the front, even in times of great defeats. Further, the way in which they pilloried the German enemy as solely responsible for the war – which was a brutal and absolute falsehood – and the way in which they proclaimed his guilt was excellently calculated to reach the masses, realizing that these are always extremist in their feelings. And thus it was that this atrocious lie was positively believed. The effectiveness of this kind of propaganda is well illustrated by the fact that after four-and-a-half years, not only was the enemy still carrying on his propagandist work, but it was already undermining the stamina of our people at home.

So, you're asking, where is the stuff about lies becoming truth?  It's a ways below.  First there is the discussion of what the Germans did wrong in WW 1.  They were too even handed, not simplistic enough, too logical.  Needed experts to do this, but we left it to 'feckless statesmen' and 'placid aesthetes and intellectuals.'

Its [propaganda's] chief function is to convince the masses, whose slowness of understanding needs to be given time in order that they may absorb information; and only constant repetition will finally succeed in imprinting an idea on the memory of the crowd.  [emphasis added]
Every change that is made in the subject of a propagandist message must always emphasize the same conclusion. The leading slogan must of course be illustrated in many ways and from several angles, but in the end one must always return to the assertion of the same formula. In this way alone can propaganda be consistent and dynamic in its effects. Only by following these general lines and sticking to them steadfastly, with uniform and concise emphasis, can final success be reached. Then one will be rewarded by the surprising and almost incredible results that such a persistent policy secures.

The success of any advertisement, whether of a business or political nature, depends on the consistency and perseverance with which it is employed.

The lies?  Well, it's never exactly said that way.  But the key is to repeat the simple black and white message.  The closest it comes is the last sentence below:

In this respect also the propaganda organized by our enemies set us an excellent example. It confined itself to a few themes, which were meant exclusively for mass consumption, and it repeated these themes with untiring perseverance. Once these fundamental themes and the manner of placing them before the world were recognized as effective, they adhered to them without the slightest alteration for the whole duration of the War. At first all of it appeared to be idiotic in its impudent assertiveness. Later on it was looked upon as disturbing, but finally it was believed.

The last two sentences, this time in the original again.

Sie war im Anfang scheinbar verrückt in der Frechheit ihrer Behauptungen, wurde später unangenehmundward endlich geglaubt.

CAN HE NOW PULL THIS ALL TOGETHER? 

As much as people want to blame social media like Twitter for the simplistic way many voters think, and the effectiveness of constantly repeating a message until it goes from 'idiotic' to 'believed,'  these tactics are not new.  Hitler claims these means were used by the British in WW I to rally its people and troops on to victory.

My sense is that the fuss about Hillary's emails is simply Swiftboating.  Most people understand something simple like using a private email account versus the government account.  But I think in the end it might backfire on the Republicans.  Most people know that they slip between their work and private accounts all the time.  They know that keeping up with the constantly changing technology leaves most folks vulnerable to screwing up.

Two of the key pit bulls attacking Clinton appear to have their own private/public email issues.  Or is this just the Clinton team hitting back?  And even the attorney whose client successfully sued the Palin administration for her use of private email accounts to prevent the public from seeing all her emails via public records requests, is having some second thoughts about whether the public should see every email.

Appearances matter, true.  But life isn't simple.  Getting past superficialities may be difficult with 140 characters, but I think it's still important.  And writing about the complexities helps one understand them and how to focus in on the most important aspects.  Ultimately, we probably make the biggest impact by doing what we're best suited for.  In my case, appearances are there to be questioned and examined.  And as I do that, I can't imagine the email attacks on Clinton are about serious stuff, but rather are mudslinging attempts to tear her down. The focus on the emails shows how little they have (or are they saving the serious stuff for October?)  Calling her the most corrupt candidate in history is sheer propaganda, and Trump does stay on message.  And already that idea, for many, according to the polls, has gone from 'idiotic' to 'disturbing', and by November could become 'believed.'

Short Comments On Different Topics - Transgender Military History, Trump's General VP Prospect, Closing Blogger Comments

Too much to write about, not enough time.  Here are some brief takes on things that have come up.

1.  Watch M*A*S*H Reruns To Train Troops On Getting Along With Transgender Soldiers

Image Source

When I first heard the news that the military was dropping the ban on transgender troops, I thought, what's the big deal? Corporal Klinger wore dresses all the time and it
didn't seem to really bother his unit during the Korean war.  Or the TV viewers.  Of course, cross-dressing is not the same as transgender.  Here's a take on this as part of the evolution of showing transgender folks on television from Bilerico:

"Jamie Farr's crossdressing character, Corporal Maxwell Q. Klinger, debuts on the CBS television show M*A*S*H  [1972] - the first transgender-related character to appear regularly on TV. Although Klinger was said to crossdress only as an attempt to be given a discharge from the Army, it is the first moment of particular visibility that deviates from comedians' sporadic use of crossdressing for comedic purposes (popularized by Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon in the movie "Some Like It Hot" as well as by comedians ranging from Milton Berle to Jerry Lewis to Monty Python's Flying Circus), and develops into sympathetic characterization." 

I was reminded of this by a new LA Times story that says transgender troops in other countries is nothing new.  Well, we had a cross dressing role model on television back in 1972.  I realize that young men are still forming their self-identity including their sexual personas when they enter the military, and some have had some pretty anti-gay / transgender brainwashing.  Let the military recognize this and educate them, and help them to get over any hangups.  Let them watch M*A*S*H reruns.



2.  How About Running For Vice President To Promote Your New Book?

The Washington Post reports that Trump is seriously considering Ret General Michael Flynn, a registered Democrat, as his running mate.  Is anything Trump says serious?  It turns out Flynn's book The Field of Fight comes out on July 12, though apparently you can start reading it already on Amazon:

"Ten years ago we found evidence that al-Qaeda was far more organized and adept than we had previously given them credit for. It took us nearly that long to locate and execute their leader, Osama bin Laden, and we are far from finished. Al-Qaeda has morphed into a much more dangerous, menacing threat: ISIS. A war is being waged against us by radical Islamists, and, as current events demonstrate, they are only getting stronger. This book aims to inform the American people of the grave danger we face in the war on terror―and will continue to face―until our government takes decisive action against the terrorists that want nothing more than to destroy us and our way of life.
Lt. General Michael T. Flynn spent more than 33 years in Army intelligence, working closely with Generals Stanley McChrystal and David Petraeus, Admiral Mike Mullen, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and other policy, defense and intelligence community, and war-fighting leaders. From coordinating on-the-ground operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, to building reliable intelligence networks, to preparing strategic plans for fighting terrorism, Flynn has been a firsthand witness to government screw-ups, smokescreens, and censored information that our leaders don’t want us to know. A year before he was scheduled to retire, Flynn was sacked as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency for, among other things, telling a Congressional Committee that the American people are in more danger than we were just a few years ago. Why?
The Field of Fight succinctly lays out why we have failed to stop terrorist groups from growing, and what we must do to stop them. The core message is that if you understand your enemies, it’s a lot easier to defeat them―but because our government has concealed the actions of terrorists like bin Laden and groups like ISIS, and the role of Iran in the rise of radical Islam, we don’t fully understand the enormity of the threat they pose against us. A call to action that is sensible, informed, and original, The Field of Fight asserts that we must find a way to not only fight better, but to win."

I'm not sure being an active participant in the Iraq war, where we resoundingly restored democracy to a country that had never had it before, is that great a recommendation.



3.  Blogger Stuff:  Closing comments on a single post

click to enlarge and focus

I posted about the 2013 Anchorage International Film Festival documentaries, which included the film Tales From The Organ Trade.  That attracted ads from kidney traders.  Then I wrote a post called Blogger Ethics:  Leave Comment From Kidney Trader?  Well, in the last month or so, that old post has begun attracting ads from kidney traders again and I mark them as spam.  But I'm tired of that.  So I wondered, "Can I shut off comments on a single post?"  It turns out to be surprisingly easy.  
Just look under options on Post Settings either in create post or edit post (on the right).
The first category is reader comments. Bingo.
Thanks to Blogtimenow.

Let's see if they migrate to this post.

Why Should The Republicans Be Stuck With Trump?

One could, and others have, made the case that Trump is simply the natural result of the lies and vitriol that the Republican Party has been supporting all these years.  From the shameful attack on John Kerry - so nasty that the term 'swift boating' is now part of the political dictionary - to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, to the non-stop attacks on our first Black president, and ruthless attacks on women's rights to obtain an abortion and on immigrants, and their allowing the crazies among the Republicans to act like thugs by playing congressional chicken with the US budget.


But all that aside, suppose they end up with a candidate most of them feel is terrible.  Yes, he followed the rules and got the required number of delegates.  But now they realize that those crazies they cultivated to defeat the Democrats have now saddled them with a man whose election, even just his nomination, is likely to cause the US and the world untold harm.  Whose rhetoric gets no better.  How long can they look the other way?  A man so vain and impulsive that many in the party have withheld their support or given it with obvious distaste.

What if you ordered something at a restaurant and you realize it was a terrible mistake.  You can refuse to eat it.
Or you go to a move that's awful, you can walk out.
Or you're on a date and it's clear you never want to see him again.  You don't have to wait, to end it.
Or the hotel you booked turns out to be above an all night disco.  You don't have to stay.

Is this different?  Well, all those examples were individual choices.  And in all these cases, you'd probably still might have to leave some skin on the table.  So my questions are:

Are the Republicans really obligated to allow this man to be their candidate?
What will they leave on the table if they walk out?


Option 1:  Find some rules in The Rules of The Republican Party that can be used to disqualify Trump.

I've skimmed through the rules and nothing popped out.  Mostly they are about the qualifications of the delegates and how the nominating process is to be run.  I could find nothing about qualities of the nominee.  That's not unreasonable.  The assumption is that candidates as problematic as Trump will never get this close to being nominated.

It might be useful to have something in the rules about the nominee being a registered Republican for a minimum number of years.

The Smoking Gun reports Trump, since 1987, has enrolled as

• a Republican
• a member of the  Independence party member
• a Democrat, 
• a Republican again, 
• "I do not wish to enroll in a party", and finally, in 2012, 
• as a Republican again. 

A five year minimum in the party would make Trump's candidacy moot.  But then someone like Dwight Eisenhower  might not have been eligible to be their candidate in 1952.  (Though I expect a last minute rule change to allow for a popular candidate would be easier than one to eliminate an unpopular candidate.)  Subjective judgments about character make it too easy to disqualify reasonable candidates.

The Democrats have their super-delegates who could be called upon to deny a candidate the nomination.  But after this election there are calls to abolish them.  Maybe after watching Trump and the Republicans, the Democrats will have second thoughts about abolishing them.

The party does have the power to appoint nominees if for some reason there's a vacancy.  Surely Trump isn't going to voluntarily vacate.  (Well, on second thought, nothing is sure with Trump.)

If Trump shoots a reporter who asks a hard question in the next month, I can't imagine that the Republicans couldn't find a way to dump him.  So there must be some line he could cross that would allow dropping him.  But he's crossed so many lines already without him being dropped. . .

The Republicans in the Alaska Legislature have 'unwritten rules.'  One of House Speaker Chenault's staff told me that when I asked to see the rules that were used to strip Rep. Reinbold of her Republican caucus status when she didn't go along with the leadership on the budget.  Perhaps these exist at the national level too and they can use them to stop Trump.


Option 2:  Leave the Republican Party en masse and recreate the party with a new name

This would leave Trump with his supporters in the old GOP, but the rest of the party could reassemble and nominate their own candidate.

I'm not sure what assets - money, property, copyrights/trademarks - they would have to abandon to do this.

Short of this, some could launch an independent run by a Republican alternative to Trump.

I suspect individual Republicans can do this, but getting 'the Party' to agree and do this would be much harder.


Option 3:  Support a third party candidate like the Libertarian Gary Johnson

I saw a letter to the editor in the LA Times that suggested one Republican strategy might be to prevent Clinton from getting enough electoral college votes to win outright and then the election would be decided in the House of Representatives where the Republicans have a big majority.  But, from what I can tell from this League of Women's Voters webpage,

"Results of the mid-December vote in each state are sent to Congress to be counted on January 6, in the presence of the newly elected Senate and House of Representatives."

There's an interesting Atlantic article from October 1980 considering the possibilities that independent candidate John Anderson might get enough electoral college votes to throw the 1980 election into the House of Representatives and what that might look like.

The Washington Post, speculating about the current election, thought that the House of Representatives would be a risky route that would do further damage to legitimacy of the electoral process.



Option 4:  Work with the religious right to have the Apocalypse happen before November.
I don't have an option 4 as you can see, but I'm sure there are other scenarios I haven't thought of.



I'm guessing that if there were rules - written or unwritten - that could get rid of Trump, we'd know about them by now.  It's only because there probably aren't,  that we're hearing talk about third party candidates, not voting for president, or even voting for Clinton.  I suspect that the Sanders' call for getting rid of super delegates, given the Republican situation, is going to have a lot of opposition.

And then there is the issue of what line would Trump have to cross.  Perhaps this is death by a thousand cuts, none of which individually is significant enough to charge him with murder of the Republican Party, and give them an excuse to rescind his nomination.

Why 'Polarizing' Is Misleadingly Used To Describe Ali

I was struck by a headline on a NY Times article printed in the Alaska Dispatch on Saturday, "Polarizing boxing legend Ali dies at 74."  Why'd they use the word 'polarizing' in the title?  Reading the article, I found that writer Robert Lipsyte, used it in the article.

"Ali was as polarizing a superstar as the sports world has ever produced — both admired and vilified in the 1960s and ’70s for his religious, political and social stances. His refusal to be drafted during the Vietnam War, his rejection of racial integration at the height of the civil rights movement, his conversion from Christianity to Islam and the changing of his “slave” name, Cassius Clay, to one bestowed by the separatist black sect he joined, the Lost-Found Nation of Islam, were perceived as serious threats by the conservative establishment and noble acts of defiance by the liberal opposition." [emphasis added]

I guess my question is who, exactly, was polarizing?  Was it Ali, who simply wanted to claim his rights as an American citizen to choose his own religion and to be able to oppose his government's war policy?

Or was it the American media and the people it panders to who didn't like the idea of a big, strong, handsome, black male claiming his freedom to not take crap from white Christians?  Blacks then (and to some extent today still) were expected to be humble and thankful for every crumb they got from white America.

I would argue that Ali wasn't polarizing.  America's economic, social, and political culture was polarizing for anyone who didn't agree with it.  As a black man in 1960s USA, claiming his full rights as an American citizen was particularly unacceptable to those in power.

And today, that's exactly why Mohammad Ali is so revered by so many around the world.  He stood up to the man, without apology, but with lots of good humor.

Was Ali perfect?  That's a dumb question.  Sure he had flaws, but without an amazing amount of self-confidence he would not be remembered this week the way he is.  And, of course, the obvious follow up questions are:  Am I perfect?  Are you perfect?  Is anyone perfect?

I wonder how different the world would be today if Americans had been more thoughtful when Cassius Clay became Mohammad Ali and when Lew Alcindor became Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.
If Americans had paid more attention, listened to the stories of these men and why they converted to Islam, respected their decisions and had learned more about Islam, and been less condescending of Islam and other non-Christian religions, we might live in a very different world today.


And as I think about Ali, and how he has evolved from 'polarizing'  to greatest American sports  hero,  I also think about Bernie Sanders.  Whom, it seems, the establishment Democratic politicians and the establishment media wish would sit down and shut up.  As they did with Ali.   But Sanders is 74 years old.  It's his time.  When I talked to Jane Sanders here in Anchorage last March, she told me that Sanders was campaigning to create a movement that, whether he won the nomination or the election or not, the movement was the most important thing.

A movement that would bring out people to vote and pressure their legislators to fight the corruption of money and the favoring of Wall Street and other big corporations.  That would fight for greater income equity in the US.  That would fight for acceptance of all the various people who make up the USA.

Like Ali, Sanders doesn't have to apologize to anyone.  He doesn't have to listen to the establishment when they condescendingly tell him, "OK, you surprised us, but you're not really one of us, not our calibre, so just enjoy your momentary glory and sit down and shut up."

The issues he's raising about Clinton - her war record, her connections with Wall Street, her personal wealth - are all issues that reflect the path the Clintons took.  They are all pretty consistent with all politicians who have been able to position themselves for a chance at the White House.  That is to say, Hillary Clinton isn't that different - other than gender and a more impressive resume than most - from most other presidential contenders.

Except that her opponent is Bernie Sanders whose stand on most issues has been pretty consistent over the years.  And when he calls her out on these things, he is simply distinguishing himself from her.   Will that hurt her after the convention?  One can argue it's made her stronger by forcing her to debate these issues and develop strategies to counteract them.  And they are moving her somewhat to the left, that political area that was inhabited by Republicans like Richard Nixon 40 years ago.  When the mainstream Democrats were even more to the left.  Bernie's campaign has resonated because the American people have finally become weary of politics as usual as witnessed by the success of the alleged Republican nominee and of Bernie Sanders.

Sanders isn't stupid.  He knows that Clinton is a much better choice than Trump, and he'll support Clinton and do everything he can to get his supporters to vote her.  But he wants to demonstrate the power of this new movement and use the primaries like a surfer uses the waves - to take this new movement as far as he can while the surf's up.  And he wants his supporters to have time to get over their letdown.  To understand that the movement will continue, but that Trump will set it back much more than Clinton would.  And to give Clinton time to show she understands their pain and their passion and will embrace their ideals.

And like Mohammad Ali, Sanders doesn't need to apologize.  And I'm guessing that 20 years out, his name will be associated with massive change in American politics.  I also am sure that, if that happens, inevitably, forces will build up to find new ways to exploit the system.  Free people have to constantly fight to maintain their freedom and to keep moving  in the direction of a more fair and equitable country and world.

Does The Supreme Court Really Matter That Much?

One thought game I like to play as often as possible is to take something I believe so strongly, that I don't even consider that I might be wrong, and question its validity.

[Synopsis:  Is the Supreme Court the Holy Grail of US presidential elections, important enough for party members to ignore their candidates' flaws so at least they can appoint the next Supreme Court justice or two?  Or is its importance over rated?  This post gives some evidence that both parties treat the court that way.  The crux to me seems to be the extent to which the court's decisions can thwart voters - like in Bush v Gore or in gutting the Voting Rights Act.

But the Supreme Court is the issue, only because we are unable to solve our differences at a lower level.  The worst issues get kicked up to the Supreme Court.  A  bigger long term issue is the need for grass roots movements to get Americans of different ideologies to talk to each other and to break the media's narrative of the unbridgeable divide.  I believe that most people's basic values are much more aligned than the media portray.  With more Americans speaking with a more united voice, Congress will be less polarized, and the court's decisions will be more focused on legal, rather than political, disputes.   The details are below.]

In discussions about the election - whether it's whether Republicans should support Trump or Sanders supporters should vote for Clinton - all roads seem to lead to the balance of the Supreme Court.  As much as you may dislike your party's candidate, you don't want the other party appointing the next Supreme Court justices.

Some examples I found online:

From left-leaning The Nation:

"The Supreme Court Is the Most Important Issue in the 2016 Election If Republicans obstruct Obama, the next Democratic president can shape the most progressive court since the 1960s."

The opening sentence of that article lists the reasons:

"Healthcare, gay marriage, voting rights, affirmative action, reproductive rights, labor rights, immigration, climate change."

And from another voice on the left a piece at TPM:

"The Implications for the Nation of a changing Supreme Court. There is so much at stake concerning the Supreme Court for the next few years. As I wrote in Plutocrats United, the easiest way to amend the Constitution to deal with campaign finance disasters like the Supreme Court’s opinion in Citizens United is not to formally amend the Constitution, but instead to change the composition of the Supreme Court. Regardless of what happens with Justice Scalia’s replacement, there will be likely at least three other Justices to be appointed over the next 4-8 years of the next President’s term. The stakes on all the issues people care about—from abortion to guns, from campaign finance and voting rights to affirmative action and the environment, depend upon 9 unelected Justices who serve for life."

From the conservative Weekly Standard, there's a recent article about Zubik v Burwell (on whether non-profits should have to notify the government they do not want to offer contraceptives in their health insurance plans) with the title:

"The Stakes Are High: A timely reminder of the importance of the Supreme Court." 

Richard Wolf, writing in USA Today, back in October 2015 wrote that the Supreme Court is a bigger deal to Republicans than Democrats.

Note:  I do have to acknowledge that when looking for these quotes, I did find a lot of articles on whether Republicans should vote for Trump or Sanders supporters should vote for Clinton that did NOT mention the Supreme Court.

So, is the Supreme Court enough reason to vote for someone you're seriously unhappy with?  

The recent conservative leaning Supreme Court (before Scalia's death) declared money a form of speech in Citizens United, and allowed same sex marriage, upheld the Affordable Care Act, and struck down a number of voting rights provisions.

As big a deal as many liberals make of Citizens United, I would point out that social media have offered a counterweight to money.  And we have seen all the big money going to fight Trump's nomination, it would appear today, unsuccessfully.  And Sanders has managed to refuse PAC money yet to stay in the race and win many primaries and caucuses through the power of the internet and a strong ground game.

Even with a five-four conservative majority, Obama Care and same sex marriage are now the law of the land.

Though the gutting of sections of the Voting Rights Act does pose a serious threat of continued gerrymandering by the many Republican controlled states and allows for obstacles to be erected that prevent - generally - the poor and non-white voters from getting to the polls.  That does fundamentally weaken the chance for the majority's vote to be counted.  For democracy to work. (OK, I understand that a lot of people would laugh at the idea that democracy works at all.  There's only so much I can squeeze into this blog post.  But I've touched on this issue under the label ten steps to dismantling democracy, which I created after a post of that name about Naomi Wolf's book The End of America.)

But there are Republicans telling other Republicans to vote for Clinton.  He's not even mentioning the Supreme Court.

But Democrats tend to be telling Sanders voters to vote for Clinton.  The articles I saw saying Sanders voters should go with Trump tended to be from conservative outlets.  For example, The Federalist.

Here's Ben Shapiro's take at The Daily Wire on why voting for Trump because of the Supreme Court isn't a good reason.  (It's the fourth of five reasons to vote for Trump that Shapiro says are false.) Also  he dismisses the importance of the Supreme Court at the end.  I'd note that I don't understand how he thinks a Trump victory will lead to a Democratic US Senate.):

"4. But The Supreme Court! Trump, the logic goes, will select a more conservative Supreme Court Justice than Hillary Clinton. There is no evidence to support this contention. Again, Republicans are highly likely to lose the Senate to Democrats. Does anyone truly think Trump has the stomach to fight for a constitutional conservative on the Court when he thinks that Supreme Court justices prosecute crimes and sign bills? Ronald Reagan missed two out of three Supreme Court picks. George H.W. Bush went one for two. George W. went one for two. Ford went zero for one, and Nixon went one for four. Does anyone think that Donald Trump will do better than any of these people? Trump has never backed a constitutional balance of powers; he doesn’t know what that phrase means. If you’re hanging your hopes for a conservative Court on Donald Trump, you’re being conned.
Beyond that, the Supreme Court is not the best hope for the Constitution. That hope lies at the state level, and in resistance to unconstitutional legislation and decisions." [from The Daily Wire.]

The Republicans have, for decades now, focused on grooming conservative attorneys to go into the federal court system and on gaining control of state governorships and legislatures. The Federalist Society has played a big role here.  This movement is a mix, I'm sure, of those who truly believe in various conservative ideologies, those who are opportunists looking for jobs and power on a relatively low level, and those who are looking for power and wealth on a relatively high level.  They've made anti-regulatory arguments into personal freedom issues and used those to challenge science that was harmful to their personal interests - science that said smoking caused cancer, science that says global warming is caused by humans.  They've carefully played the emotions of the religious and the less educated on issues like abortion and gay rights.  And they've fought the whole idea of government, except to serve their own interests.  At least that's what it looks like from where I sit.

The Democrats seem to have been focused on specific issues, but not on long term structural strategies like the Republicans.

The media have also played a negative role.  As the newspaper business has become corporatized, and profit becomes the most important motive, news becomes entertainment.  Conflicts generate more readers than calm, so the media now focus more on conflict, and our view of the world is distorted by the exception (the conflict), not the norm (the people who live peaceful lives.)  (That's not to say that profit and conflict  haven't always played a role in the news.)  This election is basically a reality television show - a political "Survivor" - that focuses on personal characteristics, gossip, and strategies to knock competitors off the show, not on the important issues.  No wonder Trump is the Republican nominee.  He's a veteran of reality tv.

The way I see it, taking back our country is something that people have to do.  It's not something Trump will do for us.  Taking back our country is not about going back to when white males did ok because women and non-whites were blocked from the best careers, the best universities, from voting, from controlling their own lives.  It's about going back to when there was a thriving working class, and college grads didn't have huge debts along with their diplomas,  when people with different world views at least knew each other and talked to each other civilly.

The bright side of the internet can help us take our country back.  But it's something that has to be done, ultimately, face to face, community by community.  Immigrants have to share family stories with working class white families.  Black and Latino high school students have to do the same with those who would cut public school funds and together they should work out  better ways to educate our young.  Wealthy owners of corporations need to eat meals at the homes of their lowest paid employees and learn to see the world through their eyes.  And the advocates of regulation need to spend some time in businesses that are tied up by rules.  We have lots of problems, but they are all resolvable if we see each other as well intended human beings and not as 'the enemy.'

Basically we need to talk to each other about the basic issues.  Our childhoods and our relationships with our parents and siblings and partners and kids.  How we earn. save, and spend money.  What our fears are, what our joys are.  What our dreams are.  Why we smoke, drink, take drugs.  Why we don't.  When we do this, we'll find out how much we really have in common.  We'll be able to learn better strategies for getting past our obstacles from those who have already done that.   Good art and literature can help here.  When we start talking to each other as people, as members of our community, rather than as the enemy, everything else will work itself out.

So yes, the Supreme Court is important.  But it's only important because we're so polarized that we can't make important decisions.  Those intractable issues get bumped up to the court.  We need to resolve things at a much lower level and let the Supreme Court worry about legal, not political, issues.

All Genders Restroom

Here's the door to one of the restrooms at the Seattle Aquarium.







We'd been able to book our flight home from LA with a six hour layover in Seattle and we were meeting our daughter and granddaughter at the aquarium.

  We looped around over downtown Seattle and could see the aquarium, but they wouldn't let us out until they landed a few minutes south at the airport.

Since my granddaughter started walking, it's been a minor dilemma when she and I were out together and one of us had to pee.  I obviously couldn't take her into the women's room, but should I take her into the men's room?

If I had to go, there was no choice.  I wasn't going to leave her outside the restroom where I couldn't see her.  She came into the men's room.  And as she got older and knew when she had to go, I still have had to take her into the men's room.

No one got excited.  No one ever made a fuss about her presence in the men's room.  I wasn't totally comfortable.  While I believe in openness and that we should be able to talk about anything that a kid raises, I also feel it important to let her mother be the guide on this.  And we haven't talked about this.  And what if my granddaughter doesn't raise questions, out loud?  But sometimes you have to make a decision on the spot.

I also understand that it's different when an adult male goes into a women's restroom, especially when a woman is alone in the restroom, especially if she's ever been sexually abused.  But that could happen any time, any where.  With or without laws about transgender access to restrooms.

As I see this issue there are several key points.  But the absolutely most important is simply understanding the fluidity of gender.  And for the current situation - what a transgender identity is about.  I'm certainly no expert on this, but I seem to know a lot more than the folks freaking out over transgender rights and bathrooms.

Understanding transgender.    From the moment of birth, we are segregated into boy or girl. Pink or blue.  I wrote about my experiences on this with my granddaughter at the playground two years ago.  We know there is more than black or white, good or bad, open or closed, up or down, smart or dumb, and every other pair of opposites.  There are shades of gray.  A person  can be good at some things and bad at others.  A car can be good at one time and bad at another.  But male or female, to many people, are absolutes.  Penis or no penis.

But it's not that simple.  Every year, about 2000 babies are born with "ambiguous genitals."

Ambiguous genitals refer to the uncertain appearance of a baby's external sexual features. Sometimes a female foetus is born with ovaries but male-like external genitals (female pseudo-hermaphroditism). A male may be born with testicles (which have yet to descend from the pelvis) but with female-like external genitalia (male pseudo-hermaphroditism). Rarely, newborns may even have both ovaries and testicles and ambiguous genitals (true hermaphroditism). In addition, there may be other congenital defects present in these newborns, such as hypospadias in males. This is a condition in which the urethral (urinary) opening is not in its normal position on the tip of a penis but is on the underside.  [From Gender Centre]

So what happens when babies are born with ambiguous genitals?

Approximately 10 times a year in Houston, at the birth of a certain type of baby, a special crisis team at Texas Children's Hospital springs into action. Assembled in 2001, the unusual team includes a psychologist, urologist, geneticist, endocrinologist, and ethicist. Its mission: to counsel parents of infants sometimes referred to as "intersex" babies—that is, babies of indeterminate physical gender. That such a team exists—and that it often counsels deferring surgery for infants who are otherwise healthy—reflects a radical new thinking among doctors about gender identity and outside efforts to shape it. Instead of surgically "fixing" such children to make them (visually, at least) either male or female, a handful of U.S. specialists now argue that such infants should be left alone and eventually be allowed to choose their gender identity. The approach challenges decades of conventional wisdom about what to do with infants whose genitalia don't conform to the "norm." Until very recently, such children were automatically altered with surgery, often with tragic consequences. Each year, about one in 2,000 children is born with ambiguous-looking genitalia.

One in 2000 children a year.  In 2014 there were 3,988,076 babies born in the US, so that comes to just under 2000 babies who weren't physically classifiable as clearly a boy or a girl. One in 2,000 is a tiny fraction of the population, but it's still 2000 people a year.  For Anchorage, assuming a random distribution, with a population of about 300,000, given one in 2000,  there should be 150 transgender folks.  That's a tiny minority.  So it's reasonable that most people don't know anyone who is transgender, especially since it isn't something people tell you when they meet you.  But it's not reasonable to stay ignorant, given the attention in this issue, and to treat these folks poorly.

Given the importance our society attaches to whether someone is male or female - remember, it's the first thing we ask when a new baby is born - being of ambiguous gender has to be one of the most difficult identity issues one can imagine. Especially when everyone assumes that you have to be either a boy or a girl. What do these 2000 people a year have to deal with every day of their lives?

For me, the first serious introduction to these questions came in Jeffrey Eugenides' book Middlesex, which tells three generations of familial history of Calliope Stephanides, a Greek American girl who doesn't feel like a girl.  It won a Pulitzer Prize and I recommend it - not only for what one can learn about intersex people, but because it's a wonderful novel.

Closing Thoughts

We're having this debate about transgender bathrooms because people are ignorant.  That's not a judgmental statement, merely descriptive.  People really don't understand about intersex or transgender or ambiguous genitalia.  They don't understand it because they don't even know it exists. We've been taught that you're either male or female.

Some people are naturally ignorant.  That is they have been taught people are male or female and their life experiences match what they've been taught.  Gays and lesbians have given them some cognitive dissonance, but even gay folk are still identified as male or female.

Some people are willfully ignorant.  They refuse to seek information that challenges what they 'know.'

Some people, in this election year, see this as an issue that could help the Republican Party overcome what looks like a hopeless presidential race for them.  Wedge issues have been a big part of the party's strategy over the years.  For a more academic approach on this click here.  I'm sure there were Republicans clapping with glee when the Obama administration announced it was suing North Carolina.  But I'm guessing there will be a lot of education in the next six months.  Not only on transgender issues, but also on the other aspects of North Carolina's HB 2 which attacks things like minimum wage and the right to sue over employment discrimination.

When my granddaughter had to go potty (her language, not mine) we weren't near the all genders  restroom and I took her into the men's room.  There were stalls as well as urinals.  We used a stall and no one's privacy was disturbed.

[Yes, Feedburner problems continue. I'm reposting what I put up earlier.  Finding a better RSS feed is on my todo list.  Anyone with suggestions let me know.]

"Tells It Like It Is"? More Like Tells It As He Sees It.

Corey Lewandowski, Donald Trump's campaign manager is quoted in the Alaska Dispatch yesterday (from a Washington Post article by Dan Balz) as saying:

“. . . his appeal has been as a person who tells it like it is.”

Call it spin or framing, we have to be careful to keep our crap detectors well maintained so we don't let these memes slip into our brains uninspected.

Wikipedia explains memes this way (in part, there's lots more at the link):

A meme (/ˈmiːm/ meem) is "an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture". A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols, or practices that can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena with a mimicked theme. Supporters of the concept regard memes as cultural analogues to genes in that they self-replicate, mutate, and respond to selective pressures.

This is the best word I can think of to describe what I mean here - that someone says something like "tells it like it is" and this idea spreads quickly, like a virus, and people begin to think of Trump as someone who tells it like it is, which implies that he know the truth and doesn't hesitate to say it.  And that has a lot of appeal for Americans who are used to politicians waffling or being outright deceptive ("I did not have sex with that woman.")

I do believe that Trump is a man who is used to getting away with saying what he thinks, at least in many situations.  I suspect when he is wooing an investor, he's more likely to edit his thoughts a bit and even prevaricate so he can tell the investor what he (Trump) thinks the investor wants to hear.

And up till now, the bedrock of Republican voters - conservative, older white males who feel their country is being taken away from them by non-whites and women, whether born Americans or immigrants - have been Trump's investors.  He's done a great job in getting them to invest their votes in his candidacy.

But the rest of us shouldn't let our brains be invaded by misleading memes.  "Telling it like it is" works great for Trump, but I'd suggest he's really "Telling it like he sees it."  

By that I mean he's saying what he thinks will sway voters to come out to vote for him.  Whether he actually believes what he says or only thinks it will persuade his target audience, I still don't know.  I suspect sometimes it's the one and sometimes the other.  I do believe that he believes life is a game and the only way to play is to win.  But at the end of each game, he forgets the losses, remembers the wins, and focuses on the next game.

So he could honestly praise Cruz, after he suspended his campaign,  From Newsmax:

"I have met some of the most incredible competitors that I have ever competed against right here in the Republican Party," Trump said to cheering supporters at his victory speech at Trump Tower in New York City.
"We started off with 17 — and just so you understand, Ted Cruz, I don't know if he likes me or if he doesn't like me, but he is one hell of a competitor.
"He is a tough, smart guy," Trump continued. "And he has got an amazing future. He's got an amazing future. 

The primary game, in Trump's mind, is now over, and Trump can just forget all the mean and nasty things he said about Cruz and Cruz said about him.  That was all just rhetoric in the game.  (As opposed to 'telling it like it is.')

Now his competitor is presumed to be Hillary Clinton and he's going to play to win this new game just as vigorously.  He's got new investors to woo, and we'll see how much of what he's been saying he believes and how much he changes his game for voters who prioritize their values differently from Republican primary voters.

"the 24-hour rule is a 'nonsubject"

Nat Herz has an ADN article today about the Republican majority ignoring the 24 hour rule for notifying people of a committee hearing.  He notes that Jeremy Hsieh, the news director for Juneau’s public television and radio stations,  regularly tweets violations of this rule, though he acknowledges that there is no penalty for the legislature violating their own rules.  The title quote comes from Cathy Giessel (R-Conoco-Philips).

"Asked about Wielechowski’s objections about the oil tax bill, Giessel, the resources committee chair, responded that the 24-hour rule is a 'non subject.'”

What exactly is a 'non subject'?   Here's what the Collins dictionary says:

Clearly, she isn't using it in the first or third sense.  Definition number 2 seems the closest.

It's of no interest or importance.  Obviously, this isn't exactly true because the article says that Hsieh's tweeting

". . . drew a sharp response this week from the Republican-led Senate majority caucus. 

The caucus press secretary, Michaela Goertzen, asked Hsieh to remove one of his tweets that said the Senate’s labor and commerce committee, chaired by Sen. Mia Costello, R-Anchorage, appeared to have broken the 24-hour rule."

So they are interested and pissed at the attention.  They'd rather just do it and no one knows.

I think what Giessel means is that she has no interest in the 24 hour rule and it's not important to her.  She doesn't care.  And she doesn't have to care.

That's the problem we have when one party has a significant majority and can simply ignore the other party and the rules that have been set up to protect the people of Alaska from bills being rushed through with inadequate notice for anyone to prepare a response.  

Giessel has done this sort of thing before.  When it comes to oil issues, she pushes through, because that's her job, taking care of the needs of her husband's employer.

But this callousness to anyone who disagrees with them is having its effect on Republicans nationally and I expect that it will spill over to the states in November.  Giessel's district has proven to be well gerrymandered to protect her, but eventually power leads to enough arrogance that people finally say
'enough.'  

Now That Republicans Are Trying To Dump Trump, Maybe They'll Nominate Darth Vadar

So, Trump will go to the convention with the most votes.  But you need a 1237 delegates. If no one reaches that number, then the second round is wide open.  Trump may argue that he has the most votes so he should win, but that's not the rules.  And despite his 'most votes.'  a large majority of Republicans who voted or caucused, chose someone other than Trump.  He can't claim 'majority wins,' if he doesn't have a majority of the delegates.

And the Republican establishment as well as many non-establishment Republicans think he'd be a terrible candidate.  Personally, I think that for the most powerful - whether in elected or unelected positions - it's less about his policy and more about the fact that they don't control him and he doesn't owe them anything.  They fear for their power, positions, and access to the inner workings.  After all, he merely says what they've been using code to say all these years.  (OK, there are rational Republicans who are sincerely repelled by what he says as well as concerned about losing power.)

And they aren't too excited by the number two man Ted Cruz.  After all, he thumbed his nose at the Senate leadership with a 21 hour filibuster against Obamacare against the party leadership's wishes.

So now things seem wide open to find a candidate wh will appeal to the leadership and to the American voter (not just Republicans.)  Paul Ryan's just emphatically said he wouldn't run or be drafted.  So who's left?   In the Senate there are 55 Republicans.  The ones with the most name recognition are from places like Alabama .  Then there are few folks whose names will cost them 5% of the vote - like Flake and Crapo.  Sorry, this is not a cheap shot, but the reality of life, like the fact that good looking people get an advantage.  [Trying to find some study to support the idea that a weird name will lose votes was distracting and unsuccessful.  Maybe Johnny Cash was right and I'm wrong.]

And then there are former Republican officials who weren't elected - like Condoleeza Rice or Colin Powell.  Republicans do like conservative blacks.  I think it's because they think it proves they aren't racists.  They can say things like, one of my best friends . . .

So who's out there?  There are the Republican governors.  Unlike legislators, governors actually have to govern, not just talk and posture.   The FiveThirtyEight blog has a list of governors by popularity ratings.  Here are the top few:

From FiveThirtyEight blog

So we start off with a governor from a coal state, in this day and age of climate change with coal being one of the biggest culprits.  Then we get a governor from the state that Bill Clinton was governor of.  The last presidential candidate who was governor of Arkansas was, oh yea, Mike Huckabee.  Nice try, but Beebe is a Democrat.  Utah's Gary Herbert.  He's two months younger than the last Republican nominee and he's also a Mormon.  Are the Republicans ready to try that again?  The governor of North Dakota?  That state was hot when oil was $100 a barrel, but things aren't so good there any more.  Oklahoma has a woman governor..   Didn't McCain pick a woman governor with high popularity ratings?  As I recall, that didn't work out too well.


There may or may not be some good Republican politicians out there who would make good presidents, but name recognition matters.  I suspect that Republicans will do what they've done several times before - pick a celebrity candidate with name recognition.  You know, like Reagan, Schwartzenegger, or even Sonny Bono.

So, what Republican celebrities are out there?   I found a list.   None of these on the list has held office to my knowledge.     Reagan at least had been governor of California.  ((If you're looking for another celebrity governor, Jesse Ventura, well, he was in the Independence Party, not the Republican.) Here are some from a list I found at Buzzfeed.

• Sylvester Stallone

• Tom Selleck

• Wayne Newton

• Bruce Willis

• Chuck Norris

• Clint Eastwood

• Mary Lou Retton

• 50 Cent

• Robert Duvall

• LL Cool J

• James Earl Jones

•  Gloria Estefan

• Adam Sandler

Some we'll just ignore.

From my way of looking at this, there are only a couple of names here that have any traction, but really only one that is solid.

Not even the Academy Awards could find its way to give Sylvester Stallone his long denied Oscar this year, so he's out.

Bruce Willis, Chuck Norris, and Clint Eastwood all could give strong performances as president.  "Make my day!" is so Trumpish, but with much more style.

Robert Duvall seems to have a little more depth and breadth.

Gloria Estefan would allow the Republicans to nominate a Cuban, since they wanted Rubio so bad and, well,  the leadership did. Except Jeb!  And since they'd be bumping Cruz too.

Jones image from E

For my money, there's one on the list who is the perfect candidate.  He's got great name recognition and even greater voice recognition.  He's already been a king several times (Lion King and King Lear.)  He's been President (The Best Man.)   He was a Vice Admiral (The Hunt for Red October) And, of course, he was Darth Vadar.  That voice would make people jump and vote Republican.  James Earl Jones for president.  And he wasn't born in Kenya. You know he'd win.

[I want to put up an Irony alert on this post, but I'm afraid this could happen.]