—Notes from NorseRadish—
Or: How the Democratic Party Machine Elected Trump
Over eight years ago, few people were willing to accept my (seemingly counter-intuitive) insistence that the most vigorous campaigners for Obama’s 2008 election as this nation’s President were Bush 2.0 and John McCain.
From the outset of that year’s presidential election cycle, Bush’s abject failure to sense (much less avoid) conflicts of interest—which he was unable to identify, even when they bit him on the neck—thoroughly neutralized his projected “aw-shucks” image of a cowboy-hat-wearing, pork-rind-eating, broccoli-hating, down-to-earth Texan. None of this was helped by the dichotomy of a Yale graduate who persisted in making the sort of embarrassing linguistic gaffes one might normally associate with Professor William Archibald Spooner.
Equally catastrophic to that year’s Republican Party hopes were perceptions gathered by two or three generations of young voters, few of whom could either conceive of McCain’s truly admirable Vietnam Conflict-era sacrifices (e.g., intentionally declining early release from a Viet Cong prisoner-of-war camp), nor realize just how incredibly damaging it was for him to admit (in the face of an emailing, Blackberry-addict, Social Media fluent, glib-tongued huckster) his total lack of understanding about how email and the internet worked. McCain’s message may as well have been, “Elect your Grandpa!!!”
Faced with a smooth and tech-savvy Democratic Party nominee—whom many Liberals extolled as nothing less than the second-coming of Jimmy Hendrix—this disastrous combination of Bush 2.0’s radioactive political legacy and McCain’s high-tech ineptitude rendered both of them as nothing other than walking billboards for (what should otherwise have been) an otherwise intensely vulnerable and thoroughly unproven opponent.
Nevertheless, this totally inexperienced, anti-American, Black Liberation Theology dilettante of questionable birthright managed—despite being an actual mulatto—to play the Negro Race Card with all the finesse of a slum-dwelling, street corner, three-card-molly-playing con artist. Few, if any, ever even managed to twig on the fact that this supremely coddled, pretentious Ivy League wanker was summoning forth some of the most racist and discriminatory codicils of Jim Crow doctrine (i.e., the “One Drop” rule) in order to label himself as being authentically “Black”.
For the better part of a decade—not only did this consummate partisan charlatan bow before (and bare our nation’s collective neck to) its very worst ideological enemies—he also managed to erode the political and racial fabric of America in ways which will require, not just time, but a degree of labour-intensive reconciliation that will always be awkward for those who didn’t instigate the initial transgression.
Fast forward to November 2016:
Much like my counter-intuitive assessment of 2008’s campaign influences, this year’s election cycle saw President-elect, Donald Trump, propelled into office by none other than Barack Hussein 0bama and Hillary Rodham Clinton. The only significant difference being that it was candidate Hillary’s political legacy which glowed with gamma ray radioactivity, whilst 0bama merely exuded the sort of command-level incompetence normally associated with Gomer Pyle.
Below is a laundry list of the Democratic Party’s preposterous blunders—any one of which could have been fatal. When taken in combination, they assume almost unimaginably toxic proportions.
Nominating a deeply flawed candidate like Hillary
With more accumulated political baggage than Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon combined, the notion that gender bias (akin to the racial bias that helped carry 0bama to victory) would, somehow, sweep Hillary into the Oval Office amounted to fantasy-level statistical projection. Subsequent demographic analysis showed that Hillary received a meager one percent more votes than 0bama did from women voters. All of which goes to show that having a vagina is not a presidential qualification.
Institutionalized persecution of political dissenters
Using the Internal Revenue Service as part of enacting a partisan witch-hunt represents such an abuse of power that it could only sharpen all further election-year sensitivity to any other sort of foul play. Preexisting public mistrust (if not outright hatred) for the IRS only served to further heighten accompanying outrage and perception of wrongdoing. This tainted the White House in ways that only reduced its ability to sway public opinion in favor of an already unpopular Hillary.
Not once but TWICE derailing legitimate FBI investigations of an already favored candidate
Director James Comey could not possibly have ignored how preposterous it would appear to open a second investigation into Hillary Clinton right before Election Day and then—just as promptly—quash it, citing lack of evidence. This is especially so when a federal Judge balks at [a] five-year timeline for release of Clinton emails. U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg (nominated by 0bama) stated how he was “not satisfied with saying, ‘Fine, go ahead and take five years to do this,'”. Yet, magically, Comey’s investigators reviewed some 650,000 emails in just a few days’ time.
Through demonizing Conservatives the Democratic Party poisoned its own ability to gather accurate polling data
Whether it was demonizing Trump himself or lumping together his supporters in a “basket of deplorables”, Hillary and the Democratic Party both alienated many undecided voters—or Bernie Sanders fans—and infuriated America’s Republican base in ways that probably galvanized even reluctant Conservatives. As an aside, there were likely a large number of hesitant voters that were activated by the insane spectacle of “Never Trump” Republicans essentially propelling Hillary Clinton’s campaign numbers. However, far more damaging was how the media effectively forced people (afraid of censure) to avoid revealing their true voting intentions to pollsters. This allowed the press to “breathe its own exhaust” (less politely termed: “sucking its own butt”). All of which resulted in one of the most unexpected underdog wins since Truman and Dewey.
Externalizing Hillary’s popularity with Hollywood stars cost her own (already negligible) charisma
Videos like the uproarious, “Thank you Famous Actors“, were an expectable response to the smarmy and condescending tone so often encountered when our supposed (celebrity) betters sought to lecture us on how to make the right political decisions. Even Trump’s most pompous rantings imbued him with a human touch that went missing every time Hillary stepped in front of a microphone. Her wooden personality, nagging voice, and total lack of a life outside of politics suffused her with all the appeal of a proctology exam.
Anti-White mentality encouraged by present administration harmed both candidates
The constant torrent of anti-White message spewing forth from the White House and Justice department damaged the minority appeal of both candidates. However, Hillary’s blend of condescension and her soft bigotry of lowered expectations worked against her to an extent that Trump’s own flagrant missteps could not hope to surpass. This is revealed in Ezra Levant’s superb video about how, “Blacks, women, Hispanics voted for “racist, sexist” Trump“. Once again, 0bama was one of Trump’s most vigorous campaigners.
Clinton was unable to survive a descent into demonization (as in: too many of her own demons)
The storm of media-based demonizing that perpetually swirled around Trump probably allowed Hillary to delude herself with a sense of invulnerability. All by itself, her own arrogance certainly would have created such a psychological carapace. Be that as it may, a serious deficit in personal warmth and likeability slowly revealed Hillary as an imperious scold whose ability to attract popular sympathy rapidly declined into negative numbers. No amount of deliberate media-bias could conceal her obvious disdain for the common voter.
Concealment of health issues magnified an already damaging reputation for dishonesty
The above-mentioned deceit vis a vis her public and private personae, received even greater scrutiny once serious issues surfaced regarding Hillary’s personal health. There emerged a mottled aura of physical and mental ill-health that only served to highlight her already objectionable behavior. This was augmented by revelations from previous Secret Service details about Hillary’s profanity-laced, abusive treatment of staff in general.
A surfeit of questionable acts long prior to the presidential campaign
Be it Whitewater real estate deals, near-continuous issues of marital infidelity, the supposed “suicide” of Hillary-aid, Vince Foster“, the more recent Benghazi attack or her (totally illegal) private email servers, like used toilet paper stuck to her heel, allegations of (serious) impropriety trailed Hillary and Bill wherever they went. See: “From Whitewater to Benghazi: A Clinton-Scandal Primer“. Far more shocking is the stack of corpses that have piled up around these two over the course of their political careers. See: “The Clinton Body Count” (scroll down to mid-page). Cohabiting with a serial killer appears to be less dangerous than befriending the Clintons.
Clinton Body Count +5 in Just 6 Weeks
Voluntary admission of differing public and private personae too at odds with Trump’s (however erratic) candor
The unsteadiness of Hillary’s already tottering reputation was exacerbated by revelations of her own duplicitous self-portrayal. From: “Hillary Admits Public Persona ‘Is Fake’ In Leaked Wall Street Speech”
“If everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least, … So, you need both a public and a private position.”
The valuable role that Wikileaks played in counterbalancing Hillary’s numerous and deliberate efforts to evade accountability (especially with respect to Freedom of Information Act requests) cannot be overstated. Julian Assange’s otherwise questionable breaches of America’s national security took on an aspect of heroic proportions that could only be made possible when contrasted with the Clinton crime family. For a last sampling of how extensive Bill and Hillary’s corruption continues to be, please read, “Clinton Foundation: Inurement“. From: The Inurement Prohibition & Non-Profit Organizations
Non-profit organizations are subject to what is known as the nondistribution constraint. Simply stated, this means that non-profit organizations cannot distribute profits to those who control it. The nondistribution constraint is the fundamental distinction between non-profit organizations from for-profit organizations.
In the Internal Revenue Code, the nondistribution constraint is embodied in the prohibition against inurement. “Inurement” is an arcane term for “benefit.” The inurement prohibition forbids the use of the income or assets of a tax-exempt organization to directly or indirectly unduly benefit an individual or other person that has a close relationship with the organization or is able to exercise significant control over the organization.
Regardless of whether or not you are a fan of Donald Trump, his victory represents one of America’s most narrow misses in terms of installing a well-developed criminal enterprise in this nation’s chief executive office.
The final question has been answered and now can be met with a sense of relief. A Juan Williams asked, “Indicted as president … impeached as president?” Regardless of personal admiration or animosity towards Trump, that we have no need to ask such a deeply disturbing question is something which America, as a nation, can only be immensely thankful for.
November 23, 2016 at 03:02
Thank you so much, Xanthippa, for reviewing and posting this post-election polemic of mine. Although this is after-the-fact by WEEKS, it appears that there are too many Soros-funded “protests”—and totally uncalled-for violent riots—happening for such matters to go unremarked (by me, at least).
After all, didn’t this November’s election cycle involve THE EXACT SAME electoral processes that previously installed 0bama?!? Nonetheless, through some unimaginable transformation, these IDENTICAL MECHANISMS managed to—however UNEXPECTEDLY—see Donald Trump placed in prospective office. What (aside from a dissatisfactory partisan outcome) is it that could POSSIBLY be the source of so much conspicuous and unsporting (i.e., extremist) resentment???
I sincerely believe that there is a crucial need to provide those who oppose such un-American behavior—and it makes not one whit of difference whether such opposing individuals are supporters of Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders—with an array of intellectual power-tools that could armor them against the recent storm of irrational onslaughts. Be they delivered by Hillary Clinton’s minions, or camp followers such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Black Lives Matter, Occupy (whatever) squatters, or sundry anarchist, (oxymoronic) “anti-Fascists”, and all of those pro-death anti-civilization organizations that simply cannot bring themselves to lead by example. Go figure…
Regardless, Xanthippa, I am sincerely indebted to you for having taken the time and effort to make this happen. In a shameless attempt to belabor the obvious, as an American citizen, please allow me to offer Thanksgiving.
November 23, 2016 at 18:08
Thank you, NorseRadish, for coming to me with your most excellent post.
It is indeed, difficult to believe what is happening in the US. And Soros….don’t get me started on that old vampire: Canada has been in his sights as well, and, to our shame, we Canadians have not been able to break his spell the way you, our Southern cousins, have managed to in this election.
Congratulations and Happy Thanksgiving!
November 23, 2016 at 18:37
“Congratulations and Happy Thanksgiving!”
Thank you so much, Xanthippa. Odd as it might sound, your editorial generosity and willingness to publish, “Election Reflections”, is the finest Thanksgiving (and possibly even Christmas) gift that I am likely to receive this year (or for several in the past). While that might change if, somehow, I manage to compose another even better article within the next few weeks, that’s not where my bets are placed. So, once again, thank you for your kindness.
PS: Irreverently labeling your blog as “Xanthippa’s Chamberpot” earned you instantaneous mega-points the moment I saw it. I cannot but helplessly smirk every time I see your website’s banner. Kudos!
November 24, 2016 at 18:02
>> McCain’s message may as well have been, “Elect your Grandpa
McCain’s campaign was unfocused but part of it was age-related. If Obama were 70 years old, he wouldn’t have won so handily.
>>Faced with a smooth and tech-savvy Democratic Party nominee
Obama’s policies weren’t substantially different from Kerry’s. Main difference is that charisma wins elections.
>> to play the Negro Race Card with all the finesse of a slum-dwelling, street corner, three-card-molly-playing con artist.
Not a fair charge. Obama rarely talked about his race, unlike Clinton who constantly reminded people that she was a woman.
>> Nominating a deeply flawed candidate like Hillary
She knew she had record unfavorability ratings, but she ran anyway. Numerous other Democrats could have ran, but she had to be selfish.
>> Director James Comey could not possibly have ignored how preposterous it would appear to open a second investigation into Hillary Clinton
I think Comey’s role in the election was minimal. Did it give Donald a 2 point swing? Maybe. But I think the more significant issue was that people were angry at the establishment.
>> Through demonizing Conservatives the Democratic Party poisoned its own ability to gather accurate polling data
Completely true, but the polls were not wrong. they indicated who people supported, but not who people voted for.
10 out of 10 trump supporters voted. 9 out of 10 Clinton supporters voted. that was the difference.
>> All of which resulted in one of the most unexpected underdog wins since Truman and Dewey.
I didn’t expect this outcome either. I was wrong. It really could have gone either way. In hindsight, it was kind of obvious.
* People said Donald couldn’t win his primaries and he did
* Sanders won Michigan when Clinton was said to have a 99% chance
* Donald survived a multitude of scandals and his polls never dropped
* Clinton was highly unfavorable and voters weren’t passionate about her
* Donald was, by far, more charismatic.
>> Even Trump’s most pompous rantings imbued him with a human touch that went missing every time Hillary stepped in front of a microphone.
Clinton has a problem that many professional women have. If she hams it up, she’s criticized for being maudlin. If she’s dry and sober, she’s criticized for being too robotic.
Frankly, I’m tired of demogoguing, and I’d rather have a leader who can discuss policy than appeal to emotion.
Note: this is not an endorsement of Clinton.
>> Anti-White mentality encouraged by present administration harmed both candidates
Many things are wrong with the Obama Admin, but to say his admin was anti-white is ridiculous.
I don’t think the solution for minorities taking offense to every little thing is to have white people take offense to every little thing.
>> “Blacks, women, Hispanics voted for “racist, sexist” Trump“.
Absolutely. One thing liberals fail to understand is that people will vote for a jerk if they think he will improve the economy. Many women have told me “yes, he’s a horrible person but he’s going to bring the jobs back”.
And hispanics, a sizeable chunk of them hate the fact that their illegal cousins are coming into the country and making more money than they are.
>> The storm of media-based demonizing that perpetually swirled around Trump probably allowed Hillary to delude herself with a sense of invulnerability.
A big factor. Millions stayed home because they thought she would win by a landslide anyway.
Media shot themselves in the foot by saying she had a 95% chance of winning.
>> No amount of deliberate media-bias could conceal her obvious disdain for the common voter.
Let’s be fair here. the Common voter is worthy of at least some disdain.
>> his victory represents one of America’s most narrow misses in terms of installing a well-developed criminal enterprise in this nation’s chief executive office.
People tend to have this idealism that putting a new person/party/ideology in power is suddenly going to change everything. Donald is the new Obama.