If Trump loses to Hillary Clinton in the presidential election next month the reason will be obviously based on his inane campaigning: Like him or not, he has demonstrated, again and again on the hustings, one painful fact: With all his celebrated business successes, some of which were the result of crony capitalism that started with the political connections of his pere, Fred Trump, he is not very smart.
In fact, at several points during this campaign—points when the heavenly Hillary is our new Christ campaign seemed to flounder and when Americans were about to see her in all her glory for the self-serving, me first, pol that she is along with so many career pols that pollute our body politic—-Trump refused to shut up for even a minute and let Lady Macbeth grab the limelight. He hogged the national stage. Trump became a kind of national joke; a Falstaff but without any of the roguish charm of the Bard’s great creation. Trump came across as a hooligan. He happily played the part of a bully who spends much time complaining about the waistline of a beauty queen. Yet when he was bullied in the first debate, Trump, instead of sticking to the point, hammering home the endless ethical nightmares of Hillary and her minions who are lusting after power and picking out their new offices in January, reverted to a “she’s not being nice to me” whine.
He could have spent that precious time talking about her 13 missing mobile devices that the FBI asked for in her private email server scandal. He could have asked what happened in Libya, when State department officials died on her watch. He could have brought up the ethical violations of the Clinton Foundation. But that would have required thought, concentration and intelligence, all qualities sadly lacking in the Donald campaign. This shows that Trump is not very strong, that he lacks focus, that he has the attention span of a flea. It shows he is not very smart.
This is not to say that Trump hasn’t faced formidable odds. For instance, the mainstream media—the big networks and the largest newspapers—are mostly populated by people who are Hillary bootlickers. Sometimes it becomes painfully obvious that they think their job isn’t to report. It is, they believe, to tell us who we should elect. They view us as the unenlightened: the poor fish Babbitts who don’t live on the Right or the Left Coast. We need their instruction, they believe. Indeed, during the first debate it was obvious who moderator Lester Holt of NBC News favored. At one point, a person sitting next to me posed a logical question: “Is he working for her?”
The Powers that Be
Certainly a large part of the political establishment of this country wants Hillary. This is the power block on the two coasts that favors a constant expansion of our oppressive welfare/warfare state, the same people, such as Hillary, who voted for the disastrous war of 2003. How about the Donald?
Well, Trump’s position on the war of 2003 is the same as his position on everything else: He was, is and will always be right and, at the same time, all over the political map. He doesn’t know what he believes because he seems to believe in nothing but the Donald. Trump can’t formulate a clear thought because he is, at heart, a human blank. Hillary, by contrast, is certainly smarter than Trump, but she is an ethical nightmare. She is a career pol with a commitment to saying or doing anything or everything that wins the next election. Ergo, she’s keeping a tight leash on her horn dog husband Bill until early November.
Why Can’t There Be Another Way?
What a shame both Hillary and Donald couldn’t lose. Then, in a perfect world, they could be sent to a hell for career politicians and forced to argue with each other forever. The country—the world! —would be better off if they could retire right now and possibly be sent to a Betty Ford rehabilitation center for career liars.
In the meantime, do yourself a favor: Don’t vote for either of these mountebanks.