You’re Never Gonna Get the Smell Out

As America nears the end of the Obama times, one wonders how such a person could ever have become the Leader of the Free World. Americans haven’t been this divided since the Vietnam War. Obama deserves much of the credit for this sad state of affairs, as he has cynically played Americans off against each other. But voters ate up his pabulum about “hope and change,” as though the only other items on the menu were doom and inertia.

I feel bad for African Americans. The first nominally “black” president has proved to be a flop in so many areas. I’d imagine black folks are relieved that Obama is only half black and that his black half is not of “slave stock.” (You’ve been saying America needs a conversation on race, right.) Some black folks might even make the argument that America still hasn’t had a truly black president.

The election of Barack Hussein Obama tells us a great deal about the American electorate. Rather than voting for an authentic hero who suffered and sacrificed for his country, America opted for the “cool” candidate. When told by ABC’s Charlie Gibson that there’s a good deal of evidence that raising tax rates results in lower tax revenue, Obama said he would raise them anyway, for the sake of “fairness.” If White Boy spouted such nonsense he’d be laughed out of town.

It’s been joked that Obama is “the last black president.” That might be the case when the bill for the Obama presidency starts coming due in a year or two and his popularity takes a nosedive. The first black president should have been someone from the party of Lincoln. Indeed, Republicans should have run a conservative African American back in 1996. It would have been even better if the GOP had also put a woman on the ticket. If Republicans had launched a ticket of Jeanne Kirkpatrick and Thomas Sowell, it would have been unbeatable, and the sad history of the last twenty years would have been much different.

You want to know why America can’t have the best for president, look in the mirror. The American electorate wouldn’t vote for the best. If we would vote for the best, the contest this year would be Joe Liebermann or Zell Miller against John Bolton or Newt Gingrich. But the American electorate wouldn’t find them sexy enough. Americans want a president who can sing, at least for a bar or two, (if you’re a Millennial, here’s the real thing). America wants an Entertainer in Chief; someone to feel their pain; someone who can do impressions of Chris Rock.

If your intent is to break a succession of white men spanning 220 years, you need to find your best and brightest. Democrats didn’t do that with Obama. And if your intent is to break a 228-year string of males, wouldn’t you want your first female president to be someone of finer material than Hillary Clinton, a woman without all the baggage, a gal you might even be proud of? But American women are intent on having a female president, no matter her character, fitness, and honesty. Since American women seem to be holding America hostage to a uterus, they might read Fred Barnes’ article “Yup, She’s Crooked.”

If America’s unmarried women are so intent on having a female president, they should want a woman who doesn’t need to ride her husband’s coattails. Had Hillary not been First Lady, would New York have considered a carpetbagger to be their U.S. senator? And if she hadn’t been the senator from New York, how likely would the rest of her political career have been? If you single gals really believe “you’ve come a long way, baby,” then support a woman who’s achieved things on her own, like Condi Rice.

If the thought of “two-tiered justice” is abhorrent to you, then Mrs. Clinton needs to face the music; she needs to go through the judicial system and answer for her deeds. That is not gonna happen if you make her president. Prosecutors and attorneys general have cited the specific laws she has broken. Her use of a private computer server alone is prima facie evidence of criminality. The Clintons are more trouble than they’re worth.

That brings us to Donald Trump. On October 18, John O’Sullivan wrote that voters should ask themselves two questions: “First, which candidate has the better policies? Second, which candidate represents a greater danger to the Republic?”

For O’Sullivan, the answer to the first question is “obvious”; Trump has the better policies, “indeed, better policies than some Republicans.” O’Sullivan’s answer to the second question is more complicated. If you don’t see the necessity of voting for Trump, then scroll down and read the block quote near the end of his article and the little bit that follows; here’s the beginning of it:

It seems to me that when we break this question down, it is a choice between an evil that is erratic, inexperienced […] and an evil that is remorseless, experienced, reliant on influential power networks going deep at home and abroad, able to call on people of high ability at all levels, and supported by most modern social institutions.

O’Sullivan then makes a convincing case that Hillary could likely never be impeached and removed from office. Not so with Mr. Trump, who would be on a short leash from Day One. (I mydamnself made this same argument back in August.) You see, a Trump presidency is a correctible presidency.

Oct. 29 on The Greg Gutfeld Show (I’ve positioned the starting point of the video), novelist Charles Kirn said:

The most important issue for me is not installing total corruption at the very top of our government in a way we have no method for getting rid of. I mean, electing the Clintons again is like spilling milk in your car. You’re never gonna get the smell out.

Mr. Kirn also seems to think that Mrs. Clinton is “unimpeachable,” to use O’Sullivan’s ironic twist on the word. “Unimpeachable Hillary” wouldn’t be “beyond reproach,” the usual meaning the word, but she would effectively be beyond impeachment and removal. That’s not only because ousting the first female president would go down very badly with America’s women, but also because Democrats do not impeach their own, only Republicans have the stomach for that. So, if Hillary becomes president, we’ll be pretty much stuck with her.

If Hillary becomes president, she might just be our last female president. Already, too many Americans don’t trust and cannot abide the woman. America’s women need to think bigger, and wait for a much finer woman to send to the White House: an American Margaret Thatcher. I already have such a gal in mind.

Jon N. Hall is a programmer/analyst from Kansas City.

As America nears the end of the Obama times, one wonders how such a person could ever have become the Leader of the Free World. Americans haven’t been this divided since the Vietnam War. Obama deserves much of the credit for this sad state of affairs, as he has cynically played Americans off against each other. But voters ate up his pabulum about “hope and change,” as though the only other items on the menu were doom and inertia.

I feel bad for African Americans. The first nominally “black” president has proved to be a flop in so many areas. I’d imagine black folks are relieved that Obama is only half black and that his black half is not of “slave stock.” (You’ve been saying America needs a conversation on race, right.) Some black folks might even make the argument that America still hasn’t had a truly black president.

The election of Barack Hussein Obama tells us a great deal about the American electorate. Rather than voting for an authentic hero who suffered and sacrificed for his country, America opted for the “cool” candidate. When told by ABC’s Charlie Gibson that there’s a good deal of evidence that raising tax rates results in lower tax revenue, Obama said he would raise them anyway, for the sake of “fairness.” If White Boy spouted such nonsense he’d be laughed out of town.

It’s been joked that Obama is “the last black president.” That might be the case when the bill for the Obama presidency starts coming due in a year or two and his popularity takes a nosedive. The first black president should have been someone from the party of Lincoln. Indeed, Republicans should have run a conservative African American back in 1996. It would have been even better if the GOP had also put a woman on the ticket. If Republicans had launched a ticket of Jeanne Kirkpatrick and Thomas Sowell, it would have been unbeatable, and the sad history of the last twenty years would have been much different.

You want to know why America can’t have the best for president, look in the mirror. The American electorate wouldn’t vote for the best. If we would vote for the best, the contest this year would be Joe Liebermann or Zell Miller against John Bolton or Newt Gingrich. But the American electorate wouldn’t find them sexy enough. Americans want a president who can sing, at least for a bar or two, (if you’re a Millennial, here’s the real thing). America wants an Entertainer in Chief; someone to feel their pain; someone who can do impressions of Chris Rock.

If your intent is to break a succession of white men spanning 220 years, you need to find your best and brightest. Democrats didn’t do that with Obama. And if your intent is to break a 228-year string of males, wouldn’t you want your first female president to be someone of finer material than Hillary Clinton, a woman without all the baggage, a gal you might even be proud of? But American women are intent on having a female president, no matter her character, fitness, and honesty. Since American women seem to be holding America hostage to a uterus, they might read Fred Barnes’ article “Yup, She’s Crooked.”

If America’s unmarried women are so intent on having a female president, they should want a woman who doesn’t need to ride her husband’s coattails. Had Hillary not been First Lady, would New York have considered a carpetbagger to be their U.S. senator? And if she hadn’t been the senator from New York, how likely would the rest of her political career have been? If you single gals really believe “you’ve come a long way, baby,” then support a woman who’s achieved things on her own, like Condi Rice.

If the thought of “two-tiered justice” is abhorrent to you, then Mrs. Clinton needs to face the music; she needs to go through the judicial system and answer for her deeds. That is not gonna happen if you make her president. Prosecutors and attorneys general have cited the specific laws she has broken. Her use of a private computer server alone is prima facie evidence of criminality. The Clintons are more trouble than they’re worth.

That brings us to Donald Trump. On October 18, John O’Sullivan wrote that voters should ask themselves two questions: “First, which candidate has the better policies? Second, which candidate represents a greater danger to the Republic?”

For O’Sullivan, the answer to the first question is “obvious”; Trump has the better policies, “indeed, better policies than some Republicans.” O’Sullivan’s answer to the second question is more complicated. If you don’t see the necessity of voting for Trump, then scroll down and read the block quote near the end of his article and the little bit that follows; here’s the beginning of it:

It seems to me that when we break this question down, it is a choice between an evil that is erratic, inexperienced […] and an evil that is remorseless, experienced, reliant on influential power networks going deep at home and abroad, able to call on people of high ability at all levels, and supported by most modern social institutions.

O’Sullivan then makes a convincing case that Hillary could likely never be impeached and removed from office. Not so with Mr. Trump, who would be on a short leash from Day One. (I mydamnself made this same argument back in August.) You see, a Trump presidency is a correctible presidency.

Oct. 29 on The Greg Gutfeld Show (I’ve positioned the starting point of the video), novelist Charles Kirn said:

The most important issue for me is not installing total corruption at the very top of our government in a way we have no method for getting rid of. I mean, electing the Clintons again is like spilling milk in your car. You’re never gonna get the smell out.

Mr. Kirn also seems to think that Mrs. Clinton is “unimpeachable,” to use O’Sullivan’s ironic twist on the word. “Unimpeachable Hillary” wouldn’t be “beyond reproach,” the usual meaning the word, but she would effectively be beyond impeachment and removal. That’s not only because ousting the first female president would go down very badly with America’s women, but also because Democrats do not impeach their own, only Republicans have the stomach for that. So, if Hillary becomes president, we’ll be pretty much stuck with her.

If Hillary becomes president, she might just be our last female president. Already, too many Americans don’t trust and cannot abide the woman. America’s women need to think bigger, and wait for a much finer woman to send to the White House: an American Margaret Thatcher. I already have such a gal in mind.

Jon N. Hall is a programmer/analyst from Kansas City.