The day has come for another admittedly infrequent installment in this series. Anyone who has read this blog (all six of you) knows that these vignettes contain speculation gleaned from the way news is published more than what is in the news itself.
For starters, we have Clinton's health. As pointed out by one of our analysts (and yes, there's still more than one), Clinton could have simply told people she had pneumonia and been done with it, even if she only showed up for a few minutes on 9/11. Few would care. However, there are three interesting things about this story:
1) Hillary got pneumonia in the middle of summer. Old people often do this. This is proof of poor health all by itself, though. It could just be she does not have enough left to cope with her schedule, but her schedule has been weak anyway.
2) Hillary is an inveterate liar. That's not a salacious accusation, it's an observation based on what she's done in the past. There's no reason to conclude she actually has pneumonia. Certainly, we can surmise that pneumonia is not the totality of her health problems, meaning there's likely something else they're not telling us.
3) If #2 isn't correct and this is just pneumonia, then the Clinton campaign is really stupid. It would have been lots better as said above to simply say she had it and curtail her schedule accordingly. Once again, this shows poor judgement on the part of someone who wishes to attain what is, for better or worse, the highest office in the world.
Then we have Donald Trump. He is pivoting towards the general election in lurches and appears to have the thing won, in my opinion, if he can just avoid angering anybody else. Comparably, Clinton now has a major gaffe on her hands, although I doubt any of her core supporters really care that she called the supporters of her opponents, essentially, a stain on the character of America. The ironic bit, of course, is that Clinton's career has been just such a stain as she continues to sell influence from every office she gains.
Then there's Wasserman-Schultz, who, in an apparent payment for helping defeat Sanders, has been given a job with the Clinton campaign. This is a really stupid idea too, not that it bothers Clinton supporters. Comparably, Trump won the Republican nomination despite being hated by the Republican leadership, which shows that the Republican party is far more democratic than the Democratic party.
Not that I support either; to a man, our analysts support Johnson/Weld. One interesting bit is that the only 'gaffe' Johnson has committed so far, the 'Aleppo' gaffe, appears to have helped his poll numbers because more people are considering Johnson.
Believe it or not, none of the analysts in this venerable Bureau are actually Libertarians. Only one of the analysts, your humble author, has ever been a member of the Libertarian party. The other current analysts include a progressive and a conservative, on the principle that the more different angles available the more likely a correct assessment is made.
That being said, support in the bureau for Johnson/Weld remains strong because, oddly, the Libertarian ticket is more progressive than the Democrats and more conservative than the Republicans. Libertarians have always been towards the anarcho-capitalist corner of the political map anyway, but Johnson/Weld, being moderate libertarians, are not as far in that direction as your author would like. That being said, they present the best option for real change in this republic.
For starters, we have Clinton's health. As pointed out by one of our analysts (and yes, there's still more than one), Clinton could have simply told people she had pneumonia and been done with it, even if she only showed up for a few minutes on 9/11. Few would care. However, there are three interesting things about this story:
1) Hillary got pneumonia in the middle of summer. Old people often do this. This is proof of poor health all by itself, though. It could just be she does not have enough left to cope with her schedule, but her schedule has been weak anyway.
2) Hillary is an inveterate liar. That's not a salacious accusation, it's an observation based on what she's done in the past. There's no reason to conclude she actually has pneumonia. Certainly, we can surmise that pneumonia is not the totality of her health problems, meaning there's likely something else they're not telling us.
3) If #2 isn't correct and this is just pneumonia, then the Clinton campaign is really stupid. It would have been lots better as said above to simply say she had it and curtail her schedule accordingly. Once again, this shows poor judgement on the part of someone who wishes to attain what is, for better or worse, the highest office in the world.
Then we have Donald Trump. He is pivoting towards the general election in lurches and appears to have the thing won, in my opinion, if he can just avoid angering anybody else. Comparably, Clinton now has a major gaffe on her hands, although I doubt any of her core supporters really care that she called the supporters of her opponents, essentially, a stain on the character of America. The ironic bit, of course, is that Clinton's career has been just such a stain as she continues to sell influence from every office she gains.
Then there's Wasserman-Schultz, who, in an apparent payment for helping defeat Sanders, has been given a job with the Clinton campaign. This is a really stupid idea too, not that it bothers Clinton supporters. Comparably, Trump won the Republican nomination despite being hated by the Republican leadership, which shows that the Republican party is far more democratic than the Democratic party.
Not that I support either; to a man, our analysts support Johnson/Weld. One interesting bit is that the only 'gaffe' Johnson has committed so far, the 'Aleppo' gaffe, appears to have helped his poll numbers because more people are considering Johnson.
Believe it or not, none of the analysts in this venerable Bureau are actually Libertarians. Only one of the analysts, your humble author, has ever been a member of the Libertarian party. The other current analysts include a progressive and a conservative, on the principle that the more different angles available the more likely a correct assessment is made.
That being said, support in the bureau for Johnson/Weld remains strong because, oddly, the Libertarian ticket is more progressive than the Democrats and more conservative than the Republicans. Libertarians have always been towards the anarcho-capitalist corner of the political map anyway, but Johnson/Weld, being moderate libertarians, are not as far in that direction as your author would like. That being said, they present the best option for real change in this republic.
No comments:
Post a Comment