Sanity Check by Thomas Kendall
Am I the only one weirdly relieved by the allegations against Trump?
Look—the Left has been digging into Trump so intensively from every angle for so long, something semi-real was going to come out eventually. I have a strong suspicion that one of life’s dirty secrets is that nobody makes it to the level of president without some skeletons buried somewhere.
Still— could be a lot worse, if this is what they’ve got. I mean, let’s say Trump paid off a porn star and some other girls on the side? So who gives a damn? I’m not even going to parse arguments about, oh-technically-his-lawyer-paid-them-and-Trump-paid-his-lawyer. That’s where the campaign finance argument comes in, but honestly, that’s a sideshow and it’s obvious it’s a sideshow. The Left wouldn’t play it up or really care at all, except it’s new fodder for a ten-second hate. Enough of these, they figure— enough tying random bits of yarn between the various push-pins that mark the locations of all their other Trump-themed cry-a-thons— and the resulting cat’s cradle will magically weave an attractive tapestry. I presume of the socialist paradise we’ll all unthinkingly head for—maybe it’ll be Ocasio-Cortez’s [Tom, if you insist on misspelling Occasional Cortex, I won’t let you do any more guest posts. – SAH] slasher-smile and slightly over-protuberant eyeballs. Nothing like some natural charisma, eh?
I can’t help but notice how conveniently this latest waterfall of tears gives them an excuse to pretend to be high-toned and principled while actually pearl-clutching—and trying to encourage pearl-clutching—over the idea that he paid off women he slept with. Because forgive me my doubts, but we’re talking about the party that ran Hillary “Pay-To-Play” Clinton, who was all but handing a pricing menu to foreign leaders she met with before the 2016 election. I have trouble taking Democrats seriously when they find a sudden new respect for campaign finance laws. But muh illegal activities! Said the people who let Hillary Clinton skate on breaking so many laws regarding national security with her bathroom server, she could have temporarily rebranded her campaign as a 24 hour-a-day, 7 day-a-week show called “Hillary on Ice” (Not to be confused with the Left’s immigration, for want of a better term, plan, “Democrats off ICE”). But then if Hillary Clinton can dodge FOIA requests, well, that’s probably best for the Democratic party, and pretty much everyone who knows that that’s likely why she did it, also, shall we say, appreciates that political reality. Don’t even get me started about supporting the federal government in doing some of the most blatant election tampering in favor of the Democrats – maybe the worst perversion of the electoral system this side of the 3rd world. Law has a special meaning for Democrats: it’s another word for “institutionalized political warfare”. Going after Democrats with it is therefore nonsensical, and by the same token, we haven’t got a lot of reason to respect their opinions on it.
So it ain’t about that. But that’s okay, because as I said, it was kind of transparently obvious. So, okay, fine, Democrats. You want to talk ethics? You want to delve into the “what won’t he stoop to” strata and see what’s there? Okay, lets do that. Pull out that backhoe. I’ve always wanted to listen to moralizing about conduct with women from the party of Bill Clinton, JFK and Ted Kennedy. I mean, Seriously? And speaking of that last one, say what you want, Stormy still has a pulse. And she got paid, not just threatened and intimidated the way Bill Clinton’s old flames did. Even in scandals, Trump manages to look better in a side-by-side comparison, for Christ’s sake. Being a high-ranking Democrat’s ex-bit-on-the-side is less lucrative and more dangerous.
Just saying, as hills to die on go, Democrats picking this one is one step short of accusing Trump of being too focused on centralized projects managed from Washington. Oh, you can make the case, but if you were literally the party of giant Washington-managed projects, maybe it wouldn’t be your best play, right?
Anyway, even on a practical level, look, forgive me, I just don’t see a whole Hell of a lot to get exercised about here. Breaking news! Wealthy playboy billionaire playboys around and then pays women off not to talk about it using wealth! Also dropped rocks fall to the ground! And water makes things wet! We are making some exciting, totally groundbreaking discoveries here today!
I don’t feel myself suddenly wanting to rob the rich to give to the politically connected at this news, but who knows, maybe that’s just me. One of the most confusing things about the American electorate sometimes is that it’s not always particularly predictable. To me, the argument there comes down to: “Oh, Trump practiced marital infidelity. Thank the lord there’s an alternative party with equally bad problems with marital infidelity but way scarier problems regarding how they’ve managed it. Sign me up for huge taxes again—the economy will soon be so stagnant I’ll pay very little either way. That’ll show him! I’ll starve to death if I have to. Won’t that make him feel bad!”. From where I stand it all sounds stupider than trying to eat grilled rocks. With a plastic knife. And no other utensils. Who knows how it plays on main-street, though. The press hopes it plays well.
But Democrats, let’s just suppose, by some tragic long shot, it doesn’t. Whatever might go wrong? Well, I’ll make this easy for you. Let’s just dispense with the idea there’s any serious journalism anymore regarding Trump. Hey, you. Yeah, you, in the audiovisual department of the Democratic party. You want to really damage Trump where I’m concerned? You might want to show examples of him supporting, well, your policies. Or really just any bad policies. I mean, honestly, there’s more air between he and I on the subject of protectionism than anything as is. If the “trade war” ends up being just a trade war, and not a complicated play to force re-negotiated trade agreements out of China—and if China doesn’t re-negotiate more favorable trade agreements, then, well, de facto that’s what it is—I can see how he could be fairly criticized for that. Not saying it’ll make me vote for Democrats—that probably won’t happen for a while, depending on how long it takes your party to get a mass prescription for anti-psychotics, put down the socialism and back away slowly. It’d make a Hell of a lot more progress towards that goal than you’re making right now, though.
But criticizing his personal conduct? Honeychild, you have no room to talk on that subject anymore. I don’t know if you’ve had room for a couple of decades now. Certainly not when you’re still actively having feverish wetdreams of how you almost elected the most corrupt politician maybe ever to hold office, if it hadn’t been for that meddling Trump and his little voters too. In any case, I voted for Trump to be president, not pope (though given what we have now—but I digress). I’m not asking him to be a moral and spiritual leader. Given where Washington has brought us already in terms of limiting freedom, increasing regulations, raising taxes and raising spending, I have more important things to worry about than Trump’s little black book. As long as Trump looks like the most viable way of stopping all that nonsense—and there’s no contest, really, when you stand him up next to someone like Ocasio-Cortez—he’s still going to have my support.
And I don’t think I’m alone.