Crazy Joe Attacks Trump

Vincent J. Curtis

17 Aug 2016

The first thing you have to understand about “Crazy Joe” “Bite-me” is that he is a buffoon.  The reason Barack Obama chose him as Vice President was as insurance against impeachment.  Get rid of Barry Hussein, and you get Crazy Joe, the buffoon; or maybe Joe the angry bird.  Even Obama has treated Joe as the butt of jokes, and if it bothers Joe, he doesn’t show it.  He just puts on that enormous grin with teeth that are so large and perfectly ordered that they can’t possibly be human.

After forty-four years in Washington, the press knows all about light-weight Crazy Joe, except that they regard him as harmless and don’t exploit his weaknesses; perhaps on occasion jokingly as if to say, “there goes Crazy Joe again.”  It would be cruel at this point to really go after him.  It might make the voters of Delaware look stupid.

On Monday of this week, Crazy Joe ranted about Donald Trump at a rally for Hillary Clinton.  With a flushed face, a look of anger, and at the top of his voice he accused Trump of being temperamentally unfit to be in charge of the nuclear codes.

Specifically, he said that Trump wasn’t ‘qualified.’  He went on, “There’s some guy following me around right now with the codes, should, God forbid, something were to happen to the President.”

Perhaps holding up himself as someone who is ‘qualified’ was not the best comparison.

Let’s set aside for the moment the image of a raging fool saying the other guy isn’t qualified to hold the nuclear code.  Crazy Joe isn’t, strictly speaking ‘qualified’ either.  He’s just the Vice President, the guy who rode to office on the coattails of the guy at the top of the ticket.  Until Crazy Joe becomes President, by accident at this stage, he can’t exercise that power either.

Let’s look at other people who were “qualified,” starting with Harry S. Truman, who actually did order the dropping of the atomic bombs seventy-one years ago this month.  It is hard to imagine, but HST was considered a country-bumpkin at the time, an unsophisticate from Kansas, a guy who failed at running a men’s clothing store.  Yet, unwittingly, he came to possess the power of atomic warfare, and made the right decision at the right time.

John F. Kennedy was only 43 years old upon taking office, and yet he managed to navigate around nuclear Armageddon during the Cuban missile crisis.  Richard Nixon was in possession of the codes just before he resigned at the height of the Watergate crisis, and didn’t use it as a diversion.  Ronald Reagan every Democrat thought was going to bring about nuclear war (remember the nuclear freeze movement – led by Ted Kennedy?), yet it was Reagan who brought the Soviet empire low, and brought an end to the cold war without firing a shot let alone drop a bomb.

And then there are folks in Pakistan, India, China, Kazakhstan, Russia (Vlad, remember?) and a few other countries with deliverable nuclear weapons who have so far managed to avoid firing them.

If the Democrats are raising the spectre of nuclear war launched by an erratic Donald Trump it must be because they see their Russian reset collapsing before their eyes and another cold war is in prospect.  Maybe things are getting so bad that nuclear war is a possibility, and it developed during their watch.  The best way to hide fraud is to not change the bookkeeper.

The idea that Crazy Joe is ranting about Donald Trump being unqualified on the basis of temperament to be president and in charge of the nuclear codes is itself crazy, and may be a sign of desperation.  Who else do the Democrats have with any stature at all who can scare people about Trump’s ‘fitness’ other than Hillary?  When Obama does it, he looks like a dictator from some African hell-hole.  He resembles Kim Jung Un, except with differences in personal style.  And Hillary is not the best case either to talk about someone’s fitness and temperament.

Crazy Joe’s rant represents the last charge of the light brigade on the subject of Trump’s fitness and temperament.  Some others may pick up the fallen flag, but there will be no force to rally around it.  The focus will turn on Hillary’s fitness, both physical and moral to be president.

-30-

I Don’t Need This Job

Vincent J. Curtis

16 Aug 2016

Let me close out the discussion on the advice that David Catanese of U.S. News & World Report offered the Trump campaign and Republicans in general.  Catanese was appalled that Trump would admit on the campaign trail that he could lose the election, and it wouldn’t matter all that much to him.  To be sure, the admission of possible defeat breaks another political mould, for it is a frequent technique of journalists to try to get losing politicians to admit that they are going to lose.  Usually, such an admission is the final nail in the campaign’s coffin.

This admission isn’t going to work in Trump’s case.  Trump really does not need the job.  He could stay home, enjoy his grandkids, and count his money.  He could spend a lot of time flying around the world and playing golf on his many Trump-owned golf courses.  Trump is offering his candidacy because, he says, it is a way of giving thanks to America for making his life possible.  America is not in a good spot right now, and Trump thinks he knows what to do to get it to a better place.  He wants to make America great again, and he thinks his lifetime in business gives him the set of skills that America needs right now to get turned around.

On the stump, he jokes about working harder now than ever before, when a man his age should be retiring and taking it easy.  Then he turns to the workers in his audience and remarks that they too are having to work harder than ever before, just to make ends meet.  They have not had a pay raise in eighteen years, and in their lifetime of work many of them have lost their jobs because of illegal immigration or unwise trade deals.  Not a bad riff.

In a previous post, I mentioned the difference between logical reasoning and practical reasoning.  Practical reasoning is driven by appetite (conation as it is known in philosophy) and leads to a decision about what to do.  Logical reasoning can provide practical reasoning with data input, but the two kinds of reasoning, though similar in form, are distinctly different.  Practical reason leads to a good decision if it is in accordance with right desire.

To be sure, there is an element of ego-gratification in the seeking of the presidency.  But disregarding that, Trump`s motivation is to make America great again.  You can differ with him about the measures he would employ to achieve that, but there is no doubt that Trump is motivated by right desire.

Hillary is motivated by the desire for self-enrichment, and the applause of a segment of the electorate, which will be gratified by the punishment and shaming of another segment.  The theme of Hillary`s campaign is, ironically, “Stronger Together.”  Her enemies are, by her own admission, Republicans.

Thus when Trump says he could lose the election, he admits to nothing more than an obvious fact.  Hillary could lose it also.  It is only the middle of August.  But Trump is also placing before the electorate that he is not being deceitful with them.  He has made his money.  There is no selfish gain to be had for him by being elected president.  He is motivated by the right desire, the desire to make America great again.

The American people are not used to a politician levelling with them like this.  Americans expect and even like having their politicians tell them stories.

Mitt Romney was in the same position that Trump is in now, but was too dense or perhaps too decent to play off the caricature that Democrats had made of him.  The Democrats had made out that Romney was heartless, who outsourced jobs, liked firing people, and deprived the sick of their health care.

Romney, at the last debate, did not look into the camera and say to the American people, let’s take all that as read.  That I am such a person.  I am also quite rich, if you didn’t already know.  When this election is over, win or lose, I’ll be all right, Jack.  But how will you be doing?  How will you be doing four years from now?  You think that Obama is going to get you a raise?  Provide plenty of well-paying jobs?  Get this economy moving again?  He couldn’t run a hot dog stand, and hasn’t.  But I’ve turned around my share of hot dog stands, and the Salt Lake City Olympics, and the state of Connecticut, and built a great company.  I could go back to it after the election.  Now, do you want this sort of person working for you, or against you?  A lot of smart, wealthy people became wealthy by being smart enough to hire me.  You could too.  Your future is up to you.  I’ll be all right, regardless of your decision in November.

Romney didn’t say this, and he lost.  This would have been a classic ju jitsu move, to take the pressure the opponent is applying and use it to pull him off balance.  Romney didn’t think of it.

Trump is in exactly the same position that Romney was, a rich guy, well-motivated, and with the turning around of America as his final life’s project, an application of one of America’s great talents to solving the problems of America.  Admitting he could lose is a way for Trump to show the electorate that he is well motivated.

The journalists just don’t get Trump.

-30-

Media Bias You Can’t Make Up

Vincent J. Curtis

15 Aug 2016

The New York Times worked hard on the weekend to connect Donald Trump’s campaign manager Paul Manafort to some nefarious pro-Russian plot.  (“His connection with moneyed interests in Russia and the Ukraine” as they put it.)  This is in keeping with the media/Democrat narrative that Trump is favored by Russian president Vladimir Putin, and therefore cannot be entrusted with the presidency.

Today, Fox News reminded us that in April, 2015, the self-same New York Times reported that Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a speech and the Clinton Foundation received $2.35 million by the Russian oligarchs behind Uranium One, and Uranium One was granted the rights to purchased 20 % of America’s uranium reserves by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Chris Matthews has been all over Donald Trump for saying that Barack Obama “founded” ISIS.  For good reason, as it turns out that on September 10, 2014, Chris Matthews accused none other than former Vice President Dick Cheney of having “created” ISIS and having “created al-Qaeda”, the latter by taking over the “Holy Land” in Saudi Arabia (think about that for a moment), and the former after he “de-baathicized” Iraq.  Matthews’s theory conflicts with Trump’s, but you don’t hear about the media’s theory of ISIS’s creation or founding.  And we thank Fox News Howard Kurtz for pointing this out.

Chris Matthews is host of the MSNBC program “Snowball,” so named because it is something small and composed of a lot of snowflakes.

-30-

This Manafort Thing

Vincent J. Curtis

15 Aug 2016

In the headlines today is a phony story about Paul Manafort, campaign manager for Donald Trump.  He, apparently, is being “investigated” for having taken “off the books cash” from the previous and deposed regime of the government of the Ukraine.  Manafort denies having received such cash or for working for the government of the Ukraine.

Democrats love to play the game of, “I know you are, but what am I?” and another, “they are ones too - and even worse because they are hypocrites as well”  Let’s see what is going on with the Manafort accusation.

In the first place, the accusation of taking money for giving favors to a foreign government sounds a lot like the goings on with the Clinton Foundation.  Hillary Clinton actually delivered favors in return for money for the Clinton Foundation or for cash for a half an hour of Bill’s time.

In the second place, the word “cash” and the term “off the books” are involved.  Doesn’t this sound like the ransom payment to Iran?  The only thing missing is that the cash had been shrink-wrapped, placed on a pallet, and delivered in an unmarked plane.  Perhaps because that would be too obvious a comparison.

Something missing from the news reports is who is going the “investigation?”  It certainly isn’t the FBI!  Is it the news media itself?  Is it the new government of the Ukraine?  The old regime was pro-Russian, while the new one is anti-Russian, and have lost the Crimea and the eastern part of Ukraine for their trouble.  If Trump is seen as being pro-Russian, then the new Ukraine government may have an interest in undermining the Trump campaign.  None of this concerns the MSM.

There is also this difference between Manafort and Hillary: Manafort is not a candidate, Hillary is.

The media frequently accuses Donald Trump of diving down rabbit holes on the campaign and in his speeches.  The media are presently guilty of chasing after obvious red herrings and of making false comparisons.  They are letting themselves be distracted from the real elephants in the room: the actual corruption of the Clinton Foundation, and the ransom payment to Iran.

-30-

They Just Don’t Get Trump at All

Vincent J. Curtis

15 Aug 2016

This morning, the banner headline on Drudge read, “Clinton Drafts Illegals to Boost Turnout.”  The gist of the story is that the Democrat electoral machine is going to hire so-called DREAMERs, people who came to America as children illegally and who remain illegal and cannot vote, to work on a voter registration drive.  Of course, this is nothing but an inducement to voter fraud.  An effort to steal the votes of Trump supporters.

Trump will blast this effort for what it is.  If this were to happen while Ted Cruz or any other Republican except Trump were the candidate, the media would be tut-tutting the rudeness, the implicit racism of the charge.  An accusation by Cruz of voter fraud would be offered as yet another reason why this mean man can’t be trusted with high office.  Even Cruz’s supporters would be cowed into silence.

Not so with Trump.  The media are not going to try to rebut the charge of voter fraud when Trump makes it because he is already seen as incorrigible, and people have come to know that Trump is right about such things.

Most of the media don’t get Trump at all.  David Catanese of U.S. News and World Report is a classic case of not getting it.  Catanese appeared as a guest panelist on Fox News’ Special Report on Thursday, August 11^th.  Catanese thinks the Trump has lost the rationality for his candidacy, namely that he was a winner (this is still August, remember).  Giving his advice to the Trump campaign, Catanese employed a standard media technique, he gave an unnamed “Republican Strategist, an outsider, not connected with the Trump circle,” as the source of the advice he was about to deliver, and which he evidently thought was highly sensible.

The advice was that Trump should go on an O’Reilly diet, and he should speak only to small groups like the Kiwanis Club in Ohio, and the Home Builders Association in North Carolina.  Trump needed to get ‘validators’ out there for him to be taken seriously and for people to believe he had the right temperament.  Catanese scoffed at Trump’s remark that he could afford to lose because then he could have a nice long vacation.  The advice was offered as a means of getting the Trump campaign at least moving the right direction.

Regular panelist on Special Report, Charles Krauthammer has become far more circumspect regarding Trump lately.  He used to be quite open in his disregard for Trump, but of late concerning Trump he has acted as though he were in a cage with a lion.

Catanese remarks show why some people are in politics and amateurs only write about it.  What Catanese’s advice amounts to is that Trump should start campaigning like Bob Dole, a way in which the Republican candidate loses with dignity and for reasons the media can relate to, and explain.  The method has the comfort of familiarity.

Trump is speaking to crowds of 15,000 people at a time, sometimes twice a day.  What makes these 15,000 to 30,000 people a day any less ‘validators’ than the worthies of the Dayton, Ohio, Chamber of Commerce?  Trump is giving the voters the opportunity go and see with their own eyes and evaluate with their own minds this political phenomenon - without a filter, without someone else explaining to them what they just saw for themselves.

Last week, Trump accused Barack Obama of being “the founder” of ISIS.  He repeated it several times for the crowd to get what he had just said.  The media exploded over this remark, which they regard as technically incorrect.  And, technically, it probably is.  But look at the rhetorical effect.  Ponder for the moment that Obama fecklessly allowed ISIS to come into existence and did nothing to try to stop it, even though he and Hillary were fully informed of what was going on by the Intelligence community.

What is the more powerful way of expressing the fact that Obama’s weakness is to blame for the scourge of ISIS, and consequently for the attacks and murders around the world that were inspired by ISIS?  What gets the enormity of that fact across more effectively, “Obama founded ISIS,” or “Obama stood by and did nothing as this scourge came into being, and is still doing little to stop it?”  And “Why would Obama do this?”

The rhetorician would say the first way because it is short, simple, and readily understandable.  The second way is wordy, mealy-mouthed, open to interpretation, and lacking in power.  It may be technically more correct, but lacking in emotional punch.

Everybody listening to Trump knows that the second version is the technically correct one.  But they are forced to ponder the veracity of the first statement when Trump asserts it.  Trump avoids altogether the explosion that would result if he asked the last question, “Why?”

How is this morally different from saying, “Bush lied and people died?”  John Kerry ran on this slogan in 2004!  There is nothing Democrats hate more than to have their own methods played against them.  The media think it extremely unfair that a Republican is less than assiduous with the technical facts, and employs techniques familiar to Democrats.

Trump drives the media crazy, in part because he is by-passing them, and not losing with dignity like Bob Dole. 

Bill knows a lot about Hill’s Emails

Vincent J. Curtis

14 Aug 2016

In the course of savaging FBI Director James Comey over Hillary’s email scandal, Bill revealed that he knows a lot about matter.  One wonders how much legal and political consulting Bill did on behalf of Hillary.

Bill ridiculed that only a few of the emails were marked classified, and argued that the emails that were so marked on the merits should not have been classified.  Thus, when emails are marked classified, Bill argues that on the merits they shouldn’t be; while if on the merits they ought to be classified, Hillary argues that they weren’t marked.  A remarkable defense.

Bill also revealed that he understood perfectly what classification markings at the beginning of a paragraph meant, while Hillary told the FBI that she did not know what a (C) meant at the beginning of a paragraph in a memo containing a mixture of classified and unclassified material, a shocking state of affairs for a classification authority within the US government and from a person with so much experience in handling classified material.  This goes to the heart of the issue concerning Hillary’s actual competence or in the alternative, her truthfulness.  She wants us to believe could never be bothered to ask the experts at her beck and call over four years as Secretary of State what those symbols meant.

Anyhow, Hillary’s defense amounts to a thin tissue of lies that can’t hold together upon the slightest examination.

-30-

Trump’s Case

Vincent J. Curtis

14 Aug 2016

In the main post of yesterday, I mentioned the difference between logical reasoning and practical reasoning.  Let’s apply that analysis of the two kinds of reasoning to Trump’s candidacy, and we’ll find out why he is fanatically loved by a segment of the population.

The process of logical reasoning leads to a judgement about the truth, falsity, or likelihood of a proposition.  “Is this true, false, or probable?” is the question addressed by logical reasoning.  Practical reasoning, on the other hand, is based upon appetite; what a person desires is the basis of practical reasoning.  Practical reasoning leads to a decision about what to do.  Logical reasoning may be useful in the process of practical reasoning for helping assess the means of attaining the goal set by practical reasoning.  But the two processes are fundamentally different.  A good decision in practical reasoning is one that is in accordance with right desire.

Hillary is motivated by greed and a desire for the applause of the progressivist-liberal wing of the electorate.  At this point in her career, the applause is a means for the furtherance of greed, for without the applause she would not gain the high office she needs to further her greed.  Hillary endorses a boiler-plate version of progressivist-liberalism as the means of gaining the applause of that segment of the population that believes in it.  And beauty of Hillary’s approach is that none of it needs to be fulfilled; she can always blame her political opponents for thwarting the program.

Trump has a completely different set of motives.  He has made his money, and has turned over his businesses to his children.  Over his forty year career in construction and property management, he has developed a set of skills that he thinks can advance the cause of America.  He wants to make America great again.

With nothing left to accomplish in a business career, Trump is turning to a final project: to apply his skills to solve the problems he sees America suffering from.  Is this pursuit of office a kind of ego gratification?  Undoubtedly, it is, but this is not out of keeping with right desire.  Trump is not running for office merely for ego gratification, but so that he can apply himself to making America great again.  That is a right desire.

One may disagree with specific elements of his program, one can hold that this or that element or policy measure will not make America great again, but this amounts to a discussion about means, not the end.    Hillary’s program is not about making America great again, but about satisfying the desires of some at the expense of others.  Raising tax rates on the rich to deliver free stuff for the middle class, and of gratifying “minority” groups at the expense of white working class men – this is Hillary’s program.

Conservatives have practically abandoned Trump because of apparent inconsistencies in his proposals, and of his self-contradictions.  Trump is too erratic for them.  Trump may be well-intended, but his means are not clear; and to the extent that they are clear, they are not entirely in keeping with a conservative program.  By ignoring his right desire conservatives are missing the forest for all the trees.  What is common between conservatives and Trump is the right desire for a renewal of America’s greatness.

Trump speaks to crowds of 15,000 at a time, sometimes twice a day.  The crowds are entertained by him.  They like his flippant style and the way he savages his political opponents, who are also the opponents of those in the crowd.  Trump and the crowd are motivated by the same desire, to bring about in America the conditions that will improve their lot in this life.  Trump means to be their champion.  Trump isn’t in it for himself, but because he is big enough to fight on their behalf and, if given the chance, to make America better for everyone.  Yes, there is a lot of human person wrapped around that basic theme, but it is the theme that makes the crowd support Trump and not just enjoy being entertained by him.

There is no guile in Trump when he is before the crowd.  The crowd sees a real man, offering himself for the benefit of America.  They see that he is rightly motivated, and has their interests in mind.  He shares their views and says things that they secretly believed themselves.

Great are the interests opposed to Trump.  Vested interests, that Trump promises to smash if elected.  Hillary’s lack of right desire and her corrosive email scandals promise to destroy her campaign.  She cannot advance her cause herself.  At this point in the campaign, Trump, to advance his own cause, needs to get all that personality out of the way and show his right desire.

-30-