Can You Spot the Democratic Candidate?

Back in the early 1970’s, Camel ran a series of magazine ads featuring arrays of colorful characters, each with an amusing “gimmick.” Each, that is, except for the Camel Filters smoker, who didn’t need a gimmick: he was confident, secure, rugged, good looking, relaxed — and usually had a jacket hooked casually over his shoulder. A key on the page, or occasionally on the reverse page, named the gimmicky characters and described their particular affectations.

I loved those ads when I was a kid.

I thought of those ads recently while listening to Joe Biden struggling to make himself relevant to an identity-obsessed Democratic party. Biden’s pandering misandry was cringe-inducing, as he groveled for his failure to be something more than a pathetic male while taking part in the attempted Clarence Thomas lynching, and then debased himself (and men in general) in a weird riff about old world wife abuse half a millennium ago, and how it relates to 21st century American sexual relationships. It didn’t make much sense, but this is Joe Biden we’re talking about: his thoughts wander as much as his hands.

Poor Joe. He isn’t gay, or a member of a minority, or a woman, or an ersatz Native American, or a hip skateboarder, or some winning intersection of the above. In a Democratic Party that demands a gimmick, he comes up short, and so he’s having to fall back on self loathing, claiming for himself a toxic masculinity that, while it might describe his penchant for being “handsy,” still rings hollow.

He could call himself a socialist, but that’s pretty much the universal gimmick for this crowd. And when everyone’s a socialist… well, then you still need another gimmick.

Or he could be the guy without a gimmick. He could be a plain old liberal, from back in the days when liberals were wrong and destructive, but not obviously crazy. He could be the voice of substance and reason in an increasingly unhinged party.

But then he wouldn’t be Joe Biden. And he’d still have the problem with the hands.

Mueller: This Should Not Be The End

Mueller has concluded that there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. After two years of concerted attacks by a biased press and a corrupt bureaucracy, the collusion fantasy has been laid to rest.

Now let’s talk about collusion.

In 2016, and for the first time in U.S. history, a sitting administration used the power of federal law enforcement to spy on the opposition party during a presidential election. It justified that spying by citing a fraudulent document (the Steele Dossier), payed for by its own party’s candidate, as the basis for the warrant. The spying was overseen by fiercely partisan officials in the Department of Justice openly contemptuous of the opposition candidate. Other administration officials tried hundreds of times, without explanation or plausible justification, to gain access to confidential information collected during the spying.

If the administration’s party’s candidate had won the election, it seems certain that none of this would ever have come to light: an administration and Department of Justice shot through with corruption would have welcomed its successor, and its misconduct would have been buried forever.

That didn’t happen. Now the lingering corruption of the Obama era must be exposed and removed.


The Mueller Report: A Damning Indictment of… Something

As we wait more or less breathlessly for the release of the Mueller Report, the assumption appears to be growing that it will be, in the eloquent words of Secretary Clinton, a “nothing-burger.”

But it will not be a nothing-burger, even if it reports no evidence of collusion. Because we’ve spent more than two years obsessing over this, driven by a press that pronounced almost daily the beginning of the end for the Trump administration. If there always was no there there, then someone has some explaining to do. Because many of us thought this was pretty obviously cooked up from the start, to hide either Clinton campaign embarrassment or, worse, Clinton/Obama collusion to undermine the 2016 Trump campaign. And if that’s true, then it should not have been the big story for the last two years.

The ladies and gentlemen of the press fancy themselves the guardians of democracy, the bulwark against ignorance and tyranny. If it turns out, as I suspect it will, that they have wasted most of their time and energy and resources, and our attention, over the past many months on a trumped-up non-story, an improbable bit of misdirection foisted on us by a failed candidate with the assistance of a corrupt former administration, then they have made a further mockery of the fourth estate. Democracy dies in darkness — or by being run over by the mainstream media clown car.

If the whole Russian collusion story is without a basis in fact, America’s journalistic “professionals” should consider finding a job they can do without embarrassing themselves.

VDH and The Bulwark

I have a great deal of respect for Victor Davis Hanson. I’ve read and listened to him extensively, and he has always impressed me with his thoughtfulness, decency, humility, breadth of knowledge, and quiet sanity.

The Bulwark, this new anti-Trump publication staffed by Charlie Sykes, Bill Kristol, and other people whose narrow-minded smug superiority I find impossible to stomach, has placed Hanson on its list of sell-outs, dupes, and traitors to the conservative cause, and set its sights on discrediting him and others who hold his, to me, quite sensible views.

It has long been true that I would like Trump a lot less if I liked his enemies more. Folks like those at the Bulwark are much of the reason I refrain from criticizing the President more than I do. I’m not much of a joiner, but I’d rather have Hanson on my team than any number of these others.

[Update: I wrote this post not knowing that Victor Davis Hanson has a new book coming out. The Case for Trump will be released this week.]