Mission Impossible
“Mission Impossible” is a ready made slogan for the Trump campaign. With five opponents stacked against him, there is no way he can win the election.
Challenging him on the ballot are Democrat Hillary Clinton, Libertarian Governor Gary Johnson, Green Party’s Dr. Jill Stein, the media, and, the strongest opponent of all, himself. If he would quit shooting from the hip and close his Twitter account, he might have a decent shot at the White House.
Every time, however, that things settle down enough that some might think he could be a better President than the utterly untrustworthy Clinton with her philandering husband, he opens his mouth.
The final straw was his saying he would let us know if he would accept the results of the election. This was a clear indication that he will cry about Clinton winning because in his warped manner of thinking, the election was rigged. He uses the words “not fair” more often than the most ardent Democrat describing the tax code.
Compare that attitude with the reaction of President George H. W. Bush’s loss to another Clinton in a hotly contested race. This is the note Bill Clinton found on the desk as he entered the Oval Office on January 20, 1993, his first day as President:
“Dear Bill,
“When I walked into this office just now I felt the same sense of wonder and respect that I felt four years ago. I know you will feel that too.
“I wish you great happiness here. I never felt the loneliness some Presidents have described.
“There will be very tough times, made even more difficult by criticism you may not think is fair. I’m not a very good one to give advice; but just don’t let the critics discourage you or push you off course.
“You will be our President when you read this note. I wish you well. I wish your family well.
“Your success now is our country’s success. I am rooting hard for you.
“Good luck –
“George”
If Trump were to exhibit a similar humble attitude, he could possibly win the election with an unquestionable mandate. Even if he could muster such an attitude now, the race is too far down the road to change the outcome.
So here’s the perspective.
There is no way to avoid the train wreck less than two weeks away. The most corrupt, untrustworthy person ever to seek the presidency will take control of the Oval Office and move her philandering husband back into the White House.
Investigations always follow a train wreck to determine the cause and to establish procedures to prevent future wrecks. That is something that must be done on November 9. There has to be a procedure to preclude the simultaneous nomination of two unqualified, unscrupulous, untrustworthy candidates for President.
A procedure that might work is the one proposed by State Representative David Simpson in The Texas Tribune.
Republican Simpson’s suggestion to include a “None of the Above” choice on future ballots is excellent. There is little doubt that, if that was a choice on the ballot next month, “None of the Above” would win the election in a landslide. Then there would have to be another round of nominations and elections in both parties and some of the outstanding candidates passed over this year could rise to the top.
Another possibility is to learn from history. In the first half of the last century, Presidential candidates were picked in “smoke filled back rooms:” that is, in the state and national committees of the two parties.
That procedure resulted in Presidents like Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Dwight Eisenhower. A repeat of any of those would not be bad.
There is a caution with that procedure, however. The publication of some email traffic within the Democrat National Committee that led to the resignation of Debbie Wassernan Schultz as Chairwoman indicates that there was some smoke filled back room activity in that race. The nominee who rose from that smoke indicates there are problems on that route too.
This indicates that cream does not always rise to the top. Sometimes it turns to sour curdle before breaking the surface.
enough
