I hold no hope Trump will surprise us and govern rationally or benignly. The cast of characters he has nominated to high positions, the confrontational tone of his inaugural address, his flaming narcissism, and his hatred for those who dare criticize him tell us all we need to know. Matt Taibbi put it best:
So, you know, I think that, to me, is what really stood out about this last year, is Trump himself, he is just such a unique figure in our time. He’s kind of the perfect foil to reflect everything that’s excessive and vulgar and disgusting and tasteless and cheap and greedy about American culture. He is the perfect mirror to reflect everything about our society.
As Taibbi suggests, it’s not just Trump we need to fear. Those 62-odd million who voted for him scare the crap out of me.
It will get ugly. And overcoming the ugliness unavoidably will entail things getting even uglier in the short-term, a sacrifice I’m willing to see us make. Here are three hopeful scenarios I see as possibilities:
The World Saves Us
One of the scarier aspects of Trump are the mini-Trumps seeking power in Europe and the followings they’ve attracted. If France elects Marine LePen this spring and Germany elects a new leader of the same ilk, what is now dark will become far darker.
But there’s hope it won’t go that way.
Which means the number of world leaders aligned with Trump ultimately may be no more than a few, with the remainder sharply opposed. Under that scenario, America could approach pariah status on the world stage.
That is something mainstream conservatives won’t accept. They don’t like Trump now, but they’re taking a hands off approach right now. An America approaching pariah status on the world stage, however, would explode that dynamic. Conservatives in Congress then would heed the advice of conservative writer Peter Wehner in his thoughtful piece in today’s New York Times, Why I Cannot Fall in Line Behind Trump:
Donald Trump has not only spent much of his life stepping outside of traditional morality; he seems to delight in doing so. If I am right about Mr. Trump, and Lewis is right about history, then it is unlikely that President Trump will use his power benevolently. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Because Republicans control Congress, they have the unique ability and the institutional responsibility to confront President Trump.
What this means is that Republican leaders in Congress need to be ready to call Mr. Trump on his abuses and excesses, now that he is actually in office. It is a variation of the Golden Rule, in this case treating others, including a Republican president, as they deserve to be treated. They need to ask themselves a simple, searching question: “If Barack Obama did this very thing, what would I be saying and doing now?” — and then say and do it.
I’d qualify Wehner’s diagnosis a bit. His prediction that Trump likely will fail to use his power benevolently is quite the understatement. That’s almost a certainty. But it will take more to make Congressional Republicans act responsibly. Trump’s non-benevolent use of power would need to threaten their little world. So, for example, an extremist policy on immigration or the continued mass incarceration of young black males would not move those Congressional Republicans, even if they personally were not of the same mind. But conduct that threatened to tank America’s standing in the world and the extreme wealth of their sponsors along with it? That would be beyond the pale, even for them.
A Quickening in the Collective Resistance Movement
Ordinary Americans in the past have risen to the challenge and achieved great victories. The labor movement, the civil-rights movement and the anti-war movement come to mind.
More recently, collective confrontation of injustice has failed in a meaningful way. The most significant human rights victory in America recently — same-sex marriage — was achieved not through mass protest or even through the exercise of voting power. Rather, it was achieved in the courts, and just barely at that. The Occupy movement, so hopeful at the outset, was extinguished after only a few short weeks. Successful movements do tend to wax and wane before finally achieving critical mass, so Occupy may be dormant, not dead, but it’s on life support at best.
Yesterday, however, we saw millions take to the streets in peaceful demonstration.
Has the sleeping giant finally awakened? Time will tell. But the potential is there. Make no mistake; this would not be pleasant in the short-term. Think of what it required for Egyptians to remove Mubarak from power. It would take a lot to spark such an uprising here. After all, the suffering of everyday Americans does not approach that of Egyptians under Mubarak. But if anyone could spark such an uprising here, Donald Trump would be the one.
On the other hand…
And to not get carried away…
Those women who marched largely were white and privileged. To many, it was a social event and little else. I hope they surprise me, but I doubt they will be there when it counts, putting their bodies on the line — getting pepper sprayed, tear-gassed and arrested — in solidarity with those who stand to lose most under a Trump presidency.
Black America Finally Says “Enough”
One recent movement in America still is very much alive — Black Lives Matter.
There’s a less noticed movement also taking hold in Black America, which I think of as Black Wealth Matters, for lack of a better term. That movement overall is synergistic with Black Lives Matter. it is threatening, however, to the Black establishment in America, which is led by the likes of Al Sharpton, John Lewis, Jim Clyburn, and Donna Brazile.
In the Obama years, the Black establishment succeeded in isolating the voice of the Black Wealth Matters crowd, most notably that of Cornel West.
That may change. In the Democratic primaries, may Sanders supporters were baffled by the level of support for Clinton among Black voters. Overall, the numbers were staggering. Indeed, Black votes may have been Sanders’ undoing. That was a reflection of the power of the Black political establishment.
Less noticed, however, was the divide within Black America. Black millennials were far more supportive of Sanders, many in a vocal way. They rejected Clinton’s neoliberalism and the economic oppression it has inflicted on Black Americans. They are led by a group of young thought leaders like Yvette Carnell, Antonio Moore and others. Those are not household names. Individually, their followings are miniscule. Collectively, however, they’re gaining traction, or so it seems.
These thought leaders are raising uncomfortable questions about the wealth that was stolen from their ancestors and never has been returned. Those questions may be uncomfortable, but they need to be asked and, ultimately, answered. They’re also exposing uncomfortable truths, such as the practice of showering wealth upon a minuscule fraction of Black Americans as a means of creating the illusion of economic opportunity.
This movement is in its infancy, so there’s no way to know whether it will succeed and, if it does, what exact direction it will take. I’ve been paying close attention to it, however. I know this: These young thought leaders, as well as older ones such as Cornel West, are pragmatic and bold in their thinking. They will question any premise. such as whether today’s Black political establishment is truly acting in the best interest of Black Americans, or selling out for their own personal gain. Their ideas are threatening to most in the political establishment, both Black and White, but not to millions of potential White allies.
My hope is that ultimately this group will lead us in the direction Martin Luther King, Jr., was going in the final years of his life. MLK is remembered, deservedly so, as the leader of the civil rights movement. In the end, however, he’d become something bigger — a champion of human rights, speaking out against the evils of both capitalism and militarism.
Ultimately, the struggle we face is about economic injustice. Black Americans, for centuries, have borne the brunt of American economic injustice, so it only makes sense that they lead the fight against it. Yes, Black Americans have their own agenda in some respects, such as reparations for slavery, Jim Crow and mass incarceration. Ultimately, however, economic justice for Black Americans will mean economic justice for all Americans. So this movement — Black Wealth Matters — will evolve into something a critical mass of Americans can get behind.
Of all the possible outcomes flowing from Trump’s rise to power, this last one, were it come to pass, would be the most silver of silver linings. Here’s hoping.
It was an interesting read, Bob. In all three of your solutions for Trump, you seem to make the assumption that the 62-million (plus probably the same number of supporters who did not vote for whatever reason) will do nothing while the anti-Trump forces you desire effect a massive revolution to change things. The Trump movement elected, and supports, change from the liberal drift this country has been on for the last thirty years. I don’t think they are going to quietly accept a pushback easily.
I know you are impressed with the demonstrations that took place, but remember that ostentatious dramatic display are common for the left. You rarely see the right having parades, and drum circles, and demonstrations, and interpretive dance medleys, in celebration, or in protest, of event. That is the hallmark of the left. The great demonstration yesterday consisted primarily of pampered women and celebrities out on a social event. It was a chance to show off for each other, preen for selfies and camera shots, and generally have a fun day out while “making a difference”. You will not find a similar occurrence among conservatives (read: Trump supporters).
I guess what I am trying to say is that the revolution you are hoping for is either:
(1) Not going to happen because none of the three scenarios you described will gain sufficient steam to get off the ground. Revolutions take gumption and drive and long term committment and I don’t think it’s there. Of course, I could be wrong and
(2) there will be enough gumption, drive and committment to get the revolution going. In that case, there is the problem of convincing the other half of the Country to agree or being prepared for stiff opposition that is not going to roll over and go away easily. You acknowledge that it be rough, but I think it will be rougher than you are thinking. Depending on how forceful the Anti-Trump “revolutionaries” are, there could even be blood spilled because Trump supporters seem especially fired up to see things changed from the Obama-Bush-Clinton years of leftward drift.
For my part, I don’t want to see anything bad happen so I am hoping for nothing to happen from your revolutionaries. I am not a big supporter of Trump (I voted for him as a vote against Hillary) but I think he should be given a chance at governance before everyone decides to hang him from the nearest tree. I did not vote for Obama, but I felt the same way when he took office. He proved to be not as bad as I feared, but not as good as I hoped. People should give Trump the same courtesy. It’s not likely, but he may surprise us.
> The Trump movement elected, and supports, change from the liberal drift this country has been on for the last thirty years. I don’t think they are going to quietly accept a pushback easily.
I am curious by what metrics you believe the country is on a ‘liberal drift’. From what I can see, we have been on a fairly conservative drift since the mid-1980’s, although, being born in the 90’s, I’ll admit that I do not have the full picture. However, it seems that in a great many ways, the country’s government is more right-wing than it was during, say, the Carter administration. And certainly a hell-of-a-lot more polarized starting with when Gingrich became speaker.
“I am curious by what metrics you believe the country is on a ‘liberal drift’.”
Off the top of my head I will offer the following short list:
• Gay marriage
• Cross gender bathrooms
• Gays Serving Openly in the Military
• The Great Society Program
• Abortion on Demand
• Vast Expansion of Welfare and Associated Programs
• Quota Based Affirmative Action
There are literally hundreds of other examples of the leftward drift, but as someone who has lived for a very long time, I can tell you that things have definitely moved far to the left.
“And certainly a hell-of-a-lot more polarized starting with when Gingrich became speaker.”
The polarizing began back in 1964 with Barry Goldwater when he gave voice to a frustrated conservative movement. I struggled along on life support for several years but began getting it’s legs and, by the time of Newt Gengrich, was gaining strength. Although Newt later went astray, for a while he was a great spokesman for conservatism.
There’s a lot packed into your comment, Steve. It’s almost as if it’s a window into your mind.
Focus on your concluding paragraph. How do you possibly square that with the theme of the country being on a “liberal drift.”
More telling, though, is what you consider liberalism. Consider what you left off your list: the Civil Rights Act, the elimination of the anti-miscegenation laws, the Fair Housing Act. Those all were considered “liberal” at one time. Now, they’re recognized not as liberal, but simply as part of the process of human progress. Hence the term, “progressive.” Thus, they’re not on your list, because you don’t fancy yourself a neanderthal.
So, fast forward 50 years. Do you honestly believe that same-sex marriage and other ways in which we’ve recently attempted to abolish discrimination against gays and lesbians will be considered “liberal”? Or will they be in the heap of developments like the abolition of slavery, the Civil Rights Act, and child labor laws which we consider to be natural human progress (you know, the arc of the moral universe is long, but ultimately it bends to justice), and which conservatives would not classify as “liberal” for fear doing so would indirectly expose their own backwardness?
So, is Edward really wrong? Try making his case for the country being on a conservative drift and see what you come up with. Then compare his list to yours and see which one captures better what really has taken place here since Reagan’s election.
Bob, just because I included something on my list of examples of things that show the leftward drift of our Nation doesn’t mean I don’t agree with it. I have always said that we need both liberals and concervatives to have a balance on the direction of our Country. I would not want to live in a place where the pendulum swung too far one way or the other. However, I think we went too far to the left for a while and the pendulum is swinging back. You admitted that many of the things we consider good things today started out being considered “liberal” at the beginning. My list reflects that.
Gay rights are an example of something I am not completely comfortable with but I know in my heart it is the right thing to do. I supported Obamacare (even on the pages of this blog) when it came out because I think healthcare should be available for everyone, but it was definitely a liberal idea. As I said, just because I have it on my list does not mean I oppose it, it just means it is an example of liberal influence.
I should have realized that my list would be misunderstood without further explanation, but I focused on the question alone, and not the wider implications of my answer. Thank you for pointing that out.
Your method of identifying the direction of the drift just doesn’t work well, because the list of items is endless. For example, you left out what’s happened to labor laws and tax policy. Go back and look at how progressive the income tax used to be compared to now.
A better method, I submit, is to recognize that both parties move with the actual drift. So, if you compare Presidents of the same party over time, you get an idea of the general direction. If you compare Carter and Johnson to Clinton and Obama, the drift is very clearly rightward. Similarly, if you compare Nixon and Eisenhower (Ford was not elected) to Reagan, the Bushes and Trump, the drift also is rightward. Yes, Democrats still are to the left of “center” and Republicans are to the right of it, so there will obviously be a movement to the left when a Democrat replaces a Republican in the Whitehouse. But it’s the movement of the center that is the drift. And that has been to the right since 1980.
Well, Bob, what that would mean is that I am greedy. I wanted more. I say that a little tongue in cheek, but also serious. I have not thought of it as a movement to the right because it appeared to me that the left was getting it’s way on so many things. I haven’t felt conservatism was succeeding until the last few years. Your timeline dovetales nicely with Barry Goldwater, so maybe it was there and I just couldn’t see it.
Or it could be that I was not that political for a good part of my life. As an Army Officer, I tried not to be political. I was, of course, very much aware of politics and I knew I was conservative, but the only thing I did that was political was make contributions to people and causes I supported and voted at every opportunity. But I didn’t argue politics and it was of secondary importance in my life. Then, between 1991 and 1993, a couple of things happened that fired me up:
• I was visiting the U.S. Military Academy Preparatory School as a guest speaker in Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, and was watching the evening news. New Jersey had just reformed it’s welfare laws and no longer would pay women on welfare more money for additional children. There were riots in Newark and they interviewed some of the rioters. These two women (who were both carrying loot they had just taken from a burning CVS Store nearby) were shouting that New Jersey couldn’t do that because, “That’s MY money!!”. That was my first direct exposure to the “welfare mentality” because these ladies actually thought that way. They weren’t thankful that the State of New Jersey supplied them with a subsistence living…they thought they were entitled to it for doing absolutely nothing except having children out of wedlock.
• Then, in 1993, just as Bill Clinton was taking office, there was a BIG tax increase that went through that was backdated to the beginning of the year. It turns out that Hillary took her 1993 salary from the Rose Law Firm in 1992 in order to avoid paying the heavier tax burden. That was my introduction to the Clinton Cheat Machine.
Anyway, after those two things, I took notice of politics and didn’t like what I was seeing. So when you say the Country was actually leaning right, it wasn’t obvious to me. I only saw liberalism gaining ground and I was not happy.
However, despite my strong conservative leaning, I do believe we need both sides for a healthy Country. I am open to new ideas that make sense to me. I am even open to ideas that I don’t necessarily understand or fully agree with, but I know that it is the right thing to do. That is why I enjoy this blog. There are very few “flame throwers” and a lot of solid, conscientious thinking that goes on here. I learn a lot, and I embrace some and reject some, but always I am learning.
“You rarely see the right having parades, and drum circles, and demonstrations, and interpretive dance medleys, in celebration, or in protest, of event.”
Are you kidding?
Did you miss the Tea Party movement? All those white folks dressed up like “patriots”, all the misspelled signs calling President Obama a “soshlist” and “Hilter” and the “anti-christ”. The “Birthers” joined in with all their “Obama is from Kenya” and Obama is a “mooslim” etc…
Why do you make statements that are so easily refuted?
And, of course, there is the Ku Klux Klan. Do a Google image search on “Ku Klux Klan parades”.
But they are not conservatives, you might argue. Well, it could also be argued that Trump’s campaign and electoral victory has brought white nationalism closer to the conservative center.
You are correct. I do not consider the Ku Klux Klan a conservative organization. It is a hate filled splinter group that has no place in any society. I don’t consider them nationists, either. They are white supremists who are stupid and have no place at any discussion table.
However, having expressed my utter disgust with them, I would ask what you think of the Black Panthers (a decidedly black supremist group) and other groups like them? Most often I hear things like, “Yes, they should not talk that, but they are oppressed and we should understand them”. The left tends to equivocate on it’s hate groups.
What are your thoughts?
Well, to be honest, as someone who grew up in the Deep South during the civil rights era, I understood the movement largely within that context for most of my adult life.
It is only in recent years that I have studied Black History and gained more of an appreciation for the broader context of the movement, how it played out in the northern and western states. Forgive me for not answering your question as I am still learning this fascinating history.
However, there is a very recent, excellent documentary about the Black Panthers.
Liza, I do not want to be mean, or demeaning, or anything negative when I say this, but your equivocation about the Black Panthers is exactly what I expected. As I told you in the same message where I asked you what you thought about the Black Panthers, I said that no liberal can condemn the hate groups within the ranks of the left. That is especially true if the hate group is black in origin. There is no limit to the contortions liberals will go through in order to rationalize the actions and purpose of any hate group within its ranks. Nothing is so repugnant, violent or vicious that a liberal will not find a way to justify it.
You say I always set myself up to be refuted, please tell me of a violent, racist left wing hate group (such as the Black Panthers) that has been wholeheartedly, without equivocation, rejected by the left in recent memory.
Also, the differences between white supremacy and white nationalism are not so clear to me although I am aware that there are those who believe there is some distinction.
The bottom line, Steve, is that if you are going to be defending Trump et al for the next however many years, it will be a daunting and thankless task.
Liza, I really don’t defend Trump, per se. He is the President, and I sometimes will put up a mild defense of the office he holds, but the truth is that I am not a big supporter of Trumps. I voted for him, but it was really a vote against Hillary. If Obama could have stayed on for another term, that would have been better than Hillary. Heck, defending Trump would be more than any human being could bear. ;o)
I do tend to speak out in defense of conservatism, warts and all…not that it needs me to defend it. It does quite well on it’s own. It does create interesting discussions on this page and sometimes a really good argument comes along that changes my mind on a subject. You made me change my position on funding for education, so it does happen.
No, Steve, that was an honest answer about the Black Panthers. I have very vague memories of them from the 60s, but as I said, I am engaged in learning more about the civil rights era outside of the Deep South.
I am bonded to that history because I was there and because I understood what was happening even though I was a young child. So there are really two things that have to be reconciled, what I witnessed and the larger, factual history which I have yet to fully explore.
That is not equivocating. That is admitting that I do not know this history well enough to respond to what you have said about them.
Conservatives tend to lack self-awareness. I see this in my family and amongst my conservative friends.
Steve-arino, buddy, conservatives just elected a guy to the highest office in the land, after he spent a year telling his supporters to rough up protestors, that he’d pay their legal fees, and the conservatives cheered him on.
Most liberals always condemn violence, but it seems that most conservatives voted for violence to be POTUS.
“Why do you make statements that are so easily refuted?”
Because people miss the larger point I am making and nit-pick. For instance:
“All those white folks dressed up like “patriots”, all the misspelled signs calling President Obama a “soshlist”, [etc.] [etc.]”
There will always be small exceptions to every statement made. I am not familiar with the incident you are talking about, but I would say it is the exception that proves what I was saying. It stands out vividly in your mind. Why? Because it is rare that you see such exhibitions from the right. You will rarely, if ever, see conservatives out marching in the streets by the thousands protesting this or that, often dressed in outlandish costumes and carrying idiotic signs that exaggerate (or just plain lie) about the cause(s) for which they march. It is a regular, almost weekly, occurrence among liberals. By nature, liberals like drama and flash. It has meaning for them. They appreciate the attention and the excitement and the self congratulations afterwards. Conservatives don’t.
I would be willing to bet that the occasion you are talking about was a one time incident consisting of, at most, a few hundred people, and it was ignored by conservatives in general. We are embarrassed by little displays of stupidity; liberals embrace them. Even when embarrassed by what takes place, liberals find excuses for why “it was necessary to make a statement”.
By the way, Liza, you really should try to get past your fixation on “white folks”. It kind of makes your otherwise interesting messages sound sort of, well, racist. I don’t think you are, but I doubt you would use other similar phrases so loosely and easily.
“You will rarely, if ever, see conservatives out marching in the streets by the thousands protesting this or that, often dressed in outlandish costumes and carrying idiotic signs that exaggerate (or just plain lie) about the cause(s) for which they march.”
History disagrees with your assessment.
I don’t know at what point ‘small exceptions’ become a pattern, but I don’t think history is so kind in its assessment that the GOP/conservatives/American Right are so much less prone to protest.
I don’t think you understand what the discussion was, Edward, because all of your examples were of individuals behaving badly, not large groups of people demonstrating either for or against anything. And I don’t know if the people doing that were conservatives or not, but I know they were certainly disgusting people.
Here was my original premise: Liberals love to hold mass rallies and demonstrations and march in the street and, in general, create a very big hullabaloo when they are in favor of something, or protesting something. Conservatives don’t like doing that. Liza told me about one time I was unaware of where tea party conservatives got dressed up in patriots costumes and did something (I really don’t know what they were doing). My contention was that this was a small aberration that more or less proved my point because it stood out in her mind so vividly.
So, that was what we were discussing. Feel free to jump in…
Okay, so every time I try to post a link, it seems to want to hold my posts for moderation. So you’ll have to remove the spaces before the double backslash and between the dots on your own.
http: //www . revelist . com/politics/america-responds-obama/5855/unity-thats-the-message-sent-by-depicting-obama-as-a-savage/5
https: //www . splcenter . org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2009/racist-backlash-greets-president-barack-obama
But the links are to discredit the notion that Conservatives are somehow less prone to protest, or less violent/racist/lying while doing so.
Good Lord, Steve, the Tea Party Movement and the Birther Movement are not aberrations.
Where have you been?
And how would you prefer that I identify “white” people when I wish to speak about white people? Calling people white is not considered to be a racial slur.
If I were to refer to them as crackers or honkies or whitey, to name a few, that would be a racial slur.
Here is a guide for you:
I’m a white boy, Liza, and have no problem being called a white boy.
I also have no problem being called a white man, or white dude, white guy, etc.
And my black, Asian, Indian, and Mexican friends don’t seem to have an issue with me calling them black or Mexican or Korean or Indian.
That’s just what we all are.
I think some conservatives are angry about PC culture is because they misunderstand it. Aside from a few extreme exceptions, much hyped in conservative media, being PC just means don’t be a d***.
“Good Lord, Steve, the Tea Party Movement and the Birther Movement are not aberrations.”
No, Liza, they are not aberrations. I never said they were. I said the “demonstration” you claimed they had where they wore outfits of patriots, etc., was an aberration. Did you forget what you wrote and what we were talking about?
”Calling people white is not considered to be a racial slur.”
Actually, Liza, I didn’t say “white”, I said “white folks”. And if you are comfortable calling people “white folks” then have at it.
Steve, you sound like you’re losing it.
Here is the definition of “folk”.
And these type of demonstrations were not rare occurrences.
Furthermore, your attempt to MARGINALIZE the three million women who marched on Sunday AND the women who marched in other parts of the world is deeply disturbing.
It’s a great first amendment. They get to march and you get to write what you think about it.
We can leave it there.
“The great demonstration yesterday consisted primarily of pampered women and celebrities out on a social event.”
Take another look.
Liza, I am not certain what you thought you were going to show me, but I looked all through the pictures and what I saw were mostly (by a significant margin)</i) white faces. There were men walking around and a few minorities who seemed prominently displayed out in front, but when I looked in the background, I saw nearly all white females who seemed like they were doing pretty well. Among the celebrities I saw (both here and on TV) I would say they were 90% millionaire white women protesting their subjugation.
Go back and look at what you posted with an open mind and I think you are going to be surprised. The march was mostly about white women out on a social event.
Well, you can think what you want.
“Well, you can think what you want.”
That is eminently reasonable of you.
Revolt Is the Only Barrier to a Fascist America
Posted on Jan 22, 2017
By Chris Hedges
“When a tiny cabal seizes power—monarchist, communist, fascist or corporate—it creates a mafia economy and a mafia state. Donald Trump is not an anomaly. He is the grotesque visage of a collapsed democracy.”
“seizes power”, “collapsed democracy”, Liza? Really? Don’t you think you are being a little irrational? He was voted into office by the people. He has only held the office for two days. He hasn’t seized power of any kind. It was a legal, peaceful and legitimate transfer of power; the same as we have had so many times before. Our Democratic Republic is still just as healthy as it always has been. There is no reason to be so concerned.
Uh, Steve, I didn’t write the article, Chris Hedges is the author. The quote is clearly from Chris Hedges.
I suspect you are not familiar with his work.
OOPS!! My Mistake, Liza. Boy do I have egg on my face! Sorry! ;o)
as I have already posted get to work on popular vote initiative. look how many signatures you could have got at the women’s march down in tucson so you now would have something to show for it today. do you think greg (another phoenix mayor) stanton will inspire young hispanics to come out and vote in 2018? white working class women vote republican in arizona as ann “these boots are made for walking” kirkpatrick found out the hard way. I don’t know who ran a worse campaign ann kirkpatrick or hillary clinton. so is greg stanton our next fred duval that the democratic party is going to throw at us like a hand grenade?