Sunday, August 7, 2016

Learning to Love The Trump

How I Learned to Stop
Worrying and Love the Bomb

A Very Cordial, Well Mannered,
Thoughtful Post With <almost
No Politics
Relax. Take a break! The BIG MONEY is quietly 
gearing up the free press to

Although it is now only August, every Fourth Estate "voice" with a microphone or a typewriter in America's vast, albeit useless, industrial, "free press" is already churning out an endless collection of compelling reasons why The Trump is a horrible person and must be soundly defeated [yes, "Trumped"] in November. MeanMesa, aside from admittedly suffering through the tedium and unavoidable ennui accompanying the hours of insipid media repetition, still essentially agrees with all these nasty comments.

Donald Trump is, indeed, a profoundly despicable creation. Further, this creation is the predictable, final result to be expected after decades of laborious, GOP, think tank driven, political manipulation "strategy" -- the Republican Party's version of a "cottage industry" -- established a fetid political "petri dish" which would inevitably produce either this Trump or another Trump just like him. Simply acknowledging the grotesque product of this work may be helpful but even such a careful effort might still fail to correctly establish the shockingly arcane reality of it.

However, while all these claims may "have some substance," there is growing evidence that what we see before our eyes is actually a monumental deception. The only reassuring element is that, if this is the case, even the oligarchs have been deceived right along with hundreds of millions of American voters. To explore this thoroughly, we must first dismiss the obvious details about the candidates and their campaigns and then look carefully for clues about what is really transpiring behind the scene.

So, holding true to this post's title, let's agree that wasting any more key strokes on discrediting the fool or applying even more lip stick to the "other candidate" is hardly necessary, relevant or constructive for our investigation. 

Instead, MeanMesa thinks that this may be an excellent moment to seek out a larger, more encompassing, "big picture" model of what's happening to the nation's democracy. We are unquestionably "sailing into uncharted waters" as we speak.

Let's try to track down what shadowy details of this "monumental deception" may actually be available to us, given what we can deduce from what we see so far. The "clouds" make this crime scene very, very, extremely foggy at this point.

[Blogger offered a new "gadget" which is now appearing at the top of each post on the blog. It is called "Featured Post." We will try it out for a few days to hear what the visitors think of it, then make a more permanent decision about continuing to use it.]

Deceptions which "simply jump out" as they are being revealed are the typical case. In such instances a little evidence -- sometimes only a fleeting glimpse of merely a single iota of evidence -- is sufficient to pique an unsettled curiosity and inspire further investigation. Unhappily, this comfortable situation is not the case with this one. Here, almost the opposite seems to be the case.

The specific "evidence" which has piqued MeanMesa's geriatric curiosity is actually not what would normally be considered "evidence" of much of anything...that is, anything specific. Instead, what we see appears to be one utterly non sequitur event after another. Don't be too hasty to pillory yourself as an out of control conspiracy maniac. MeanMesa smells plenty of unpleasant evidence lurking just below the innocent, chaotic surface of matters but still -- at this point -- remaining out of sight below some exquisitely fashioned fog.

We Always Begin With Motives.
Bill and Hillary always seemed to be such a...uh...nice couple.
To the Clintons, Trump probably looked a lot like the tooth fairy.

A Public Relation Genius' Dream of a Purple Heart??
[Watch it live - YOUTUBE]
Bill Clinton had PLENTY of bruises to settle with the Republican Party. His Presidency ushered in the GOP's current ideological tirade of not simply losing election after election, but consistently careening toward impeachment efforts as soon as possible after each humiliating defeat.

Bill Clinton has always been a political mastermind, yet, quietly sitting as an ex-President, his "opportunities for revenge" and his possible "opportunities to pursue his ambitions" before Hillary's candidacy were quite limited. However, as his wife entered the political scene as a potentially viable candidate, all his odds suddenly grew much better.

Given this "environment of blood enmity" between Clinton and the GOP billionaires' "rat pack," the motives for this current scheme can possibly be explained along two seemingly separate avenues:

1. Bill would love to have Hillary win, and Bill would love to return to the White House himself -- even as First Husband, and,
2. Bill Clinton would love to "get even" -- dealing a political death blow to his Republican tormentors.

Bill accurately appraised the condition of the GOP a few months ago when he was "encouraging" Donald Trump to "go ahead and run again." The tattered wreckage of the Republican brand exposed a serious vulnerability. The billionaires in charge of the Party had mortally over extended.

After years of financing the GOP's "private media," the billionaires' fantasy of a new, reactionary, illiterate voter base driven entirely by fear, mistrust, racism and anger had finally materialized. Clinton was faced with only the almost effortless -- and no doubt delightfully pleasant -- task of "setting the ball rolling," and Donald Trump presented the ultimate opportunity to do precisely this.

MeanMesa, always in search of a "lofty editorial" perch in such "ethically odorous" matters, is, of course, not speculating as to whether or not The Trump was "brought on board" with Bill's diabolical scheme. The likelihood of either of the alternative "guesses" is roughly the same.

Perhaps all MeanMesa visitors can now understand why this crotchety old blogger now concludes that:

This is a SET UP!

Well, probably not actually 
THAT much danger. [image]

Naturally, such an unlikely suspicion will require a review of "the quiet, subtle signs" of such a conspiracy's existence. Unhappily, there is very little more beyond a few "unusual observations" which can be added at this time. Happily, given the current state of things, even such a "Set Up" appears to have "plenty of positives."

A Quick Inventory of the 
Non-Political "Non-Evidence"
Yes, there may be a 
real mystery afoot here!
We can't explain it both ways.
Way Number 1:     What Trump is doing makes sense -- but only secretly.
Way Number 2:                What Trump is doing makes no sense,     and...
no amount of additional evidence will convince anyone
 that Trump is actually doing what he presently claims he is doing.

The basic "conspiracy theory" which is the subject of this MeanMesa post has been presented previously on this blog: 

[MeanMesa suggests that visitors who may not have already read it take a moment to have a look before returning here. It is the "Featured Post" presented at the top of this page thanks to blogger's fantastic new "gadget."]

With this conspiracy theory in mind, let's take a look at a few of the unusual, mysterious, inexplicable and awkwardly strange features of the Trump campaign. We can group these into roughly associated categories.

The Republican Party

The billionaire owners of the Republican Party had been "full steam ahead" in their efforts to create a well positioned "counter establishment" block in the Party's voter base. Their conclusion was that there were simply not enough "looting opportunities" loose in the Congress to share any of them with the "old guard" GOP establishment of banksters, hedgies and the traditional Country Club set.

After a few years of this effort the Tea Party emerged, but it lacked the "revolutionary fire" which would be necessary to finally usher the country into an appropriate mind set to become a permanent, dynastic oligarchy. Still, every hill billy and bigot had been groomed for an even more violently egregious role, and that crowd amounted to a 30% or 40% portion of the voting population which simply had to be used before it slowly evaporated.

Bill Clinton correctly saw this as a potential vulnerability, and he went for the throat. This plan has already inflicted damage on the GOP so severe that it will still be smoldering a decade from now. For the first time in a century is is neither maudlin nor tastelessly melodramatic to speculate about the actual, physical demise of the GOP.

The mysterious part of this is that the heavily invested, heretofore mighty GOP gang leaders either allowed it to develop or could not stop it from developing.

The mountains of money

A Presidential campaign costs LOTS of money. The 2012 budgets easily topped a billion dollars on each side of the race. Don't fool yourself. This money represents an investment, pure and simple. The people and corporations providing this money are not doing so because their "patriotism" drove them to it.

Right along with the monumental investment is the correspondingly larger pay out, that is, the "return on investment." Right, wrong or indifferent, controlling the White House is worth a LOT of money. The billionaires who finance the Super PACs and the campaigns expect to prosper mightily from these investments. The history of the process annually reaffirms this dismal observation.

When control either part of the Congress might also be delivered by such campaign contributions, the potential "return on investment" is expanded even more. Add in control of the Supreme Court, and the "return on investment" begins to look like a U-Haul full of jack hammers parked in front of the Treasury building.

Whether it should be or not, it IS a high stakes, big business game.

Now, to bring this into perspective, let's consider an allegorical example. 

The New Factory

Investors get together to finance a wonderful new factory. The local state government is "incentivized" to throw in publicly financed infrastructure such as roads, water and sewer utilities, and street lights. Additionally, some very sweet tax loop holes are added to "sweeten the pot."

8,000 buggy whips per hour. [image]
The new company spends hundreds of millions on a fabulous new office building. It is located just a few hundred feet from a fabulous new factory. A railroad company, anticipating a nice profit for shipping the factory's goods to market, contributes the ties and track to build a spur right to the new factory's loading dock. Hundreds of new employees are hired.

But then...nothing happens

A billion dollars has been invested in the sweet new set up, but the factory makes nothing. The trains never call. The executives in the new office building never make any decisions which might help the situation. In fact, there was never even any talk about possible manufactured products or innovative ideas of any sort.

This is a picture of the mutated Presidential race Bill Clinton has foisted upon his old Republican enemies. The Republican billionaires can do whatever they wish, but this is the scorched earth that presently occupies the gruesome wake of the Trump campaign. How did the GOP allow itself to be stranded with such an abomination?

Opportunity is everything

Even the barely aware among the Republican Party base is utterly languishing in the economic pit following the Great Republican Recession of 2008. The situation has been further aggravated by the crippling political obstruction implemented by the Republicans since then. These Republican base voters are in pain. They have been wounded, and they are not in a good state of mind.

The GOP "bought" some time with an intricate web work of villains identified in their media "blame game," but the shine has worn off that trinket now. Bill Clinton correctly anticipated this. He and his wife might effectively ease some of this lingering pain from the Oval Office, but before that, Bill intends to use it against the very people who created it.

It worked.

Party policy is practically nothing

The elevation of Trump to "candidate status" solved several of Hillary's [Bill's] "electability problems" at once. Remember -- both candidates had unfavorability ratings which would have, under more normal conditions, essentially eliminated a chance for a Presidential run. This played Bill's hand as craftily as "a fiddle."

Confronting all the reasons any voter might have for not casting a Clinton ballot -- psychological, conspiratorial, reputational or even a few furtive tastes of Mrs. Clinton's "insinuated policy" here and there --  was the constant, impossibly horrid, self-destructive alternative. 

The Kochs and a few other "big money interests" who have traditionally financed Republican candidates are still obsessed with reaping their profits from ugly developments such as the TPP and the Keystone XL pipeline, but neither of these issues is currently included in the tiny amount of "policy" being discussed by either side's campaign. The mindless Trump competition has also written a permanent "hall pass" for most of the discussion of wealth inequality, climate change, college loan debt or some sort of functional health care.

Frustrated with their dwindling prospects of owning the Oval Office, the billionaires are now moving to direct their wealth at purchasing GOP candidates in State races -- constituting a dangerous "flanking feint" which could extend the crippling paralysis we've seen during the Obama Administration into the Hillary Administration.

The candidate - a con man in his own mind

The script called for a
full automatic.
There is no telling exactly why Donald Trump has been acting out the way he has. If his calamitous demeanor as a candidate has, actually, been filling a character previously defined by Bill Clinton to elect his wife, MeanMesa is the first to conclude that not only is the "script" uncomfortably amateurish, but also that Trump's bumbling, maudlin execution of his role is horribly "over acted."

Still, considering the demographic crowd to which Trump's role must appeal, maybe not. The job of attracting random hill billies and bigots from trailer parks across the fly over states is a "different animal" than impressing more sophisticated types who might be more like theater critics.

A competent con man would know better than to ridicule the handicapped, demand that a crying baby be removed from a press event, attack fire chiefs trying to control crowds to comply with safety regulations, lurch into endless, petulant name calling [i.e. "crooked Hillary"] tease establishment figures in his political party [i.e. Paul Ryan], heckling a "gold star" family and -- whenever finding himself ankle deep in a self-induced political morass -- bravely "doubling down" to wildly and recklessly increase the damage to his campaign.

Relax. This is only going to hurt for a minute, say,
-- until November.
[image - Steve Sack, fB]
Comfort in "Troubled Waters"
Does this mean that the new oligarchy will be under Democratic control?

MeanMesa grudgingly accepts the now essentially inevitable prospect that the United States will be a "fully established" oligarchy within the next two Presidential terms. The billionaires currently own around 85% of everything in the country.

This "descent into the maelstrom" with Donald Trump in power would be violent and potentially fatal for the nation. The alternative is to "descend" with Hillary Clinton [Bill] at the helm. MeanMesa suggests -- perhaps over optimistically -- that the latter course will prove to be far less violent.

Saturday, July 9, 2016

How the GOP Continues to Exist

This is a DailyKOS article which MeanMesa would like for all blog visitors to read. Although it was written several months ago, it has everything to do with the 2016 election outcome. Enjoy.

The Most Important Article
 You'll Read Today About The Democratic Party.

Saturday Nov 21, 2015
[All links remain enabled. Visit the original article  here The Democratic Party/DailyKOS]
Where can we find enough Republicans to keep the government crippled?
The old Confederacy now has a "Western" and a Northern" Branch.

Ever wonder why all those folks in rural, “red” America still vote in droves for the same Republicans who brag about gutting the very social programs keeping them alive? How someone like Matt Bevin can run a winning campaign in Kentucky based on cutting people’s access to affordable health care? How Republican governors can get away with refusing free Medicaid for their own citizens? Every election it seems that Democrats end up shaking their heads in dismay as yet another mean-spirited red-state Republican manages to defeat the Democrat by essentially promising to make his own constituents’ lives more miserable. Afterwards we all intone the familiar refrain which boils down to “these people don’t know any better.” If only the Democrats had a more effective “message” on the issues, we could surely reach those people who by all strands of logic ought to vote blue, and convince them that Republicans don’t have their interests at heart.

In one of the more insightful articles ever written about what motivates the rural poor to vote Republican, Alec MacGillis, who covers politics for ProPublica, took a tour through deep red America, asking the same questions. In an Op-Ed for today’s New York Times, MacGillis explains that it’s not all about guns and abortion that drives people in economically-depressed areas to vote Republican. In fact it’s something very basic to human nature, which the GOP exploits at every turn. And Democrats ignore it at their peril.

MacGillis’ first observation is that many people living in the nations’ more downtrodden areas—and specifically, the ones who benefit the most from programs such as Medicaid and Social Security Disability— are completely disconnected from the political process. They simply choose not to vote. Visiting a free medical clinic in Tennessee, MacGillis asked the people lined up how they felt about Obama. Contrary to his expectations he didn’t encounter hostility, Many people expressed support for the President. But practically none of them had bothered to vote:

[T]he people who most rely on the safety-net programs secured by Democrats are, by and large, not voting against their own interests by electing Republicans. Rather, they are not voting, period. They have, as voting data, surveys and my own reporting suggest, become profoundly disconnected from the political process.

West Virginia, for example, ranked 50th out of all the states in voter turnout in 2012. Other states near the bottom in terms of turnout include Arkansas, Kentucky and Tennessee, largely rural states that have significant populations of poor people, including large percentages of working-class whites.

Of course, the resulting vacuum left by huge swaths of Americans who don’t vote at all ensures that elections in these downtrodden areas will be won by those who do. Why, then, are the folks who choose to vote in these locales so overwhelmingly predisposed to vote Republican? MacGillis finds that the operative motivation is a strong sense of resentment among those who are just getting by towards those who have completely fallen off the economic grid:

The people in these communities who are voting Republican in larger proportions are those who are a notch or two up the economic ladder — the sheriff’s deputy, the teacher, the highway worker, the motel clerk, the gas station owner and the coal miner. And their growing allegiance to the Republicans is, in part, a reaction against what they perceive, among those below them on the economic ladder, as a growing dependency on the safety net, the most visible manifestation of downward mobility in their declining towns.

In his article MacGillis cites many specific examples of how this resentment operates in practice:

[T]hese voters are consciously opting against a Democratic economic agenda that they see as bad for them and good for other people — specifically, those undeserving benefit-recipients who live nearby.

I’ve heard variations on this theme all over the country: people railing against the guy across the street who is collecting disability payments but is well enough to go fishing, the families using their food assistance to indulge in steaks. In Pineville, W.Va., in the state’s deeply depressed southern end, I watched in 2013 as a discussion with Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat, quickly turned from gun control to the area’s reliance on government benefits, its high rate of opiate addiction, and whether people on assistance should be tested for drugs. Playing to the room, Senator Manchin declared, “If you’re on a public check, you should be subjected to a random check.”

The belief that those who receive government assistance are somehow “undeserving” and “getting a free ride” is not only a phenomenon of rural areas, but is borne out in surveys nationwide.

That pattern is right in line with surveys, which show a decades-long decline in support for redistributive policies and an increase in conservatism in the electorate even as inequality worsens. There has been aparticularly sharp drop in support for redistribution among older Americans, who perhaps see it as a threat to their own Social Security and Medicare. Meanwhile, researchers such as Kathryn Edin, of Johns Hopkins University, found a tendency by many Americans in the second lowest quintile of the income ladder — the working or lower-middle class — to dissociate themselves from those at the bottom, where many once resided. “There’s this virulent social distancing — suddenly, you’re a worker and anyone who is not a worker is a bad person,” said Professor Edin. “They’re playing to the middle fifth and saying, ‘I’m not those people.’ ”

The unfortunate human tendency to think yourself as better than your ”undeserving” neighbor is what drives these people, even as their own lives are diminished by the very policies they vote to impose on others. To call this a vicious circle would be an understatement. Republican politicians thrive on and exploit these very real resentments, which are not by any means limited to “red” states. That’s how people like Paul Le Page can be elected governor on an anti-welfare platform in relatively “liberal” states like Maine, where reliance on social programs, particular in rural areas, has increased. Meanwhile, those at the top of the economic ladder become more and more aggressive in securing all of the wealth for themselves, while the poor are played off against one another. Democrats can call it out for the ugliness that it surely is, but it is a reality seized upon in every Republican pronouncement from immigration to taxes. If you can get people to think they’re somehow being taken advantage of by an undeserving “other” (especially if that “other” is a different color than they are), you can motivate them to vote any way you want.

There are no easy answers for Democrats to deal with and change these attitudes. The most obvious solution—getting people to actually vote-- has become more difficult, particularly with the decline of unions, Democrats’ traditional mechanism for mobilizing voters. There is also an obvious and intractable racial component driving this “politics of envy” that MacGillis, somewhat surprisingly, never addresses. He might also have mentioned that the tendency of the national party apparatus to discount and effectively cede these rural voters doesn’t help matters, but instead exacerbates the problem. People aren’t going to respond enthusiastically to a party that apparently doesn’t even want to acknowledge their existence.

MacGillis also suggests that the resentment people feel towards others they consider “dependent” can be addressed head-on if the Democratic Party decides to make the effort:

One way to do this is to make sure the programs are as tightly administered as possible. Instances of fraud and abuse are far rarer than welfare opponents would have one believe, but it only takes a few glaring instances to create a lasting impression. Ms. Edin, the Hopkins researcher, suggests going further and making it easier for those collecting disability to do part-time work over the table, not just to make them seem less shiftless in the eyes of their neighbors, but to reduce the recipients’ own sense of social isolation.

Ultimately, however, the answer lies in investing the people who live in these areas with an economic future:

The best way to reduce resentment, though, would be to bring about true economic growthin the areas where the use of government benefits is on the rise, the sort of improvementthat is now belatedly being discussed for coal country, including on the presidential campaign trail. If fewer people need the safety net to get by, the stigma will fade, and low-income citizens will be more likely to re-engage in their communities — not least by turning out to vote.

Note: All links in quoted segments are MacGillis’s. Emphasis from the original article..

The GOP's Newest Creation: US Poverty

It's Politically Dangerous to Talk About Poverty
It's even more dangerous to try to do something about it.
Ask LBJ.

President Johnson had "a way" with his Congress. This Texan was famous for corralling a recalcitrant Senator up against the wall in the Oval Office and "reading him the riot act." Aside from being able to endlessly extend the Central Asian war in Vietnam, Johnson accomplished an astonishing number of other rather impressive, rather progressive, objectives during his administration -- but still, many of the techniques he employed to this end were unquestionably "meat handed" in a way that only a towering Texas politician could muster.
Lyndon Johnson left office in 1969. [image WP]

It must be noted that during this period many of the Republicans in Congress were still somewhat stable; FOX hate radio had not yet been invented; and, over 20% of the US population was in the throes of dire, more or less permanent, poverty. Although it took a prolonged, agonizing, political bloodbath to put Johnson's "Great Society" anti-poverty programs into law, we can see the effect in the chart [right]. 

By 1970, ten years after Johnson left office, the national poverty rate had declined from over 20% to less than 12%. It remained at this lower level until the "poverty creating" policies of the Reagan era policy of upward wealth redistribution boosted it back up to over 15% -- roughly where it is now. [2016]

Washington Post
The Great Society at 50
LBJ's unprecedented and ambitious domestic vision changed the nation.
Half a century later it continues to define politics and power in America
By Karen Tumulty
May 17, 2014
[Excerpted. Read the entire article  here The Great Society at 50/Washington Post]

One day shortly after starting his new job as presidential adviser and speechwriter, Richard N. Goodwin was summoned to see the boss. Not to the Oval Office, but to the White House swimming pool, where Lyndon B. Johnson often went to ruminate.

Goodwin found the leader of the free world naked, doing a languorous sidestroke. Johnson invited him and top aide Bill Moyers to doff their own clothes: “Come on in, boys. It’ll do you good.”

It was an un­or­tho­dox manner of conducting official business. As they bobbed in the tepid water, the president “began to talk as if he were addressing some larger, imagined audience of the mind,” Goodwin later wrote in his memoir.

The 32-year-old speechwriter forgot his chagrin as he was drawn by “the powerful flow of Johnson’s will, exhorting, explaining, trying to tell me something about himself, seeking not agreement — he knew he had that — but belief.”

This happened in early April 1964, just a little more than four months after a tragedy in Dallas had made Johnson the 36th president of the United States.

“I never thought I’d have the power,” Johnson told Goodwin and Moyers. “I wanted power to use it. And I’m going to use it.”

“We’ve got to use the Kennedy program as a springboard to take on the Congress, summon the states to new heights, create a Johnson program, different in tone, fighting and aggressive,” he said. “Hell, we’ve barely begun to solve our problems. And we can do it all.”

Johnson’s vision would come to be known as the Great Society — the most ambitious effort ever to test what American government is capable of achieving. And in doing so, to discover what it is not.

In laying it out, LBJ even set out a specific time frame for it to come to fruition — 50 years, a mark that will be reached on Thursday. Johnson launched his program with a University of Michigan commencement address, delivered on the clear, humid morning of May 22, 1964, in Ann Arbor.

Today, the laws enacted between 1964 and 1968 are woven into the fabric of American life, in ways big and small. They have knocked down racial barriers, provided health care for the elderly and food for the poor, sustained orchestras and museums in cities across the country, put seat belts and padded dashboards in every automobile, garnished Connecticut Avenue in Northwest Washington with red oaks.

We are living in Lyndon Johnson’s America,” said Joseph A. Califano Jr., who was LBJ’s top domestic policy adviser from 1965 through the end of his presidency. “This country is more the country of Lyndon Johnson than any other president.”

MeanMesa encourages visitors to read this entire article. It is fascinating on its own merit, but in the context of today's desperate politics, Johnson's energetic risk taking approach makes it an almost esoteric encounter. Even though it may appear to a remnant of the distant past, it isn't.

Getting Used to Perpetual Poverty
Welcome to the oligarchy. Borrow some money to regain your standard of living.
The Banksters need your business.

No one is any longer looking to the Congressional millionaires currently in control of the government for any relief from the gnawing factors sustaining these high levels of poverty. Sooner or later, even Republican voters may finally realize that these politicians are not working for anyone who isn't financing their re-election campaigns.

"Fleshing Out" Republican "Leadership"
  1. They hate science and education. Both represents threats to their political careers.
  2. They hate infrastructure. If tax money is spent for any project which might be used by the "non-contributing class," they consider it theft.
  3. They love tax cuts. They have no concern for the long term damage they cause as the hollow out the economy. They have given no thought to the collapse of their "export to low wage workers then import to the domestic market" business plan. Soon enough, none of us will even be able to afford the after market Chinese goods.
  4. They consider poverty an acceptable price to pay for the creation of their oligarchy.
  5. They have no concern about the inevitable rise in violence as more and more Americans careen below the poverty line. For them law enforcement and corporate prisons are nothing more than "minor issues" associated with establishing the oligarchy.

MeanMesa sees no evidence that the current unacceptable level of suffering will relent any time soon -- or, perhaps, ever. There is now an eerie silence on the topic from the Democrats.

Tuesday, July 5, 2016

Is Bill Clinton the "Brain" Behind Donald Trump?

Everything is actually PERFECTLY OKAY. [image]
Why do you keep doing this to yourself?
Relentlessly Disturbing,
Conspiracy Theory Based,
Agonizing, Unsettling,
Apparently Unavoidable,
Probably Inescapable,
2016 Election
Oh, just relax. It's probably nothing.

What's the problem? The 2016 Presidential campaign certainly SEEMS to be rolling along, "roses, simply roses," right? The entire free world is transfixed with the vibrant beauty and power of the American democracy in action, right?

The Americans are preparing to "do their thing." The domestic media air waves are bustling. Everyone with a microphone is busily attempting to re-frame this "2016 thing" as something reassuringly similar to its predecessors.

Yet, there are some very visible, very awkward incongruities which...hmmm..."just don't seem to sit well" with an old geezer like MeanMesa. There really seem to be a more than a few, troubling "loose ends" which don't really fit into any particularly happy picture of might be considered a "sensible outcome" for the process.

These "loose ends" pose a few questions. Relax, this isn't going to become another one of those crazy, page after page, MeanMesa geriatric ranting and raving sessions. We can settle on "just a few" of these questions, and once they've been posed, we can get right to the point of this post -- which will be all about one of them -- the last one.

The 2016 Presidential Election:
The "Loose Ends" and a "Few Questions"
We may have to just wait patiently to glimpse the "sensible outcome."

At some earlier point there were probably discussions about candidates and issues, but -- as usual -- with only a few months separating us from the "big day" when "power will be peacefully passed on to the next chosen leader," the entire narrative has metamorphosed into its more traditional form of raw sports casting. Now, at least for the next few months, we will be living day to day with the constant grinding of the unrelenting stream of latest polling results gnawing patiently at our collective raison d'etre.

Now for some REAL entertainment!
However, even amid all this somewhat reassuring athletic blather of the domestic media coverage, there doesn't seem to be any particular political interest is answering these damned, gnawing questions. Let's have a look at what still seems to be firmly in the air during the 2016 election "plate juggling contest."

The Seven Awkward Questions: 
Why does the 2016 election look so creepy?
[There are plenty more...]

MeanMesa has "taken the liberty" of inserting a "surprisingly powerfulpatented, easy to usehighly scientific, proprietary" VOMIT-ometer to help visitors have a feel for the respective "creepiness" associated with each question and answer. This device was invented right here in the SHORT CURRENT ESSAYS New Mexico research facility. [Don't worry, it is NOT powered by atomic energy. It runs on "tar and coal." Our marketing team finally settled on the vomit tone dial color.]

1. What ever happened to the $900 Mn the Koch brothers threatened to throw into the GOP  "Citizen United" campaign coffers?

Pretty much normal
The "hard working, freedom loving," billionaire brothers don't like Donald Trump. When they were bandying about the idea that they would jump in to inundate the election with Koch millions, the lead candidates were all much more "purchasable" than Trump. In any event the billionaires had been doing much better with the purchase of state level politicians since they didn't seem to be able to buy the Presidency.

Now, those creepy billionaires are "just fuming," sitting on a "whole bunch of money with nowhere to go," that is, "no where to go shopping" for more control over our government. Not a problem -- there's still always Hillary.

2. Will anyone ever actually investigate the infuriatingly suspicious  primary elections that delivered the Democratic nomination to Hillary Clinton?

Mildly Creepy
Quite beyond the "sore loser" moaning of the Sanders supporters, the primary election process which netted Mrs. Clinton the nomination really did stink. Looking back at the state by state mess while attempting to penetrate the conveniently dense fog raised by the obviously twisted, media reporting, the state level primaries had "the stain" of Bill Clinton and plenty of 1920's style Democratic "back room political bosses" mischief all over them.

3. Did the GOP heavyweights really completely miss Donald Trump's terrible prospects for losing the election in a landslide?

Really Uncomfortable
There are plenty of Republican elite types -- bankers and billionaires whose raw greed serves as the GOP's driving force -- who consider a national election to be much more of a business opportunity than anything that has to do with working of democracy. This bunch takes the visible politics of such an event very seriously -- they are seeking out "profit opportunities" which have nothing to do with the future course of the nation. Yet, the domestic media has successfully portrayed Trump's rise as a totally unexpected "phenomenon," a prelude to insinuating all sorts of the media version of "political conclusions" about "what it means." Not even the limpid trust fund babies of the oligarchy dreamers are this naive.

There simply isn't "enough lipstick" to make any part of this look legitimate.

4. Will anyone be held to account after Trump managed to scour out $1 Bn dollars worth of free "unearned" media coverage from the domestic networks?

Strangely Irritating
If not much else of value has emerged from this electoral fiasco, we can still take comfort in the degree to which the craven executives of the industrial media have exposed themselves -- CBS CEO Moonves even went so far as to publicly say so: Trump Not Good For America, But Damn Good For Business/HUFFPOST. The US domestic media works feverishly to maintain the "bubble" that its "business model" still has something to do with fulfilling the Constitutional responsibilities of the Fourth Estate.

It doesn't. It should be embarrassing to see the "free press" fighting with itself over the contents of the nearest "political dumpster."

5. Is there any plan to eliminate the exaggerated influence of the GOP's "religious right" 20% from skewing every primary election -- forever?

Gastric Distress
During every primary, the GOP's self-proclaimed, "right thinking," hyper pious. "old rugged cross" crowd reduces what might have otherwise been an actual "political discussion of issues" to a moribund repetition of a Dark Ages Bible study. The arrogant Dominionists, dour sin-searching Deuteronomists, bitter "end timers" and the other biblical lunatics divert any possible "political discourse" to laughably breathless, endlessly frantic issues of ancient biblical sin.

We've already seen plenty of this scam. The billionaires' think tanks twist every possible question [... and more than a few "impossible" questions, too] into another incendiary "trigger" to juice up their small minority of pet GOP evangelical, primary voters to gain political control.

For the billionaires this is the perennial equivalent of a "bargain basementpolitical demographic where the votes are cheap. If it is "election time," we really need to be talking about governance and policy decisions -- not endlessly repeating desolate Old Testament chest pounding.

6. What happened to the "autopsy" the GOP performed on itself after losing the 2012 to Obama?

Completely Unsettling
We remember the "autopsy." The GOP leadership's momentary mea culpa was focused on attracting women and minority voters. Four years later the "mouth" of the GOP is deeming Mexican immigrants "rapists and murderers" while asserting that any woman getting an abortion "has to be punished." The reasonable conclusion is that the banksters and hedgies in charge of the Republican Party will say anything and blame anybody to survive the next news cycle unscathed.

The GOP Party managers AND the GOP base voters have become even worse now than they were then.

Finally, we arrive at the main topic of this post:

7. Was Donald Trump a "creation" of political mastermind, Bill Clinton, designed to  get his wife elected?

Donald Trump endorsing Hillary Clinton during her New York Senate campaign.
More than "momentary" birds of a feather? Everyone looks so happy.
Very, Very, Pepto-Bismol
Trump was already an "impossible dream" before he even began campaigning. His irritating record of half-hearted threats to run for President through the years should have tipped off everyone paying attention six months ago.

Nonetheless, MeanMesa cannot "relieve himself" of the rather banal news reporting that Bill and Donald had a long talk "about politics" during one of their conversations earlier this year.

If we allow ourselves to indulge in the wild conspiracy theory, the first aspects of it to "firm up" are the obvious possibilities. Hillary Clinton was going to be hard to get nominated. She had a steady 60%-70% "unfavorable rating," [statistically close to Trump's "unfavorable rating"] and the press found it effortless to locate a "man on the street" -- practically any street -- and hear the same opinion: "I can't trust her."

The campaign "fact checkers" have been brutal with Donald Trump, but the nature of the current GOP base voter is such that his campaign has suffered no particular "credibility problems" as a result. Mrs. Clinton, it turns out, is also far from a "high school virgin" with respect to telling voters the truth, although she suffers more and offends far less than The Donald. [Fact Checking Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump/POLITIFACT_TAMPA]

Granted, a good portion of this has arisen from the millions of dollars and thousands of broadcast hours spent by the right wing media to discredit the woman. But...what's unfolding now is simply too creepy to qualify as "just one of those things." NOTHING in modern times flies together as well as this very suspicious "sudden discovery" that we have loved Hillary Clinton all along.

If someone had sat quietly organizing what would become an "almost fool proof" scheme to place Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office, every one of the "unusual" political facets would have been central to such a plan. If there were no other particular reason to ever vote for Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump would solve the problem handily. The role to be played by Trump would be littered with embarrassing outrage -- pretty much what his role has, in fact, been.

The understandable reluctance of the the voters among the Democratic majority to vote for such a "questionable package" would literally slide out of the way if the alternative were to be casting a vote for Trump. The dynamics of the fundamental Constitutional system may have attempted -- no matter how feebly -- to correct itself with the populist candidacy of Sanders, but the contest simply didn't take that turn.

Progressives such as MeanMesa were concerned that we might lose this election to the Republicans. It turns out that, instead, we lost this election to the Democrats. It went across "party lines" without a moment's hesitation. The 2016 election was a contest between the duties and responsibilities required for the preservation of the democracy and the grotesque ambitions of the oligarchs. The oligarchs won.

It looks like Bill is finally going back home.

Additional Links:

Trump Endorsing Hillary/USAToday

Trump Abandons Fund Raising - Puts House in Play/DailyKOS

Elizabeth Warren Wipes the Floor With Paul Ryan's Poverty Plan/DailyKOS