CSotD: The Job Theory
Skip to comments
Robert Ariail gets the award for summing it up without going overboard.
Summing up the actual announcement, that is. The impact and significance is a bit less straightforward, and there are all sorts of directions to take it.
And most of them seem to have been taken by somebody or other, most predictably from the right, where the failure of the Benghazi witch hunt had barely struck before they prepared to fire up some taxpayer-funded investigations to prove that the head of the FBI was ordered not to find evidence because he is an Obama puppet.
And Loretta Lynch also ordered it because she ran into Bill Clinton at the airport the other day, and we all know that politicians don't ever talk to each other, except at the White House Concubines Annual Dinner. And the Gridiron Dinner. And any time they happen to run into each other.
Clay Jones suggests the "Oh boy! Fresh meat!" element with his cartoon, but don't miss the accompanying essay, because he makes several excellent points about the logical stretches involved in all this dredging.
Not that logic has anything to do with it anyway.
In case you were wondering, you can't buy stock in the company that makes Reynolds Wrap. It's privately held, which is too bad because it would be one helluva good investment these days.
The Loretta Lynch conspiracy theories brought to mind the Whitewater conspiracy theories, which included an incident in which Bill Clinton, in the midst of his morning jog, dropped by a bank to chat with someone involved in the proposed development wearing shorts and T-shirt and depositing sweat on the chair in the guy's office.
It was never made clear just what criminal charges might be related to this casual, gadabout informality, but it was about as serious a charge as anything else that emerged from the Whitewater fishing expedition, which mostly proved that Whitewater was conducted pretty much like every other commercial real estate project ever proposed.
Except that they usually involve golf, not jogging.
The "Whitewater scandal" resonated with people who don't know the differences between residential real estate and commercial real estate, which, in the business sector, is like not knowing the difference between badminton and Rollerball.
But the "What About Bill?" issue also reminds me of when Nelson Rockefeller got divorced and speculation was that he would never again be a viable political candidate. That was 1961, though the hammer really fell two years later, when he remarried.
For all the speculation, however, his career progressed because times were changing such that, by 1979, he was able to die in his mistress's bed without rousing more than a flurry of giggles.
This time around, we may be testing whether a candidate can be elected despite not being divorced, as Rob Rogers suggests.
I would suggest, however, that the election will continue, however bizarrely and disjointedly, to focus on who is running against whom.
I am currently formulating what I call the "Job Theory," which is not "job" as in "occupation" but "Job" as in "Book of."
This theory is that the heads of the Democratic and Republican parties have a bet going about party loyalty, which they are testing by putting the most unacceptable candidates up for President.
I have heard people suggest that, if the GOP had the superdelegates instead of the Democrats, neither one of these knuckleheads would be at the top of the ticket. That's not a bad theory, either, but I prefer the Job Theory because, dammit, there needs to be a conspiracy in here somewhere.
And, as seen in this Jimmy Margulies cartoon, the GOP cheated on the bet by going outside the party to find someone who will really, really test how much their loyalists are willing to bite the bullet, hold their noses and pull the lever anyway.
For those who missed it, Trump sent out an anti-Hillary piece that showed her in front of a wall of cash with a Star of David on it, which he had apparently snagged from a white supremacy group, and which he subsequently declared depicted a sheriff's badge.
Because white supremacists often accuse people of being greedy, money-grubbing sheriffs.
And, besides, Trump can't be anti-Semitic because his daughter converted so she could marry a Jewish guy, one of whose writers sent him this devastating, must-read open letter.
Trump isn't prejudiced against Jews.
He's prejudiced against Muslims, as seen in this Lee Judge panel.
Though I suppose Israelis might be a little put off by his feeling that it would be just fine for anyone who wants them to develop atomic weapons, including Iran.
It's becoming very hard to find a candidate you can believe in, which is why, over at Prickly City, Carmen is toying with supporting a third-party.
Note that, while strips have to be done ahead of time, Scott Stantis could confidently assume Trump would make some kind of utterly asinine, unacceptable statement that the loyalest of loyal elephants couldn't possible stand behind.
Though, of course, they have so far.
It's comforting to go for a third-party candidate, because you can console yourself that you didn't give in to the pragmatic consideration that one of the two leading candidates was going to end up in charge.
And, if either or both or all of the dream candidates get enough votes that neither of the two realistic candidate gets a majority and the whole thing gets thrown into the House of Representatives, you will be glad you at least helped elect a representative who wouldn't sell you out.
Assuming you were at least that pragmatic.
Though, if you really can't see any difference between the two major candidates, I suppose it won't matter to you who wins.
As long as you're not Muslim, or Latino, or a woman, or disabled, or reliant on Social Security, or on the Affordable Care Act, or trying to survive on a minimum wage job or two.
Besides, there won't be any elections in 2018 or 2020 anyway, if both candidates are really the same.
Today's Moment of Zen was written by a Libertarian:
Comments 5
Comments are closed.