All errors should be reported to

Saturday, July 09, 2016

The real path to victory for Hillary

Just about everyone in Washington said Bill Clinton's meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch looked bad.

Which translates into English as being very, very good. Brilliant. Because it made it look like the fix is in, and voters do not want to be on the side that is losing. Hillary is invulnerable.

Just what Clinton and Lynch talked about does not matter. In politics, words are secondary to pictures. Graphics matter. The word in Washington was this looked bad. Wrong. He looked like the consigliere delivering the offer she could not refuse.

I no more believe she’s the most prepared or qualified presidential candidate in history than I believe that bowel-stewing laugh of hers is sincere. But I think in reality she has less in common with Derek Zoolander than she does with Vinny “The Chin” Gigante.
The longtime boss of the Genovese crime family, Gigante pioneered the insanity ruse. He walked around Greenwich Village in a bathrobe muttering to himself in order to convince prosecutors he wasn’t fit to stand trial. It seems to me that Hillary “The Ankle” Clinton is playing a bit of the same game.
But, ultimately the real explanation is that Clinton just doesn’t care. Like her husband, what suits her needs is always more important than what the country needs or the party needs.
Most voters say, so what?

She got away with it. So did her husband. That puts her on equal footing with the person who is viewed with many (I would postulate most) as the last president who was any damned good.

How is this a bad thing?

Gigante, the Oddfather, almost got away with it, but he was no Clinton. John Gotti shared the same fate as Gigante. Thus, when people look at the Clintons, they know they are tougher and stronger than the mafia. Who wants to be on the side of the weak?

The media says voters will punish her in the fall. I said it too. I was wrong.

Today's pundits are idiots who follow the crowd, and by that I mean chase their tails. Go with the classics. I only read the "Better to be Loved or Feared?" essay by historian Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli, but 503 years later this paragraph is most applicable:
Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their women. But when it is necessary for him to proceed against the life of someone, he must do it on proper justification and for manifest cause, but above all things he must keep his hands off the property of others, because men more quickly forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony. Besides, pretexts for taking away the property are never wanting; for he who has once begun to live by robbery will always find pretexts for seizing what belongs to others; but reasons for taking life, on the contrary, are more difficult to find and sooner lapse. But when a prince is with his army, and has under control a multitude of soldiers, then it is quite necessary for him to disregard the reputation of cruelty, for without it he would never hold his army united or disposed to its duties.
The strong man must show a warm side, but he also must be strong. And feared.

The pundits go on and on about how disliked Clinton and Trump are. That does not matter. We live in parlous times. We need strength, not social justice reform. We are not the moral superiors of 16th century Italians, nor are we smarter than them. We fool ourselves into thinking that because we overlook our decadence and confuse technological advances with intelligence. Your father could drive stick shift. You can't. Dummy.

Neither candidate is loved. The question falls upon who is the most feared?

After conquering the FBI and doing what the mafia could not do, it is Hillary.

UPDATE: I am talking about where they are today. Trump can change it.


My new book, "Trump the Press: Don Surber's take on how the pundits blew the 2016 Republican race," is now on sale.

Please purchase "Trump the Press" through Create Space, as I get a larger royalty. It is a subsidiary of Amazon.

The book also is on Amazon.

Regardless of how you purchase this must reading for Trump supporters and media critics alike. Please post a book review on the Amazon site. That helps attract other readers.


  1. I hope you are wrong, again.

  2. You sound like you're getting cold feet.

    1. Nah, that's just what he wants 'em to think.

      Once they lead with their jaw, it'll be Roll-of-Quarters Time.

  3. Or that he's talking tongue-in-cheek. Hasn't Trump also survived a number of incidents that would have floored ordinary politicians?

    1. Trump's hard-times incidents are all Trump -caused, so it is unclear just how difficult these incidents really were.

      Then there is the strong personality that might indeed be the result of a weak mind. Fighting over where Oreos are made is simply ludicrous. But it is now obvious that Trump's understanding of trade is wanting and his attack on NAFTA as a Clinton deal that caused America to lose one-third of its manufacturing jobs is just wrong. As Reason points out:

      At the heart of his argument is the belief that selling to countries is good and buying from them is bad, the crude mercantilist fallacy that Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations debunked in the same year that America embraced the Declaration of Independence. Smith, the brilliant British political economist, argued that unless people start eating gold bullion, the point of wealth is to buy not sell; to consume not produce. If China starts shipping free plasma TVs to America, a few American companies may be thrown out of business, but American consumers will be better off. What's more, they'll be able to spend their savings on goods from other companies. The only folks that protectionist policies benefit are crony capitalists who face less competition — the very thing that Trump says he's fighting.

    2. I have no strong understanding or feeling about the issue of "trade".

      My support for Trump is based pretty much on the immigration issue. Build that effing wall.

      I don't regard libertarian publications as particularly authoritative on this or any issue.

      Someone once said that a pacifist will fight anyone but the enemy. Libertarians support thuggery as long as there isn't any state imprimatur on it.

      The cop killers in Texas and elsewhere would have to be regarded as libertarian heroes -- or maybe libertarian anti-heroes.

      You can judge just how much crony capitalists would benefit from Trump's protectionist policies by the way in which they are responding to his candidacy.

      And I don't understand in the least how the discussion got switched over to the issue of "trade" in the first place.

  4. Oh, this sounds like the right track. In presidential politics, the days of patient, bland, genially incompetent gentlemen waiting their turn may be over. And now both Julius and Pompey have their fangs clamped on the corpse of the Republic; which one will finally claim it? The story is still in its early chapters; the plot could change instantaneously once a few dramatic developments appear. An unexpected suicide, a mysterious plane crash, a fire in the Reichstag ... Although Machiavelli never addressed such drastic tactics explicitly, I suspect he would have realized that whichever contender gets the blame will also get the credit.

  5. A couple of things about Hillary "beating" the Feds. Comey has always caved to the Ozark Mafia - they own him, but the G-men did get the goods on her.

    And the formidable rep of the FBI took a real pounding in Comey's testimony. He made them look like fools.

    So who really won?

  6. I still think 'Bama gonna drop the dime on her in August or September. He likes her less than anyone else I could imagine.

    1. I have to agree. The Choom Gang has never forgotten, "10 years ago, he would have been bringing us coffee", and I expect they'll get their revenge.

      Don't forget charges were never pressed, so double jeopardy doesn't apply.

  7. I don't care if Clinton is holding four kings, I still expect Trump to somehow produce four aces.

    1. She may have a couple of jacks, maybe aces and eights, but there's still a lot going against her.

  8. The idea that Obama is ever going to drop an anvil on Hillary's head is wishful thinking. Democrats don't indict other Democrats. They just don't.

    Obama might dislike Hillary, but he loathes Trump. Trump is the white man from town.

    1. Remember Rod Blagovich?

      It's done. And Willie all but called him a ni.

  9. I keep tellin y'all...after a few more Orlandos, Dallases, San Bernadinos, the public simply isn't going to feel safe with a Demmie prez. And it will happen. No doubt. Big D, I just got a mind text from Maggie Thatcher's spirit. It read, Donald, don't go all wobbly on us now. So the eff up, brother!

    1. If you don't remember '68, do some research.

      Yeah, there was the Vietnam War, but everybody saw the rioting in the streets and Nixon took a hard line.

  10. I have no idea who will win the election. I wouldn't bet a dime on it, either way. The reasoning of zregime and others makes a lot of sense.

    But Obama's re-election in 2012 suggest that the law of gravity doesn't always apply to politics. Racial politics trumped performance in 2012; who is to say that gender politics won't do the same this year?

    1. Well I think you're right there in that the democrats (amongst other things) are down to playing 'gimmick' politics, and that most likely is because they have nothing else. The same old tired boot they offer is just dressed up each election.
      Not to be crass, but will 2020 or 2024 be the first gay C.I.C.or how about the 1st president with three legs...
      These people play identity politics because they are vacant in so many ways and the electorate gives it a pass.
      Sad and what an abuse of duty on the part of that electorate to not pay attention and make measured choices.

      Sam C

    2. Yeah Mark, I agree...I was absolutely floored by the 2012 results. Like, WTF just happened here? But, I do think that people are genuinely scared right now (side note: they should be). It's a whole different ballgame. Good post bro...

    3. Anon and z: Thanks to both of you.

      But what would you expect? Race, gender, and a thousand other categories determines who's going to build the roads and bridges in your communities.

      Oh, the heavy work will be done almost entirely by working class men, but in terms of who owns and manages the companies responsible, that's going to be based largely on identity-group politics.

      Why would you expect decisions concerning national leadership to be made differently? It's "who we are" now. The Democrats play that game with some success precisely BECAUSE that's "who we are" now.

      Another observation -- I thought the tone of AA voters was quite different in 2012 than it was in 2008. In 2008, the feeling was one of unabashed joy that an AA had made it to the White House.

      Well OK. It's not a good way to hand-pick the leader of the free world, but it's understandable why there would be joy on a purely visceral level. It certainly isn't as though either the expiring Bush administration or the 2008 GOP ticket was particularly inspiring.

      But in 2012, I thought that the tone of AAs towards the election was different -- a lot angrier and more possessive. I thought that in that election, they clung to Obama as Gollum clung to his "precious" -- beyond all reason or rational evaluation of its worth.

      "He's "ours" and no one will take him away from us."

    4. Good thoughts Mark and I might add that... "He's "ours" and no one will take him away from us."... covers the half of it. The other half being a denial of the fact that he turned out to be such a disappointment as a world class leader and I might add a decent person.
      But what did people expect?...The dems offered up a mostly unknown & inexperienced candidate, playing to identity politics as mentioned above and marketed him as a combination of JFK, MLK and Bill Clinton... as a great unifier.
      Instead he has proven a great disappointment on all he has touched.
      The American people and much of the western world are hurting for a true leader... someone to lead them out of this present hellhole that the ruling class and their media attack dogs have worked diligently at trying to maintain as paradise.
      It won't wash and bloodshed will be on their hands if they persist in their folly.

      You cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

      Sam C

  11. Sleazy, connected with Ruling Class insiders, felonious. Yep that sounds like a combination that will inspire all true Americans to get out to vote for Hillary.

    Steve in Greensboro

  12. Hillary won't get a single vote from any "true American", but it remains to be seen how many of those remain in the voting population.

  13. Hillary is more "hated" than "feared." The FBI and Obama DOJ collaborating to get her off isn't so much a show of her strength as it is of government corruption at every level. That means the fix is in for the GE. Of course, the fix was in for the Dem primary too (just ask Bernie voters). But the the fix was also in for Jeb! on the GOP side. Trump was able to overcome the fix, and Jeb!'s $120 million war chest, with turn out. He will have to do the same in the GE to overcome the margin of fraud. Tough, but doable.

  14. If Mrs. Magoo is more "feared" than Trump, then why is the entire MSM & DNC & a significant number of R's joining forces to get rid of him?

    And btw, Trump is doing fine right now. So, Donald, don't go changin' to try to please me, because that's why we have had it with the others.