In my previous post, one of those I have returned to the most, for the topic and relative brevity of verse and sublime grandness (as opposed to stacking adjectives and, dare I say parenthesised, dependent clauses) I presented one candidate for "best presidents" as occupant of a "full day", . And now it seems, for the first time since over 130 years, .
The first victory of Cleveland, in spite of his opprobriable sexual morals and historic in breaking 28 years of Republican victories, is closer to the outbreak of the Seven Years' War; that is, French stake to Canada as well as Louisiana and all between, or the slobbering tyrant's victory at Fontenoy, than to this second occurrence of a two-ordinal, one-man president. And more important, certainly more remembered, will be the person of this comeback, the man of the hour (and certainly, should TIME exercise any sort of courting the public, of the year) and, at last, and for the last time, the man destined - dare I say desired - to be the future president as well as the one that once was.
How then did we get here? How was the man touted by media, even by rather humble standards, to a treatment making earlier . First, as already implied, this may not be the case, and those who insist on exercising the narcissism of the present, I would point to opprobria-prone (a more acceptable word?) campaigns of the past, involving more closer run kisses of death, proper such's (including by a fascist-declared, decidedly authoritarian candidate for the Democratic nomination)? The "horsethief" Lincoln, certainly open to grand jury, investigation and even conviction by a virtuous Southern jury, should there have been the shadow of such a case - and, indeed, a greater sense of
Also, and as already implied, the rejection has an attraction of its own, and has had in America. Indeed "America", the enlarged endo-exo-metonym . Add to this the authenticity
Third, and has already been said, the cultural "plan", or tendency, of the ostensible far left, reaching its ostensible tentacles into - or rather from - the Democratic party
Fourth, the fact that this Hitler has risen, reigned and rowed away - on time, even if after a bang very unsurreptitiously broadcasted by his very being, swagger, tone of voice, and evident narcissism (which is not necessarily unpreferrable to the covert narcissism of leaders commanding deeper charisma or wider audiences).
Fifth, the polies, stupid. As a former, and far better equipped (and not in the department which earned him, deserved or not, the first impeachment since Johnson's setup and until Trump's first, quite .
What then of the concerns? Some are certainly earned, and regardless of earned, very real. Others, such as the very real conviction in the documents case, are earned but only ticketed, equally real, for some and not others. While there is a sweet vengeance that poor security protocol of these narcissists flunked both Clinton and Trump, in court of opinion and of law respectively, (in this matter, I must say Mar-a-Lago seems securer than Mrs. Clinton's private e-mail server, or indeed Scranton Joe's garage). The new, very obsequious Republican party is a fault in itself, an insult . While the primary of last spring was an insult, it was only Trump's insult, and the fault lies in the hands of the voters, where it seems destined to remain, or be rereleased for the next, by any measure exciting contest of 2028. For the Democratic (big D, it's important) there is no such guarantee to be issued, let alone believed. Mr. Carville's desire for a new pseudo-Democratic contest was good in its time, and might have earned the name spelt in small "d", but was so whittled it was almost a whisper from Hans Brask (for this story, and it's good ), and predictably rolled over. Never was the will, or desires, of an oligarchy imposing its choice over a broader electorate more firmly rebuffed, and perhaps deservedly. But do those who did not select selection over election, but who would have exercised their right (I think it is) to the latter, deserve the result, and who of the two will suffer, insofar we can talk of "suffering" rather than "sufferance". It may, and may not, be the continuing