Tag Archive: Donald Trump


This week begins the most dreaded time of the year … the holidays.

And to spice up the “excitement,” Donald Trump is widely expected to be impeached by Democrats right before … Xmas.

And what will most families sooner or later discuss over spiked eggnog, hot toddies and all the fixings?

The Donald.

And you thought tolerating difficult-at-best relatives and in-laws in short doses was tough enough.

Almost DailyBrett has repeatedly opined that families are overrated, and that obviously includes relatives and in-laws (outlaws are wanted).

Even though Chevy Chase in National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation attempted to portray the magic of joyous families gathering for the holidays, we all know better.

Maybe being Home Alone is a better deal?

During the holidays, we can detect the collective raising of blood pressures, the need to count to 10, and the anxious double checking of smart phones or watches.

When is the pace car going off the track, so we can blow this taco stand?’

It has always been wisely counseled to avoid conversations with family members about politics and religion, and that prod particularly applies to the holidays.

Aren’t the recounting of embarrassing stories at your expense, perpetrated by vindictive family members, bad enough?

And then there is Trump, Nancy and impeachment.

The polling firm FiveThirtyEight this past week reported that 46.3 percent of Americans support impeachment, 45.6 percent oppose impeachment. Four-out-of-five Democrats favor impeachment (80.3 percent), four out 10 independents (41 percent), and slightly more than one out of 10 Republicans (12.2 percent).

How’s that for a polarized country, and a perfect conversation to further divide even the most tribalistic of families?

Before Trump, we could always discuss Uncle Charlie’s drinking problem, our own bed wetting at four, atheism vs. Christianity, pro life vs. pro choice, NRA and gun rights, open borders vs, border walls and maybe come away from the family table detesting each other just a smidge more than even before … if that is still possible.

Ahhh … the holidays!

Is It Best To Make Trump Conversations Out Of Bounds For The Holidays?

There are those who want Donald Trump to simply go away, somehow without Mike Pence sitting behind the Oval Office desk and running for his own terms as president.

There are those who support Trump’s re-election and envision of four more years of buy low sell high.

And there are those who are duly frightened of a carnivorous government digging even deeper into their wallets … advocated by the present field of Democrats. The list of sensitive political topics goes on and on and on.

Are any or all of these subjects conducive to Happy Yuletide memories among families, including the in-laws?

‘Would you like a little nitro to go with your glycerin?’

Instead of que sera, sera and turning of the other cheek, how about actively managing the family and in-laws?

How about setting and adopting rules of engagement?

Give everyone something to do. Similar to a functional family, everyone has a chore.

Think about group activities to blow off negative energy, such as multi-player video games with customary gratuitous violence.

Close your eyes and imagine a family member(s) disappearing magically into thin air.

Feel better already, don’t you?

Most of all, declare certain topics including all political subjects verboten for the holidays.

Trump and impeachment sounds like a swell place to start.

Why engage that annoying (insert “liberal” or “conservative” in this space)? If you can’t change anyone’s mind via social media, why would you think you can sway face-to-face an irksome relative or in-law, particularly when booze is involved?

Almost DailyBrett remembers vividly a passionate friend railing against the NRA in the presence of a gun nut. After your author attempted to mercifully calm down the discussion, the same individual quickly revisited the subject, raising the pissed-off barometer to critical. There was almost a fusion meltdown in the form of a fist fight in a bucolic public setting.

Your author decided then and there it was a good time to go out for a breath of fresh air.

Sure wish that was an option when it comes to family gatherings in which gifts are judged (and returned), faults accumulate, embarrassments are revisited, and the precious nanoseconds until family events are over count down to zero.

Here is a novel idea your author has suggested in earlier iteration of this humble blog:

Can we simply hit the fast forward button on the remote and make it New Year’s morning at Brookside Golf Course in Pasadena? We will all be happily tailgating with friends under sunshine and warm temps.

And what will we discuss? Politics? Family?

Hell no, the Rose Bowl baby.

What time is kickoff?

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/

 

Hell knows no fury like a Hillary scorned.

Bitter Hillary was rejected by her own party in 2008, and eight years later she lost to (gasp) … Donald Trump.

And to top it off, her husband was less than semper pi. His name is … Bill.

What’s a Hillary to do? How about getting into a public spat with Tulsi?

Tulsi Who? “Favorite of the Russians”?

Are we talking about Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) an after thought in the Democratic presidential nominating contest … until now? Her RealClear Politics average stands at 2.0 percent. That’s it.

Almost DailyBrett must pause here to ask:

Why is Hillary providing Tulsi (“holy basil” in Hindu) with manna from publicity heaven, an amazing public relations gift of a nationally covered food fight with a notorious and reviled party stalwart?

Considering that Hillary has a long-track record as the nation’s first lady, a U.S. Senator from New York, the nation’s secretary of state and the first woman presidential nominee in the country’s history, why isn’t she using her record to project herself as a senior stateswoman? She could be a modern-day Richard Nixon.

With all due respect, Tulsi should not be on Hillary’s personal radar. Baring a political miracle, Tulsi is not going to win the party’s nomination for president.

Somehow, someway Tulsi got under Hillary’s thin skin and triggered an inappropriate response. Why is Hillary providing Tulsi with a new platform? When you are seen as an enemy of Hillary that designation instantly attracts attention and new friends.

Worse yet Hillary believes the Russians are behind Tulsi’s campaign, maybe even as a third-party stalking horse. Another vodka, Madam Secretary?

It’s obvious that Hillary isn’t going away … quietly. Is this screed, Hillary’s definition of ethos? 

Tulsi’s 15 Minutes of Fame, And Then Some?

Almost DailyBrett counsels employing social media strategically, but not the above tweet, which goes far … way too far.

“Great! Thank you @Hillary Clinton” was probably all that was needed. Tulsi’s joyful and grateful response is more than appropriate.

As Michelle Obama once famously said: “When they go low, we go high.” There’s no reason for Tulsi to race Hillary to the bottom, just bask off the glow of windfall media attention, and fully exploit a fantabulous public relations opportunity.

Your author suspects there is more that inexplicably prompted Madam Secretary without any forewarning to go after a mere member of Congress of her own party.

Telegenic and fearless, the 38-years-young Tulsi is a fourth-term member of Congress (e.g., Hawaii’s 2nd District) and the nation’s first Samoan-American representative. She is an accomplished major in the Hawaii National Guard having served two tours in the Middle East: Iraq in 2004-2005 and Kuwait in 2008-2009.

As such she projects reasonable gravitas, her views on foreign policy should be respected.

Tulsi exhibits a strong anti-interventionist streak. opposing “regime-change wars” and wanting the U.S. out of Syria and Afghanistan. She is a moderate, putting her at political and maybe personal odds with Hillary.

Why Hillary chose to elevate Tulsi at this time, when the nomination is crystalizing around bumbling former Vice President Joe Biden and confiscatory Senator Elizabeth Warren, is inexplicably beyond the pay grade of Almost DailyBrett. 

Guess it must be time: Tulsi Time.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/10/24/what-feud-between-tulsi-gabbard-and-hillary-clinton-about/4082268002/

https://www.businessinsider.com/who-is-tulsi-gabbard-bio-age-family-key-positions-2019-4

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-hillary-clinton-tulsi-gabbard

https://www.webmd.com/vitamins/ai/ingredientmono-1101/holy-basil

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2018/11/13/the-new-nixon-and-the-newest-hillary/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2017/09/12/what-happened/

“Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: ‘We the People.’”

“We did it. We weren’t just marking time, we made a difference. We made the (shining) city (on the hill) stronger – we made the city freer – and we left her in good hands.  All in all, not bad. Not bad at all.” — President Ronald Reagan Farewell Address, January 11, 1989

President Ronald Reagan was not a first-person singular leader: I, Me, Myself.

Even though he was completing one of the most successful presidencies in American history and was justifiably entitled to take a bow, he still for the most part gravitated toward first-person plural even in his farewell address: We, Us, Our.

These vital pronouns salute the team that makes it happen, the linemen who protect the quarterback, the pit crew changing the tires in less than three-seconds, the people who write the emails, send the letters and form the coalition that makes a politician and a movement successful.

Donald Trump is an über first person singular type of guy, and that is his greatest weakness. He could learn from Heisman Trophy Winner Marcus Mariota, Five-Time Formula 1 World Champion Lewis Hamilton, and most of all from Ronald Reagan.

Almost DailyBrett was privileged to devote two decades of his career, directly serving two first-person plural leaders: Former California Governor George Deukmejian and LSI Logic founder, chairman and chief executive officer Wilf Corrigan.

Did both of these overachievers have healthy opinions of themselves? Of course.

Did they have big egos based upon their proven records of self-made success? Naturally.

One was the most popular governor of California in the modern era; the other was a successful entrepreneur immigrant worth, $432 million.

But when push came to shove, it was about the people around them, the citizens and customers they served, the investors and their shares … we, us and our.

“I Have Returned”

Did you note MacArthur’s first-person singular is his most remembered quote, and his follow-up in first-person plural is forgotten?

Didn’t the collective strength of the U.S. Army and Navy facilitate MacArthur’s return to the Philippines?

MacArthur was later fired by President Harry S. Truman. Surprised?

Will Donald Trump be fired by the American people in 13 months time, despite a robust economy, no new military involvements in the Middle East (or elsewhere) and way too-far-to-the-socialist-left potential opponents? It can happen, but will it?

Under similar circumstances Reagan crushed Walter Mondale in 1984. Reagan won 49 states worth 525 electoral votes, capturing 58.8 percent of the vote. Mondale recorded his home state of Minnesota and DC for a total of 13 electoral votes, 40.6 percent of the vote.

Almost DailyBrett can state with impunity that incumbent presidents have decided advantages heading into re-election years (i.e., Obama, George W., Clinton, Reagan), but not certainty (i.e., Carter, H.W. Bush). Recent presidents with the tailwind of economic prosperity … “It’s the economy, stupid” … all were re-elected.

Your Enemies Will Always Be Your Enemies; Your Friends … ?

Having said that, Trump is his own worst enemy, and that is magnified by his first-person singular devotion on steroids.

Why couldn’t his own campaign quietly conduct opposition research when it comes to Hunter Biden being selected for the board of directors for Ukraine’s natural gas supplier – Burisma Holdings — while his father, Joe Biden, was vice president of the United States? This question is particularly magnified considering Hunter’s well-chronicled repeated problems with cocaine, and zero experience in energy.

For some reason, Trump decides that he … and only he … can conduct this oppo research directly with the leader of Ukraine … and as a result an impeachment proceeding was born. Will he join the ranks of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton as impeached presidents, but not convicted in the Senate (if it goes that far)?

The larger question is whether he pulls defeat out of the jaws of victory when his friends (e.g., high propensity Republican fidelity) are still his friends? Will his personal embrace of first-person singular (I, Me, Myself) trigger mistake-after-mistake, and his friends stop being his … friends?

Maybe a little more Reaganesque first-person plural … we, us, our … and some good old fashioned humility would do the trick.

Don’t count on it with this president.

https://www.azquotes.com/quote/551270

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2018/05/08/the-governor-who-changed-my-life/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2014/01/02/farewell-lsi-logic/

A lot of truth is often spoken in jest.

According to the old joke, Richard Nixon dressed in his presidential windbreaker gathered the Washington Press Corps at his presidential retreat on the beach in San Clemente, California.

After chastising the ladies and gentlemen of the Fourth Estate for not covering him fairly and accurately during his political career including his presidency, he gave them one more chance.

Nixon miraculously walked out onto the Pacific Ocean and back without getting his wing tips wet.

“Now, you can finally cover me fairly and accurately!”

The New York Times front page headline the following morning: “Nixon Can’t Swim.”

The liberal elite media could not and would not cover Nixon fairly back in the 1970s. The negative coverage trend toward Republican office holders has only intensified with time. There is zero benefit of the doubt when it comes to Republicans, only to Democrats.

Almost DailyBrett knows this undeniable fact based upon eight years of hard-earned experience as a campaign media director and press secretary for California Republican Governor George Deukmejian.

“Rebuilding Trust Requires Embracing Bias”

“A more partisan media is the last thing America needs. Those who doubt that should consider that it would be squarely in Mr. Trump’s interest. The president’s attempt to gin up his supporters by depicting the media as biased is one of his most powerful lines. Why vindicate it for him?” — Lexington, USA columnist for The Economist

“We don’t want to change all of our structures and rules so much that we can’t put them back together. We don’t want to be oppositional to Donald Trump.” — Dean Baquet, executive editor of The New York Times

Almost DailyBrett is begging for mercy.

The New York Times along with CNN (Clinton News Network) and MSNBC lead the oppositional journalism pack against Donald Trump. They detest the man (understatement), wanting unlimited license to label him as a “racist” regardless of context. After four-plus years, we know for a fact the liberal media will take everything and anything he does or says and add a negative spin to employ a PR word.

Hiring foreign affairs hawk John Bolton with his goofy mustache (Liberal media: ‘Trump added a dangerous war monger to his team’) and later firing him (Liberal media: ‘Trump can’t retain anyone on his staff’) is vivid proof that any Trump action triggers an automatic negative take. The media always wants it both ways.

Liberal columnist Nathan Robinson (see quote above) suggested out loud that elite media should openly express a bias and affinity to left-wing causes in order to rebuild public trust. Why shouldn’t the liberal media come out of the closet? Let the world know, what it already knows: Liberal media outlets are just another special interest group, similar to Planned Parenthood, ACLU and NPR.

Bias leads to trust?

There are hundreds of always excitable journalism professors, who will be more than happy to intensify their “guidance” of impressionable students toward socialist justice, encouraging them to express their bias digitally, in print and across the airwaves. These academics will declare … wrongly … that objectivity never existed and never will in America’s newsrooms.

Robinson is essentially arguing the media should simply come clean and openly side with Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren Democratic Socialism, lauding those who drink the Kool Aid and chastising any and all who dare to dissent. Lexington counters that a gallant admission of oppositional journalism by the major mastheads and networks will aid and abet Trump’s talking points about the media losing its way, abandoning any pretext of being fair and accurate.

Didn’t St. Louis Post-Dispatch executive editor Joseph Pulitzer once say the three most important words in journalism are: “accuracy, accuracy and accuracy”? He made this famous assertion even though he was a staunch Democrat, actually serving in Congress, and crusading against business and corruption.

If a reporter. correspondent, anchor or media outlet sacrifices personal and/or institutional integrity on the low-altar of abandoning fairness and objectivity, any and all of these lost souls should not even sniff the prestigious journalism award that bears Joseph Pulitzer’s name.

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2019/09/12/a-full-court-press

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/10/media-bias-is-ok-if-its-honest

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2018/02/15/oppositional-journalism/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2019/03/26/oppositional-journalisms-victory/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2019/02/19/profs-should-not-force-political-opinions-on-students/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2019/07/24/is-the-word-racist-becoming-cliche/

 

 

 

 

 

As we prepare our collective bowels for the uproar of the coming arrival of the serious — not silly — presidential election season, we need contemplate the Golden Rules of Politics.

These rules are proven. They are time-tested. They do not change. They are inviolate.

Without further adieu, here are Almost DailyBrett’s listed in alphabetical order pathways to the Promised Land whether it be a statehouse, halls of Congress or even 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue:

Good Government Is Good Politics

“Govern wisely and as little as possible.” — Republic of Texas President Sam Houston

“Hold me accountable for the debacle. I’m responsible.” — Kathleen Sebelius, Obama’s Secretary of Health and Human Services

“I’m going to try and download every movie ever made, and you’re going to try to sign up for Obamacare (Sebelius), and we’ll see which happens first” — Comedian Jon Stewart

Almost DailyBrett fondly remember’s Monte Hall’s “Let’s Make A Deal” game show. There was the stage with a VW bug, and there was the … “Door.”

For 180 million Americans, their private health insurance plans are on the stage. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris are offering America the door with the “promise” of single-payer government health insurance, and the elimination of all private-sector offerings.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

Remember the online Obamacare rollout “debacle?” The website calculator didn’t work, let alone the system repeatedly crashed.

Do we want to deliver DMV-style health care for 329 million Americans, managed by Larry, Moe and Curly?

Good Government is indeed, good politics. Taking away private insurance is not good politics.

“It’s Not (Always) What You Say, But How You Say It”

Remember what mumsy told you?

She said that it was not what you say, but how you say it. She could detect in mere nanoseconds a sassy unmeaning, “thank you.”

Are you pleasant and reassuring? Or are you shrill, strident, angry and out of control?

Does it make sense for Democratic contenders for the White House to be angrily attacking the last Democratic president Barack Obama, who enjoys a 95 percent approval rating with … Democrats?

Didn’t Obama terminate Osama bin Laden, appoint Janet Yellen as the head of the Federal Reserve, see the NYSE and NASDAQ double in market value in his eight years, and deport more than 2.5 million? Why are fellow Democrats carping in the most unpleasant ways possible?

Is it simply because they don’t want front-runner former Vice President Joe Biden to justifiably play the Obama card?

Run As If You Are Running Behind

Whether or not you are holding a commanding lead and your media allies have your back or not, Yogi was right: “It ain’t over until it’s over.” 

Hillary was on auto-pilot heading for her media elite preordained 2016 victory, and then her campaign crashed and burned on election night.

The top two George Deukmejian Laws of Politics both are directly related to each other.

Even when he was cruising to victory in 1986 or overcoming a 22 point deficit with three weeks to go to win the closest-ever California gubernatorial election in 1982, the Duke assumed the underdog role.

He ran effective campaigns, (e.g., distributing 2 million absentee ballots to high-propensity voters) keeping his opponent in his sights or constantly looking over his shoulder.

The point is to sprint through the tape and leave absolutely no fuel in the gas tank. Don’t mind the metaphors.

Take Nothing For Granted

Every electoral vote counts.

Remember President Thomas Dewey? Hillary was literally building her administration, and measuring the drapes in the Oval Office.

And then … and then … and then.

She didn’t visit “Blue Wall” state, Wisconsin, during the general election campaign against Donald Trump. She canceled a joint appearance with President Obama in Green Bay. Big, big mistake.

Wisconsin turned red; the blue wall was broken. Michigan and Pennsylvania also flipped into the red column.

Game, set and match.

The Golden Rules of Politics live on. They must be respected. They are eternal.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-deportation-policy-numbers/story?id=41715661

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2018/07/29/the-bradley-effect-blindside/

Healthcare.gov Hurt Obamacare More Than Liberals Are Willing to Admit

Has the global image of Germany changed for the better?

Is the Feminization of the Fatherland, complete?

Has the nation’s brand been revitalized through softening?

And is Germany’s image stronger as a result?

Consider the remarkable optics of new Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer sitting with incoming European Union President Ursula von der Leyen and Kanzlerin Angela Merkel. The modern image of Deutschland above may indeed constitute the pinnacle of Germany’s 1945-2019 Public Relations Miracle (Öffentlichkeitsarbeirtswunder). 

These three Frauen hail from Germany’s moderate-conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) with its strong emphasis on free market capitalism and memberships in the European Union (EU) and NATO.

Compare the perception of these women, leading today’s Germany with three muscular populists in America, Britain and Russia with Messrs. Boris, Donald and Vladimir.

Which image inspires stability, confidence and security and which precipitates concern and worry?

Is Almost DailyBrett openly suggesting that a nation’s brand is benefited by simply putting women in charge?

Your author mentioned on more than one occasion that he is proud that his lifelong voting record is and will always be Clinton-free, both Bill and Hillary.

America’s Mother in Law Hillary will never be favorably compared with Germany’s “Mutti” (Angela Merkel).

Britain’s “Iron Lady” Margaret Thatcher certainly did not soften the U.K.’s brand in the 1970s/1980s, but she was the right woman at the right time.

Thatcher was not warm and fuzzy, and certainly recorded low scores on the “likeable” scale. The “likeable” question was posed with Hillary candidacies, and now with Elizabeth Warren. Drinking a beer on a poorly shot video probably will not solve this issue.

In contrast Angela Merkel in her portrayal as a solid reassuring leader, ran a re-election campaign based upon the concept of Germany safely in “Mutti’s” hands.

Does Image Softening Lead To Brand Weakening?

Some may be tempted to equate feminization and softening with brand weakness. Almost DailyBrett couldn’t disagree more.

Angela Merkel has learned and demonstrated her ability to parry the rhetorical thrusts of über competitive males, particularly Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump and soon Brexiteer Boris Johnson. Far friendlier are her relations with France’s ambitious Emmanuel Macron, who is attempting to pull France even with Germany when it comes to the European Union’s governing duopoly.

Is there a nation on this planet that has placed its national defense of not just one talented woman, but two? Before leaving for her new post as president of the European Union, Ursula von der Leyen served as Germany’s Verteidigungsministerin (defense minister). Her successor? The aforementioned CDU party leader and heir-apparent to Angela Merkel as Chancellor, Annegret Karrenbauer-Kramp.

The images of these two women reviewing a military honor guard are striking, coupled with the knowledge that Germany’s Sicherheit is as certain as ever.

As discussed by Almost DailyBrett, a nation can demonstrate “hard power” by the traditional means of its economy and military. Germany’s 4th largest GDP of $4.14 trillion and its greatly reduced military for obvious reasons, still matter.

Germany’s “soft power” represents the projection of a country’s culture, language and elements in demand by all countries (e.g., image, success, brand names). For Germany, these elements include its engineering prowess, four World Cup wins in Fussball, and legendary names such as Daimler Benz, BMW, Siemens and Bayer.

Can the Feminization of the Fatherland also be included in the elements of Germany’s soft power? There is zero doubt the presence of confident, measured, competent and talented women at the helm of its leadership represents a new way to approach the German brand and image.

What can other nations learn from Germany’s softening and strengthened global brand?

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/feminizing-the-fatherland/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2017/08/22/morning-in-germany/

https://countryeconomy.com/gdp/germany

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2017/04/02/does-the-usa-need-its-own-soft-power-goethe-institut/

 

 

 

“I don’t have a racist bone in my body.” — President Donald Trump

At least he’s not a “crook” or didn’t have sex with “that woman,” Monica Lewinsky?

“I do not believe you are a racist.” — Senator Kamala Harris casting doubt on the integrity of former Vice President Joe Biden

Are you sure about that, Kamala?

By incorporating the good name of Joe Biden and “racist” in the same sentence, was Senator Harris connecting the former vice president with this über-charged word? Talk about damning with faint praise.

Kamala knows full well that, “I do not believe you (Biden) are a racist,” is subjunctive. I don’t believe you are, but Mr. Vice President … you could be.

The damage was done.

The real question Almost DailyBrett is posing today: Is the word, “racist,” in danger of becoming just another delicious condiment for every outrageous political attack sandwich?

Let’s see … should we slap some “racist” on sour dough at this contact sport delicatessen? Maybe, we can add “sexist” as another ingredient? How about “homophobic” and/or “transphobic” as well? Hmmm … a juicy racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic … political invective sandwich.

Consider the debating points of Elizabeth Warren: “We live in a country now where the president is advancing environmental racism, economic racism, criminal justice racism, health care racism.”  If you are scoring at home that is four racisms in one mere sentence.

By employing … over-employing … these venomous words time-and-time again …  to humiliate a political opponent and silence dissent … is the power and shock value of these words becoming diluted? Will Americans between now and November 3, 2020 (and beyond) just roll their collective eyes when they once again hear the words, “racist” or “racism” bandied about?

It really doesn’t matter whether the word is being used as an adjective (e.g., “racist tweets”) or a noun (e.g., … not a racist), racist is now so accepted, the media is employing it without qualifiers, such as alleged racist, charged racist, accused racist. Instead the political target is just … an unmitigated, unadulterated, categorical … racist. Will the word have the same power next year that it has this year?

According to Merriam-Webster, cliché equates to a “trite phrase or expression, a hackneyed theme, characterization or situation, something that has become overly familiar or commonplace.”

If a Catholic high school lad is standing at a rally in Washington D.C., wearing a MAGA hat (Make America Great Again), is he “racist” or practicing “racism” by doing nothing and saying absolutely nothing?

“We’re a Catholic school and it’s not tolerated. They don’t tolerate racism and none of my classmates are racist people.” — Nick Sandmann responding to NBC’s Savannah Guthrie’s predictable, “Are you a racist?” question.

Wonder if Almost DailyBrett is going to have “racism” lathered on his sandwich for daring to raise the spectre that the Mother of All Charged Words is maybe losing its steam? Are we overdosing on “racist” and “racism” opioids?

Barack, Who?

Remember Barack Obama’s, “Yes We Can,” campaign?

He won and the motto was updated to “Yes We Did” in a transformative moment when America took the extraordinary step of electing an African-American to the White House.

As Almost DailyBrett mentioned before, America proved once again it’s an extraordinary and exceptional nation by rising above ancient racist dialogue to prove the overwhelming majority can set aside any and all consideration of one’s ethnicity, when deciding who was going to lead the free world in the second decade of the 21st Century.

Have to admit it, your author back in 2009 was wondering about Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. With Obama’s historic election, what were they going to talk about?

Keep in mind that not only was Barack Obama elected and re-elected, America passed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, ended segregation laws, implemented Brown v. Board of Education (Topeka, Kansas), and abolished slavery with the 13th Amendment. We have come a long way from America’s “Birth Defect” of slavery as described by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

What happens if the battle is over and the war is won? As it turns out, “racist” and “racism” are once again daily entrees featured on any political attack menu.

Your author is NOT suggesting the last vestiges of racism have been completely wiped off the fruited plain. They exist. Having said that, Almost DailyBrett does not concur with the insinuation the 62 million Americans, who did not vote for Hillary Clinton, are indeed “racist.”

The fight is not over, but does the word “racist” need to be employed by every pandering candidate and every screaming talking head on cable television?

Are we going to reach a point that we collectively tune out the word, leading to the possibility that we do not respond to a real racist hate crime?

As Senator Cory Booker said: “Trump is worse than a racist.” Will there be a new attack dog word to follow, “racist”?

Almost DailyBrett believes the once verboten in proper company, F-word … oh WTF … the word “fuck” has become routine and cliché.

Will “racist” join the ranks of words that once were used sparingly, but have now become oh-so-commonplace in our coarse society?

Almost DailyBrett thought long and hard about even raising this volatile subject. The fact that journalists and correspondents are cavalierly using this attack word without any qualifiers is yet another example of growing Opposition Journalism, and another nail in the coffin of Objective Journalism.

How many nanoseconds are there between now and the close of the polls, November 3, 2020?

Wonder how many times the word, “racist,” will be conventionally and digitally uttered, printed and transmitted between now and then? Hundreds? Thousands? Millions? Billions?

Will this practice stop once the election has come and gone?

Don’t count on it.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/16/trump-attack-progressive-congresswomen-1416579

Watch Kamala Harris Demolish Joe Biden on Race During the Democratic Debate

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2018/10/27/what-happened-to-the-exceptional-nation-that-twice-elected-barack-obama/

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clich%C3%A9

https://www.vox.com/2019/1/22/18192908/covington-catholic-video-nick-sandmann-maga

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/07/22/limbaugh_if_you_can_be_worse_than_a_racist_it_means_the_word_is_losing_its_impact.html

 

 

 

The Dow Jones closed for the first time ever more than 27,000.

The S&P 500 recorded a record close exceeding 3,000.

The NASDAQ passed 8,000 and has been in and out of record territory.

America’s economy has been growing for 121 months, and the bull market is advancing at a record pace.

The combination of rising markets, nearly 3 percent annualized GDP growth, record low unemployment of 3.7 percent, inflation under 2 percent and interest rates set to decline under 2.25 percent will not last forever … but these factors are here right now.

Three years ago, Gallup projected that 52 percent of Americans own stocks and stock-based mutual funds. That 2016 figure preceded the election of Donald Trump and the corresponding rises in the Dow, S&P 500 and the NASDAQ.

Gallup also recorded that 37 percent of younger Americans under 35 are invested, reflecting overall cautiousness by millennials.

Earth to critics of Capitalism/advocates of Socialism: America’s investor class is not 1 percent, but more than half of all Americans (e.g., 170 million).

Almost DailyBrett is convinced these investor class market participation figures are low, reflecting the residual impact of the 2008 recession. They do not take into account our robust economic expansion, record low unemployment and un pequeno inflation.

In 2007, 65 percent of Americans invested in stocks and stock-based mutual funds. Your author will take the “over” that market participation number has now reached 60 percent, and continues to climb.

Whether they are active or passive investors, these Americans constitute a high-propensity-to-vote investor class. They vote on America’s future (and their own) through their investments mainly of U.S. based large caps.

Will America’s investor class, those who own stocks and/or stock-based mutual funds decide a continued or new direction of the nation?

Some poor souls seem to correlate America’s investors with a Monaco-sized sliver of our population. Woe is to those who do not invest.

Socialism and its media allies assert that those with greater discretionary funds are more prone to invest in markets. Why do they believe this undeniable fact is a revelation?

While some prefer to make a racket protesting before the cameras in the streets, others … millions of others … are quietly investing in living longer, their health care, their children’s education and their happy retirement.

As they say on the airlines: “Put on your own mask, before assisting others.” These Americans with discretionary income have the ability to contribute to charities and donate resources to make America a better place.

With every key stroke on a retail trading site (e.g., Charles Schwab, TD Ameritrade, eTrade) or making another contribution to their personal IRA or their 401K at work, these hard-working Americans are quietly making a stand.

They proudly believe in buying low and selling high. They have the economic freedom to earn a profit.

They are economic freedom loving individuals taking direct control of their futures.

Almost DailyBrett wonders why these good decent hardworking overachievers are being vilified simply by putting their hard-earned, already taxed discretionary dollars to work.

America’s Investor Class is the Salt of the Earth and the Backbone of America, if you don’t mind a few metaphors.

Defending Economic Freedom

Why is “profit” such a dirty word to so many?

Doesn’t profit or bottom line mean a business … can stay in business?

Don’t jobs, opportunities, security and yes, tax revenues, alight from successful enterprises?

And yet Almost DailyBrett is becoming increasingly troubled by the onslaught against America’s investor class, and the war on economic freedom.

As we continue into the “silly season” of American politics, we hear proposals to raise tax rates to 70 percent or more, impose a 2 percent “surcharge” on assets, introduce a 0.1 percent tax on each and every stock, mutual fund and bond trade.

There are those who want to eliminate private health insurance for 180 million, provide taxpayer health care for illegal aliens, introduce an 18 percent Value Added Tax (VAT) to fund Universal Basic Income (UBI) for those who want to play video games all day.

Heaven forbid, but these silly season proposals could become the laws of the land. The more capital that is redistributed by a predatory government is less money for America’s Dreamers, the Investor Class.

Some complain about income inequality, when 73 percent of college graduates (B.A. or above) and 83 percent of advanced degree recipients (M.A., M.S., Ph.D) invest in markets. One can make a compelling argument that education leads to a separation between the haves and have nots of discretionary income and thus, the investor class.

Should we shut off access to education to achieve social justice? Or should we teach students to understand and intelligently invest in markets?

Almost DailyBrett believes we should adopt policies to expand America’s Investor Class and defend Economic Freedom.

The nearly 170 million members of America’s Investor Class are high propensity. They will vote in 2020.

Wonder which party and candidates will earn their votes?

https://news.gallup.com/topic/stocks.aspx

https://news.gallup.com/poll/233699/young-americans-wary-investing-stocks.aspx

https://www.financialsamurai.com/what-percent-of-americans-own-stocks/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2019/03/10/my-congressman-wants-to-double-tax-our-retirement/

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/newt-gingrich-trump-democrats-pelosi-mcgovern

 

 

 

“Neutrality for the sake of neutrality doesn’t really serve us in the age of Trump.” – Jim Acosta, author of “The Enemy of the People”

“The (CNN) chief White House correspondent is saying out loud that Trump is so dangerous that he cannot be neutral, which is another word for ‘fair.’” – Howard Kurtz on Acosta’s “stunning admission”

Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the least fair of them all?

Jim Acosta is the greatest correspondent in the history of the planet, and if you don’t believe Almost DailyBrett … just ask him.

His network and many others are invested in demise of one Donald Trump, never mind the 62 million Americans who voted for POTUS #45 in 2016 or more importantly, the 306 electoral votes he compiled.

Story ideas that are favorable to the president are discarded or damned with faint praise, and any morsel — no matter how sketchy the source — is seized upon by the frothing apex predators at CNN and other liberal networks.

They were certain that Madam Secretary would win the presidency.

They were counting on Robert Müller to produce a report that would end the age of Trump.

They are rooting and championing any Democrat with a heartbeat and pulse running for president.

Almost DailyBrett started his studies at the USC School of Journalism in the heady media days following the Watergate Scandal and the resignation of Richard Nixon.

The standard as enunciated by the Most Trusted Man in America, CBS anchor Walter Cronkite, was the imperative to secure and accurately present both sides of every story … whether you agreed with one side or the other.

The same applied to CNN’s universally respected anchor Bernard Shaw, who posed tough penetrating questions to leaders on both sides of the aisle.

Skepticism was essential. Cynicism was to be avoided. Objectivity was the Holy Grail. The goal was to follow the story to where it ultimately led, and then to present both sides clearly and succinctly. You were expected to be professional and neutral.

That doesn’t mean there wasn’t analysis born out of the facts on both sides of a given issue. The commentaries of Erik Sevareid of CBS are still classic … even though by making this reference your author’s age is showing.

Reporters Decide Right and Wrong?

“ … He (Acosta) told Publishers Weekly there aren’t two sides to the story when it is a matter of right and wrong. Right and wrong in the opinion of journalists? Sure!” – Howard Kurtz

No one cares about the personal opinion of a journalist, even the chief White House correspondent for CNN.

As Clint Eastwood, playing the role of “Dirty Harry” so famously said: “Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.”

There aren’t two sides to every story? Hello?

Sorry to mount the soap box: Almost DailyBrett totally, utterly and completely rejects that premise.

Remember taking Pro Seminar, an exhaustive review of communication philosophy, at grad school at the University of Oregon. Your author never took upon himself to determine the Kantian differences between right and wrong for consumers of mass communication. That lofty aspiration was simply above Almost DailyBrett’s pay grade.

Diva Journalism?

When you take an unhealthy mix of narcissism and combine with a nightly anti-Trump harangue, you come up with the ultimate White House Press Corps’ diva, Jim Acosta.

Jim Acosta may actually be besmirching the good name of … arrogance.

Acosta’s 354-page first-person-singular tome with 100 “I” references and 25 “me” mentions is a celebration of CNN’s chief White House correspondent’s service to the country, the planet, the galaxy and the universe.

Will Almost DailyBrett break down and shell out nearly 20 bucks and purchase Acosta’s, “The Enemy of the People: A Dangerous Time To Tell The Truth in America?”

Wonder how much the Acosta page-turner will cost a year from now at the discount book rack at Walmart?

Almost DailyBrett Editor’s Note: The credit for “Hero of His Own Book” goes directly to Howard Kurtz, who used these exact words during his Media Buzz review of Jim Acosta’s book. Kurtz is a long-time and widely respected critic of political media for the Washington Post, CNN and Fox News.

https://contemptor.com/2019/06/16/fox-news-media-analyst-jim-acosta-should-be-grateful-to-trump-for-raising-his-profile/

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/dan-gainor-media-obsessed-with-polls-and-trump-comments-on-campaign-aid-acosta-obsessed-with-acosta

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2019/04/09/the-death-of-objective-journalism/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2018/02/15/oppositional-journalism/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2019/03/26/oppositional-journalisms-victory/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2017/12/27/dan-rather-father-of-affirmational-journalism/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2018/11/08/lose-lose-journalism/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2019/04/24/what-happened-to-bernie-shaws-cnn/

 

 

 

Even men have standards …

Gov. Gavin Newsom wears a pair of safely glasses as he helped custodian Maria Arambula, right, with her janitorial work at American River College on Wednesday, May 1, 2019 in Sacramento.

Should a mayor sleep with his campaign manager’s wife, Rippey?

Should a mayor sleep with his chief of staff’s wife, Rippey?

Should a mayor sleep with his best friend’s wife, Rippey?

What if all of above – campaign manager, chief of staff, best friend – was one fellow male, Alex Tourk?

What kind of friend are you Mr. Mayor … Mr. Governor, anyway?

As adoring California media gush and write fluffers and puffers about former San Francisco Mayor, now Golden State Governor Gavin Newsom, do his antics 12 years ago matter … particularly and especially to men who time-and-time again do not vote Democratic?

Gavin won the governorship of California, even after violating the man code. Why should that little indiscretion stop him from becoming President #46 in 2024? You know he’s running … yes you do.

First Almost DailyBrett must ask: Will Gavin’s dalliance matter at all, to women?

Two of the last four presidents were/are champion cheaters, one grabbing them in private areas and as desperate defenders of the other always say: ‘It was just a blow…!’

Did either Messrs. Trump and Clinton ever make love to the wife of a best friend? As far as we know, the answer in both cases is negative.

Second, carnal knowledge behind the back of your best friend with his spouse is without doubt a direct violation of the Man Code.

C.W. Nevius of the San Francisco Chronicle in 2007 defined the code as “a set of rigid but unwritten boundaries over which no man may step. Break the Man Code, and you’re toast.”

Sorry C.W., Gavin is governor, not toast … at least not yet. Having said that, does that mean all is forgiven and forgotten with males of the species?

The Real Gender Gap

Donald Trump won the white male vote 62-31 percent … or two-to-one for you math whizzes … demonstrating that Democrats more than Republicans are confronting a gender gap.

Almost DailyBrett has real doubts Democrats can do enough to close this gap between now and 2020, let alone five years from now.

If Gavin wakes up one day and gazes into his golden mirror on the wall and sees, not just a governor, but a president (bet on it), how will men across the fruited plain view his 2007 violation of the Man Code?

You can be sure that opposition research will dredge up this tawdry caper, even in a Democratic primary for an open seat … let alone the general election.

Some will contend that your Almost DailyBrett author should slow down. Didn’t The Donald run against the first woman nominee, Hillary? Were oodles of (misogynist or not) men simply voting against a female standard bearer, particularly that woman?

There are few who as far to suggest that Hillary was not in a word … “likeable.” Really.

In contrast, Gavin will offer himself as a telegenic white privileged male with a socialist-oriented track record as Mayor of San Francisco and Governor of California.

How will the story of his sneaking behind his best friend’s back to bed his wife sound to literally millions of men from sea to shining sea? Is there a Statute of Limitations on this type of story?

Just ask Joe Biden and/or Brett Kavanaugh.

The Man Code is visceral. A man instinctively senses a deep-seeded … that is so wrong … type of wrong. Your best friend’s wife is out-of-bounds and will always be. There is no there, there. Don’t even think about it.

Are men horn-dogs? Does the sun rise in the morning and set in the evening? Hormonal hetero men (redundant?) have responded to women since Adam and Eve in the Book of Genesis.

Women expect the worst when it comes to testosterone-laden men. We never fail to deliver. Men are their own worst enemies and our collective PR to use a sophisticated term … sucks.

Having said that, women are more willing based upon centuries of rolling-their-eyes experience to eventually accept and maybe even forgive men for being … men.

Men are different animals. A violation of the Man Code is serious and enduring. You were wrong Gavin. You know you were wrong. What felt so good should not give you pleasure now, Governor Gavin. The coast is not clear.

If you think men will forget in five-years-time (or any time), you are sadly mistaken.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article229922079.html

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/nevius/article/Unforgivable-breach-of-Man-Code-2652345.php

 

%d bloggers like this: