Before It’s Too Late: Veepstakes 2016

It’s quite possible that by tomorrow night, one or both parties’ presidential candidates will be set in stone, or in silly putty as the case may be.  It’s likely that Trump will be even farther along the road of pushing the Republican establishment to collective, cliff-diving hopelessness; he even may have reached the inevitable promontory at the end of that road, where he can hear the gratifying sound of lemmings plopping into the sea of despair.  On the Democratic side, BernieBros or BernieBots or whatever they’re called will ratchet up their Kierkegaardian ressentiment quotient, as Madame Secretary will have increased her delegate lead and the math just doesn’t add up.  Hillary’s supporters will celebrate with a resounding ‘meh.’

So now seems like a good time to speculate on the best possible vice presidential picks for the currently viable (even if the via is dolorosa and obscura) major party candidates.  We’ll leave Deez Nuts and Vermin Supreme to their own devices.

Hillary Clinton

Ever since Secretary Clinton gave her official “I’m-in” announcement, the smart money (that would be: mine) has been on Julian Castro.  The former mayor of San Antonio and current head of HUD, Mr. Castro has been a designated ‘rising star’ from the last Democratic convention until now.  He’s Mexican American, young (age 41, compared to Hillary’s grandmotherly age of 68), pleasant, smart, from the important state of Texas, and has a twin brother (we know how the Clintons like the ‘two for the price of one’ concept).  But now that it looks as if Marco Rubio is one short step from dropping out—after what promises to be a humiliating loss in Florida—the rationale for Castro is less clear.  Donald Trump’s racist slurs and huge walls and general anti-immigrationism should have made it much less necessary to court Hispanic voters (and voters of other recently emigrated ethnic minorities). 

Left to Right:  Castro, Booker, Brown

Enter Cory Booker (with a superman cape).  The charismatic, dynamic former Newark mayor and current New Jersey Senator could solidify the African American vote/Obama coalition that Hillary Clinton needs to win in November.  He’s not afraid to work across the aisle, to shovel snow and rescue people from burning buildings, and to remain enigmatic about his sexual orientation, a trait that – after Hillary’s false attribution of HIV activism to Nancy Reagan – may be more important than one would have thought.  New front-runner?  Age:  46.

Dark Horse:  Sherrod Brown – progressive, labor friendly Senator from the important state of Ohio.  Plus:  cool gravelly voice.  Age:  63 -- although he comes across as younger, he may be too old to ‘balance’ Hillary. 

Dark Horse Daily Double:  Bernie Sanders – unity ticket, makes sense only if the Feel-the-Bern crowd threatens to mutiny.  Hillary is already AARP-worthy; she doesn’t need an even older running mate.  Age:  74.

One version of the unity ticket.

Dark Horse Distaff Stakes:  Elizabeth Warren.  Age: 66 – too close to Hillary’s age, plus Warren would not play a dutiful second fiddle, although she’d certainly solidify HRC’s progressive bona fides.  Better pick if one wanted to double down on the women’s vote: Amy Klobuchar, Progressive but non-preachy Senator from Minnesota.  Age:  55.  Even better pick for an all-woman ticket – California AG Kamala Harris, who would solidify the African American vote, appeals to the Asian American vote (part of her heritage is Indian), and also underscores the importance of Supreme Court nominations (it's been reported that she's on President Obama's list to replace Justice Scalia). Age:  51. 

Left to right:  Warren, Klobuchar, Harris

I don’t think Hillary will pick another woman, though.  My money remains on Castro (he could put Texas in play, whereas Secretary Clinton shouldn't need help with New Jersey).  I am, however, placing a substantial side bet on Booker. 

Bernie Sanders

Grandpa one-note crankypants would need a younger VP with significant appeal to a sector with which he’s not presently doing well.  Really, I think most of the Hillary VP picks would work for Bernie, particularly the Distaff Stakes possibilities.  We might add recent Bernie endorser Tulsi Gabbard, a very young (age: 34) Samoan American Representative from Hawaii, or Asian-American disabled veteran Illinois Representative Tammy Duckworth (age 48). An even better add might be UN Ambassador Samantha Powers (age: 45), who would shore up Senator Sanders’ shaky foreign policy credentials. The geriatric unity ticket of Bernie and Hillary (Bernary?) remains intriguing, albeit highly unlikely.

Left to Right:  Gabbard, Duckworth, Powers

Reversed version of the Unity Ticket

A daring move for Bernie would be another sort of unity ticket: selecting a moderate Republican, particularly if Trump or Cruz is the GOP nominee.  John Kasich (everyone’s favorite VP pick, age 63)?  Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty (age 55)? South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley (age 44; as an Indian American, she would also add ethnic spice, but the title of ‘moderate’ may not fit)?  

Left to Right:  Pawlenty, Haley

Are there any moderate Republicans left who have sense enough to sacrifice a bit of ideology to stop the destruction of their party, not to mention the nation, and sign on to feel the Bern?

Marco Rubio

Marcolito is probably pan con mantequilla as of Tuesday, so there’s no need to spend too much time on Rubio-VP-pick speculation.  As he’s just 44 and holds the current record for Senate truancy, he would need a respected, relatively moderate older person with executive experience, preferably one who might bring in a big swing state.  All together now:  John Kasich! 

John Kasich

Governor Kasich is the ‘reasonable’ candidate, so he needs a relatively unreasonable younger running mate whose public affect belies a steeping Tea Party troll barely masked by a faint aroma of likeability.  That might be:  Marco Rubio!  Or . . . the perhaps only partially unreasonable Nikki Haley!  Since Kasich may be the whitest white man running, and the most boring, either Rubio or Haley would bring a dash of diversity and a touch of rhetorical excitement to a Kasich ticket.  Republican colleagues seem to like Kasich, so he wouldn’t have a problem finding people willing to run with him (unlike, oh, let’s see . . . Cruz or . . . Trump).

Ted Cruz

If Senator Cruz becomes the Republican nominee (I just spit three times to ward off evil), his VP pick is a no-brainer.  It’s (spit three more times) Carly Fiorina!  She’s already endorsed him, she’s a woman, at age 61 she could spout some sort of life wisdom blather to season Cruz’s youth (he’s only 45, although he seems ancient, like the demon Pazuzu in Exorcist II), she’s an ‘outsider,’ she brings ‘business experience’ to counterbalance what I’m sure Mr. TrusTED will peddle as significant political-institutional chops that somehow have nothing to do with being a professional politician.  Moreover, Fiorina is as mean and dislikeable as Cruz is, and an equally adept serial liar.  Maybe she’s worse, which might make Cruz look good (well, probably not).  In any event, it’s a ticket made in extremist heaven.  Spit, spit, spit!

Left to Right:  Fiorina, Lee, Robertson

The reason I’m so confident about this pick is that almost no one who’s ever worked with Cruz will do so again.  This reduces the VP field considerably.  Ultra-Conservative Utah politician Mike Lee (age: 44) is the only current Senator who has endorsed Cruz, so I suppose Lee has some veepotential . . . more than the scattering of small-bore Texas pols and inconsequential dolts from Congress and various state legislatures who have signaled their allegiance.  The only other person I can think of is Duck Dynasty patriarch and Cruz supporter Phil Robertson (age: 69), who might bring some reality TV cred to counter Trump’s huuuuge stockpile of it.

Donald Trump

This is by far the most difficult Vice Presidential prediction to make.  If Trump had his way, there would be no running mate, as the Donald is too winning a winner to need a sidekick.  Trumpian history suggests that he would like to select one of his grown-up children (big-game hunters Donald Jr. or Eric, incestuous wet dream Ivanka) if, say, the Constitution demanded he do such an unnecessary thing.

Left to Right:  Eric, Dad, Ivanka, Donald Jr.

But as it does, and as it looks like Trump may really be the 2016 Republican candidate for President, the problem of a suitable Vice President remains.  Trump’s Brobdingnagian ego demands that he pick a Lilliputian running mate, ideally one afflicted with selective mutism (too bad, Chris Christie).  Best possibility: Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions (Age: 69), a diminutive, torture-admiring racist who was the first ‘major’ politician to endorse the Donald.  The elfin legislator (described elsewhere as ‘a vile, lisping piglet’) has the advantage of having sponsored no major legislation, ever, so despite 20 years in the Senate, there’s nothing in his record to trip up Trump (political version of selective mutism). Sessions also represents the much-loved and much-courted demographic of Southern uneducated poor white people. 

Which Trump may already have locked up.  So would he need to select a ‘person of color’ (other than orange) in order to demonstrate his love of ‘the Blacks’ and ‘the Hispanics’ (or, more accurately, to demonstrate that ‘they’ love him)?  Making inroads among Hispanic voters is probably no longer possible, and what Latino or Latina would punch themselves onto a Trump ticket?  Eso sería una locura. 

Left to Right:  Sessions, Sanders, Love

But that leaves the other significant minority group.  Trump frequently brays, “I’ve always had a great relationship with the blacks;” now he has an actual Black Bestie, Dr. Ben Carson (age 64), currently unemployed author and grifter from Maryland, Florida, and Planet Nine.  Selective mutism?  Check.  Barely ambulatory diversity billboard?  Check.  More camera-visible Evangelical-pandering prop than the newly discovered Bible that Trump hauls around?  Check.  Carson is a little bit shorter than Trump, but there may be that other size issue . . .

So maybe the answer is someone who won’t challenge the Donald’s alpha masculinity in any way whatsoever.  A woman!  Better yet, a Black woman!  And yes, I’ve actually found one who, on paper at least might make a reasonable running mate: Republican Congresswoman from Utah Mia Love (age 40, a good contrast to Trump’s age of 69).

Formerly major of Saratoga Springs (Utah version), Love (as a rising star and one of the very few Black women Republicans) spoke at the 2012 Republican convention and her Congressional runs were supported by GOP Establishmentarians like Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, and John Boehner.  Nonetheless, she is a genuine Tea Party Conservative.  Mia Love also has an interesting life story, although one not without its ironies: in 1973, her parents fled political terrorism in Haiti and were able to gain U.S. citizenship after producing an anchor baby (Mia, originally Ludmya, was born in Brooklyn and grew up in Connecticut).  Like Marco Rubio, she was raised a Roman Catholic but converted to the Mormon faith; unlike Rubio, she has not converted back.  She is reputed to be outspoken, but political ambition might be an effective muzzle.

To be honest with you, it could be a winner of an idea.  A terrific winner  . . .

On the other hand, Love may not want to risk her career for what increasingly looks to be a doomed-to-disaster campaign, fueled in part by no-longer disguised racism and potentially violent mob mentality.  Re-enter Ben Carson as the betting favorite.  Carson has no political career to risk and he’s handy with knife and hammer when it comes to a fight.  Further, adventures as Donald Trump’s wing man might make a good book.  He’s only ‘written’ eight of them, the last one published in 2015.  Brother’s gotta eat.

. 

Is There a Plan to Draft Mitt Romney?

Perhaps so.  Tomorrow morning, Willard ‘Mitt’ Romney will hold a press conference in which he no doubt will excoriate the nasty and childish tone of the Republican campaign for president.  We’ll have to tune in to find out whether he will call out Donald Trump by name.  (My guess:  yes.) 

Because Romney has not sought the limelight since his 2012 defeat, his self-insertion into the current Republican demolition derby is noteworthy.  Maybe he’s just trying to add a voice of reason to the prevailing caca-phony.  Or maybe . . .

. . . he’s positioning himself for a last-ditch, save-the-GOP move at this summer’s Republican Convention, which could happen only if Stumpy, Lumpy, Frumpy, and Drumpfy somehow neutralize each other in the upcoming primaries, leaving the Convention in must-watch free-for-all mode. 

Stumpy:  needs Cuban heels to see over the podium

Lumpy:  he wins the title of Mr. Blobfish

Do we really want a President who challenges both Rick 

Santorum and Mr. Rogers for frumpiness?

Thank you, John Oliver.  Enough said.

I never thought I would root for Mitt Romney.  Then again, there has never been a campaign year like this one.  It would be great, and huuuuge, if he were able to swipe the nomination at a brokered (“open”) convention. 

Why?  (1) He’s relatively sane.  (2) His face does not inspire instant revulsion, like Cruz or Trump.  (3) He may be a giant stiff, but he’s not a feckless boy orator (read: Rubio).  (4) He may be a bad campaigner, but he’s not quite as tepid as Kasich; also, he has better name recognition than Kasich. 

And (5) – he would most probably lose to Hillary Clinton.  It would be a been-there, done-that Presidential race, with Mitt Romney as the most recent btdt (losing) candidate.  Hillary might seem fresh in comparison.  He also would probably lose to Bernie Sanders.  Can we say 41%, or 49%, or whatever?

Obviously, I’m pulling for a Mitt Romney coup-de-Republican-etat for a couple of reasons.  First is that any major party Presidential nominee has a fighting chance of winning.  Romney was not my choice in 2012 and would not be my choice in 2016, but if he were to win I wouldn’t stick my head in an oven or move to some Eastern Canadian bumfucklandia. Second is that I’d like to see our two major political parties promote relatively reasonable candidates, candidates who would not cause the rest of the world to collapse in laughter, disgust, or terror. 

What remains to be analyzed is what Romney actually says tomorrow – and what interests (other than Romney’s own) are behind the press conference.  I suspect that some elements of the ‘Republican Establishment’ are laying the groundwork for a party-saving Rafalca.  Stay tuned. 

The Problem with Melania Trump . . .

 {1}. . . is not that she’s an Eastern European immigrant (as was Donald Trump’s first wife, Ivana).  Although Trump’s preference for sexy young women born behind the Iron Curtain adds an extra level of odd to his fulminations against today’s immigrants and to his predilections for border walls, the candidate’s supporters seem impervious to his positional, ideological, and just plain logical contradictions.  Maybe they even can excavate obscure consistencies: Trump evidently admires Vladimir Putin, so why wouldn’t he admire Eastern bloc women?  And after all, these women are white – just ask David Duke, KKK grand poo-poo and recent advocate of Donald Trump because of his championship of ‘European Americans.’

[Ivana Trump and Donald Trump]

{2} . . . is not that, as a model, she was photographed in revealing lingerie and provocative postures.  One might have expected that her previous media exposure would have disturbed a good percentage of evangelical family values voters, but obviously it has not. Further, the rest of us cannot comment unconflictedly on how this part of her career might shadow her possible role as first lady: that could be seen as slut-shaming or the politically correct equivalent of such.  And we all know how much the Trump campaign trades on trashing ‘political correctness’ (for most us, that would just be thoughtful and respectful speech, but anyway . . .).  So Hillary Clinton’s undergraduate paper on Saul Alinsky continues to haunt her, and Melania Trump’s long career as salacious eye candy means nothing.

[Melania Trump modeling lingerie.]

{3}. . . is not that she could be the little picture explaining the phrase ‘trophy wife’ in any illustrated dictionary.  One might have thought that Trump’s being married three times – at least once (Marla Maples) to a woman with whom he was carrying on a fairly public affair when he was still legally tied to wife number one – would upset some potential supporters (see point {2}, above).  One would be wrong.  Saint Ronald Reagan broke the can’t-be-divorced political bromide; Bill Clinton broke the (previously much broken but little publicized) can’t-have-seedy-affairs political bromide; Newt Gingrich, in his 2008 run, broke the it’s-disqualifying-to-have-shameless-affairs-when-current-wife-is-grievously-ill bromide (only to be surpassed by the supremely slimy John Edwards, whose spousal crappiness was fully exposed only after he was out of the presidential picture).  Hey!  It’s aspirational!  What guy wouldn’t want a smoking hot 24-years-younger-than-he-is woman draped at his side?  Particularly when she wears low heels so, at 5’11” she doesn’t make him look (gasp) small?

[Marla Maples became the second Mrs. Donald Trump.  Ms. Maples was only 5’8” tall, so obviously the Donald had to trade her in for a taller model.  However, Ivana Trump was 6’0” tall, so go figure.]

So what is the problem with Melania?  After hearing her ‘interview’ with Mika Brzezinski on Morning Joe last week, and after a bit of research about Melania Trump’s earlier albeit infrequent interviews (such as those with The View and Vanity Fair), I fear that – if she becomes First Lady – she’ll set back this country’s stumbling march toward women’s equality in subtle but potentially devastating ways. 

[Hillary Clinton suffering public humiliation during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.  Whether or not she stood by her man, she was roundly criticized – and still is being criticized today, often by young women who have no conception about the difficulties of being caught in a generational garotte between ‘being all you can be’ and doing almost anything to keep a marriage together.]

[Michelle Obama is First Lady in the age of mean memes and internet crudeness.  Through absolutely no fault of her own, she’s been a victim of Obama derangement syndrome, misogynist-style.]

Being First Lady means being a female role model, whether one wants to be or not.  Those of us of a certain age remember well how Hillary Clinton, an accomplished professional and an undeniably smart woman, was trashed from her time as the Arkansas Governor’s wife to her time as First Lady to now . . . for being professional and smart (and human).  All of us should know the vegetable slings and fitness arrows lobbed at Michelle Obama, another extremely accomplished person.  We also know how, after being targeted early as an ‘angry Black woman,’ Michelle Obama has retreated into what should have been uncontroversial cause-championships that, nonetheless, have been attacked by right-wing [and yes, racist] opponents of her husband’s Presidency.

What could we expect from a Melania Trump First-Ladyship?  My guess:  nothing. 

[The Trumps’ NYC apartment.  One wonders if the butler issues sunglasses at the door and if Versailles ever issued a cease-and-desist order.]

Melania Trump would be a throwback, at best, to a Ladybird Johnson proponent of wildflowers.  Maybe, if we want to push up the calendar, to Barbara and Laura Bush’s courageous affirmation that children’s reading is a good thing.  I’ve seen a couple of opinion pieces comparing her, potentially, to Jacqueline Kennedy, in terms of glamorous style.  Really?  Has anyone looked at her gala outfits? Or the Trumps’ gold-slathered apartment?  Or her naming (or acquiescence in such) her Trump-spawned son ‘Barron’?  (I suspect this is more the Donald’s doing, as his child with Marla Maples was named ‘Tiffany.’)  Michelle Obama has tried and, I think, largely succeeded in showcasing affordable, achievable (to middle- and upper-middle-class people, at least) style in her own fashion choices and in those she has made for her daughters.  There is nothing on record about Melania Trump that suggests she has taste, much less deeply (or even shallowly) held convictions about women’s capacities and agencies.

[Not sure where or when this photo was taken, but Hillary looks conventionally nice, complete with Barbara Bush pearls, while Melania, albeit glamorous, is all about jewelry-enhancing cleavage.  I suspect her necklace and bracelets may be the real stuff, like the kind apple-of-daddy’s-eye stepdaughter Ivanka sells, as opposed to the tacky costume jewelry Melania ‘designs’ and shills on QVC.]

[Left: Melania Trump brand stretch ‘crystal’ bracelet (also available in gold tone) -- $23.10.  Right: Ivanka Trump brand diamond bracelet -- $10,900.00.  On second thought, maybe Melania’s on to something.  I’d rather pay 23 bucks for ugly jewelry than 10K plus.]

Indeed, Melania’s few ‘interviews’ present her as the perfect Stepford wife.  She outdoes Marco Rubio in repeating a few talking points, verbatim (‘Donald respects women’ [in response to questions about his misogynist comments] . . . ‘He wants to keep the country safe’ [in responses to questions about Trump’s plan to stop all Muslims at the border]), no matter whom the interlocutor, what the venue.  Maybe she’s just stupid, but more probably, she believes it’s in her self-interest to regurgitate her husband’s verbal diarrhea.  She’s probably correct.

[I hereby refrain, under peine forte et dure, from ventriloquist jokes, including how ventriloquist dummies are operated.  After all, are we sure which is which?]

If she becomes first lady, Melania Trump evidently would do nothing to advance women’s causes, refugees’ causes, children’s causes, minorities’ causes, health causes, or wildflower causes. She would do nothing on any front to add useful pillow talk to the Donald’s egotistical, dictatorial wet dreams, unless reassuring him that his stubby little fingers are huuuuuge is useful.

This—plus everything else—is the problem with Melania.