Simple at last

Issues that are too complicated to follow don't get followed.  Crooked-Hillary is complicated.  Crazy-Trump has gotten pretty simple and straightforward these past two weeks.

But there it is, at last, the election:  Crooked versus crazy.

I attempted to read this morning's long Fox News article introduced as a "bombshell" and headlined as a quid pro quo deal of some kind.  I am placing a link to the story here along with the splash page headline.

Here is the problem for Trump in hoping to make this the real issue:  the factual and legal issues are complicated and boring.  The big meta-message is utterly predictable.  Fox hates Hillary and they think she is corrupt.   Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz, who has been a constant thorn in her side, is suggesting we need 4 sets of hearings on something because some sort of underhanded something got made regarding some kind of classification for some deal.  More hearings.  Wonderful.

Here's the story.   Click Here for the Fox article

Really Crooked, or just attacked as being Crooked?

Nothing new here.   Or maybe there is indeed something new, in the fine details if a reader can follow it, but it is subsumed in the same-old, same-old story: relentless House Republicans investigating Hillary. My premise is that they will investigate her and say she is corrupt no matter what the hidden reality is.  Why? Because her detractors accuse her of being on drugs, of having hidden Parkinsons, of having murdered Vince Foster, of having FBI agents assassinated, of being demons and smelling like sulfur..   Is she really corrupt?   Has she done illegal things?  Maybe but who would know since, after all, Republicans will say she is vile and corrupt whether or not there is any truth in it.

Meanwhile, what about Trump?   He is acting pretty crazy, what with the drug test allegations, saying that Republicans are out to get him so he is at war with his own party, what with saying the media is totally corrupt, what with saying the election is rigged, what with denouncing Bill Clinton for doing essentially what he has done, what with careless comments on a multitude of subjects, what with saying he wouldn't make a move on any of the dozen or so women who came forward this week because they are too ugly for him, all this in the midst of audiotapes in which he came off like a lecherous goat. 

Really unfit or just being accused of it?

So there it is:  simple at last:   

In this tradeoff it makes some real sense for a lot of voters to pick the respectable slightly crooked but arguably barely-legal candidate versus the overtly crazy one.  She may be an insider but being inside means she is experienced.

Some disagree, including big majorities in many states.  Some really hate Hillary and the liberal feminism they think she represents, and others think that Trump is just crazy enough to shake things up.  He is crazy good.