- The American Conservative - http://www.theamericanconservative.com -

A Presidency From Hell?

Should Donald Trump surge from behind to win, he would likely bring in with him both houses of Congress.

Much of his agenda—tax cuts, deregulation, border security, deportation of criminals here illegally, repeal of Obamacare, appointing justices like Scalia, unleashing the energy industry—could be readily enacted.

On new trade treaties with China and Mexico, Trump might need economic nationalists in Bernie Sanders’s party to stand with him, as free-trade Republicans stood by their K Street contributors.

Still, compatible agendas and GOP self-interest could transcend personal animosities and make for a successful four years.

But consider what a Hillary Clinton presidency would be like.

She would enter office as the least-admired president in history, without a vision or a mandate. She would take office with two-thirds of the nation believing she is untruthful and untrustworthy.

Reports of poor health and lack of stamina may be exaggerated. Yet she moves like a woman her age. Unlike Ronald Reagan; her husband, Bill; and President Obama, she is not a natural political athlete and lacks the personal and rhetorical skills to move people to action.

She makes few mistakes as a debater, but she is often shrill—when she is not boring. Trump is right: Hillary Clinton is tough as a $2 steak. But save for those close to her, she appears not to be a terribly likable person.

Still, such attributes, or the lack of them, do not assure a failed presidency. James Polk, no charmer, was a one-term president, but a great one, victorious in the Mexican War, annexing California and the Southwest, negotiating a fair division of the Oregon territory with the British.

Yet the hostility Clinton would face the day she takes office would almost seem to ensure four years of pure hell.

The reason: her credibility, or rather her transparent lack of it.

Consider. Because the tapes revealed he did not tell the full truth about when he learned about Watergate, Richard Nixon was forced to resign.

In the Iran-Contra affair, Reagan faced potential impeachment charges, until ex-security adviser John Poindexter testified that Reagan told the truth when he said he had not known of the secret transfer of funds to the Nicaraguan Contras.

Bill Clinton was impeached—for lying.

White House scandals, as Nixon said in Watergate, are almost always rooted in mendacity—not the misdeed, but the cover-up, the lies, the perjury, the obstruction of justice that follow.

And here Hillary Clinton seems to have an almost insoluble problem.

She has testified for hours to FBI agents investigating why and how her server was set up and whether secret information passed through it.

Forty times during her FBI interrogation, Clinton said she could not or did not recall. This writer has friends who went to prison for telling a grand jury, “I can’t recall.”

After studying her testimony and the contents of her emails, FBI Director James Comey virtually accused Clinton of lying.

Moreover, thousands of emails were erased from her server, even after she had reportedly been sent a subpoena from Congress to retain them.

During her first two years as secretary of state, half of her outside visitors were contributors to the Clinton Foundation.

Yet there was not a single quid pro quo, Clinton tells us.

Yesterday’s newspapers exploded with reports of how Bill Clinton aide Doug Band raised money for the Clinton Foundation, and then hit up the same corporate contributors to pay huge fees for Bill’s speeches.

What were the corporations buying if not influence? What were the foreign contributors buying, if not influence with an ex-president, and a secretary of state and possible future president?

Did none of the big donors receive any official favors?

“There’s a lot of smoke and there’s no fire,” says Hillary Clinton.

Perhaps, but there seems to be more smoke every day.

If once or twice in her hours of testimony to the FBI, to a grand jury, or before Congress, Clinton were proven to have lied, her Justice Department would be obligated to name a special prosecutor, as was Nixon’s.

And, with the election over, the investigative reporters of the adversary press, Pulitzers beckoning, would be cut loose to go after her.

The Republican House is already gearing up for investigations that could last deep into Clinton’s first term.

There is a vast trove of public and sworn testimony from Hillary, about the server, the emails, the erasures, the Clinton Foundation. Now, thanks to WikiLeaks, there are tens of thousands of emails to sift through, and perhaps tens of thousands more to come.

What are the odds that not one contains information that contradicts her sworn testimony? Rep. Jim Jordan contends that Clinton may already have perjured herself.

And as the full-court press would begin with her inauguration, Clinton would have to deal with the Syrians, the Russians, the Taliban, the North Koreans, and Xi Jinping in the South China Sea—and with Bill Clinton wandering around the White House with nothing to do.

This election is not over. But if Hillary Clinton wins, a truly hellish presidency could await her, and us.

Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative and the author of the book The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority [1].

38 Comments (Open | Close)

38 Comments To "A Presidency From Hell?"

#1 Comment By Kurt Gayle On October 27, 2016 @ 11:55 pm

Pat is oh-so right: “This election is not over.” In fact it’s likely that Donald Trump will continue to surge and will win on November 8th.

Remember: Many of the polls claiming to show statistically significant Clinton leads were commissioned by the same corrupt news organizations that have worked for months to bias their news coverage in an attempt to throw the election to Clinton.

On the other hand, several polls with a history of accuracy have consistently shown either a Trump lead or a statistical dead-heat.

The problem facing the donor class and the party elites is that Trump supporters are not swayed by the media bias. A recent Gallup poll shows Americans trust in journalists to be at its lowest level since Gallup began asking the question.

Americans are savvy to the media’s rigging of election reporting. Election Day, Nov. 8th, will show that the dishonest reporting of the mainstream media and the cooked samplings of their polls were all for naught.

Thus, fortunately, the American people will avoid the spectacle of a “truly hellish” Clinton presidency.

#2 Comment By Matt On October 28, 2016 @ 12:58 am

More years of bank favoratism, corporate socialism, political corruption, failed social programs, deindustrialisation, open borders lawlessness, erosion of liberties, interventionism and wage stagnation is all adding more steam to the pressure cooker.
A Trump presidency would back the pressure off, a Clinton presidency would be a disaster.

#3 Comment By William N. Grigg On October 28, 2016 @ 1:13 am

James Polk, no charmer, was a one-term president, but a great one, victorious in the Mexican War, annexing California and the Southwest, negotiating a fair division of the Oregon territory with the British.

Why does PJB, of all people, cling to the abhorrent notion that presidential “greatness” is defined by territorial aggrandizement through war?

#4 Comment By Michael Bienner On October 28, 2016 @ 1:36 am

Tyranny is upon us…

#5 Comment By Brian J. On October 28, 2016 @ 7:17 am

The only people responsible for that “cloud” are conservatives. If you wish to prevent the horrid fate that you’re describing, Pat, you need to apologize and concede that these investigations are groundless. You can’t say “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” if we can all see your smoke machine.

#6 Comment By PAXNOW On October 28, 2016 @ 7:29 am

The Visigoths will continue their advance on Rome by the millions. The Supreme Court and Fed will shy away from diversity in their numbers. The alternative media will go bonkers, but to no avail. The military will provide employment (endless wars) to those displaced by a permissive immigration policy. Elizabeth I – will look down (up) in envy.

#7 Comment By David On October 28, 2016 @ 7:46 am

“Cloud” is an understatement.

#8 Comment By SteveM On October 28, 2016 @ 8:34 am

Re: “Yesterday’s newspapers exploded with reports of how Bill Clinton aide Doug Band raised money for the Clinton Foundation, and then hit up the same corporate contributors to pay huge fees for Bill’s speeches.”

Unfortunately, that new evidence of the Clinton Criminal Enterprise (CCE) caused nary a ripple in the MSM. It was merely noted in the Crony lapdog Washington Post and then quickly submerged into the bottom of the content swamp. The Clinton WikiLeaks documents and the James O’Keefe corruption videos are marginalized or not even acknowledged to exist by the various MSM outlets.

Hillary is probably guilty of a lot of things. However, evidence from the counter-media and/or Congress means nothing to the MSM. In fact the MSM will actually conjure up a multitude of baseless red herrings to protect Hillary. E.g., the Trump as Putin puppet meme as a diversion away from documented Clinton corruption.

The anti-Hillary elements can only mutually reinforce in their internet ghettos. Those ghettos do not provide enough political leverage to move against a President Hillary no matter how compelling the evidence of the Clinton’s collective criminality. In that context, Hillary will be politically inoculated by the protective MSM against Republican congressional inquiries and attacks.

Hillary’s presidency will almost certainly be a catastrophe because it will manifest the haggard, corrupt, cronied-up, parasitic and mediocre qualities of the hack sitting in the Oval Office. Expect a one term fiasco and then Hillary will stumble out of the White House as even more of a political and personal wreck.

Agree with Pat though that it’s going to be a wild ride for the rest of us – straight down.

P.S. A Republican Congress does have the power of the purse and could shave away Clinton’s Imperial use of the executive branch. But the feckless Congress has never been intelligent enough to utilize that power effectively.

#9 Comment By Mike Schilling On October 28, 2016 @ 9:31 am

And if anyone would know about clouds of mistrust, it’s a Nixon staffer/

#10 Comment By Kurt Gayle On October 28, 2016 @ 9:58 am

SteveM makes excellent points about the mainstream media cover-up of the Wikileaks revelations:

“Unfortunately, that new evidence of the Clinton Criminal Enterprise (CCE) caused nary a ripple in the MSM. It was merely noted in the Crony lapdog Washington Post and then quickly submerged into the bottom of the content swamp. The Clinton WikiLeaks documents and the James O’Keefe corruption videos are marginalized or not even acknowledged to exist by the various MSM outlets.”

Alex Pfeiffer (The Daily Caller) expands upon SteveM’s critique in “The Anatomy Of A Press Cover-Up.” Great stuff:

[2]

#11 Comment By Viriato On October 28, 2016 @ 10:14 am

@William N. Grigg: “Why does PJB, of all people, cling to the abhorrent notion that presidential “greatness” is defined by territorial aggrandizement through war?”

Yes, that’s one aspect of PJB’s thought that has long disturbed me. Granted, PJB is a nationalist, and I can see why an old-fashioned nationalist would admire Polk. But PJB also advocates an “enlightened nationalism.” There’s nothing enlightened about stealing someone else’s land. Frankly, I fail to see how Polk’s actions are any different from Hitler’s actions a century later. I don’t want to offend anyone but, I’m sorry… this needs to be said.

#12 Comment By Viriato On October 28, 2016 @ 10:24 am

I greatly admire Pat Buchanan, but this article is rather ridiculous.

“If once or twice in her hours of testimony to the FBI, to a grand jury, or before Congress, Clinton were proven to have lied, her Justice Department would be obligated to name a special prosecutor, as was Nixon’s.”

Translation: “I want revenge for Watergate.”

Look, I admire Nixon. I think he was one of our greatest Presidents. I really mean that. I also think that he was unfairly subjected to a witch hunt and that there was no valid reason for him to have faced the prospect of impeachment (and the same is true, in my view, for both of the Presidents who were actually impeached, interestingly enough). Nixon should have been allowed to finish his second term.

I think Hillary Clinton is also facing a witch hunt. I don’t agree with her foreign policy views or with many of her domestic policy views, but this vicious attempt by the GOP to take her down needs to stop. There is no evidence that she is any more corrupt than anybody else.

And, in any case, if she gets elected, she will be entitled to serve as President. To deliberately try to sabotage her Presidency by hounding her with these investigations would be to show profound contempt for democratic norms.

Enough already. I don’t support Clinton or Trump. Jill Stein is my gal now. But I hope that whoever wins does a great job and that all goes well for them. Nothing else would be in the best interests of the country or the world.

#13 Comment By KevinS On October 28, 2016 @ 10:43 am

“Remember: Many of the polls claiming to show statistically significant Clinton leads were commissioned by the same corrupt news organizations that have worked for months to bias their news coverage in an attempt to throw the election to Clinton.
On the other hand, several polls with a history of accuracy have consistently shown either a Trump lead or a statistical dead-heat.”

We heard this in 2012. Go back and read the Free Republic election night thread to see how such comforting thoughts came crashing down as the night went on. Then read the posts today…all the exact same people saying all the exact same things.

#14 Comment By Gareth On October 28, 2016 @ 12:11 pm

Trump would keep attacking everyone. He would attack his staff, attack his party, attack the army, attack the civil service, attack America’s allies. Giving him more power will make him worse, not better. Ultimately, he’ll self-destruct and do who knows how much damage in the process.

#15 Comment By collin On October 28, 2016 @ 12:22 pm

Geez, you are painting a gloomly picture. In reality, HRC will probably work better with Republicans than Obama who was probably the first introverted President in decades. (Silent Cal?, Maybe Eisenhower.)

In reality, the US has bounced back from the Great Recession and I do think the future is brighter than your article.

#16 Comment By Karel On October 28, 2016 @ 12:53 pm

For a society to work well and to succeed, the good-will (trust and support) of it’s productive, tax-paying citizens is of paramount importance. The corrupt politics in DC for the last 25 years has used up this good-will. Only few trust these elitists, as evidenced by the success of the socialist, Sanders, and Trump. With the election of the corrupt, lying, unaccomplished politician, the legitimacy of the D.C. “Leaders” will be gone. It would be a disaster!

#17 Comment By KennethF On October 28, 2016 @ 1:05 pm

“She would enter office as the least-admired president in history, without a vision or a mandate. She would take office with two-thirds of the nation believing she is untruthful and untrustworthy.”

Funny you should go there. Sure, HRC has historically high unfavorability ratings. Fact: DJT’s unfavorability ratings are even higher. Check any reasonably non-partisan site such as RCP or 538.

Pretty much all the negatives about HRC are trumped by Trump. His flip-flopping makes hers look amateur: he used to be a pro-choice Democrat; has publicly espoused admiration for HRC and declared that WJC was unfairly criticized for his transgressions. Integrity: he’s stiffed countless businesses, small and large; he’s been sued by his own lawyers for non-payment. Character: he behaves like a child, ’nuff said. Corruption: his daddy illegally bailed him out of a financial jam; Trump’s foundation makes the Clintons’ look legit by comparison.

With HRC, the GOP had a huge chance to take back the WH: she has plenty of genuine baggage to go along with the made-up stuff. However the GOP managed to nominate the one candidate who makes her transgressions appear tolerable. The end result is that a significant number of moderate Republicans are supporting no one, Johnson, or even HRC. Trump is so toxic that very few progressive Dems will stray from HRC, despite being horrified by her corporate connections.

#18 Comment By Susan On October 28, 2016 @ 2:46 pm

Re today: The FBI is not investigating her server. Servers don’t send emails on their own. They are investigating Hillary Clinton. They just don’t like to say that. I wonder if it’s in order to – once again – announce Hillary’s “innocence,” just before the end of early voting and voting day. We’ll see.

#19 Comment By GeneTuttle On October 28, 2016 @ 2:52 pm

Once again, Pat shows prescience. The bombshell about the reopened FBI investigation was dropped minutes after I read this article.

#20 Comment By jeff On October 28, 2016 @ 3:14 pm

For those interested in a functional government, note that this is three straight elections – over twelve years – where the incoming president is a priori deemed illegitimate, regardless of the scale of the victory, and the opposing political party has no interest in working with that president. In fact, some senators and representatives (Cruz, Gowdy, Issa, etc.) seem to take joy and pride in noting the extent and length of these investigations, regardless of what they find. It is the very process of governmental obstruction they seek, not necessarily justice or truth.

#21 Comment By KD On October 28, 2016 @ 3:26 pm

Looks like the FBI discovered some new emails:

[3]

Could we have a new historic first if Hillary wins, the First Woman President to be impeached by Congress?

And the first couple in the history of the Republic to both be impeached?

#22 Comment By dave On October 28, 2016 @ 3:27 pm

At some point the Republicans have to be for something. I suppose they will be tempted to go after Ms. Clinton for what she has elided or attempted to, but I think that is a major mistake. You wrote: “Yet the hostility Clinton would face the day she takes office would almost seem to ensure four years of pure hell.
The reason: her credibility, or rather her transparent lack of it.”

There are a few assumptions in this – first, that any investigations into her past behavior will be impartial. True or not, the impression will be hard to pull off – I expect they will easily be framed as misogynist. And some most likely will be, so it takes a bit of thought and study to determine which are motivated by misogyny and which are not. News cycles are too fast for that sort of reflection, and in any event more or less all the major papers and television networks are in her camp, so can’t really expect journalism out of them anymore. It will be a called a misogynist, partisan investigation and that will be the end of it.

Second, it assumes that the people doing the investigation have credibility. That’s a big if – the GOP went from Bush 43’s two terms of military adventurism, increasing income inequality and economic catastrophe to no introspection or admission of error in the ensuing 8 years of apparently mindless, vindictive opposition. That is a long time of being kind of – well – less than thoughtful.

And it’s had tremendous costs. Mr. Obama presents as a decent man in his profiles, but he was very inexperienced when elected and in my opinion has more or less been bumbling around for almost 8 years now, kind of like Clouseau in those old Pink Panther movies. Only a lot of people of died, lost their homes or have seen their communities consumed by despair. Government has been very ineffective for many Americans, and the Republicans have a lot to answer for with the way they’ve chosen to spend their time and direct their energy over the last 8 years. It’s been a waste going after Obama, and going after Clinton will just be more of the same.

And the last assumption is that with all that might be going on in the next few years, this is important. Ms. Clinton has made some statements, some good, some bad. The bad, though, are remarkably bad – she’s for invading a Middle Eastern country and establishing control over their airspace, as an example.In 2017. It’s pure crazy. She has Democratic support. Hate to think if she is elected the Republicans will be focusing on email.

#23 Comment By EliteCommInc. On October 28, 2016 @ 4:15 pm

“She makes few mistakes as a debater . . . ”

She make plenty. But one has to have the experience to actually make challenge. That’s what Mr Trumps lacks in these money making cash machines for the networks. He has only had a year to grapple with poli-speak and most of that has been spent dealing with nonissues.
_________

As to the suggestion that Sec Clinton has been dealing with “witch hunt.”

Th evidence is clear, the corporate media to include Hollywood has spent the last two years campaigning for her. They have spent the entire year attacking Mr. Trump. Te relentless nonstop slandersous, false, and distorted assail on Mr Trump, suggesting that Sec Clinton is being treated to the coupe de gras of coupe de gras of “chivalrous treatment as any bride on her wedding day.

And every Republican involve should be ashamed.

#24 Comment By Ken Zaretzke On October 28, 2016 @ 4:48 pm

Silver lining in the cloud: If elected, Hillary will destroy every appearance of the the integrity, and thus the credibility, of feminism.

#25 Comment By mrscracker On October 28, 2016 @ 7:37 pm

I doubt that much will happen between now and the election, but best case scenario is that if Hillary wins, she gets impeached ASAP. Kane isn’t much of an improvement but hopefully he would be replaced in 4 years.

#26 Comment By Michael Powe On October 28, 2016 @ 8:24 pm

What’s most disconcerting about these jeremiads against Clinton is that they reveal how little Republicans are interested in running the government or the country. Running a country, a government, like running a business, is based on grinding out the daily details. Paying the bills, making sure the equipment is properly serviced, planning for infrastructure upgrades and replacements, salaries, employees, office culture … Yawn.

Those activities, the real activities of government, done while sitting at your desk, in your office and doing the work that needs to be done, have no charm compared to yakking in front of a bustle of microphones and cameras, talking off the top of your head, trying to vanquish your opponents by public scandal, and refusing to accept the negative outcomes of your own actions.

When the investigation of the attack on Benghazi ended with an admission that no evidence was found to implicate the State department in the deaths there, the authors of that report continued to assert that evidence existed, but they just had not found it. This stubborn refusal to be ruled by empirical evidence is tandem to its rejection of common science — climate change, species extinction, pollution, evolution.

For the past six years, the Republican Congress has set a schedule of a 3-day work week. They make $175,000 a year, plus expenses, for working 3 days a week. Counting their frequent adjournments to focus on fundraising, Congress’ members work about 120 days a year. Most of that 120 days is not spent in their offices, doing the work for which they were hired.

No sensible person, truly concerned about the fate of the nation, would be satisfied with these legislators. I was talking with a fellow consultant who lived in Chicago, and I made a comment about Richard Daley’s famous corruption. “Yeah,” he replied, “But he got things done.” The Republican Party has convincingly demonstrated that it regards the running of the country as a bore, it’s not in the least interested in getting things done. In that vein, it now proposes to elect as President a man who convincingly demonstrates a nearly complete incapacity to get things done.

Not shocking, just sad.

#27 Comment By Rob On October 28, 2016 @ 11:59 pm

The only presidential candidate with unfavorables higher than Clinton, is Trump. If you think he will usher in peace, prosperity, and unity then you haven’t been paying attention.

His 100 day plan is to sue the women who accused him of sexual assault. Sounds real unifying and heavenly.

He has promised to jail Clinton. Also unifying and heavenly.

Your entire argument is that people should vote for Trump because the Republicans will spend the whole of Clinton’s term trying to impeach her. That isn’t very pursuasive and we’ve been through that for the last 8 years. And the results: jobs are up, incomes up, economic growth up. That is in spite of Republicans trying their hardest to destroy this country to better their chances of retaking the White House.

#28 Comment By Theresa On October 29, 2016 @ 10:10 pm

As a Democrat, I am appalled that Hillary clinched the party nomination. If she wins, I foresee endless attempts by Republicans to keep Benghazi, the private
server, the CGI issue,
etc.. alive for the tenure of her presidency. That the most problematic nominee was seemingly the only option speaks to the incredible lack of talent in the Dem ranks. It would not surprise me if the Repubs. attempt to impeach her for something on her first day in office.

I wish Al Gore had been willing to run again.

#29 Comment By Andy On October 30, 2016 @ 8:48 am

My first reaction
was if more people read this Clinton would lose.Then reality set in and I remembered who Clinton is running against. While it’s possible I’d say it’s maybe 10- 20% chance that the election will go against her.Some will likely make provocative statements, but it seems to me most folks will want a break from the ugly campaign and take a wait and see attitude before deciding how to react to her presidency. I wish both candidates well personally and professionally, as they are in a position to influence the direction of the USA for years to come.
Well said by Kenneth
“Pretty much all the negatives about HRC are trumped by Trump. His flip-flopping makes hers look amateur: he used to be a pro-choice Democrat; has publicly espoused admiration for HRC and declared that WJC was unfairly “criticized for his transgressions. Integrity: he’s stiffed countless businesses, small and large; he’s been sued by his own lawyers for non-payment. Character: he behaves like a child, ’nuff said. Corruption: his daddy illegally bailed him out of a financial jam; Trump’s foundation makes the Clintons’ look legit by comparison.”

#30 Comment By William Burns On October 30, 2016 @ 12:00 pm

Considering that Trump has already accused Paul Ryan of being a secret Hillary supporter, I wouldn’t assume that everything would be sweetness and light between President Trump and a Republican Congress.

#31 Comment By Bruce B On October 30, 2016 @ 12:23 pm

While everyone is abuzz about Anthony Weiner’s computer, all those emails and the reopening of the FBI’s “investigation” (cough-cough), I think the real bombshells may be coming in the following week from Wikileaks. We shall see.

#32 Comment By Egypt Steve On October 30, 2016 @ 12:52 pm

The “cloud” is one the gas-bags on the right have spent 30 years emitting. They establish a phony “pattern” — Vince Foster, File Gate, Travel Gate, White Water — and then they can claim that any actual transgressions are greatly amplified because the Clintons are “always” doing stuff like that.

So far, the new email brouhaha looks more like a part of the fake “pattern” than any real scandal — all reports suggest that Comey hasn’t even read them yet, and there’s no reliable information yet that this is anything new. Yet already they’re being “Trump”eted as more “proof” that the Clintons are “always” up to no good. Hah.

#33 Comment By Brendan Sexton On October 30, 2016 @ 8:30 pm

I think the Republicans (and PJB among them) have put themselves in an awful place: so many accusations have now been thrown at Clinton, and so many of them bogus or half-bogus, that any genuine opposition is thrown in with the rest and it all comes out smelling like propaganda.

In America we con’t allow our police agencies to play politics–and for the very best of reasons. Comey’s actions are inexcusable in a Director of the country’s criminal investigation agency. Inexcusable, and many protocols and traditions have been established to avoid just this. How will he be believed if now something real against HRC comes from his desk? I, for one, will not listen. I can’t be the only one.

#34 Comment By william On October 31, 2016 @ 1:01 am

Yep, the only consolation from a Hillary victory would be that her actual presidency would be so mired in scandal after scandal that no one would really take her seriously.

Still praying for a Trump victory though.Meanwhile, this song keeps running through my head: [4]

#35 Comment By Anonymous On October 31, 2016 @ 10:12 am

@KD Impeached women and corrupt-to-the-back-teeth foundations. The US is beginning to look like Brazil.

#36 Comment By Kurt Gayle On October 31, 2016 @ 1:30 pm

Brendan Sexton makes a valid point: “In America we can’t allow our police agencies to play politics…”

“Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton meet in Phoenix,” ABC15 Arizona, June 29, 2016:

#37 Comment By lcw On November 1, 2016 @ 7:38 am

“I wish Al Gore had been willing to run again.”
The Lord Jesus will receive the same treatment from the Republican Congress as Obama and Clinton did. Not to say that the Democrats will act differently if the shoe was on the other foot.

#38 Comment By FL Transplant On November 1, 2016 @ 12:09 pm

You could take this article and subs”Trump” for “Clinton” and you’d still need to up the gain about 30% for it to be correct.

Trump “would enter office as the least-admired president in history, without a vision or a mandate. [S]he would take office with [over ]two-thirds of the nation believing [s]he is untruthful and untrustworthy’ as an easy example.

And why would Democrats cooperate with Trump? Boehner and McConnell were more than fine on taking every opportunity to obstruct ObamA. Why wouldn’t Democrats return the favor? Is it because deep down inside you believe that Democrats are more willing to work for the good of the country instead of making every action about obstructing the President, different than the Republicans acted for the past four years?