Tinkerbell Hell

Donald Trump is a gross, malicious Tinkerbell that we clapped into existence.

I believed that on his election night one year ago, and I still believe it.Trumpers

By “we,” I mean Americans who are sick of democracy because they never seem to get anywhere with it, except when they fall behind. They want to impose their will for once – and, in fact, feel entitled to do so. The Confederate statues and all the rest of it belong to them after all.

Philosopher Jose Ortega y Gasset wrote about them as the Mass Man in The Revolt of the Masses in 1930.

“Once for all, he accepts the stock of commonplaces, prejudices, fag-ends of ideas or simply empty words which chance has piled up within his mind, and with a boldness only explicable by his ingenuousness, is prepared to impose them. [This is] the characteristic of our time; not that the vulgar believes itself super-excellent and not vulgar, but that the vulgar proclaims and imposes the rights of vulgarity, or vulgarity as a right.”

When Mass Man sets up Facebook and Twitter accounts, well, you know…

“We” also includes the meritocrats, free-market absolutists, technologists, and their promoters and apologists, all of whom are sick of hearing the dummies whine about losing their livelihoods to improved productivity. They shrug off the economic and social displacement of these workers, or they jeer. Learn to code, for Christ’s sake. Then, when their anger and resentment boils down to a reduction of racism, xenophobia, and proud know-nothingism, the elites tell each other, This is why we wrote them off.

We are the authors of this catastrophe. Donald Trump is just the character we wrote in to keep our plot moving along.

You’re Better Than the President. Act Like It.

Dear Progressive Social-Media Friends,

I say this out of love: The overwhelming majority of you have not had a single original thought about Trump or his particular brand of evil.

Which is fine. How often does anybody have an original thought about anything? The problem here is that hasn’t stopped you from taking insights you must know have been expressed a gazillion times already, and running with them as if what you’re saying will blow minds.

Donald-Trump-laughing-200x200
The president gloating over how progressives are reacting to his awfulness

You seem to regard this as your sacred duty. If you do not personally “call out” Trump for whatever vile thing he tweeted at 4 a.m. over his crumpled Hustler and empty Old-Fashioned Vanilla quart container, you will have let him carry the day and push us a little closer to Nazism or Ayn Rand’s raunchiest sex dream or whatever.

If I’m wrong and you have thought something new about the guy, maybe you smudged up its finer points in your online outrage. Same difference.

Friends, you are not freedom fighters. Your cleverly-worded tweets aren’t pretty much the same thing as well-aimed bricks. Don’t think of your Facebook posts as IEDs.

Also, expressing something that nearly everyone you’re addressing already agrees with, but expressing it emphatically, with a hard defensive edge — that’s just bad writing.

Finally, not contributing to the angry noise on the left isn’t the same as giving in to despair. And it’s not the same as looking away when they come for your co-worker, then your grocer, then your neighbor.

You’re allowing Trump to drive you crazy the way so many of our conservative friends lost it over President Obama. Just seven months into this nightmare, you and your politics are already turning shrill and reflexive.

At every level of government, progressive politicans are at their most creative and passionate when they’re hammering out statements of outrage and condemnation. How much longer before, like the GOP, they give up on the idea of governing, by which I mean enacting policies that benefit large numbers of people? How much longer before fights over symbols, gestures, and process are more important than substance?

Their tweets and yours are getting to be as bad as his.

Pull yourselves together, and clean yourselves up.

You’re better than the president of the United States. Act like it.

 

A Modest Proposal for the Texas Legislature’s Special Session

[The following post originally appeared on TribTalk.]

Gov. Greg Abbott’s agenda for the Texas Legislature’s special session next month looks a little light, so here are a few proposals he should add to his list.

  • Change the name of Welfare, Texas, for obvious reasons, to Self-Reliance. The town has had 137 years to adopt a better name, but has failed to act. You know why? Because it’s lazy.
  • Require women seeking abortions to write letters of explanation to their fetuses, and to read them out loud.
  • Shut down zoos’ pro-homosexual agendas in Texas. Most people aren’t aware, for example, that politically correct zookeepers at the San Antonio Zoo are housing three adult female elephants together — without any males. How much longer can these elephants remain just friends?
  • Initiate a state takeover of Texas pawn shops, auto-title and payday loan companies, and plasma centers— the components of our state’s robust poverty industry. Use the profits to fund property tax cuts. In years in which property values go crazy, lawmakers can provide additional relief by raising the interest rates on the state’s customers and maybe trimming what it pays for plasma.

The first three items are straightforward. If our lawmakers can’t agree that the name Welfare is a hideous coffee stain on our state map, that fetuses are owed an explanation or at least a heads-up, and that our zoo animals shouldn’t be forced to be gay, we are lost — with a capital L.

My fourth proposal, however, is going to take some work. It’s visionary, though it does kind of pick up where the Texas Lottery leaves off. And like anything that tosses out the old thinking, it will be wildly controversial.

There’s no getting around the fact this would be a huge government intrusion into the free market. But we have an opportunity here to finally deliver real relief to Texas taxpayers and to adequately fund public education, including any future school-voucher program. All we have to do is get up the gumption to take this step.

It’ll help to begin thinking about the poor and the working poor in two new ways.

  1. Poverty is a natural resource.
  2. We, the people who have given our consent to be governed by the State of Texas, have the strongest claims on the poor through our investments in welfare programs, Medicaid, and public schools.

As the private-sector poverty industry learned decades ago, Texas is a booming market. About 16 percent of our population lived below the poverty line in 2016, according to the Center for American Progress. That’s a ton of opportunity.

Just look at auto-title and payday loans. In 2015, Texas customers took out $1.7 billion in new loans, and refinanced $2.4 billion in debt, Texas Appleseed reported in January. They paid $1.58 in fees for every dollar they borrowed! And that’s just one part of the industry. Think about the lakes of plasma the poor sell every year, and all the iPads, laptops and jewelry they pawn.

Under my plan, profits from these businesses would flow to everyday Texans instead of corporations, most of which are smart enough to figure out other ways to make money.

The fate of my proposal will come down to whether our state lawmakers are willing to take bold, unprecedented action to finally lighten the little guy’s load. I have to say that under the inspired leadership of Gov. Abbott and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, I am extremely optimistic about our chances come July 18.

It’s the Name Recognition, Stupid

[EDITOR’S NOTE: The fake-named Felix Culpa, a frequent SanAntoniomizer contributor, wrote the following post partly in response to my masterful analysis of the June 10 runoff election in District 9.]

The local political commentariat was shocked – shocked! – by the election of John Courage as the District 9 city council member. District 9 is on the north-central part of the city; if you were aiming for it, you could use the intersection of Highway 281 and Loop 1604 as crosshairs. It’s an area that’s growing rapidly, and it’s chock full o’ Republicans.

Yet Courage, a well-known Democratic activist (and shopworn political candidate) sailed to a relatively easy victory in his runoff against local economic development official Marco Barros, who did not lack for conservative credentials.

This has the politicos baffled, and grasping for increasingly unlikely explanations. Have the demographics in the district undergone a seismic shift? Did San Antonio swing to the left overnight? Did the cabernet-sipping whities up on the North Side refuse to vote for a guy named “Barros” because they imagined him as a vato, cruising though their neighborhoods in a low-rider Impala?

Jesus, people. I don’t deny that any of those reasons may have played a small role in the election. But for real answers, maybe you should, I don’t know, ask someone who lives there.

I live in District 9, and I was not at all surprised that Courage won. Not because of my ideology (I’ll get to that in a minute) but because of his name recognition, such as it is.

Here’s a story I think is illustrative: In the general election, a jumble of candidates littered the ballot, and I had no idea who most of them were. I did know John Courage’s name – it’s easy to remember, and I recognized him as the token candidate that Democrats offer up from time to time in races (U.S. Congress, state legislature) they know a Republican will win. So I voted for him. And hey, guess what? He made the runoff.

Between the general election and the runoff, I lost track of who Courage was running against. But I didn’t lose track of Courage. He had yard signs all over the place. I’m an old man and I get my exercise by walking 5 miles all over the streets of District 9, and I couldn’t miss the cutesy  signs that read, “Drive Like Your Kids Live Here” with John Courage in smaller type below.

Who was his opponent? I had no idea. If that guy sent campaign info to my house, it didn’t register with me before it hit the recycling bin. If he knocked on doors on my street, it wasn’t when anyone in the Culpa household was home. If he left a door hanger, it blew away.

If he campaigned at all, in fact, that effort was completely lost on me. It shouldn’t have been – I voted in the 2016 Republican primary. My name and voter data were easily accessible. But no one from that side of the race asked me for my vote. Literally until the District 9 runoff ballot popped up on my voting machine, I would not have been able to tell you who John Courage was running against.

I almost didn’t vote in the runoff; I didn’t like either mayoral candidate. But I did think it would be awesome if a liberal were elected in the Trumpistan that is District 9. So I zipped over to Bradley Middle School, where I was greeted by a coterie of perky Courage volunteers. “We’d like to ask for your support of John Courage!” they enthused. “You already have it,” I told them. No one else was there. The other guy in the race, who I wouldn’t have been able to name if you paid me, sent nobody to greet voters on their way into my polling station.

So I fully expected Courage to win. It was very easy to vote for him, even if (as I hinted earlier) I weren’t ideologically predisposed to vote for him anyway.

And boy, was I. When the gentleman whose glowering mug looms over this blog expressed his puzzlement at why Courage won, I offered him my top five reasons. Here they are, verbatim.

  1. Fuck you, Donald Trump.
  2. Gotta balance out having a religious nut as your mayor. Wait, she isn’t winning? Too late.
  3. The poor dumb bastard has been the Dems’ sacrificial goat in so many elections, it’s time he actually won something.
  4. The fact that I can’t remember the name of his opponent tells you something about how the right takes 9 for granted.
  5. Did I mention HEY TRUMP GO FUCK YOURSELF?

Thus: Even if you solve for ideology/protest votes and sympathy votes, name recognition and retail campaigning – not any of the racial, ethnic or other conspiracy theories – accounts for Courage’s “surprise” victory.

At least to me. But what do I know? I just live there.

A Little Courage and a Little Racially Polarized Voting

It feels rude to suggest racism — excuse me, racially polarized voting — played even a teensy role in John Courage’s shocking victory in District 9 on Saturday. It’s the kind of thing Squidward would say.

Nevertheless, racism, or RPV, did play at least a teensy role in Saturday’s outcome.

Squidward_Design_2
What I feel like when saying racism played a role in John Courage’s election in Council District 9

The reason writing that feels so douche-baggy is because progressives want it so badly to be true that District 9 is different now. They want it to be a new electoral front for their kind of candidates. Just check their Facebook and Twitter posts. To say RPV had a hand in the result is like telling your kid the tooth fairy died of complications from a venereal disease.

But, post-Hillary and post-post-Bernie, who can blame them for being so happy to have something to be happy about?

Progressives’ head rush is justified in that the most conservative district in San Antonio elected one of the most liberal candidates running this year for any City Council seat. To say Courage’s win was unexpected would be a big understatement.

Democrats and independents strongly suspect it came down to President Trump and the way he’s warped our politics top to bottom. To easily excited lefties, Courage’s victory feels transformational. Jeez, Bernie Sanders gave Courage a shout-out before Election Day — and he won!

I suspect the less caffeinated Courage voters are like my friend Felix Culpa, a SanAntoniomizer contributor who is fake-named for the famous Roman Republic stripper. Felix listed his reasons for voting for Courage in a text message: “1. Fuck you, Donald Trump.”

Anger at a sleazy, historically ineffective and disliked president doesn’t sound to me like the makings of a real realignment on San Antonio’s North Side.

Apart from the Trump factor, I’m sure Courage’s campaign team would say they ran a masterful ground game, and maybe they did. Just like all winning campaigns, and a surprising number of losing campaigns, ran masterful ground games. (Side note: I was the spokesman for Mayor Ivy Taylor’s re-election campaign, which was flawless, the 10-point loss notwithstanding.)

All of that said, I’d like to make a few observations.

  1. I worked in the City Council District 9 office for nearly two years, until April 30. Please trust me when I tell you that, judging from the email and phone calls the office received from constituents, the district did not become any less conservative during my time there. Many of them worried about the onslaught of undocumented immigrants and whether San Antonio was really a “sanctuary city” but was just being low-key about it. These preoccupations only intensified with the show-me-your-papers S.B. 4 in the recent Legislature.
  2. Marco Barros made no bones about his conservatism. He said all the right things to get elected in District 9, and his campaign had the money to make sure voters heard every word.
  3. Look at the “under vote” in the District 9 election — 799. That means nearly 800 voters walked into their polling sites, voted for mayor, and then, when it came time to choose a councilman, they said, “No thanks.”

Bear with me here.

So, Barros was the clearly identified, lone conservative in this race. And it’s not like Courage ran a Trojan Horse campaign. He focused on the basics — city services, streets, drainage, etc. — but he never hid the fact that he’d run as a Democrat against Republican incumbents in the Texas Senate and Congress. In fact, other Democrats look at Courage and whisper admiringly among themselves, “Wow, kinda libby, right?”

So given the unmistakable choice between a liberal and a conservative, 800 voters said nah, and 8,489 others picked Courage (52.65 percent) over Barros (47.35 percent, or 7,633).

The limb I’m about to go out on is wide enough for a pup tent, a couple of folding chairs, and a gas grill.

With everybody still sweaty from the S.B. 4 fight — coupled with District 9 voters having elected only one minority candidate in our city’s modern history (Elisa Chan, not Elise Sanchez) — Barros was running in part against his surname. And he lost.

 

 

What’s the Matter with Trump’s Biz Supporters? — a Two-Part Tantrum

PART ONE

I hated What’s the Matter with Kansas?

It’s a book about why everyday Kansans voted for right-wingers who thrilled them with attacks on abortion rights, for example, but then screwed them with economic policies that decimated the middle class. It was wildly popular among lefties when it was published in 2004, and still comes up when the subject is values versus economic self-interest.

Thomas Frank, a liberal journalist and the book’s author, portrayed voters who have religious values and act on them as stooges, easily taken in by nefarious free-marketeers. He saw it as nothing more than a bait-and-switch for dummies: you buy Old Testament fundamentalism and everything that follows from that, but receive the new religion of unfettered global trade.

Frank refused to acknowledge even the possibility that moral values matter greatly to many voters, sometimes more than how a candidate might hurt or help their financial well-being in the long run.

Progressives are still generally terrible about addressing voters’ values. They’re like a lawmaker who makes a well-reasoned, fact-filled argument for his bill, thinks that’s sufficient to win votes, and is shocked when the measure goes down in flames. He didn’t appeal to hearts, and he didn’t bother to press the flesh and build support.

Is it really that hard to make a case for taking care of the least among us, and that kind of stuff? In a way that grabs voters?

Frank is a native Kansan who managed to write a book about his home state like a New York liberal who thinks of most of the country as “fly-over states.”

So eff you, Thomas Frank.

PART TWO

And yet

His book came to mind when I read in the Express-News that Donald Trump will return to San Antonio for a high-dollar fundraiser at the Grand Hyatt downtown on October 11.

I think about the wealthy donors who will show up for the event like Frank thinks of those poor Kansans. What dupes. They’ll cut checks for a candidate they know is hostile to free trade and their economic interests.

We are way past the point where anybody can reasonably say Trump is dumping on trade agreements only to appeal to the pissed-off middle class — that once he’s in the Oval Office, it’ll be business as usual. No. He intends to trash or rewrite NAFTA. Really truly.

trump-laughing
Trump laughing malevolently

That has to be a big concern for San Antonio and South Texas businesses. It’s certainly a threat to jobs and the regional economy.

Among U.S. metro areas, the San Antonio MSA is the 21st largest exporter, according to the International Trade Administration, an arm of the U.S. Commerce Department. Companies in the area exported $16 billion worth of goods and services in 2015. About three-quarters of those sales were made to countries covered by free-trade agreements with the United States.

San Antonio’s biggest trading partners, by a mile or two, were Canada ($5.1 billion in sales) and Mexico ($3.9 billion). You may recognize them as NAFTA countries.

So, what the hell, donors?

They’re certainly not responding to Trump’s moral outlook, which he cobbles together before talking to religious audiences, trying to remember what he said the last time. He speaks religion as convincingly as he appeals to African Americans.

Is it Trump’s other values that attract business donors? The demonization of immigrants from Mexico and Muslims? The disdain for women?

Or are they — like many of Trump’s hardcore supporters — demoralized, ground down by globalism? By years of stagnant wages and exploding health-care costs? Is death their retirement plan?

Think I’ll just put that down as a “no.”

So, what is Trump’s appeal?

Maybe it’s his commitment to cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans. Or maybe it’s his desire to slash regulations on environmental protection, banking and finance, and workplace protections.

Maybe both.

As I end this post, I just want to point out how much restraint and good taste I’m showing in not saying that for these donors, economic self-interest trumps values.

You’re welcome.

 

GOP, Here’s How to Derail the Trump Crazy Train

[Editor’s note: Once again, the following post comes to SanAntoniomizer from Felix Culpa. The person is real, but the name is fake, obviously. It’s the blogger equivalent of a stripper’s stage name. Felix is an executive at a San Antonio company we’d all recognize.]

 

If you’re a sensible, clear-thinking Republican, the events of late July-early August should have made it clear to you that Donald Trump’s candidacy is doing more harm than good to the health of your party.

Pick any of the following: Trump called on Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails, continued to trade barbs with Ted Cruz mere hours after preaching party unity, wondered aloud why we aren’t eager to use nuclear weapons, and doubled down on his pissing contest with the parents of a dead Army captain. All while squandering chances to nail Hillary on the lackluster economy.crazy train

Any of those should have convinced you that Trump is tipping over the port-a-john while you’re still inside, and the stench will only get worse if he somehow manages to win in November.

Because, ironically, a Trump victory isn’t the best-case scenario for you, given that he’s not exactly a standard-bearer for your ideals and that the voters he attracts won’t support your down-ballot congressional or gubernatorial races.

No, the best-case scenario for Republicans is a Trump loss, while still holding on to both houses of Congress and a majority of the governorships. That way, you get to flush the crazy from your system while still limiting the damage from a Hillary Clinton administration, and it gives you four years to come up with some Debbie Wasserman-Schultzish skullduggery to quash the demagogues emerging from the Tea Party you’ve been brewing up the past decade.

But how to finesse an outcome to keep Trump’s short, vulgar fingers off the nuclear codes while still turning out the Republican faithful for the other races?

You have to find someone from the party’s brainpower to run as an independent against Trump.

If the race remains a Trump-Clinton dichotomy, you run the risk of smart Republicans staying home on Election Day. But if you give voters a third choice, it would quash the Trump demagoguery while boosting turnout for down-ballot races.

It would have to be done strategically. You’d want someone who can siphon off at least one key state from Trump’s Electoral College tally. Florida, Ohio, or Pennsylvania should do it. It would be great if you could knock Texas off the list, but to do that you’d need Ted Cruz to jump back in, and he isn’t about to do that.

You’re sacrificing a lamb here. He/she has to be someone with big enough name recognition and respect to attract people, but also someone who has no ambition to ever run again, and doesn’t mind being a pariah to the nutjobs who infect your party’s base.

Because, let’s face it, if you aren’t having a crisis of conscience now, you must not have a conscience. You certainly have a crisis.

So who? It’s too bad Arlen Specter is four years dead, because he’d be just about perfect. John Kasich could tip Ohio for you, but he probably wants to run again. Jeb Bush could deliver Florida, but would he do it? Maybe Mitt Romney? John McCain?

It’s really for you to decide, not me. Maybe you could cut a back-room deal with Hillary – you know, we’ll botch Trump for you, you put someone acceptable on the Supreme Court, that kind of thing.

Just do it quick. Your lamb has to be in the race by Labor Day to get on the ballots and have a chance of derailing the Trump crazy train.

If you’re a sensible, clear-thinking Republican, the events of late July-early August should have made it clear to you that Donald Trump’s candidacy is doing more harm than good to the health of your party.

Pick any of the following: Trump called on Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails, continued to trade barbs with Ted Cruz mere hours after preaching party unity, wondered aloud why we aren’t eager to use nuclear weapons, and doubled down on his pissing contest with the parents of a dead Army captain. All while squandering chances to nail Hillary on the lackluster economy.

Any of those should have convinced you that Trump is tipping over the port-a-john while you’re still inside.

The stench will only get worse if he somehow manages to win in November.

Because, ironically, a Trump victory isn’t the best-case scenario for you, given that he’s not exactly a standard-bearer for your ideals and that the voters he attracts won’t support your down-ballot congressional or gubernatorial races.

No, the best-case scenario for Republicans is a Trump loss, while still holding on to both houses of Congress and a majority of the governorships. That way, you get to flush the crazy from your system while still limiting the damage from a Hillary Clinton administration, and it gives you four years to come up with some Debbie Wasserman-Schultzish skullduggery to quash the demagogues emerging from the Tea Party you’ve been brewing up the past decade.

But how to finesse an outcome to keep Trump’s short, vulgar fingers off the nuclear codes while still turning out the Republican faithful for the other races?

You have to find someone from the party’s brainpower to run as an independent against Trump.

If the race remains a Trump-Clinton dichotomy, you run the risk of smart Republicans staying home on Election Day. But if you give voters a third choice, it would quash the Trump demagoguery while boosting turnout for down-ballot races.

It would have to be done strategically. You’d want someone who can siphon off at least one key state from Trump’s Electoral College tally. Florida, Ohio or Pennsylvania should do it. It would be great if you could knock Texas off the list, but to do that you’d need Ted Cruz to jump back in, and he isn’t about to do that.

You’re sacrificing a lamb here. He/she has to be someone with big enough name recognition and respect to attract people, but also someone who has no ambition to ever run again, and doesn’t mind being a pariah to the nutjobs who infect your party’s base.

Because, let’s face it, if you aren’t having a crisis of conscience now, you must not have a conscience. You certainly have a crisis.

So who? It’s too bad Arlen Specter is four years dead, because he’d be just about perfect. John Kasich could tip Ohio for you, but he probably wants to run again. Jeb Bush could deliver Florida, but would he do it? Maybe Mitt Romney? John McCain?

It’s really for you to decide, not me. Maybe you could cut a back-room deal with Hillary – you know, we’ll botch Trump for you, you put someone acceptable on the Supreme Court, that kind of thing.

Just do it quick. Your lamb has to be in the race by Labor Day to get on the ballots and have a chance of derailing the Trump crazy train.

If you’re a sensible, clear-thinking Republican, the events of late July-early August should have made it clear to you that Donald Trump’s candidacy is doing more harm than good to the health of your party.

Pick any of the following: Trump called on Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails, continued to trade barbs with Ted Cruz mere hours after preaching party unity, wondered aloud why we aren’t eager to use nuclear weapons, doubled down on his pissing contest with the parents of a dead Army captain. All while squandering chances to nail Hillary on the lackluster economy.

Any of those should have convinced you that Trump is tipping over the port-a-john while you’re still inside.

The stench will only get worse if he somehow manages to win in November.

Because, ironically, a Trump victory isn’t the best-case scenario for you, given that he’s not exactly a standard-bearer for your ideals. And there’s this — the voters he attracts won’t support your down-ballot candidates in congressional or gubernatorial races.

No, the best-case scenario for Republicans is a Trump loss, while still holding on to both houses of Congress and a majority of the governorships. That way, you get to flush the crazy from your system while still limiting the damage from a Hillary Clinton administration, and it gives you four years to come up with some Debbie Wasserman-Schultzish skullduggery to quash the demagogues emerging from the Tea Party you’ve been brewing up the past decade.

But how to finesse an outcome that keeps Trump’s short, vulgar fingers off the nuclear codes while still turning out the Republican faithful for the other races?

You have to find someone from the party’s brainpower to run as an independent against Trump.

If the race remains a Trump-Clinton dichotomy, you run the risk of smart Republicans staying home on Election Day. But if you give these voters a third choice, it would quash the Trump demagoguery while boosting turnout for down-ballot races.

It would have to be done strategically. You’d want someone who can siphon off at least one key state from Trump’s Electoral College tally. Florida, Ohio, or Pennsylvania should do it. It would be great if you could knock Texas off the list, but to do that you’d need Ted Cruz to jump back in, and he isn’t about to do that.

You’re sacrificing a lamb here. He/she has to be someone with big enough name recognition and respect to attract people, but also someone who has no ambition to ever run again, and who doesn’t mind being a pariah to the nutjobs who infect your party’s base.

Because, let’s face it, if you aren’t having a crisis of conscience now, you must not have a conscience. You certainly have a crisis.

So who? It’s too bad Arlen Specter is four years dead, because he’d be just about perfect. John Kasich could tip Ohio for you, but he probably wants to run again. Jeb Bush could deliver Florida, but would he do it? Maybe Mitt Romney? John McCain?

It’s really for you to decide, not me. Maybe you could cut a back-room deal with Hillary – you know, we’ll botch Trump for you, you put someone acceptable on the Supreme Court, that kind of thing.

Just do it quick. Your lamb has to be in the race by Labor Day to get on the ballots and have a chance of derailing the Trump crazy train.