Editors' Note: Once again, you, the reader of the Spy, will be privileged to partake of the lapidary insights of our peerless political prognosticator, David Bloviator, who has been covering elections for us since the Stassen campaign. As you might imagine, over the decades he's worked up a huge bar tab [Surely, base of expertise? – Ed.] and he is once again willing to share it with you [The expertise or the bar tab? – Ed.] from his listening stool [Surely, post? – Ed.] at the National Press Club.
DB: Yes it is. Say, you aren't one of those young whippersnappers they send out to baby-sit me. Don't I recognize you?
 |
| The great pundit shares his wisdom with you, the simple reader |
DB: God, man, can't you hold a job? Or at least a Scotch. Be a good man and get us a couple of double Chivas-rocks, would you?
TMS: Consider it done.
DB: Ah, that was a good start. How about another round before the dusty work of political prognosticating?
TMS: It's the Spy's money.
DB: I like the cut of your jib, old timer.
TMS: Now perhaps we could get down to business. The Democratic field is already growing crowded. Who do you see as the favorites?
DB: The Democrats must chose a candidate who appeals to anti-Trump Republicans.
TMS: Why?
DB: My God man they represent a huge majority. Everyone I meet in Washington falls into that category. Just last week I gave a lecture at the Bloomberg Institute for Rousting Uppity Negroes and they packed the place.
TMS: You are aware that outside the narrow bounds of the Washington punditocracy, they represent almost no one in the electorate?
DB: That's not what my good friend Howard Schultz said when he treated me to a 40 ounce tenderloin at Morton's last week.
TMS: It's true. Only about 6% of the electorate regards itself as socially liberal and economically conservative.
DB: But Democrats must avoid candidates who are too shrill or who are carrying too much baggage.
TMS: You mean women.
DB: Now don't you go getting me into trouble again, you old fox. The electorate is ready for a woman president. As long as she sounds like a man.
TMS: What do you see as the strengths and weaknesses of the women in the Democratic field? Let's start with Elizabeth Warren.
DB: Well, you have to admit she's on the warpath. She keeps stumbling over her claim of Native American heritage.
TMS: But she has Native America heritage.
DB: That's not the point. The point is the emanations, the shadows, the questions of how she's handling it, and when it comes to all that she's pretty much scalped herself.
TMS: Isn't that what people said about Hillary Clinton and her emails?
DB: And look what happened to her. I rest my glass. Now fill it up.
TMS: Cheers. [sound of glasses clinking] How about Kamala Harris?
DB: She comes across as too leftist. Also she has a problem because she is perceived as too tough on crime.
TMS: How can you be both too far left and too hard on crime?
DB: You tell me but she's doing it.
TMS: Doesn't she have great appeal to the progressive base of the Democratic Party, especially women of color?
DB: Now you're playing identity politics again.
TMS: Why is it when a candidate of color emphasizes the need to correct historic injustices to persons of color, that's playing identity politics, but when a white male Republican rubbishes everyone who isn't a rich white man, that's populism?
 |
| Who will win the favor of anti-Trump Republicans? |
TMS: You mean white Americans?
DB: Of course. Who else is there?
TMS: Perhaps you've forgotten. Let's move on to a recent entrant in the race, Minnesota's Amy Klobuchar. She seems to be positioning herself more towards the center.
DB: She does appeal to the moderate center, but she is going to have to avoid taking unpopular positions to appease the loony socialists on the Democratic left.
TMS: You mean positions like raising the marginal tax rate on income in excess of $10 million to 70%?
DB: That's right. These extremist positions will be rejected by the electorate.
TMS: Actually, polling shows that increasing taxes on the super rich is extremely popular.
DB: I wouldn't worry about that. I was invited to attend a weekend open bar, um, forum at the Koch Institute for the Glorification of Greed and they said that after they spend $50,000,000 of dark money, no one would dare vote to confiscate the hard-inherited wealth of the ultra-rich.
TMS: Speaking of which, are you concerned about the effect of money on politics?
DB: Not as much as I am about the effect of money on Scotch. Now get me another double, lad. [Sound of corpulent figure falling off a barstool and glass shattering, followed by indistinct moaning].
TMS: Maybe it's time to say Thank You, Mr. Bloviator.
No comments:
Post a Comment