It’s Wednesday, October 19th, 2016…and here’s a special Why The Donald, Despicable Though He Be, Constitutes The ONLY Hope For The Survival Of The Founders’ Constitutional Republic edition of The Gouge!

First up, writing at NRO, the great Victor Davis Hanson unequivocally and irrefutably makes…

The Case for Trump

Conservatives should vote for the Republican nominee.

Trump is the worst choice…except for all the others!

“…Those who are soured on Trump certainly can cite lots of understandable reasons for their distaste — well beyond his sometimes grating reality-television personality. In over-dramatic fashion, some Against Trumpers invoke William F. Buckley Jr.’s ostracism of John Birchers from conservative circles as a model for dealing with perceived Trump vulgarity. He is damned as an opportunistic chameleon, not a true conservative. Trump’s personal and professional life has been lurid — as, again, we were reminded by the media-inspired release of a hot-mic tape of past Trump crude sexual braggadocio. The long campaigning has confirmed Trump as often uncouth — insensitive to women and minorities. He has never held office. His ignorance of politics often embarrasses those in foreign- and domestic-policy circles. Trump’s temperament is mercurial, especially in its ego-driven obsessions with slights to his business ethics and acumen. He wins back supporters by temporary bouts of steadiness as his polls surge, only to alienate them again with crazy nocturnal tweets and off-topic rants — as his popularity then again dips. He seems to battle as much with GOP stalwarts as Clintonites, often, to be fair, in retaliation rather than in preemptory fashion.

…The counterarguments for voting Trump are by now also well known. The daily news — riot, terrorism, scandals, enemies on the move abroad, sluggish growth, and record debt — demands a candidate of change. The vote is not for purity of conservative thought, but for the candidate who is preferable to the alternative — and is also a somewhat rough form of adherence to the pragmatic Buckley dictate to prefer the most conservative candidate who can win. The issue, then, at this late date is not necessarily Trump per se, but the fact that he will bring into power far more conservatives than would Hillary Clinton. No one has made a successful argument to challenge that reality.

Nor is the election a choice even between four more years of liberalism and a return of conservatism; it’s an effort to halt the fundamental transformation of the country. A likely two-term Clinton presidency would complete a 16-year institutionalization of serial progressive abuse of the Constitution, outdoing even the twelve years of the imperial Roosevelt administration. The WikiLeaks revelations suggest an emboldened Hillary Clinton, who feels that a 2016 victory will reify her utopian dreams of a new intercontinental America of open borders and open markets, from Chile to Alaska, in the manner of the European Union expanse from the Aegean to the Baltic.

The tu quoque argument suggests that Trump’s rhetorical excesses — media obsessions aside — are unfortunately not all that different from those of Obama and Hillary about the “clingers” and the “deplorables.” Name a Trump cruelty or idiocy — unfamiliarity with the political discourse, ethnic insensitivity, cluelessness about the world abroad — and parallels abound, from Obama’s mispronunciation of “corpsman” as “corpse-man,” his mocking of the Special Olympics, and his remark about “punish[ing] our enemies” to Hillary’s statement that believing David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker required a “suspension of disbelief,” her “what difference does it make?” glibness about the Benghazi attack, and her past pandering to “white Americans.” And these Democrats’ frauds — from the Tony Rezko sweetheart lot deal with Obama to Hillary’s $100,000 profiteering in cattle futures — are even more banal grifting than Trump steaks and Trump vodka.

Had anyone else in government set up a private e-mail server, sent and received classified information on it, deleted over 30,000 e-mails, ordered subordinates to circumvent court and congressional orders to produce documents, and serially and publicly lied to the American people about the scandal, that person would surely be in jail. The Clinton Foundation is like no other president-sponsored nonprofit enterprise in recent memory — offering a clearing house for Clinton-family jet travel and sinecures for Clintonite operatives between Clinton elections. Hillary Clinton allotted chunks of her time as secretary of state to the largest Clinton Foundation donors. Almost every assistant whom she has suborned has taken the Fifth Amendment, in Lois Lerner fashion. The problems with Trump University are dwarfed by for-profit Laureate University, whose “Chancellor,” Bill Clinton, garnered $17.6 million in fees from the college and its affiliates over five years — often by cementing the often financially troubled international enterprise’s relationship with Hillary Clinton’s State Department. Collate what Hillary Clinton in the past has said about victims of Bill Clinton’s alleged sexual assaults, or reread some of the racier sections of Dreams From My Father, and it is hard to argue that Trump is beyond the pale in terms of contemporary culture.

…We worry about what Citizen Trump did in the past in the private sector and fret more over what he might do as commander-in-chief. But these legitimate anxieties remain in the subjunctive mood; they are not facts in the indicative gleaned from Clinton’s long public record. As voters, we can only compare the respective Clinton and Trump published agendas on illegal immigration, taxes, regulation, defense spending, the Affordable Care Act, abortion, and other social issues to conclude that Trump’s platform is the far more conservative — and a rebuke of the last eight years. There is a reason the politicized media — from biased debate moderators to New York Times reporters who seek to pass muster in the Clinton team’s eyes before publishing their puff pieces — have gone haywire over Trump.

…The ancient idea of tragic irony can sometimes be described as an outcome unfortunately contrary to what should have been expected. Many of us did not vote in the primaries for Trump, because we did not believe that he was sufficiently conservative or, given his polarizing demeanor, that he could win the presidency even if he were.

The irony is now upon us that Trump may have been the most conservative Republican candidate who still could beat Hillary Clinton — and that if he were to win, he might usher in the most conservative Congress, presidency, and Supreme Court in nearly a century.“

We’re curious: would the same principles-over-practicality NeverTrumpers advocate for the serial-rapist side of the Clinton Clan…

…were HE heading the Dimocratic ticket?!?

Second, courtesy of the WSJ, David Gelernter relates reality in writing…

Trump and the Emasculated Voter

There’s only one way to protect the nation from Hillary Clinton, and that is to vote for Donald Trump.

“Some conservatives have watched their evaluations of Donald Trump’s character drop so low in recent days that on this vital question they no longer see a choice between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Accordingly, they are forced back onto politics and policy; and naturally Mr. Trump wins in a walk. If conservatives who argue that Mr. Trump is worse than Mrs. Clinton had a case, it would be a relief to vote for Mrs. Clinton or for no one. But they don’t, and one is therefore forced for the good of the nation to vote for Mr. Trump.

In his Mr. Nauseating video of last weekend, Mr. Trump showed us that he had all the class and cool of a misbegotten 12-year-old boy. Yet the video taught us nothing; no one had ever mistaken him for anything but an infantile vulgarian. This week’s allegations of actual abuse are different. If these stories are true (and I don’t know why they shouldn’t be), there is nothing to be said for Mr. Trump. Unfortunately, there is nothing to be said for Mrs. Clinton either. If we don’t take both facts into account, we are not morally serious.

Mrs. Clinton has nothing on Mr. Trump when it comes to character. She lies (“Wipe? Like with a cloth?”—cute and charming Mrs. C.) the way basketball stars shoot baskets—constantly, nonstop, because it’s the one thing she is best at and (naturally) it gives her pleasure to hear herself lie—swish!—right onto the evening news. And her specialist talent of all is the verbal kick in the groin of a Secret Service man or state trooper who has the nerve to talk to her as if she were merely human. She is no mere rock star; she is Hillary the Queen. She is so big, and you are so small, she can barely even see you from up there. What are you? A macromolecule?

I’ll vote for Mr. Trump—grimly. But there is no alternative, no shadow of a responsible alternative…”

As will we…though likely holding our nose as we do it.

Which brings us to Exhibit C, as John O’Sullivan, also writing at NRO, sums up the most convincing argument, which we’ve made repeatedly, as to why The Donald’s the worst choice…except for all the others:

If Politicians Were Rational Beings, Here’s What Trump and the GOP Would Do

Rational self-interest would counsel very different courses for Trump and establishment Republicans than they have taken so far.

“…“If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him,” said Richelieu. Hillary, John Podesta, and the various campaign dweebs who labor in the vineyard of policy analysis should be feeling very chancy around the collar just now. Even if Hillary survives, or especially if she survives, they may not. For they have written quite enough to meet the hangman in any normal election year.

Assuming she does survive, the lessons of rational self-interest for Hillary are: 1) Don’t expect other people to protect your secrets with the same degree of vigilance that you would. 2) When protecting your own secrets next time, find a way of doing so that isn’t felonious. 3) Lie less — and sleep easier.

But the rest of us can be grateful that the Clinton campaign’s bad security has confirmed it really is the kind of coldhearted elitist project that despises even the constituencies it affects to champion. Obligingly, they’ve warned us.

Where does all this leave the rationally self-interested voter? Well, I am assuming that none of the politicians would adopt the rationally self-interested approaches I recommend. Faced as the voters would be with two morally compromised candidates, therefore, they should ask themselves two questions: First, which candidate has the better policies? Second, which candidate represents a greater danger to the Republic?

The answer to the first is so obvious that I won’t bother to make the case for it. Trump has better policies than Clinton and, indeed, better policies than some Republicans.

The second question is one I have answered before on NRO, and I don’t think I can improve on that reply. It goes as follows:

It seems to me that when we break this question down, it is a choice between an evil that is erratic, inexperienced, reliant on fragile media connections to its largely humble supporters, lacking in intellectual, bureaucratic, and media firepower, and opposed by almost all the major institutions of modern society, and an evil that is remorseless, experienced, reliant on influential power networks going deep at home and abroad, able to call on people of high ability at all levels, and supported by most modern social institutions. Moreover, the U.S. Constitution was written more or less explicitly (as several anti-Trump dissidents have pointed out) to restrain, control, and frustrate the kind of open risks that a demagogue like Trump poses. Yet one cannot ignore the fact that it has been successfully perverted into a channel for the hidden dangers of the administrative state that Hillary Clinton persuasively represents.

One might sum up the differences between them as follows. Both aspire to follow America’s first Black president who as such is the least impeachable president in U.S. history. As America’s first woman president, Mrs. Clinton would be only slightly more impeachable than Obama. Donald Trump, on the other hand, would be America’s most impeachable president before he set foot in the Oval Office. He would have the support of neither party in Congress, the hostility of the media, the opposition of corporate America, and the resistance of the bureaucracy. He would find himself blocked, on occasion rightly, every time he sought to challenge some established policy popular with Congress or the bureaucracy. However boldly he acted, he would soon become a byword for gridlock. And if he seriously rebelled against these limits out of frustration, he would risk constitutional punishment. That is why those Republicans advising a [then] possible Nominee Trump must ensure that his vice-presidential running mate is a sound conservative of standing and ability. It may be the most important decision of the campaign. (Thank HEAVEN for Mike Pence!!!)

And Hillary Clinton? All that she need do to propel America still further towards an oppressive bureaucratic future is to go with the flow. Alas, she would do a great deal more than that.”

That seems to me to make the case for voting unenthusiastically for Trump.

I realize that this argument will make me a target of the cruel mockery of those like my old friend Pete Wehner, who think that “Vote first, Impeach later” is the reduction ad absurdum of Trumpery. Maybe. But is it worse than a policy of standing morally aloof and acquiescing in the election of the Unimpeachable Hillary?

For that certainly doesn’t seem an example of rational self-interest.“

To which we can only add a hearty “AMEN“!!!

In all seriousness, is there really any choice?!?  Can one seriously compare what are Hillary’s stated policies, based on years of her actual actions, with undefined fears of what The Donald might do?!?

C’mon, NeverTrumpers; as Sergeant Al Powell quipped to Deputy Chief Dwayne T. Robinson, “Why don’t you wake up and smell what you’re shoveling?!?”

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, also courtesy of the WSJ, Holman Jenkins details how the would-be leader of The Gang Who May NEVER Learn How To Shoot Straight, despite a perhaps never-to-be-seen-again target-rich environment, STILL can’t keep his eye on the prize:

‘Rigged’ Was Hillary Clinton’s FBI Case

Democrats are lucky in Trump but the scandal will follow her to the White House.

Donald Trump probably is not helping his cause much with his conspiracy-mongering about a “rigged” election but Democrats should be thankful for small favors.

Mr. Trump lacks message discipline. (Not to mention discipline of almost ever other variety as well!) Instead of scattershot claims that the race is being manipulated, wild conspiracy theories about ballot box-stuffing, which both parties and Americans of decency and goodwill strongly refute, he might be focusing laser-like on the “rigged” argument that nobody can confidently refute.

That’s the argument (irrefutable argument!) that Hillary Clinton is her party’s nominee and on her way to the White House only because the Obama administration decided to waive the law on handling classified material—and the FBI went along—in order to assure that its designated heiress would succeed to the presidency.

Google says the question “is Trump trying to lose?” has skyrocketed in popularity in the last few days. Mr. Trump is perhaps willing to be president but hasn’t been willing to do what was necessary to win. He never seriously tried to expand beyond his core support. He never wanted to spend the money, especially on TV advertising, that would be needed to do so.

If, in a deeper realism, he suspected that something like the Billy Bush tape was always going to stand in his way, he was rational to limit his financial risk—though he did the country no favor by accepting the nomination. (Like Trump cares!!!) In any case, Mr. Trump is now behaving as we knew he would. The appeal of “rigged” is obvious. It’s an argument that can continue to be prosecuted on-air after Election Day. Mr. Trump need not, as losing candidates do, concede defeat and disappear. His son-in-law, we’re told by the Financial Times this week, has already reached out to an investment banker about starting a Trump TV network after the election.

America, you’ve been played.

If today’s Democratic campaign were being fought against a generic Republican without Mr. Trump’s distinct qualities and history, here’s what would dominate the news:

Mrs. Clinton was verbally convicted by the FBI chief for mishandling classified information yet somehow not formally charged.

Her aides were allowed to cut curious deals with FBI investigators that effectively swept under the rug any possible charges against them for obstruction or evidence tampering.

Those same aides have been revealed, through email leaks, to have freely mixed public and private interests, including their own and Clinton private interests, in the performance of jobs that, in some cases, saw them receiving salaries from the Clinton Foundation or the Clinton family even as they also worked for the taxpayer at the State Department.

The State Department itself, during Mrs. Clinton’s time as secretary, operated as an extension of the Clinton Foundation when it came to handling the requests and advancing the interests of important Clinton Foundation donors, some of which were foreign governments.

The latest email leak, likely at the hands of Russian hackers, shows the State Department negotiating with the FBI over the classification status of Mrs. Clinton’s private emails in search of reducing her legal jeopardy.

Here’s what we can expect after Election Day: Democrats will claim that a sweeping victory over Mr. Trump is a mandate for policies that were hardly talked about during a campaign focused on the shortcomings of Mr. Trump’s treatment of women. If Democrats don’t win the House, Mrs. Clinton will adopt President Obama’s strategy of aggressively using executive orders to expand Washington’s dominance of the private sector while painting Republicans as obstructionists.

Those who reason that Mrs. Clinton and House Speaker Paul Ryan have histories and temperaments suited to cooperation and see hope for bipartisan progress will be disappointed. Why? Because of the steady drip of email leaks. Because of new information challenging the quality and objectivity of the FBI investigation.

And a LYING weasel at THAT!!!

Mrs. Clinton, like Nixon in 1972, may not get a honeymoon no matter how big her win. The debate we aren’t having in the campaign, we will continue not to have: how to foster a modern state that doesn’t metastasize corruption, cronyism, elites helping themselves. There will be no bipartisan action on things that ail the American economy and hold back its growth. All of Washington will be enmeshed in a replay of the Watergate era, inward-looking, destructive, consumed with investigations and score-settling.

Of course, much will depend on how the vote for control of Congress goes, and whether Mrs. Clinton has an unsuspected gift for creative political leadership that somehow can give the GOP a stake in her success—as Mr. Obama so signally failed to do. Pleasant surprises are always possible. Don’t bet on one.

Particularly given Hillary’s complete and utter disdain demonstrated for anyone or anything she believes beneath her station…

…which pretty much encompasses everyone and everything…outside of herself; including Bill!

Turning now to The Lighter Side…

Finally, there’s this completely accurate depiction of Einstein’s definition of insanity as represented by Progressive politics and policies:

Magoo