Ho hum, our President overcharges our government, and therefore you and I, for services rendered to our government at our President's Mar-a-Lago resort -- including an infamous $1,000 liquor tab. This means, essentially, that our White House "pays a bill" and our President "reaps the revenue." Nice work if you can get it! I was about to ask what insignificant or imaginary plaints beginning with "well what about" will fill the mouths of our President's votaries when they hear this news, and then I thought, "why bother? They're a minority, and we should ignore them -- according to their own feelings about minorities!" But that would all be a bit glib, really -- whenever our President "sticks it to the man," these folks imagine it could be them "sticking it to the man," even though they'd actually be sticking it to themselves. Could this disconnect have come about because our government has, for many years, given nothing to its owners but the back of its hand?
Speaking of Presidential corruption, apparently Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller wrote Attorney General William Barr twice about the latter's misleading summaries of the Special Prosecutor's report. And after the second letter, Mr. Barr called Mr. Mueller and said told him to call him if he had an issue. (Mr. Barr himself told this story, to Congress, so no use proclaiming TEH FAKE NEWZ!!!!!) Of course, the answer to "what's with the letter?" is obvious: a letter puts Mr. Mueller's frustrations in writing, and writing is, of course, harder to ignore than the he-said-he-said of a phone call. Mr. Barr went on to say that Mr. Mueller was really upset with (guess who?) the media, although, again -- and here we go back to "what's with the letter"! -- Mr. Mueller apparently didn't even mention the media in his correspondence Mr. Barr. And then Mr. Barr did what they all do when they're caught doing wrong -- acted "peeved" about the whole thing. Once again, we find that the kind of folks who accuse everyone else of whining do most of the whining themselves.
And speaking of that: I give Kyle Kondik at Sabato's Crystal Ball a lot of credit, not just for saying that assessing a candidate's "electability" is "like nailing Jell-O to a wall," but also for reminding us that the very fact of our current Administration "presents a great counter-argument to the idea that campaign professionals and pundits can confidently determine in advance who is electable to the presidency and who is not." I'd go further: Our Glorious Elites constantly tell us that actual liberals aren't "electable" because if they didn't, we might elect more of them, and get more good things done, rather than keep settling for the hostage's choice of weak tea from Democrats or poison from Republicans. I mean, we should take heart that they used to say Ronald Reagan was too extreme to win the Presidency! About 100 million Americans don't vote; if an actual liberal can capture even five percent of them, maybe the word "electable" will have a definition that better approximates reality.