The Divide

“He becomes a leader to people who, on balance, wouldn’t be allowed in his servant quarters.”(Vinay Menon Toronto Star, February 22, 2016)

It’s funny how those employed to write for the public don’t seem to favour people like Mr. Donald  Trump or Mr. Robert Ford. Efforts to eliminate Mr. Trump began by writers employed by major news organizations magnifying everything that Mr. Trump said that might make him seem a racist, sexist or recently un Christian. It took months for those writers, probably college educated, to understand that Mr. Trump has been angry about illegal immigrants from Mexico not all people from Mexico, not all immigrants.

The other effort to remove Mr. Trump was by belittling those who might support him. This attack though subtle is more devastating than attempts to undermine his credibility and stature as a candidate because it reveals a media highlighted gulf between the poorly educated white working class and the learned college graduate, qualified to enter the middle class. This belittling of Trump’s supporters seems to have grown more earnest since he won two of three primary contests. A header for an article written by Varad Mehta in February 22, 2016’s “The Federalist” online blares the reason

Why Donald Trump Can’t Win The White House

Donald Trump is deeply unpopular with college-educated voters, a group the Republican Party needs to recapture the White House.
Donald Trump is the candidate of the white working class. His popularity with this cohort was recognized early in his candidacy.

But on February 29, 2016 The Washington Post blog says his association with the poorly educated; in Democrat Elizabeth Warren’s campaign  words, “the least of these”, has always been “a bit overplayed”


Looking deeper into the polls, we see two shifts from what we thought we knew about the race. First, Trump’s no longer just the candidate preferred by poorer, less-educated voters (though that was always a bit overplayed).

The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Being Right About Donald Trump.”

When we first heard on Toronto’s CP24 all day television news that Mr. Trump would finally get a chance to exercise his political skills, my wife’s querulous musing about why he was going to try to be the Republican’s candidate for president of the United States in the 2006 election, provoked my instant unthinking: “I’m sure a lot of Americans feel the way that he does“ a response probably learned from watching American interview shows, like how Mr. Trump was supposed to have developed his views about the U.S. military by watching, perhaps, those same television broadcasts. I read somewhere online that despite his wealth Mr. Trump has a kind of “Everyman” personality and prefers talking to real people like cab drivers rather than his fellow filthy rich who he’s been reported to have said are not all that happy. But when he started performing his “cool” McLuhan esque street-talk rhetoric, reporters pounced on the very unschooled, un media ease words that poured like a stream of impolitic thought that’s been brewing in America’s mind for more than a generation, held in check by media discipline, and the fear of appearing uneducated or branded racist.

And journalists are still not accepting what he’s saying, for his words signal thoughts, issues that were believed to have been subsumed by the vacuous cry of “change” , words alluding to problems and fears of the “change” that’s already happened, and the middle class/elite collegial superciliousness that says I’m alright; so what’s your problem?
But that problem, too often highlighted by a cautiously artificial politeness, expressed through letterized “a” “b” “c” to “z” words, cannot forever avoid the undercurrent of discontent expressed by the reported outrage of Virginia parents who in resisting an Arabic calligraphy assignment, one of many lessons in a government textbook formally teaching students about our planet’s many cultures, cried for the firing of the teacher who’d given the assignment. This inexplicable eruption in response to a teacher’s dutifully doing what she was supposed to occurred just about when almost every online header in the U.S. and U.K. mockingly highlighted Mr. Trump’s saying he’d like to put a pause on “Moslems” entering the United States, likely just repeating what Mr. Billy Graham’s son had been suggesting some time before the San Diego shootings that had provoked Mr. Trump’s stern comments, comments that likely expressed the fears of many Americans in the un-sanitized, unfiltered world of cabbies and blue collars, or journeying “On The Road” where one needs to be, to be “Right About Donald Trump”.

Hunger and Principle

I’m reluctant to say anything bad about Mr. Trump cause bad’s about all they can say about him. The last I heard he told Mr. Bush to shut up, even though I don’t think he actually said shut up, but that’s what Sundays online headers said about Mr Trump not wanting to hear Mr. Bush tell about how Trump’s aggressive business deal interfered with someone’s personal freedom. What they should be writing and saying instead of hurling pot-stirring epithets like “racist” and “sexist” is telling about how business and government have nothing in common because justice is what government should be about and acquisitiveness is what drives business. That’s the point of government’s laws: they’re supposed be written to achieve justice, not for getting anyone the best deal, but arranging the best society for people to do the best for themselves and their nation just like I heard someone say in a movie about the beginnings of the U.S. space program. And achieving justice is the most difficult and some might say impossible task; but without trying to find people like Plato’s philosopher king to think about justice, govern and make laws focused on justice, government becomes a place for the appetitive and in the know to use what they know to do money deals investing the spending of them not in the know and without loopholes.

Is it true?

I posted “A Media Favourite” just after August 6, 2015 on Here it is again on the occasion of media reports of Mr. Trump’s suspecting media bias in favour of Mr. Rubio.

A Media Favourite?

I have to wonder why I bothered giving attention to the Republican candidates’ debate this far before the names of the “real” candidates are known and voted for. Maybe Mr. Obama’s opinion of debates as “media-driven gamesmanship” explains why commentators (pundits/journalists) on line and on television implied that maybe Ms.Fiorina won on Agust 6, 2015 when she was not even in the debate, and that Mr. Trump though the central attraction was not one of the “real” Republican candidates. PBS news including a BBC interview of an apparent Republican operative who scornfully dismissed Mr. Trump’s candidacy seemed to agree with “The News Hour’s” Shields and Brooks both of whom dismissed Trump and praised Fiorina with honourable mention to Kasich and Rubio of the actual debators. In fact Mr. Shields suggested that Trump had sealed his doom by attacking the debate moderator from Fox News, a Republican favouring organization, suggesting that Trump might have got away with attacking a Democrat supporter but not the all powerful news organization that had put on the debate.

Today September 21 after the dust has settled since the Regan Library debate in which Fiorina actually participated and which experts, as Canada’s cp24 put it, experts said Fiorina won the debate . I wasn’t surprised of course. I’d been reading about a coming brawl between Fiorina and Trump over Fiorinas’s face for some time now keeping my memory on that puzzling reaction to the August 6 debate when Fiorina seemed an also ran, but became the favourite of most online articles that kept denigrating Mr. Trump while raising the stature of Fiorina.

And on September 22 she’s getting stronger with CNN leading the pack.
Maybe they’ve found the way to eliminate Mr. Trump. WOW!