RUTHFULLY YOURS

Leave it to Hillary Clinton to hammer almost 50 million citizens whom she aspires to govern.

“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the ‘basket of deplorables.’ Right?” Clinton declared Friday as Barbra Streisand and other self-congratulating guests tittered their approval at a $6 million Manhattan fundraiser. “They’re racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it.”

Surging Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump has energized his recently sputtering campaign and now enjoys 43 percent support in today’s RealClearPolitics survey average (vs. 46 percent for Clinton). Thus, among Trump’s current share of America’s 220 million eligible voters, Clinton just threw half of them — roughly 47 million people — under her motorcade.

After triggering a torrent of criticism, Clinton stated, “I regret saying ‘half’ — that was wrong.”

Of course, this is no apology.

I very much regret that Eagles co-founder Glenn Frey died in January. However, I do not apologize for this, as I did not kill him. So, Clinton’s “regret” represents nothing more than her sorrow that she gave herself a throbbing political headache.

And if she got “half” wrong, then — what? — 47 percent of Trump’s supporters are hateful bums? Is it 45 percent? If Clinton has another number in mind, she should specify it.

Clinton’s remarks completely conform with the liberalism that she shares with top Democrats — from K Street to Sunset Boulevard.

As they see it, hordes of the great unwashed live in “flyover country.” They are not educated or elegant enough to have reached Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston, New York, or — the most elevated place of all — Washington, D.C. So, enlightened people like Hillary and her supporters must make decisions for these benighted souls. Thus, Washington should tell these people what to do, every day, all day long. These unsophisticated monsters need adult supervision and, by God, Hillary and her minions will provide it!

In an address this afternoon in Baltimore, Trump denounced Clinton’s terminal elitism with particular passion, eloquence, and even a common touch. Most important, he astutely connected Clinton’s odious personal attitude to her public behavior.

Trump told the National Guard Association that he was “deeply shocked and alarmed this Friday to hear my opponent attack, slander, smear and demean [the] wonderful, amazing people who are supporting our campaign.”

Hillary Clinton’s health had long been an issue, but chiefly amongst those who have long maintained she is unfit in more than a physical sense to take up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Her latest episode has makes it a mainstream fixation
I’d wager that everyone reading this knows about Akira Kurosawa’s classic 1950 film Rashomon. Even if you haven’t seen it, you know the story—or at least you know the story of the story: that the Japanese director told the same tale from several points of view. The story the woodcutter told was not the story the bandit retailed, which was not what the wife said, which was not what the dead samurai, through the courtesy of a medium, propounded.

I said that Rashomon told the same story from different perspectives. That’s how the film’s distinctiveness is usually summarised. In fact, Kurosawa was more radical. He told several different stories on the same set with the same characters so that disparate narratives appear like facets on a unifying jewel whose existence is stipulated but unreal.

Less well known is that Kurosawa, through the same medium that brought us the samurai’s version of events, has weighed in on the upcoming American presidential election. The transmission is garbled in places and the denouement is lacking, but the fragments that exist make for an engaging montage. I am pleased to be able to share a precis of the great director’s hitherto unknown tableaux with you now.

Scenario One: Reverberations in the Echo Chamber. All unfolded as was foretold from the beginning. It was always going to be Hillary Clinton in 2016. The campaign of Bernie Sanders, we now can see, was just a distraction, mildly irritating to team Clinton, but no match for the zeitgeist, which the first female president of the United States has clearly embodied.

On the other side of the aisle, it was Snow Don and the sixteen dwarves, Sleepy, Grumpy, Happy, Dopey, and the rest.

The dwarves were euthanised one after the next, much to the surprise of the punditocracy. (Aside from your host: I certainly shared in that surprise.)

This is Kurosawa, not Disney, however, and so the poisoned apple was not proffered by Evil Queen Hillary but was brought along by Donald Trump himself in his lunch pail. He ate it in public, for all to see, and then exploded, in slow motion, as Hillary scooped up an astonishing victory almost as robust as what Ronald Reagan enjoyed in 1984.

There was some drama along the way. There was, for example, the Dukakis Feint. In mid-August, it was pointed out by some observers that, back in 1988, Michael “Tank Commander” Dukakis was seventeen points ahead in the polls against George H.W. Bush. As all the world remembers, Dukakis then went on to trounce Bush in the election, served two terms, and helped prop up the tottering Soviet Union for another twenty years while … Oh, wait: that was from a rejected script.

What actually happened, as all the world really does remember, is that Dukakis (who?) imploded in a surrounding sea of titters after his appearance, avec combat helmet, atop an Abrams M1 tank. He hasn’t been heard from since. Is he still with us? I frankly do not know. I’ll look it up when I finish this column.

WHAT GALLS HERE BESIDES THE RIDICULOUS IDEA THAT WE CAN “RIDE OUT” A CLINTON PRESIDENCY IS THE TITLE “NEVER TRUMP FOR DUMMIES”….SO WE ARE NOT JUST “DEPLORABLE” WE ARE ALSO “DUMMIES”…..RSK

Q: How can you call yourself a conservative columnist when you’re rooting for Hillary Clinton in this election?

A: Because Donald Trump is anti-conservative, un-American, immoral and dangerous.

Q: And Hillary Clinton is a conservative who personifies all that we hold dear as Americans and has a terrific record in government?

A: Not at all. She’s conventionally liberal, politically opportunistic and ethically challenged.

Q: And you support her?

A: I wish it weren’t so. But what’s the choice?

Q: The choice is a Republican candidate who may disagree with Wall Street Journal orthodoxies on trade and immigration but otherwise wants to cut taxes and regulations, strengthen defense, appoint conservative judges, and take advice from people like Mike Pence and Paul Ryan.

A: You seem to think we elect a policy menu. My fundamental objection to Mr. Trump is that he is unfit, as a person, to be president.

Q: Oh, please. I’ll grant he’s a bit rough around the edges, but that’s because he’s a nonpolitician. He’s also a brilliant businessman who made billions of dollars.

A: I might believe that claim if he would release his tax returns, or if six of his businesses hadn’t gone bankrupt, or if he hadn’t been involved in more than 4,000 lawsuits, or if he didn’t routinely shortchange his suppliers or stiff his charities. blah, blah, blah…….DON’T BOTHER TO READ ANY MORE….