A couple of weeks ago, I was hanging out with a friend of mine who sometimes works for and is a friend of Hillary Clinton. My friend has nothing but good things to say about the woman who, barring something unexpected, will be the Democratic Party's nominee for president, and that puts me in a bit of a bind.
You see, I was planning on writing a few columns based on the whole "None of the Above" angle in Clinton's upcoming battle with Donald Trump. I was going to do a whole "Brewster's Millions" comparison, make a big stink out of not voting and explain why I dislike both candidates despite not knowing them or reading up on their positions.
Yep. I was gonna milk that stupid cow for all she was worth, but now, having just seen my friend, I feel like it would be rude of me to try to undo her hard work. So instead, when the time comes for me to give I'm With Stupid's much-valued and influential endorsement, I think I'll encourage everyone, no matter how much you hate her, to vote for Clinton.
I figure that if Trump and the Republican Party wake up on the morning after Election Day to the realization that Trump got something like 6 percent of the vote, it would be a deathblow to the Republican Party as we know it. I would have thought that I'd be first in line to tap-dance on the grave, but unfortunately, I think America needs a strong Republican Party to check the Democrats' influence. I think it's healthy.
Here's where things get a little weird, though. To many of us who seem like natural Democrats, the problem with Clinton is that in many repugnant Wall Street ways, she's a Republican. This might seem like a problem for the Republican Party. If the head Democrat is also, ipso facto, the head Republican in disguise, where can the Republican Party turn for voters and candidates?
Where you smell a problem, I smell opportunity. With the Republican Party in ashes after backing Trump -- I still can't write that without thinking it's a practical joke -- the party can finally drop all the gun-loving, warmongering, ultra-Christian, big-business, anti-everything voters who currently make up its base and seek out more moderate types. It has the chance to become a whole new party.
Basically, what I'm saying is that the death of the Republican Party will leave the party's much-valued and influential resources and connections ripe for a coup d'etat. And I'm just the guy to coup it.
First of all, let's compare me to the current Republican ideal, by which I mean Trump. Arrogance? Check. Loudmouth? Check. Pushy and obnoxious? Check and check. Not afraid to speak his mind? I get a paycheck for it.
No knowledge of foreign, domestic or economic policy? Duh!
Failed business ventures? Hell yeah, T&T Fencing Co.!
Bad hair? All my life.
Let's face it: If it weren't for the color orange, I would pretty much be Trump.
So I'm not that far removed from the Republicans' current standard-bearer, anyway. Here's how we differ, however: For my base, instead of evangelicals and old white people, I intend to court a huge swath of voters who feel, like I do, party-less and sick of politics as usual. By this, of course, I mean Bernie Sanders supporters.
You heard me: Now that the Democratic Party has become the Republican Party, the wisest and only logical move for the Republican Party is to become the Democratic Party. Trust me, Reince Priebus, there are a whole lot more disenfranchised people looking for a new party to support than there are currently making up your Trump-loving base. You'd be wise to consider this strategy.
Outflank Clinton in 2020 by snapping up all the people who only voted for her in 2016 because she isn't Trump. Or, at worst, for eight years, groom a candidate -- by which I mean me -- who isn't a Republican at the moment, and by 2024 maybe you can give your party enough of a makeover to make people forget the laughingstock you are right now.
So give me a call, Reince, and we'll talk about your party's new positions and how we're going to make me seem presidential. In the meantime, I'll go out and seek a much-valued and influential endorsement, by which, of course, I mean Sanders'.
Todd Hartley's previous columns said he was running for president in 2016, but he really meant 2024. His editor just thought he didn't know what year it is. To read more or leave a comment, please visit zerobudget.net.