Tag Archives: festival of schadenfreude

Profiles in Porridge

This week has turned into a festival of schadenfreude for liberals, as we watch Republicans of all stripes coming to grips with their putative nominee, Donald Trump. The reactions can be broken down into three categories, none terribly edifying.

Resignation and acceptance. Many Republicans and conservative commentators who staunchly opposed The Donald are now busily explaining why he’s really not that bad.

Some of these people can’t bear to utter the man’s name; they simply say they will support “the Republican nominee,” whoever that is.

Phony re-evaluation. These folks, like the insufferable Joe Scarborough, say they will decide based on how The Donald comports himself from now on. As if he didn’t have a lifelong record of being a self-entitled woman-hating narcissist, and a year-long record of conduct unbecoming a major-party nominee.

Denial. Some insist they will never vote for The Donald, although most refuse to say what they might do instead. A few are opting for Hillary Clinton, but most are temporizing. Which begs the question, is Clinton really worse than Donald Trump by any rational metric?

Here in Vermont, we have one gubernatorial candidate (Bruce Lisman) in category two, and one (Phil Scott) in category three.

Not that Republicans have any good options, but neither man is covering himself in glory.

Continue reading