I have previously opined upon Andrew Wiggins and determined that he is an "inefficient scorer" type of player who is deficient in rebounding, assists and defense. So, he is basically a bad Dale Ellis or a bad 32 year old Carmelo Anthony. Glen Rice's name came up.
For some reason, there is suddenly a very spirited debate on Twitter that consists of two primary groups:
-- Andrew Wiggins is a complete bust
-- Andrew Wiggins is a future superstar and the second coming of Kobe Bryant.
If you do not agree with either camp, you are immediately lumped into the other camp. You say, "Hey, look, Wiggy is no Kobe...never will be..." Reply, OH SURE! YOU CLAIM HE IS A BUST! 20 points a game scorer, HORRIBLE BUST!
You say, "I haven't completely given up on Wiggy as a player. He is young...." Reply, OH SURE!! CAN WE WAIVE THE WAITING PERIOD AND ELECT HIM TO THE HALL OF FAME TODAY!?!? NOT QUICK ENOUGH FOR YOU?!?
The primary problem with evaluating Andrew Wiggins is he just turned 22 and he is really streaky, so he has some games where he looks great and some games where as a Wolves fan if you see one more horrid "possession of Wiggy" you'd like to take a gun and shoot yourself.
His game, overall, is remarkably inefficient. His defense, rebounding and assist stats are terrible, and he has never been on a winning team. He has poor WS, WS/48 and VORP stats. On the other hand, he has impressive scoring stats and he is an OK shooter who gets to the line a fair amount.
So, the issue really comes down to -- is he "good" and if so, how "good"? Well, if you look for guys who are high Usage (25.9% or higher) and low WS/48 players (.100 or lower) and not super great defenders (104 or higher DRtg), you get the following list of guys who have played at least 8,500 minutes in the NBA:
Jerry Stackhouse
Pete Maravich
Glenn Robinson
Antoine Walker
Ray Williams
Ben Gordon
(The Less Good) Cliff Robinson
JR Rider
Darrell Griffith
Super John Williamson
Michael Beasley
"San" Quintin Dailey and
Andrew Wiggins
Now, Wiggy is at the bottom of the list because he has the fewest WS of anyone on the list. It should be noted, however, that someone like Pete Maravich has roughly double the WS/48 that Wiggy has. So Wiggy ain't Pete Maravich yet, or, for that matter, Jerry Stackhouse.
But the real question to be asked here is -- are these guys "good"? Are they, or were they, "good" NBA players. It all depends upon what you want, correct? Every guy on the list was a pretty effective scorer. There are some all-star appearances on the list. Maravich is a Hall of Famer and ESPN has him as a top 100 NBA player. So what you really need to evaluate is 1) whether you consider these guys to be "good" and 2) whether if Wiggins ends his career equal to these guys, would you be happy with that?
I'd say that if Wiggy ended up as good as Stack or Maravich or Big Dog or Antoine Walker or Ray Williams that most people would consider that as "good" and be fairly happy.
Ben Gordon and Darrell Griffith - probably not as happy
Robinson and Super John -- unhappy
Rider, Beasley, Dailey -- very unhappy.
But let's put to bed the fiction that there is any realistic chance that Wiggy will ever be Kobe or Durant. When Kobe was 21 he had a PER of 22 and accounted for almost 11 Win Shares, got 6 rebounds, 5 assists and 2.5 steals + blocks a game. His Defensive Rating was 98 (Wiggy is 114).
Durant at age 21 has a 26 PER and put up 16 WS. He would have won the MVP had LeBron not been having an insanely great season (18.5 WS, .299 WS/48).
So, is Andrew Wiggins an absolute Kwame-Brown-esque bust? No. Has he demonstrated ANYTHING close to being or becoming a Kobe or a Durant (two of my top 25 players of all-time)? Certainly not. Will Wiggy ever approach these players' career. I say no, and I say no confidently. That will never happen. Could he become a Glen Rice or a Glenn Robinson or maybe a poor man's Carmelo Anthony or DeMar DeRozan? Certainly. So you need to ask yourself - is that "good"? Would you consider Wiggy to be "good" if he reached that level of play?
I cannot make that judgment for you -- but that is where the truth lies; Wiggy could be kinda disappointing, or he could be a couple time all-star. It is up to him. Whether you consider that "good" or not, is an entirely subjective call.
And your response to this item should start with "OH SURE!"
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Glen Rice. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Glen Rice. Sort by date Show all posts
Friday, March 31, 2017
Thursday, May 07, 2015
Historically Awful Efforts By Starters In A Playoff Series/Playoff Season
http://bkref.com/tiny/2sQFw
Some of these efforts you just have to gasp in horror. I mean, Kyle Lowry and Tony Parker were extremely awful in this year's first-round series, but look at some of the guys on this list -- negative 50+ for offensive rating versus defensive rating!?!?!?!
You have guys shooting under 27%. You have guys like Cliff Robinson and Glen Rice putting up Defensive Ratings of 129 and 130....in the early 1990s. In the early 1990s it was basically legal to decapitate guys on drives and grab them with two hands when they started to dribble by you. And that got WORSE during the playoffs where it was "let the players decide the games". How anyone could allow 130 points per 100 possessions under those rules is puzzling to say the least.
For you folks who don't want to follow the link. the worst ORtg versus DRtg for playoff efforts by guys playing starter minutes:
5th -- Greg Ballard minus 43
4th Mike Mitchell -47
3rd - Jack Sikma -57
2nd - DeShawn Stevenson -57 (wins tiebreaker for more suckiness due to more negative WS)
1st - Tayshaun Prince - negative 59.
Some of these efforts you just have to gasp in horror. I mean, Kyle Lowry and Tony Parker were extremely awful in this year's first-round series, but look at some of the guys on this list -- negative 50+ for offensive rating versus defensive rating!?!?!?!
You have guys shooting under 27%. You have guys like Cliff Robinson and Glen Rice putting up Defensive Ratings of 129 and 130....in the early 1990s. In the early 1990s it was basically legal to decapitate guys on drives and grab them with two hands when they started to dribble by you. And that got WORSE during the playoffs where it was "let the players decide the games". How anyone could allow 130 points per 100 possessions under those rules is puzzling to say the least.
For you folks who don't want to follow the link. the worst ORtg versus DRtg for playoff efforts by guys playing starter minutes:
5th -- Greg Ballard minus 43
4th Mike Mitchell -47
3rd - Jack Sikma -57
2nd - DeShawn Stevenson -57 (wins tiebreaker for more suckiness due to more negative WS)
1st - Tayshaun Prince - negative 59.
Friday, February 17, 2017
Andrew Wiggins -- Many Thoughts On How to Improve
With Wiggy's recent scoring and shooting tear, his advanced stats are slowly improving. His Net Rating is now only -6 (Ortg 108, DRtg 114) and he has (as of today) a VORP of 0; his best ever (versus a replacement player, he is exactly as good - contributes no extra wins and no extra losses).
So, I ask myself, how can Wiggy possibly look so good at times and yet (on an overall season long statistical basis) contribute virtually nothing to his team? I mean, certainly his scoring should be adding something, and are his other stats where he really struggles (4 rebounds, 2.5 assist per game, terrible defense) really that awful to drag him down so far?
So I looked at players who played at least 1,500 minutes in a season and averaged similar stats to Wiggy -- over 23 points per game and under 4.5 rebounds and under 2.9 assists. http://bkref.com/tiny/numGS
Of note, these sort of seasons appear to be EXTREMELY rare. If you are a little guy and a scorer, you generally get more than 3 assists a game. It is hard not to. Similarly, if you are a big guy and can score 23 ppg, you generally play a lot and can garner either 3 assists or 5 rebounds a game.
Wiggy's inability to contribute either as a rebounder or assist man is almost unprecedented. If you look at 2016-17, there are only 6 guys total in the league who play much and play as poorly as Wiggy on the defense, rebounding and assist metrics. None of the 5 competitors plays nearly as much as Wiggy does. So his poor play on a per minute basis in these areas of the game is unmatched.
So, if you go back and ask yourself what type of player Andrew Wiggins has been this year, your answer will be (going back to list #1)
Dale Ellis
Michael Redd
Glen Rice
Kiki Vandeweghe
Kevin Martin
Ricky Pierce
31 year old George Gervin
and
Super John Williamson
What do all of these players have in common? They were all known as "one-dimensional scorers".
Now, if you would simply say that Wiggy could get to both 4.5 rebounds and 2.9 assists per game, he could be at the absolute bottom of this much better list of players: http://bkref.com/tiny/JibbB roughly equivalent to a 32 year old Carmelo Anthony (Wiggy would also have to drop his DRtg by two points to 112 to reach Carmelo - Carmelo is a BETTER defender!).
So, Wiggy is (today) a bad 32 year old Carmelo. If you look at the above link, if Wiggy could double his performance in both rebounding and assists, or, for example, triple his rebounds or assists, he would be amongst the best players in the league! That, of course, would be tough to do given that Wiggy already plays huge minutes and has shown no signs of significant improvement per year in any of these categories.
Another concern for Wiggins and his supporters is that even if you go back to the "one-dimensional scorers" list and look at the 15 similar seasons, Wiggy is likely to end up 13th or 14th in Win Shares and ranks poorly in every shooting category:
8th in 2-point percentage
10th in field goal percentage
11th in 3 point %
11th in Effective FG %
13th in True shooting % and
15th in free throw %.
So Wiggy right now is a one-dimensional scorer..........and he isn't particularly efficient in that role.
So, baby steps:
1) get your rebounds and assists up to 32 year old Carmelo levels (6.2 rebounds, 2.9 assists)
2) get your defensive rating down to a Carmelo-ian 112.
3) improve your 3 point shooting and FT shooting to more elite scorer levels.
At that point, you would be a good player (top 40 in the league).
then Wiggy needs to find some way to get to
23-6-5 (Jimmy Butler) or maybe 27-5-4 (DeMar Derozan).
It is hard to imagine that Wiggy will improve so much that he could ever reach the rebounds and assist numbers that The Greek Freak or LeBron have. And he is never going to have a defensive rating of 102 like Kawhi Leonard (who gets 2.5 steals+blocks to Wiggy's current 1.3).
But what is clear is that right now Wiggy is like a bad version of Kevin Martin, Michael Redd and Dale Ellis. Start with being a good version of them, work your way up to equaling an old Carmelo, and then, from there, see what your upside really could be.
HM
So, I ask myself, how can Wiggy possibly look so good at times and yet (on an overall season long statistical basis) contribute virtually nothing to his team? I mean, certainly his scoring should be adding something, and are his other stats where he really struggles (4 rebounds, 2.5 assist per game, terrible defense) really that awful to drag him down so far?
So I looked at players who played at least 1,500 minutes in a season and averaged similar stats to Wiggy -- over 23 points per game and under 4.5 rebounds and under 2.9 assists. http://bkref.com/tiny/numGS
Of note, these sort of seasons appear to be EXTREMELY rare. If you are a little guy and a scorer, you generally get more than 3 assists a game. It is hard not to. Similarly, if you are a big guy and can score 23 ppg, you generally play a lot and can garner either 3 assists or 5 rebounds a game.
Wiggy's inability to contribute either as a rebounder or assist man is almost unprecedented. If you look at 2016-17, there are only 6 guys total in the league who play much and play as poorly as Wiggy on the defense, rebounding and assist metrics. None of the 5 competitors plays nearly as much as Wiggy does. So his poor play on a per minute basis in these areas of the game is unmatched.
So, if you go back and ask yourself what type of player Andrew Wiggins has been this year, your answer will be (going back to list #1)
Dale Ellis
Michael Redd
Glen Rice
Kiki Vandeweghe
Kevin Martin
Ricky Pierce
31 year old George Gervin
and
Super John Williamson
What do all of these players have in common? They were all known as "one-dimensional scorers".
Now, if you would simply say that Wiggy could get to both 4.5 rebounds and 2.9 assists per game, he could be at the absolute bottom of this much better list of players: http://bkref.com/tiny/JibbB roughly equivalent to a 32 year old Carmelo Anthony (Wiggy would also have to drop his DRtg by two points to 112 to reach Carmelo - Carmelo is a BETTER defender!).
So, Wiggy is (today) a bad 32 year old Carmelo. If you look at the above link, if Wiggy could double his performance in both rebounding and assists, or, for example, triple his rebounds or assists, he would be amongst the best players in the league! That, of course, would be tough to do given that Wiggy already plays huge minutes and has shown no signs of significant improvement per year in any of these categories.
Another concern for Wiggins and his supporters is that even if you go back to the "one-dimensional scorers" list and look at the 15 similar seasons, Wiggy is likely to end up 13th or 14th in Win Shares and ranks poorly in every shooting category:
8th in 2-point percentage
10th in field goal percentage
11th in 3 point %
11th in Effective FG %
13th in True shooting % and
15th in free throw %.
So Wiggy right now is a one-dimensional scorer..........and he isn't particularly efficient in that role.
So, baby steps:
1) get your rebounds and assists up to 32 year old Carmelo levels (6.2 rebounds, 2.9 assists)
2) get your defensive rating down to a Carmelo-ian 112.
3) improve your 3 point shooting and FT shooting to more elite scorer levels.
At that point, you would be a good player (top 40 in the league).
then Wiggy needs to find some way to get to
23-6-5 (Jimmy Butler) or maybe 27-5-4 (DeMar Derozan).
It is hard to imagine that Wiggy will improve so much that he could ever reach the rebounds and assist numbers that The Greek Freak or LeBron have. And he is never going to have a defensive rating of 102 like Kawhi Leonard (who gets 2.5 steals+blocks to Wiggy's current 1.3).
But what is clear is that right now Wiggy is like a bad version of Kevin Martin, Michael Redd and Dale Ellis. Start with being a good version of them, work your way up to equaling an old Carmelo, and then, from there, see what your upside really could be.
HM
Monday, February 22, 2016
Why Fox News and the Republican Party Has Made Donald Trump's Run Possible
In reviewing this article, I found myself slightly agreeing with its premise:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/the-great-republican-stalemate/470058/
but I think that the reason for the Republican Party possibly ending up with Donald Trump as a nominee needs a little more fleshing out. Here goes.
As I mentioned here: http://hoopramblings.blogspot.com/2015/07/why-some-people-love-donald-trump.html there are a lot of reasons that some people like Donald Trump. One of the reasons people like Donald Trump is also a primary reason that other people like Bernie Sanders -- each man tells the voters that their lot in life is not their fault and is caused by someone else. In the case of Trump, he blames the failure of his supporters' lives on the usual GOP suspects -- Obama, minorities, immigrants, the politically correct eggheads. Sanders, of course, blames the failure of his supporters to advance in life on the wealthy. His campaign commercials could not help but make you feel better about yourself -- "Are you doing everything right and yet cannot get ahead?" The subtext here being, of course, that YOU are not getting ahead because fucking millionaires are suckling at the government teat, and, otherwise, you'd be rich.
Folks on both sides of the political spectrum can now watch TV and say, "Geez, you know what? I used to think that it was because I never studied and got all Cs and Ds in school. But you know what? It is the fucking _______________ that are holding me back from becoming a nuclear scientist! F them, I am voting for {Trump/Bernie)."
Now, helping out Trump and Sanders in this pitch is the fact that they are running against simply awful opponents. Hillary Clinton is easily one of the most unlikeable politicians in the world. She is not optimistic, she is not enjoyable. She has an awful grating voice and style. She is not attractive. She is unwilling to ever admit a mistake, and she will run 5 miles to take credit for anything positive that ever happened, whether she had anything to do with it or not. She is not someone you want to win ANYTHING. I will probably end up voting for Hillary, but I will not be happy about it.
Trump, on the other hand, gets to run against an awfully motley crew as well. Is there anyone less compelling than (the late) Jeb! Bush? Low energy. Elect me because my brother was an awful President? Marco Rubio - Rick Santorum could not identify ONE accomplishment of Rubio's and Rick was endorsing him! Pro-amnesty anchor baby? Yep, just what GOP voters crave. Ted Cruz - my lord. Unless you believe in a theocracy, how can you vote for Ted Cruz? He is basically a real life version of the lying peddler Mr. Haney from Green Acres. Ben Carson - believes the pyramids were used for grain storage, appears always ready to doze off. Thinks it is a good story to note how he used to stab his best friends (only to be thwarted by a belt buckle). Only John Kasich is a credible candidate, and should probably win the nomination, except he looks like your retired uncle who is late for a meeting with his lawyer and threw on the first jacket he could find. (That plus he had the gall to suggest that the government maybe should protect poor people and the mentally ill).
So, maybe it is possible that if every other choice were not so awful that Trump would struggle more. But, alas, we will never know. So let's examine Trump's approach and see why it appeals to GOP voters weaned on Fox News.
1) The country is falling apart, everything is shit. ("Make America Great Again!") -- Try to watch 45 minutes of Fox News. This message is CONSTANTLY repeated every single day on Fox News. Obama sucks, he is killing us. He is awful, he is the worst, we live, basically in the Dark Ages and instead of a Renaissance we will get Darker Ages. It is repeated every freaking minute of the day.
2) Say ANYTHING you want to say without regard to whether there are facts to support it. This has long been GOP/Fox News orthodoxy. Barack Obama was born in Kenya. He never went to Columbia. He was a poor student. He killed Antonin Scalia. There is no such thing as global warming. Guns don't kill two year olds; their inability to properly operate the gun does. You cannot trust scientists/professors/eggheads. What do they know? They are losers, not cool beer drinkers like you.
Against this background, which has lasted 20+ years, the GOP now wants people to EXAMINE statements made by Donald Trump? "I will build a wall and Mexico will pay for it." How do we know that is possible? -- because he says so and only eggheads tell us the opposite. "I will cut off the internet to all terrorist." Um, well, how do you know they are....and how would you??? Blah, blah, blah, Trump says he can do it - I believe him. Are you eggheads in the party gonna tell me that you have "facts" to the contrary. Oh come on! Fox News has warned me about that for 20 years. Believe us, not "facts."
3) Say Things Completely Contrary to Things You Have Said in the Past, Even the Recent Past, Even Yesterday. This is the world of Mitt Romney and John McCain and Scott Walker and Rick Snyder. So, sure, McCain used to be a rather liberal Republican, but TODAY in 2008 he is a hard-core conservative. Sure Mitt Romney created Romney-care, which became ObamaCare, but TODAY in 2012 he is a rock-ribbed health care haters who understands how awful it is. Sure Walker and Snyder ran as common sense conservatives who would help increase union jobs and improve people's wages, but once ELECTED they decided to just become hateful right wingers who destroyed good paying jobs and their states' economies.
Sam Brownback said his tax cuts would boost revenue for Kansas -- it didn't? Well, it was never intended to! Come on. Geez, you guys. tax cuts obviously don't increase revenues. Silly voters - who told you that? "You did." Who are you going to believe, me, or the things the Democrats play to you of me saying on videotape?
4) State a Ton of Things With No Specific Examples -- Illegal immigrants are flooding into the U.S. lately - false, but still stated. Obama is not deporting any illegals -- false, but still a thing. 50% of your paycheck goes to welfare for illegals. Welfare queens driving Cadillacs. Michele Bachmann - HPV vaccines cause mental retardation. Tom Emmer - Minnesota waiters often make over $100,000 a year. "Got any specific examples?" Well, no. I don't need them, everybody knows that. I heard a story from a guy who was told that.....
5) The Media Is Biased Against Conservatives and Cannot Be Trusted. When a Republican says just ridiculous shit "Obama is going to declare martial law and stay on for another 4 years" the media might be expected to ask, "Um, what possible facts do you have to support that?" or, back before 20 years ago the media would actually say, "That is ridiculous, that is just false." The Fox News response (now adopted by the GOP), 'SEE, it MUST be true because the liberal media wants you to THINK it is false!" This "truth-fier" is the greatest invention of all-time for a political party -- "Obama caused Joe the Plumber not to buy a $400,000 business because Joe would pay $400,000 per year in taxes!" Well, there are so many things wrong with that statement, where do we start....SEE! It MUST be true if they are fighting so hard to disprove the statement!
New Section
I do not share today's general Democratic Party hatred for Ronald Reagan. We were desperate for some pride as a country, having lost virtually all of our pride when Carter was President, and Regan brought that pride back. Sure he built up a deficit with his tax cuts and huge spending increases, but for 8 years we were generally better off. When he saw how horrible his budget busting ways were, 6 years in, he worked with the Democrats to raise taxes and get things a little more reasonable.
Reagan believed, generally, in the facts. Sure he had his own opinion of what the facts meant, but he didn't just say stupid shit and make people believe that his lies were facts. Even when Iran-Contra blew up in his face, he sort of 'fessed up; saying it was important to trade arms for hostages and he should have known better if he was paying more attention. (It was a lie, but a slight one and he really didn't think anyone bought it -- he was just too lovable and popular to punish for his misdeed - like your old dog who poops in the entryway one day out of 300).
George H.W. Bush was a smart guy - he could be kind of pompous, but, again, you got the feeling he did what he thought actually was best for the country and listened to facts and logic.
I don't know what happened to the Republican Party thereafter. Maybe it was Gingrich and his scorched earth efforts to hurt Bill Clinton? Maybe it was the success of GW Bush's bullshit "compassionate conservatism" claim, which told political operatives, "Hey, look, maybe we need to just lie to win?" Who knows? But the Republican party since 2000 might as well have renamed itself the We Support Idiots party, Look, there is nothing wrong with trying to cut your own taxes if you are super wealthy. It is a little mean-spirited, but heck, go for it. But the Poor Wing of the party??? My lord.
http://hoopramblings.blogspot.com/2011/05/rich-wing-romney-poor-wing-palin.html
Sarah Palin? Is there anything more awful than the idea that the Republican Party nominated a person for Vice President who took 5 years to get through 4 different colleges, perhaps distracted by the need to bang Glen Rice and who just generally does not know anything about anything important connected to running a country? Perhaps that is where the safety rope to sanity broke? When the GOP and Fox News had to support that idiot. Is she qualified? Well, certainly. Don't believe what anyone says, she is great, she is awesome. She will really do what is right for YOU!
Who does that Palin love sound like? It sounds like Trump. "Trust me. Things will be great. Greater, greatest. How do I know? Cuz I know - it is on my hat!" Trump has at least done SOMETHING with his life and graduated from impressive schools. While a blowhard, he is not a moron. So, when less than 8 years ago the party and Fox News were all in favor of Sarah Palin, their protestations against Donald Trump fall more than a little flat. Is there a difference between saying inflammatory conservative things and not meaning them (Trump) and saying similar things and being too dumb to understand them and why they make no logical sense (Palin)? Not much of a difference.
Anyway -- this item kind of got away from me, so take it for what it is worth, because I am not editing it.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/the-great-republican-stalemate/470058/
but I think that the reason for the Republican Party possibly ending up with Donald Trump as a nominee needs a little more fleshing out. Here goes.
As I mentioned here: http://hoopramblings.blogspot.com/2015/07/why-some-people-love-donald-trump.html there are a lot of reasons that some people like Donald Trump. One of the reasons people like Donald Trump is also a primary reason that other people like Bernie Sanders -- each man tells the voters that their lot in life is not their fault and is caused by someone else. In the case of Trump, he blames the failure of his supporters' lives on the usual GOP suspects -- Obama, minorities, immigrants, the politically correct eggheads. Sanders, of course, blames the failure of his supporters to advance in life on the wealthy. His campaign commercials could not help but make you feel better about yourself -- "Are you doing everything right and yet cannot get ahead?" The subtext here being, of course, that YOU are not getting ahead because fucking millionaires are suckling at the government teat, and, otherwise, you'd be rich.
Folks on both sides of the political spectrum can now watch TV and say, "Geez, you know what? I used to think that it was because I never studied and got all Cs and Ds in school. But you know what? It is the fucking _______________ that are holding me back from becoming a nuclear scientist! F them, I am voting for {Trump/Bernie)."
Now, helping out Trump and Sanders in this pitch is the fact that they are running against simply awful opponents. Hillary Clinton is easily one of the most unlikeable politicians in the world. She is not optimistic, she is not enjoyable. She has an awful grating voice and style. She is not attractive. She is unwilling to ever admit a mistake, and she will run 5 miles to take credit for anything positive that ever happened, whether she had anything to do with it or not. She is not someone you want to win ANYTHING. I will probably end up voting for Hillary, but I will not be happy about it.
Trump, on the other hand, gets to run against an awfully motley crew as well. Is there anyone less compelling than (the late) Jeb! Bush? Low energy. Elect me because my brother was an awful President? Marco Rubio - Rick Santorum could not identify ONE accomplishment of Rubio's and Rick was endorsing him! Pro-amnesty anchor baby? Yep, just what GOP voters crave. Ted Cruz - my lord. Unless you believe in a theocracy, how can you vote for Ted Cruz? He is basically a real life version of the lying peddler Mr. Haney from Green Acres. Ben Carson - believes the pyramids were used for grain storage, appears always ready to doze off. Thinks it is a good story to note how he used to stab his best friends (only to be thwarted by a belt buckle). Only John Kasich is a credible candidate, and should probably win the nomination, except he looks like your retired uncle who is late for a meeting with his lawyer and threw on the first jacket he could find. (That plus he had the gall to suggest that the government maybe should protect poor people and the mentally ill).
So, maybe it is possible that if every other choice were not so awful that Trump would struggle more. But, alas, we will never know. So let's examine Trump's approach and see why it appeals to GOP voters weaned on Fox News.
1) The country is falling apart, everything is shit. ("Make America Great Again!") -- Try to watch 45 minutes of Fox News. This message is CONSTANTLY repeated every single day on Fox News. Obama sucks, he is killing us. He is awful, he is the worst, we live, basically in the Dark Ages and instead of a Renaissance we will get Darker Ages. It is repeated every freaking minute of the day.
2) Say ANYTHING you want to say without regard to whether there are facts to support it. This has long been GOP/Fox News orthodoxy. Barack Obama was born in Kenya. He never went to Columbia. He was a poor student. He killed Antonin Scalia. There is no such thing as global warming. Guns don't kill two year olds; their inability to properly operate the gun does. You cannot trust scientists/professors/eggheads. What do they know? They are losers, not cool beer drinkers like you.
Against this background, which has lasted 20+ years, the GOP now wants people to EXAMINE statements made by Donald Trump? "I will build a wall and Mexico will pay for it." How do we know that is possible? -- because he says so and only eggheads tell us the opposite. "I will cut off the internet to all terrorist." Um, well, how do you know they are....and how would you??? Blah, blah, blah, Trump says he can do it - I believe him. Are you eggheads in the party gonna tell me that you have "facts" to the contrary. Oh come on! Fox News has warned me about that for 20 years. Believe us, not "facts."
3) Say Things Completely Contrary to Things You Have Said in the Past, Even the Recent Past, Even Yesterday. This is the world of Mitt Romney and John McCain and Scott Walker and Rick Snyder. So, sure, McCain used to be a rather liberal Republican, but TODAY in 2008 he is a hard-core conservative. Sure Mitt Romney created Romney-care, which became ObamaCare, but TODAY in 2012 he is a rock-ribbed health care haters who understands how awful it is. Sure Walker and Snyder ran as common sense conservatives who would help increase union jobs and improve people's wages, but once ELECTED they decided to just become hateful right wingers who destroyed good paying jobs and their states' economies.
Sam Brownback said his tax cuts would boost revenue for Kansas -- it didn't? Well, it was never intended to! Come on. Geez, you guys. tax cuts obviously don't increase revenues. Silly voters - who told you that? "You did." Who are you going to believe, me, or the things the Democrats play to you of me saying on videotape?
4) State a Ton of Things With No Specific Examples -- Illegal immigrants are flooding into the U.S. lately - false, but still stated. Obama is not deporting any illegals -- false, but still a thing. 50% of your paycheck goes to welfare for illegals. Welfare queens driving Cadillacs. Michele Bachmann - HPV vaccines cause mental retardation. Tom Emmer - Minnesota waiters often make over $100,000 a year. "Got any specific examples?" Well, no. I don't need them, everybody knows that. I heard a story from a guy who was told that.....
5) The Media Is Biased Against Conservatives and Cannot Be Trusted. When a Republican says just ridiculous shit "Obama is going to declare martial law and stay on for another 4 years" the media might be expected to ask, "Um, what possible facts do you have to support that?" or, back before 20 years ago the media would actually say, "That is ridiculous, that is just false." The Fox News response (now adopted by the GOP), 'SEE, it MUST be true because the liberal media wants you to THINK it is false!" This "truth-fier" is the greatest invention of all-time for a political party -- "Obama caused Joe the Plumber not to buy a $400,000 business because Joe would pay $400,000 per year in taxes!" Well, there are so many things wrong with that statement, where do we start....SEE! It MUST be true if they are fighting so hard to disprove the statement!
New Section
I do not share today's general Democratic Party hatred for Ronald Reagan. We were desperate for some pride as a country, having lost virtually all of our pride when Carter was President, and Regan brought that pride back. Sure he built up a deficit with his tax cuts and huge spending increases, but for 8 years we were generally better off. When he saw how horrible his budget busting ways were, 6 years in, he worked with the Democrats to raise taxes and get things a little more reasonable.
Reagan believed, generally, in the facts. Sure he had his own opinion of what the facts meant, but he didn't just say stupid shit and make people believe that his lies were facts. Even when Iran-Contra blew up in his face, he sort of 'fessed up; saying it was important to trade arms for hostages and he should have known better if he was paying more attention. (It was a lie, but a slight one and he really didn't think anyone bought it -- he was just too lovable and popular to punish for his misdeed - like your old dog who poops in the entryway one day out of 300).
George H.W. Bush was a smart guy - he could be kind of pompous, but, again, you got the feeling he did what he thought actually was best for the country and listened to facts and logic.
I don't know what happened to the Republican Party thereafter. Maybe it was Gingrich and his scorched earth efforts to hurt Bill Clinton? Maybe it was the success of GW Bush's bullshit "compassionate conservatism" claim, which told political operatives, "Hey, look, maybe we need to just lie to win?" Who knows? But the Republican party since 2000 might as well have renamed itself the We Support Idiots party, Look, there is nothing wrong with trying to cut your own taxes if you are super wealthy. It is a little mean-spirited, but heck, go for it. But the Poor Wing of the party??? My lord.
http://hoopramblings.blogspot.com/2011/05/rich-wing-romney-poor-wing-palin.html
Sarah Palin? Is there anything more awful than the idea that the Republican Party nominated a person for Vice President who took 5 years to get through 4 different colleges, perhaps distracted by the need to bang Glen Rice and who just generally does not know anything about anything important connected to running a country? Perhaps that is where the safety rope to sanity broke? When the GOP and Fox News had to support that idiot. Is she qualified? Well, certainly. Don't believe what anyone says, she is great, she is awesome. She will really do what is right for YOU!
Who does that Palin love sound like? It sounds like Trump. "Trust me. Things will be great. Greater, greatest. How do I know? Cuz I know - it is on my hat!" Trump has at least done SOMETHING with his life and graduated from impressive schools. While a blowhard, he is not a moron. So, when less than 8 years ago the party and Fox News were all in favor of Sarah Palin, their protestations against Donald Trump fall more than a little flat. Is there a difference between saying inflammatory conservative things and not meaning them (Trump) and saying similar things and being too dumb to understand them and why they make no logical sense (Palin)? Not much of a difference.
Anyway -- this item kind of got away from me, so take it for what it is worth, because I am not editing it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)