Anyone remember that old Mel Gibson film, "Payback?" The whole Trump thing reminds me of one scene
The Mel Gibson character is on an improbable one-man crusade of a small-time hood against the mafia. He gets in to see one of the underbosses asking for money he thinks he is owed. The underboss says, well, there is a committee that decides this kind of thing. The Mel Gibson character says, no, if you go high enough, there is one man. One man at the very top can take that kind of decision on his own. And sure enough, he's right.
Now all this supposed confusion and inefficiency should have brought things crashing down about some Republican ankles right around now. But somehow, things barely stick together. If Putin was in on the election, he had to have had his one man in the States--the one guy to whom he could go (never directly, of course--that's what patsies like Sessions were for) for the ultimate yes or no. If we have such a man, the most obvious choice might seem to be one of the Koch brothers, but where they have the money, they don't have the universal clout on the inside. My choice for this role, if indeed he exists in real life, is the one most enthralled by power, and the most skilled at wielding it. The one man who dared to order the blocking of Merrick Garland's nomination for a year because he knew before ANYONE else that the next president would be Donald Trump.
My bet would be on Mitch McConnell. Or, rather, Mitch Machiavelli. He certainly seems to be awfully quiet, sitting back with hands folded while the Houses (both White and of Representatives) are busy sinking into a black hole with far less fallout than one would think after such a meltdown. Mitchie isn't looking to be president. Not enough real power (as LBJ knew when JFK dragged him out of the Senate Majority Leader's job). Right about now, McTurtle is acting more like a king.
= new reply since forum marked as read
