There’s just a handful of hours left until the prime-time debut of Donald Trump’s presidential reality show.
He’ll be flanked by nine other White House hopefuls, including Jeb Bush, son of GHWB, who is pictured above in sack suit and striped watch band.
The son is pictured below — in Brioni.
Trump’s preferred suit, coincidentally.
Enjoy the entertainment tonight. — CC
Stylistically, I like ’41, but I just don’t think we’ll ever have another JFK. Again, stylistically…I’m NOT making any political references whatsoever, nor do I care to read about the leanings of anyone else. JFK was a well-documented lover of Brooks Brothers, but it was his own, little tweaks and idiosyncrasies that put a mark on it. E.g., the way he only very slightly let his pocket square peek out, compared to everyone else who let theirs be so obvious. It was as if he was nodding an affirmative the the question of whether he had one or not. It was a quarter inch, usually, but it was there. So subtle. As for Brioni being unpatriotic, well, that’s for those who still cling to a notion of patriotism to debate.
Lest I fail to support my assertions above…
Sartorially, Bush ’41 was the most trad since Kennedy. Oh dear, I just thought about Hillary’s pant suits…and emails about yoga. I cannot unlearn these things. Maker’s Mark time.
@ William. It’s always Maker’s time.
rem acu tetigisti. Cheers.
GHWB looked good and, in my book, was a decent president. He always looked and acted presidential. Jeb Bush, not so much. Like his brother “Dubbya,” he doesn’t really strike me as presidential material, regardless his clothes.
It is amazing that Donald Trump has twice the support in the polls compare to Jeb. Certainly with 16 or 17 hats in the ring, the Party lacks leadership and an organizing focus. Even so, Republicans don’t seem to want their typical personnel. If the Republican chaos continues, we may be hearing “Hail to the Chieftess” when the next present walks into the room. And, who knows, maybe Hillary will wear a striped watch band when president. Anyway, fascinating stuff.
Hillary in a striped watch band…………pardon the pause, I just knocked back another glass of bourbon. Donald Trump, in my opinion, is a menace. His giving money to the Clintons and other liberal causes over the years is well documented and highly disturbing to this former republican (now simply conservative.) His republican credentials are suspect at best. God I miss Ronald Reagan. I am too young to remember JFK, but what a wonderful republican candidate he would make today.
I almost forgot that this is not a political blog. No sartorial standouts for the republican field in my opinion. Some of the candidates, however, are good people and ones whom I would support.
Bush ’41 was more tradly than JFK in my opinion as was Bobby, but JFK had them all in the looks and charisma department.
His wife was a real dud as Florida’s First Lady. Terrible (and rare) hostess, would rather stay at home and watch her telenovelas unless she was jetting off on a spending spree in Paris.
She’s certainly no Barbara. I’ve always had affection for the senior Bushes, they remind me of my own grandparents.
All this talk of politics reminds me of probably the best campaign bumper sticker ever, from the 1964 U.S. Presidential election. In support of Barry Goldwater, it simply read “AUH2O”
I had to ask my dad to explain it.
@DCG you’re so right. She had no compunctions when it came to smuggling purchases through customs! GHWB’s documentary 41 gives a great look into his personal style and stolid demeanor. JFK’s style was anything other than trad. He did away with the fedora as well as America’s respect for the office of the POTUS.
Maybe we’ll have a woman in the White House and not playing hostess.
Thanks for the link on JFK. It was a good, enjoyable read. He certainly had the style, looks and charisma, plus courage to do the right things while in office so briefly.
Although I would like to hear more from her, at this point, I would not object to a Fiorina presidency.
I watched the debate (along with 24 million of my closest friends) and can see why Trump is causing such a stir. Obviously, he isn’t a professional politician and carefully coached by his handlers — and this is his appeal. He doesn’t have to please his demanding donors, lobbyists and special-interest groups. He’s probably the freest man in America.
Marco Rubio and Carly Fiorina were the most eloquent and smooth of the lot and reminded me of the champion debaters I knew at school. The only person I didn’t like on stage was the acidic Rand Paul, and I think the meek Jeb Bush should drop out. It doesn’t matter what he wears — he’s still part of an infamous family. Trump’s right when says the “last thing we need is another Bush” after Jeb’s clueless big brother almost single-handedly brought down the collapse of the Republican Party and the economic structure of Western Civilization.
At this point, our nation doesn’t need another slick, politically-correct politician in the White House. All talk, no action. Trump is abrasive, but I can’t disagree with anything he says and finally hearing the truth about what’s really going on in our country is not only shocking but refreshing.
Right now, despite what the pundits claim, it’s still Donald Trump and the Sixteen Dwarfs (and if you throw in Hilary and the Democrats then it’s the Twenty Dwarfs.) Trump is savvy — I’m sure he’ll polish his act, and wait until he starts advertising with testimonials from tons of famous popular people.
Regardless, this will be an entertaining campaign that I look forward to.
This surely will be an interesting campaign, though I think the Republican Party is already self-destructing before our very eyes.
I think you are right, Groton 76. Trump has an appeal based on his independence and freedom from special interests and politics as usual. His “Make America Great Again” speaks to the large, conservative middle class who hasn’t benefited from the take from the poor and give to the very rich economic policies of Dubbya. Jeb’s brother not only nearly took down the financial structure of Western Civilization with his economic policies, but his TARP bailout of Wall Street rewarded those who were reckless while the middle class—who are paying the bill—sees their wages stagnate and economic opportunities erode while the richest companies and families enjoy financial boon times. Trump seems above all that and offers hope against these past Republican policy failures. Of course, being Republican Party regulars, none of the Sixteen Dwarfs can make a similar credible offer.
At the same time, the Dwarfs are focused on illegal aliens, sealing the borders and halting virtually all forms of abortion. This totally contradicts their commitment to court Latino and women voters after losing so soundly to Obama in 2012. How quickly they forget. (See what private education does to the thinking brain? It’s gotta be either that or they have been spending way too much time in Colorado smoking weed ‘cuz nothing else makes sense.)
It is hard to imagine at this stage that this election is going to turn out positively for the Republican Party.
Aside from the fact that some of the policy assertions made by a few at the debates were downright scary, the Republican Party seems to be one giant, rolling cluster. I would imagine the Democrats are beside themselves with joy watching this spectacle unravel, er unfold.
I believe what we are witnessing here is not so much the self-destruction of the Republican Party as Trumps’ attempt to knock some sense into it. His message is clear: if you don’t change and wake up, I have the power to wreck you — and they know it.
The Donald has rightly gone after the embarrassing Karl Rove (“a fat slob without a clue who thinks Romney won the election”) and the moronic “war hero?” John McCain (“a dummy who finished last in his class at Annapolis”). He has justifiably shown contempt for the way the RNC operates, and since they can’t threaten to de-fund his campaign, he has them over a barrel. Money talks as they say.
You’re right about the Republicans continuing to shoot themselves in the foot over the abortion issue. This makes no sense. Women should be left alone, and I think eventually Trump will make this clear. Sure, he’ll lose the nutty evangelicals, but will gain masses of independents (such as me). And Latinos?
Like blacks they’re hard-core Democrats and one shouldn’t fall for the myth that Republicans need them to win. In contrast, the Democrats are smart enough to not change their liberal platform in order to attract white Christian voters. Some groups and demographics you just have to write off.
Fortunately for the Republicans, the Democrats have no new ideas nor viable candidates — Hillary will be undone by the debates where she can’t hide the fact that she is a talentless stiff and a devious bore. The Empress has no clothes. Who can get excited about her? But then who will step forward to replace her? Should make for good drama.
The Republicans will win big if Trump is able to transform the GOP into being one with a results oriented posture, no more BS, and without a business-as-usual-with-lobbyists-calling-the-shots-because-I-want-to get-reelected culture. I would love to see this happen, but we have a long way to go.
How long is there, like 15 months until the election? It’s going to feel like this thing is dragging on forever.
I believe it is as clear as day that, with Trump in this race, the republican primary process will be thoroughly undignified if nothing else. Though I would not trust the man as far as I can throw him, I do like (some) of the things he has been saying…and I do find Rosie O’Donnell repugnant. My biggest concern is that he does not believe what he is saying. The man is a liberal.
Thank God we have wonderful candidates from which to choose. I am beginning to adore Carly Fiorina against my first impressions of a few months ago. But I think that Ben Carson is a truly good man in the most sincere sense of the word.
Let us all hope that Donald Trump does not have a hissy fit and go third party because I believe he will have the same effect as Ross Perot. Is everybody aware that Donald Trump is of the Ivy League? A most undignified member of the Ivy League.
I know more than a few people who are excited about Ms. Clinton purely because she’s a woman. Nothing else matters to them. And I’m fairly sure that nothing that Ms. Clinton might do in her campaign will change their minds. I could throw in some discussion of how adult male brains are stunningly Bayesian, so that we easily ignore things that we essentially don’t want to believe, but this IS a fashion blog, despite the protests to the contrary by Mr. Chensvold, so that might be a bit too much.
Since when in the history of this little country of ours has politics ever been dignified?
It is true that American politics has been a rough and tumble pursuit since before the revolution. Your point is well taken. The gravamen is a growing number of the electorate behaving like (please excuse the phrase) high functioning retarded people. We will get the candidates we deserve in the long run. Donald Trump appeals to ones immediate urge to blow up the system. Some of the other candidates, I believe, could bring this country back to sanity.
God bless America.
Let’s hope we elect a president who can bring the country back to sanity.
It is interesting to see the rankings of the 44 presidents by historians. Of course, there are biases and flaws and some differences in results, but the studies that try and balance out conservative and liberal rankers show an interesting pattern. Of the 44 presidents, about 9 or 10 are ranked more or less consistently in the upper quartile. About 25 or so are ranked in the middle, and another 9 or 10 are ranked in the lowest quartile. It suggests that most of the time, elections are likely to produce a more-or-less average president. It also suggests we have more-or-less similar probabilities of producing a very good or a very bad president.
In these modern times when we strive as individuals for excellence (or at least favor the idea of excellence), average candidates may be seen as sub-par. The election system of throwing a hat into the ring and then duking it out doesn’t really lend itself to encouraging excellence. I’d like to see the election system be redesigned to produce more candidates who would be ranked in that upper quartile, but for the life of me, I wouldn’t know how to go about doing that.
Loved GHWB both his style and his pragmatic compassion. He was the main reason I voted for his son, but this ain’t your father’s Republican Party anymore. All I hear them saying now is that the rich just don’t have quite ENOUGH money while the bottom 40 percent have waaay to much access to health care.
The Republican Party has been going extinct since Goldwater. People that believe that might want to look at the number of statehouses and governorships controlled by that party.
Trump will self destruct, most that lead in the polls at this time in the cycle do, Giuliani, Dean, Hillary08, etc. He has tapped into the the electorate’s anger at the business as usual establishment Republicans, the tyrannical administrative state and disregard for the rule of law. Trump has no Republican credentials and at the present time is running a media circus with the enablers in the MSM, they can’t help themselves.
I was very disappointed in the debates, there was maybe two policy questions. Interestingly, Cruz and Fiorina of Trumps competition seem to have gotten the biggest bump in the polls post debate. Not surprising, they best tap into the angry anti establishment message, it’s their message.
Rubio won’t get the nomination because “amnesty”. Paul won’t either because cray cray.
@MAC Currently there are 31 GOP governors. GOP owns House and Senate. Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, GHWB, GWB = 6 Presidents for 9 terms vs. 5 Presidents for 8 terms. How does your logic hold true on light of the facts? Judging from your comment, specious reasoning is your friend.
Your numbers are correct. However, what exactly does it mean to be a republican. Party membership means nothing. Raul Castro could call himself a republican and officially join the party. (Is Fidel still alive? I honestly do not know). The current crop of republican leadership more resembles bed wetting civil liberties lawyers from San Francisco than anything I would recognize as republicans. I wish it were not so.
Yes Fidel is still alive. I’ll chalk your comment up to hyperbole. Either that or I have to recognize your deep domain knowledge of Bay Area, bed-wetting barristers.
Hyperbole notwithstanding, I think I’m right. I was referring particularly to the orange one who leaks. Nice alliteration by the way.
I’m arguing that the Party is not dead. The Republicans are relatively young as compared to the Democrat’s offerings, socialist Bernie, grifter Hillary and wacky Joe.
I think we all know which party the Castros would join and be welcomed with open arms.
possibly wacky Joe
I am only saying that they could join the republican party, not that they would. There is no doubt that the Castros fit right in with liberal democrats.
Raul might actually be a boost to the Republican Party. At least he would appeal to Latino voters. Then, on second thought, he wouldn’t really appeal to Latinos, would he. So, you see, he’d fit right in 🙂
Numbers don’t matter; it’s character. And that’s not been a strong suit for the Party. Nixon was a crook and single-handedly destroyed respect for the US presidency. Ford was appointed rather than elected, so he wouldn’t count. In any event, upon taking office, Ford immediately pardoned Nixon’s criminal acts. Reagan was a Democrat who admired FDR and the New Deal, urged Eisenhower to run as a Democrat and felt the Democratic Party abandoned him, not that he ever left the Democrats. That seems true since he and GHWB left the country woefully overburdened with debt. GWB continued Nixon’s legacy in spades by acting as the village idiot while in office, starting an unjustified war, rewarding Wall Street for nearly taking down Western Civilization’s financial foundations and, again leaving the country riddled with debt. Not a lineage of strong Republican character since Goldwater.
Trump and the Dwarfs–perhaps with the exceptions of Fiorina and Carson–aren’t suggesting anything is about to change. Let’s hope one of those two start pulling ahead. So far, though, Trump is maintaining his strong lead in the polls after the debate. At the moment, he is the Republican’s favored son.
@Ward – the idea that Reagan was some sort of leftover New Dealer is nonsense of stilts.
I agree with your assessment of the republican presidents. I would suggest that Reagan was head and shoulders above the rest. However, Reagan did ensure the loss of the republican stronghold of California. He trusted the democrats when anybody who has ever spent a day in their life should know that is ill advised. (Amnesty) At lease he had the good sense to proclaim that decision as his most fatal error as president.
Isn’t it odd. The three seemingly best candidates for the republican party are a woman, an Hispanic and a black man. Fiorina, Cruz and Carson seem all to be truly good people with more character in their little fingers than the entire democrat party. How do you like that for hyperbole?
Keep up the hyperbole! It’s good stuff.
I liked Reagan, as well. I was leaving graduate school and entering the working world at the end of the Carter era. Carter’s term “malaise” was an apt description of the then state of affairs, though it was not politically astute for him to say it. But it was a dark time.
When Reagan came into office and decided to raise interest rates up above 20% I thought he and his administration were nuts. Fortunately, I was wrong. Reagan grew on me over time as a good president with a great heart. I believe he really cared about what he was doing. Frankly, I’ll take anyone–Republican or Democrat–who truly cares about the country. In addition to Reagan, I would put GHWB in this category along with Bill Clinton. My only difficulty with Reagan was his expansion of debt. He wanted to reduce government, but he wasn’t able to do that.
Top marginal tax rate under Carter 70 percent.
Top marginal tax rate under Reagan 28 percent.
The democrats held the house and senate under Reagan and so held the purse strings. These days republicans and democrats are spending money like drunken teenaged Arabs.
The Republicans held the majority in the Senate for six of Reagan’s eight years.
It’s odd how people forget that. Doesn’t fit their narrative, I s’pose….
Top tax rates are interesting. Under Eisenhower, the top rate was a whopping 91%! This lasted through Kennedy’s term, but was dropped to 77% under LBJ. That top rate remained through Nixon, Ford & Carter. Reagan did drop the top rate down to 38.5% in a series of steps. It went as low as 28% under GHWB, but he raised it back up to 31%. Clinton increased it to 39.6% and GWB dropped it to 38.6%, where it has remained. Essentially, though, we have been about at the Reagan low for the past 22 years (since Clinton took office).
Now, I wonder, has ivy style varied with the tax rates? It seems like ivy style was in its hey day when the top tax rates were at their highest. As tax rates came down, other sartorial styles began to ascend. Maybe we need higher taxes to induce more trad clothing throughout the land? We’d probably only get the Democrats to endorse that one, though.
Congress is made up of the House and the Senate. The House has the exclusive power to enact bills and raise taxes. The House had been in democrat control since Eisenhower. True, the Senate was in republican control during six years of Reagan.
Remember the good old days, when it was considered rude to discuss religion and politics outside of those settings?
The notion that the POTUS adjusts the interest rate or impacts economics is complete poppycock. Painting Reagan as a reluctant Republican is revisionist history at its lowest. He clearly states his reasons for party hopping in his auto. I suggest letting the historical record speak for itself and not add our biases into it. It’s bad enough fashion has devolved. It’s a travesty that language has devolved. Please for the love of God leave history alone.
As I recall, Reagan appointed the head of the Fed who raised interest rates, as Reagan wanted.
I’m happy to be corrected if my memory is faulty.
As for history, Orwell observed that “Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.” By misrepresenting our glorious history as little more than vengeful agression and heartless oppression, those in control are aiming to expand their power. “Education,” of course, has been controlled by Dewey-inspired liberals for decades, so the move away from teaching people to think and know their history towards mere indoctrination lies squarely with them.
The House most certainly does NOT have “the exclusive power to raise taxes”. They may have the exclusive power to INTRODUCE tax bills, but said bills do not become law unless and until the Senate and President agree to them.
The idea that “Reagan fought the Democratic Congress to control their spending” is nowhere near as black-and-white as some like to remember it.
Reagan had not the numbers needed in the Senate to keep spending under control. I believe, and I may be wrong, that your analysis is static and does not take this into consideration. The republican revolution of ’94 was remarkable in that it finally gave republicans both the house and senate. With a few exceptions, this chance was squandered. I would love to see what would be possible with, not a republican, but conservative white house and congress, good men and women with America’s best interest at heart.
The Prime Rate was at it’s historical high of 21.50% in December 1980 the month prior to Reagan being sworn in, it dropped a % that month and continued to drop.
“Hrnry” is what happens when one misplaces their reading glasses. 😉
WFBjr. is, of course, correct – Reagan spent over a decade driving around making speeches for GE and reading National Review before he came governor of California. Would he have been best buds with Ted Cruz or Rand Paul or John Kasich? I have no way of knowing and it’s fool’s errand to try to assume, because the issues are different today. But Reagan was most certainly a conservative in the Buckley/Goldwater mold who wanted to reduce the size and scope of government in contrast to the expansion of the federal government during the New Deal and Great Society.
Reagan certainly was a vigorous Democrat for a good part of his political career and did state clearly, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party. The Party left me.” Not particularly devolved language, and since he said this several times, one can assume he meant exactly what he said.
Here’s another fun fact: Did you know that Hillary was a dedicated Republican at one time? God forbid, but true. She campaigned for Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon, and was the president of Wellesley’s Young Republicans Club. She could be more Republican than you might think 🙂
To think that a president does not influence interest rates and the economy is humorously naive. Although I did very much like Reagan during his term, his economic policies (“Trickle down, Reaganomics”) left the country with historically high debt and began the modern era where government policy disproportionately benefits the wealthy and leaves the middle class flapping in the breeze. That’s not limited government, by any far stretch of the imagination. Short-term he was great. And who wouldn’t be when prudent management of the nation’s debt was abandoned? He always presented himself as being on the side of the average American, but that seems doubtful in retrospect. Again, numbers don’t mean much. Its character and what they do.
Well said, anyone involved in the conservative movement from the 60s till present knows that.
“Trickle down” is not a Reagan or his administration’s argument for Reaganomics. Trickle down was a dem talking point, just as Voodoo Economics was a Bush attack. The whole point of the Laffer Curve and lowering tax rates were to increase government revenues.
Rise of the blue-buttondown Democratic hopeful:
I assume you are correct about the trickle down term. Sound like a Democrat term.
David Stockman argued for cuts in spending, but the rest in Reagan’s administration ignored that plea (according to Stockman’s book, if I recall it correctly). The administration thought money would flow in due to Laffer Curve effects. It wasn’t just Congress spending drunkenly at that time.
Tax rates have largely been stable since the Reagan cuts and incomes have not risen across the board, as we all know. The top tier only has benefited. Even toward the end of Reagan’s term this was apparent. The wealthy benefited enormously, anyone outside the top tier did not see commensurate benefits.
A socialist wearing ivy-style and running for president? What is the world coming to!
Fascinating that he is gaining on Hillary. The average Janes and Joes of both parties may just be fed up with the regulars. You have to hand it to him, though. He did become mayor of the largest city in Vermont, a traditionally Republican state and is now gaining traction nationally. Maybe its the OCBDs.
It will a real irony if, in the end, Trump and Sanders face off against one another in the national elections next year.
DCG quoted poetry earlier. Now it’s my turn. Gold star to anyone who recognizes it:
But since life at most a jest is
As philosophers allow
Still to laugh by far the best is
So laugh on, as I do now
I believe that is Lord Byron
Laughter is the best of medicines, Mr. Hodgson.
A man with style is a man who can smile.
An item on my year-end Personal list is, “Deeper dive of Ivy Style from earliest” [entries]… This one was especially enjoyable to stumble upon.