In an article under the title, “Trump the disrupter,” (New York Times August 10 issue), Op-ed columnist, Maureen Dowd wrote:
“It is really hard to know who you’re electing. That’s because you can’t foresee what crises will crop up, or what gremlins of insecurity and perversity the White House will inevitably elicit in presidential psyches.
You can have a candidate like W., after sincerely telling us he will have a “humble” foreign policy, proceed to stumble jejunely into decades-long wars in the Middle East. You can have a charming newcomer like Barack Obama, ascending like a political Pegasus, who loses altitude because it turns out he disdains politics. It’s always a pig in a poke. So why not a pig who pokes?” http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/opinion/sunday/maureen-dowd-trump-the-disrupter.html?
I know “a pig in a poke” as a cliché. But I cannot make out what the next line - "Why not a pig who pokes” means?
Does it mean a would-be President is allowed to become a chameleon once he attains the throne? What does the second “poke” as a verb mean?
As the second thought after rereading the quote, I came to think “Why not a pig who pokes” means “Isn't it good to have a pig who pokes out the poke and reveals what he really is, or attempts?” But I’m not sure of whether it’s on the mark or not.