The further to the left or the right you move, the more your lens on life distorts.

Tuesday, July 19, 2016


As the Republican National Convention moves into its second day, we hear the usual political speeches defining GOP positions on a variety of important domestic and foreign policy issues. The question is: Can Donald Trump lead in a way that allows these positions to be accomplished. That is an unknown.

The trained hamsters of the main stream media, however, have already decided that he cannot and that by virtue of her "experience" and "steady hand," Hillary Clinton is the only option. CNN has spent hours discussing whether Trump's wife in her convention speech lifted a few sentences from Obama's wife, who it turned out, lifted those sentences from someone else. The point, of course, isn't plagiarism—the point is to avoid covering the substantive speeches by people such as Rudy Guiliani. Laughably biased, but no surprise.

William McGurn comments on broader issues:
When presidents enter office, they bring with them about 6,000 people. From the head of the Environmental Protection Agency and White House assistants down to the lowliest Justice Department lawyer, Mrs. Clinton would fill her government with people who get up each day looking to tax, spend, regulate—and use the federal government to stomp on anyone in their way.

At a time when so much of American “law”—from the Health and Human Service’s contraceptive mandate, to the Education Department’s “Dear Colleague” letters on transgender policy, to the National Labor Relations Board’s prosecution of Boeing for opening a new plant in South Carolina instead of in Washington state—is decided by faceless federal bureaucrats, Mrs. Clinton would stuff these federal agencies from top to bottom with Lois Lerners and Elizabeth Warrens.

Welcome to 21st-century American liberalism, which no longer even pretends to produce results. Whatever the shortcomings of Mr. Trump’s people, non-progressives simply do not share the itch to use the government to boss everyone else around. On top of this, an overreaching President Trump would not be excused by the press and would face both Republican and Democratic opposition.

Fair enough to argue that Mr. Trump represents a huge risk. But honesty requires that this risk be weighed against a clear-eyed look at the certainties a Hillary Clinton administration would bring.
And therein lies the rub. If Hillary Clinton is Barack Obama's successor, Big Intrusive Government (BIG) will flourish. A weak, ineffective, and outright dangerous foreign policy will continue. BIG will be used to reward friends of Hillary and punish her enemies.

Even worse, the dishonesty and corruption of the Obama years will be magnified by a new democratic president who is a demonstrated liar and a thoroughly corrupt public official (think: pay-for-play via the Clinton Foundation).

If you worry, as I do, that Donald Trump might be a loose cannon, consider this: Unlike Hillary, who will be given carte blanche to do whatever she wants by the main stream media, the trained hamsters would watch Trump's every move carefully. Any hint of dishonesty, corruption, or incompetence will be reported loudly and immediately. No scandal will be buried, as many serious scandals were during the Obama years. No lie will be glossed over. And unlike the Democrats who rubber-stamped Barack Obama's mistakes and worked overtime to thwart any attempt to investigate his scandals (and will do so again for Clinton), many in the GOP are less than enamored of Trump and would, I think, be much harder on him than the Dems were on either Obama or Clinton.

To reiterate what McGurn said: Trump is a risk. Hillary is a frightening certainty.