Vetted

It's always entertaining to read the positions of editorialists in left-leaning media like the NYT, WaPO and the LAT, particularly when they work to convince their largely left-wing readers that Hillary Clinton is a good choice for president and that Donald Trump is the devil incarnate. Today, The Washington Post writes:

“This election,” a spokesman for Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) said Thursday, “remains a dumpster fire.” Well, yes, the two major-party candidates for president are historically unpopular. But if this election is unusually bad, it is not because both parties chose bad candidates. There is no equivalence between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton — as even responsible Republicans should be able to recognize.

Ms. Clinton is a knowledgeable politician who has been vetted many times over. She understands and respects the U.S. Constitution. She knows policy. She can cite accomplishments in the public interest, such as pressing through an important children’s health insurance program during her husband’s administration. As a senator, she was respected by colleagues on both sides of the aisle. She completed four years as secretary of state to generally positive reviews. She began her presidential campaign by rolling out a series of serious policy papers.

The second paragraph is epic in its idiocy. Let's deconstruct it:

Ms. Clinton is a knowledgeable politician who has been vetted many times over.

"Vetted?" Really! HRC has been investigated in scandal after scandal and called a liar by the current Director of the FBI. She has succeeded in not being prosecuted for any of her corrupt and near-criminal activities, by lying to, stonewalling and otherwise obfuscating the facts for the congressional committees and law enforcement agencies involved. She has been aided and abetted by main stream media allies (including WaPo) that refuse to investigate things like the corrupt Clinton Foundation and the corresponding influence peddling HRC did while secretary of state.

She understands and respects the U.S. Constitution.

In exactly what way? As a big intrusive government (BIG) proponent, she has subverted the intent of federalism, a core tenet of the constitution. She has used the law as an escape mechanism that has enabled her to dodge unethical or outright criminal behavior.

She can cite accomplishments in the public interest, such as pressing through an important children’s health insurance program during her husband’s administration.

And what else exactly? Make a list. Oops. There is no list. HRC has accomplished little if anything for the public good, but she has accomplished much that has enriched herself and her husband.

As a senator, she was respected by colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

For what accomplishments, exactly? Hillary was notoriously unsuccessful in getting any legislation passed during her years as a senator. She was a carpetbagger who moved to New York solely to win a senate seat as a launching pad for a presidential campaign. If she was "respected," it's reasonable to ask, "What for?" Oddly, the WaPo editors don't answer that question.

She completed four years as secretary of state to generally positive reviews.

OMG!! Seriously. Everything Hillary touched while secretary of state turned to excrement. Whether it was her flailing attempts to mollify Russia or China; her disastrous participation in the Libyan invasion that lead to a failed state now populated by al Qaeda and ISIS; her pathetic Middle East policy that was all about punishing friends and rewarding enemies, or maybe her mendacious and despicable handling of the Benghazi aftermath, there is nothing to review positively. NOTHING!

She began her presidential campaign by rolling out a series of serious policy papers.

Wow, you can tell the editors are struggling for positives. "Serious policy proposals" are worth less than the paper they're written on, particularly when they are proposed by an inveterate liar. The only policy that Hillary will be sure to implement is one that rewards her friends and punishes her enemies.

It's perfectly okay for the WaPo editors to suggest that their readers vote for Hillary, but it is unconscionable to invent a series of pathetic pro-Clinton arguments that have no relationship whatsoever with reality.