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

Friday, October 07, 2016


Because I live in a hotly contested swing state, virtually every TV commercial is a negative political ad, and the vast majority are Clinton focus group-tested ads suggesting the Donald trump is "temperamentally unfit" to be president. They are a reprise of Trump's often ridiculous comments with the clear implication that his bluster will do the country grave harm should he be elected. 3 AM tweets about a beauty contestant are patently ridiculous and cannot be defended.

Because Trump doesn't have the money for thousands upon thousand of ads countering Hillary's claims that he and only he is unfit, he will likely lose Florida and the election. But there's something about the Clinton's "temperamentally unfit" accusation that needs to be considered.

Unlike Trump, Hillary Clinton is far too smart (cunning?) to allow her words to brand her as unfit for the presidency. We got a small window into her soul when she labeled tens of millions of people who disagree with her as "deplorables," but as I predicted, her trained hamsters in the media made sure that story died quickly.

But if we take even a cursory look at Clinton's past actions ... well ... they tell a far different story. Let's consider only recent history—not the thirty years of scandal and dishonesty that have followed her.

Benghazi. What kind of a person would stand before a gold star mother as her son's coffin is being lowered off a military transport and lie to her face about a terrorist attack that killed him. Was she doing the bidding of Barack Obama, who desperately needed the terrorist angle to go away? If so, Clinton has no moral character. If not, she is an inveterate liar.

The Private Email Server. What kind of person would put the nation's secrets at risk in order to avoid FOIA requests? What kind of person would make the State Department complicit in her own illegal practices (the FBI notwithstanding) and then manipulate (with Obama administration help) the FBI and the DoJ to allow her to skate? What exactly was she hiding? Francis Turner comments:
Since I’m not a US citizen this is in large part “not my circus, not my monkeys” BUT, as someone who works in Internet security and has had dealing with people doing classified stuff, the email server IS A VERY VERY BIG DEAL. Whether it makes her worse than Trump is debatable, but personally I consider it disqualifies her from any public office at any level at all.

I find it hard to express my opinion of her actions politely. It was unbelievably stupid and incredibly risky. I flat out don’t believe she and/or her advisors weren’t explicitly told not to do this and if they didn’t realize how dangerous it was they are, ipso facto, unqualified for any position of responsibility because of their lack of intelligence and inability to take expert advice. They must have known it was risky and decided that they would rather attempt to conceal communications from FOIA and records retention laws than secure sensitive communications from foreign spies. The fact that they made this choice means they put their own narrow self interest ahead of the interests of their country. It is that selfishness that I consider disqualifying, though the acts themselves probably do from a strictly legal standpoint anyway.

The fact that she appears to be getting away with it by running the clock out and blatantly lying (along with Obama it would seem – his claim that he knew nothing of her arrangements appears to be undercut by his emailed her using a pseudonym) sets a terrible example for the future.
Hillary Clinton is the kind of person who doesn't give a damn about the example she sets, only that the things she does serve her ability to gain wealth and power. She appears not to be burdened with guilt or remorse for wrong-doing, never actually admits a mistake (spare me her obtuse "apologies" after she is caught redhanded in a lie) and never-ever changes her ways.

The Clinton Foundation. What kind of person goes from "broke" (her own words) to $100 million+ net worth in 15 years—all with no high paying job and no business income? The media focuses on Trump's tax returns, but what about Hillary's multi-million dollar pay-for-play dealings with foreign actors and what that means for future presidential decisions? What kind of "charity" (the Clinton Foundation) has a 20 million dollar travel budget and spends 90 cents on the dollar for "administrative" costs?

And then, there's a question that is reasonable to address for both Clinton and Trump—their advanced age and relative health/longevity. If the worst were to happen to either, which VP candidate would be the better to become president? Peggy Noonan comments on Hillary's choice:
[Tim] Kaine's strategy [during the VP debate] was clear: Block all thought, reduce everything to prefabricated one-liners. He has a weird, un-grown-up regard for the power of sarcasm. Supposedly this would all play well with the common man. No. Mr. Kaine was like the snotty midlevel manager of a box store who comes in after a fight with the wife and starts yelling that your bathroom breaks are too long.

His antics kept the debate from developing into a series of thoughts that could be understood and absorbed. This was a destructive act that kept serious policy from being seriously discussed.

He made it cheaper than it had to be.

Everyone says vice presidential debates aren’t that important, and everyone must be right, but this is how it changed the race: Now there are two Democrats to dislike, not just one. And you can imagine Mike Pence—calm, sly sometimes, occasionally evasive—as a plausible president.
Is the Tim Kaine you saw during the VP debate the guy you'd want to take over the presidency? It seems as if "Blocking all thought, reducing everything to prefabricated one-liners," and coupling that with insults and name calling is the Clinton/Kaine strategy. We have a Clinton campaign that is no less venal than Trump's.

The Dems would have us all believe that Hillary is in excellent health, but actual events indicate that may not be true. It's interesting that Clinton insists that Trump release his tax returns, but she refuses to release her medical records after a number of potential serious public health incidents. The media remains oddly silent on the matter. Then again, Hillary tells us she is in fine health, and she has never been known to lie, has she?

I guess the takeaway from all of this is that the "temperament argument" goes both ways. Clinton may have a better outward "temperament" than Trump, but her actions (not words) indicate a pattern of dishonesty and corruption, not to mention venality, that make her unfit to be president.