The Home Stretch - Trump v. Clinton
Editor's Note: This was originally posted on October 9, 2016
Choosing John McCain over Barack Obama seemed pretty simple. A seasoned legislator with decades of federal experience and years of military service pitted against a hollow shell of a man with a year of federal experience and a tenure as a state senator whose most famous act was voting "present" 129 times. What choice could have been simpler? But America was ready for a change, so Obama was voted in with huge expectations for what he could bring to the office.
Four years later, after Obama had proven that his skills at governance were primarily in the realm of pushing through his desired legislation without any consultation or help from the opposing side, we had a opportunity to elect a man with a wide array of experience in business, state governance and also from running a quasi-public organization like the Salt Lake City Olympic Committee in the early 2000s. Romney had money and was pretty much a self-made man, but the Democrats were able to paint him as an out of touch elitist and Obama was given a second term by the electorate.
Each of these elections seemed to be very important and pivotal to each side. Obama's people saw him as a means to changing the fundamentals of our nation and the conservatives saw their man as the last best hope to stop the onslaught.
Today we are in a similar situation but with additional important circumstances. While Hillary Clinton will certainly be her own person, it is guaranteed that her presidency would also act as Obama's third term. There is absolutely no way that she will even attempt to roll back any of his massively unpopular (unpopular to mainstream America) social changes. Does anyone think that she will rescind any of his extralegal executive orders? Will she countermand his EPA's rogue rulings on the environment and ersatz pollutants? Will she change rulings which are putting our military in extreme turmoil, attempting to reduce it to the efficacy of the Belgian Army? No way, Jose! (Is that racist?)
Then there is Donald Trump. Trump is an imperfect vessel and Trump is a boor. I will readily stipulate those facts. He has been in the public eye for around 40 years and his modus operandi has been to utilize his celebrity to gain access and leverage to promote his properties and his productions. During these four decades, Trump, in his role as a private citizen in the public eye, has said and done many things which were politically untenable. His famous call for an attack on Iraq in 2002 on the Howard Stern show (or was that not a call for an attack?) shows how silly this whole thing has become. For him to base his entire bona fides about war on his opposition, as a private citizen, to the invasion is just dumb and the beat goes on.
Trump has a major flaw as a political candidate and that is his inability to walk away from a jab. He is a scrapper and a fighter (see Harry Reid). He is ineloquent. Our current president is as glib as they come and look where that has gotten us. Obama "talks real 'purdy'", but what he says either hides or obscures the truth of what he wants to do. Is that what we want in a politician? Make us feel good while stabbing us in the back?
Yesterday, word came out that there is a hot mic recording of Trump in 2005 on a bus with Billy Bush talking about women in a crude and vulgar manner. Yep, he said the "F" word and used the "P" word, too. As our society becomes more and more coarse, with the expectation that celebrities have few, if any, morals how are we are SHOCKED that a man who has been a celebrity for four decades ever said anything uncouth or politically incorrect? Please spend a couple of minutes reviewing how our esteemed Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson spoke about and treated women. Oh, but that was a different era some may exclaim. Really? This behavior was acceptable in the 1950s and 1960s? Well, then why wasn't Trump's behavior deemed acceptable by the cognoscenti for what he did 10, 20 or 30 years ago? Why doesn't he get a pass? What if Chris Rock was asked to be Hillary's running mate or if he just decided to go for it? I would bet huge sums of money on the fact that he would be exonerated for his past exhortations and that he would be respected by the mainstream media.
Oh, and there is JFK. While Kennedy was quite discreet (back when discretion meant that everyone knew what was going on, but no one reported on it) and he didn't openly demean women, he certainly objectified them and according to Hillary, isn't that tantamount to original sin? Trump is unfit for office because he cheated on his wife, but Kennedy retained a Christ-like aura of respectability as he satiated his libido while married with two young kids and while in office.
But, let's get back to today. Trump v. Clinton. She is the most experienced, qualified woman ever to exist in American politics and her time has come. He is the asshole, know-nothing who wants to be president just to prove that he can do it. The idiot with no experience. Right...
Hillary is a wolf in sheep's clothing. One trait she has for which there is no peer is her embodiment of total discipline. In spite of facing irony which would make a normal person sweat and twitch, she remains cool and Stepford wife-like, spouting platitudes which scream "if I say it often enough, it becomes the truth." Exhibit A for that is after Trump's hot mic episode yesterday, Hillary tweeted this:
Wow, is that the pot calling the kettle black? This woman, who for over forty years has enabled her husband with his lewd and misogynistic activities, has the gall to call Trump's actions horrific and to state that he should never become president because of what he said? Well, Hillary, saying something is one thing, but doing something is another. Trump has said a LOT of things but what has he actually done to women other than give them opportunities and pay them equally? Compare and contrast Trump with her husband's and her own treatment of women. His activities are the stuff of legend. Her female staffers have gotten paid a lot less than their male counterparts.
Enough about feigned rage. Let's talk about temperament. Hillary's complaint is that Donald Trump doesn't have the temperament to be POTUS. Oh, but she does, right? Uh huh...
There are scores of books in print about Hillary's infamous temper and her loathing of authoritative people within government, including her Secret Service detail, the military guards and attachés and other support staff. There are also numerous accounts (too many to brush off merely as Clinton hit pieces) of Bill's activities toward women. Many of these allegations have been corroborated under oath by Clinton himself after years of denials or smarmy obfuscation. Hillary's efforts at controlling "bimbo eruptions" are well known, but ignored by those who would have her as the first female president.
(The-Asterisk note: if the sex of an individual is now such a fluid and non-permanent construct, then why is the fact that zhe is a female, or that zhe at least self-identifies as one, such an important issue? Why does it matter that zhe may be the first person who identifies as a female to become POTUS? Can't we all just get along? What difference, at this point, does it make?)
Some of the books I have read about Hillary, Bill, their foundation and her election activities include Hillary's America by Dinesh D'Souza, Crisis of Character by Gary Byrne, Stealing America by Dinesh D'Souza, Clinton Cash by Peter Schweizer, The Center Holds: Obama and His Enemies by Jonathan Alter and Game Change by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin. USAF Lt. Col Robert Patterson (Ret.) wrote a book in 2003 called "Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Compromised America's National Security" in which he discussed a documented instance of the President sexually molesting a female service member aboard Air Force One.
What is so galling about these accounts is that they all happened during incumbency either as President, Senator, Governor, Secretary of State, First Lady or while campaigning therefore. Most of Donald Trump's "sins" were recorded while he was a private citizen.
Have you noticed how few recordings have been made of the Clintons in spite of the fact that they have been public figures for almost 40 years? Same with Obama. If Trump's college transcript could be used against him in this campaign, you can rest assured that it would have surfaced in spite of privacy laws. Ten years has elapsed and not one word of Obama's pre-political history has escaped from various institutions. Documentation has arisen only when he allowed it and they wonder why the "birther movement" gained traction? Trump hides his tax returns because he hasn't paid any tax for 20 years, right? Guilt by association, but Obama can hide his history and his desire to keep it hidden has no sinister implications. Yeah, right. Nothing to see here... move along.
As I have stated, hypocrisy is rampant from the left and the center. Trump, as imperfect as he is, is not an idiot. He may sometimes act like one, but he really isn't stupid. Does he have the vast wealth of global knowledge of Hillary? Of course not. Did Obama know much about anything before he became President? How could he? How would he? Did he watch "the shows" or read books? I read books. I watch shows. I listen to people from both sides, Would that make me ready to assume the presidency? Maybe yes, maybe no. What would make me ready is that my ideas and opinions are strong enough to convince over half of the nation (at least over half of the Electors) that I am on their side. I might not be glib and I might not have inherent knowledge at my beck and call, but isn't that what advisors are for? And if we are to believe that advisors can be biased and can unduly influence the decision-maker, then what sort of life experience does Hillary bring to the table to counteract her advisors? What about Obama? What about Trump? You either trust your advisors or you don't. You can't have it both ways.
We, as humans, all have implicit bias. What? What is implicit bias? It is a term of art which has been receiving attention. It also surfaced in the recent leaks of John Podesta's email where he discusses the promotion of the term with one of George Soros' people. Hillary recently said that all police have implicit bias. Implicit means that the effect is implied, unconscious, as opposed to explicit bias which is overt and openly expressed. Well, duh.
As I have stated previously, if you have a beautiful golden retriever running toward you, you will probably bend over to receive the dog and hug it lovingly when it almost knocks you over upon its arrival. But, if that dog is a pit bull, a snarling Rottweiler or an angry German Shepherd released from a K-9 officer, you will either run or seek shelter. What kind of bias is that? Do you hate all dogs? Do you hate all pit bulls? Maybe you don't hate at all, but realize that at that moment, the dog coming toward you is a threat. How do you make that decision? Is it implicit bias? Training? Human instinct? Is it the "crocodile brain" jumping into action to protect you? What happens if the German Shepherd arrives and starts licking you? Are you suddenly a bad person for thinking incorrectly about the dog? Are you racist? Doggist? Sexist?
My point is that we all are nothing more than the sum of our decision-making processes and our experiences. Experiences borne of actually living life and interacting with people or experiences borne of incessant reading and study. Which is better? Can some knowledge and experiences not be beneficial? Should we automatically be disqualified to hold higher office if we had a bad childhood? If we grew up in oppressive poverty? If we grew up under a totalitarian system of government? If our spouse abused us? If we said sexist things when we thought no one was looking or listening? If we studied the wrong books or went to the wrong college? Where is the boundary? Is there a boundary?
How do you determine who will be a good President? Remember that everyone thought that Harry Truman would be a horrible President. As a good friend used to tell me, "Some people are born great and others have greatness thrust upon them."
Temperament. Judgement. Experience. Leadership. These are some of the intangibles we all want from our leaders. I read somewhere today that Trump's 3 AM tweets are who he is. You can't take it away from him. Probably true, but should we take them away from him? How would a President Trump tweeting about something that really pisses him off differ greatly in our wired, social media era than a strategic leak or comment to a reporter on deep background from an "unnamed senior White House official"?
Conventional wisdom holds that tweeting is childish for Presidents, therefore a President shouldn't be doing it. How dare the mainstream media, where every journalist has a Twitter handle, consign our next President to a 1950's communications model where he or she speaks only through spokespersons, scripted speeches or impromptu media events? Is Donald Trump a loose cannon? He has shown that he can be, but he also understands how to work the media to get his word out. As President, should he change his methods? I would suggest that he modify them to meet the enhanced security and seriousness which comes with the office. When Trump is in negotiation for a hotel or golf course site, is he blabbing about it to the world unless he thinks that it would enhance his position? No he isn't.
This man is different. What upsets so many in the establishment is that he cannot be controlled by them and their money. This makes him public enemy number one. He is actually, socially more in alignment with the left, but his siding with Tea Party values on immigration, taxation, trade and the military make him the enemy of the left. Ignore him at your peril.
Comments