There was ample evidence over the past week that all three of the candidates currently leading their respective party’s races for the presidential nomination are unqualified for the office by virtue of their deficiencies of competence, character, and principles. Hillary Clinton had the most spectacularly revealing week, but first, the other two….
Donald Trump: Hubris, incompetence, disrespect and unfairness
1. “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters,” Trump boasted at a campaign rally yesterday. I know, it’s a joke. It’s also an astoundingly stupid thing to say, even in jest, and reveals massive hubris, the quality that brought down many a Greek king and the worst and most dangerous of all Trump flaws. This is what will get him, sooner or later. 3000 years of history and literature teach us that. The comment also reveals utter contempt for his supporters; he is essentially calling them blind morons. The crowd in Iowa laughed….because they are.
2.“Our great veterans are being treated terribly,” Trump says in a new campaign video. “The corruption in the Veteran’s administration, the incompetence is beyond. We will stop that.” Then critics pointed out that the clips used showed Russian veterans, not Americans, and he pulled the ad.
This is the man whose only claim to legitimacy is his management wizardry. Such an error, however, is proof of sloppy oversight and incompetent delegation. Moreover, this is the second time a Trump campaign ad included mislabeled material: his illegal immigration ad earlier this month used footage of people crossing the Moroccan border to represent the U.S.-Mexico border. Conclusion: he’s faking it, “it” meaning everything. This is all posturing and bluffing, like a student taking an exam for a course he never studied for.
3. The National Review published a much-discussed anti-Trump issue, and here was The Donald’s rebuttal:
“The National Review is a dying dying paper. Its circulation is way down. Not very many people read him anymore. People don’t even think about The National Review. I guess they want to get a little publicity. But that’s a dying paper. I got to tell you, it’s pretty much a dead paper.”
One of many reasons I will maintain to the death that Donald Trump is not very bright is that he immediately defaults, in all arguments, to rationalizations and logical fallacies. This is the mark of a deficient, unschooled and lazy mind. The issue, dolt, is the substance of The National Review’s arguments, not how big their circulation is. His device here is the ad hominem attack, a tactic popular on middle school playgrounds.
1. Sanders finally put out his health care “plan,” and it was careless, vague and unrealistic. Sanders ignores foreign policy, and his only claim to power is his grand socialist illusions. If they don’t make sense, he’s an even more ludicrous candidate than he appears. The apologetically progressive website Vox reviewed the Sanders health care plan, and found it atrocious. Here’s just a sample, as Vox dismembers just one part of the “plan”:
“…Sanders goes on to say that his plan means “no more fighting with insurance companies when they fail to pay for charges.” To be generous, it’s possible that Sanders is just being cynical in his wording, and what he means is that under his plan, individuals have to fight with the government rather than private insurers when their claims are denied. But the implication to most people, I think, is that claim denials will be a thing of the past — a statement that belies the fights patients have every day with public insurers like Medicare and Medicaid, to say nothing of the fights that go on in the Canadian, German, or British health care systems. What makes that so irresponsible is that it stands in flagrant contradiction to the way single-payer plans actually work — and the way Sanders’s plan will have to work if its numbers are going to add up.”
This is Sanders in his supposed wheelhouse, and he still makes no sense.
2. And here he is away from his comfort zone—the way a branch of the U.S. government works. Sanders, who is relentless in attacking the Citizens United Supreme Court decision—you know, that horrible ruling that said the U.S. couldn’t censor movies and books during an election cycle—tweeted out this:
“Any Supreme Court nominee of mine will make overturning Citizens United one of their first decisions.”
…thus showing that he a) has learned very little after decades in the Senate and b) flunked 10th grade civics. Supreme Court justices are constitutionally required to decide only “cases” and “controversies.” They cannot simply review a previous decision and hold that it was wrongly decided; indeed, they must observe the institutional presumption that a binding precedent was rightly decided. SCOTUS has to wait for a legal dispute to reach its docket, then, four justices, not one as Bernie seems to think, must agree to hear it. Then a majority of the court must vote to invalidate or uphold the law in question. This process typically takes years.
Sanders’ statement is embarrassing. He can’t blame this on his campaign’s tweeter, because he has said the same, ignorant, misleading nonsense in speeches. I suppose the Senate’s designated socialist crackpot doesn’t have to know beans about the United States government, since he’s only there for laughs, contrast, and isn’t diversity wonderful? A President, however, should understand the government he has the gall to want to oversee before he runs for the office. What else doesn’t Bernie understand? The mind boggles.
Hillary Clinton: Corruption, Dishonesty, and Incompetence.
1. Let’s see: last week…
- It was revealed in a letter from the Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III, an Obama appointee, that messages on Clinton’s private server were not just classified, as Hillary has repeatedly denied, but some even went Top Secret classification, and
- …included material on clandestine human-intelligence sources, meaning that she potentially endangered intelligence personnel, secret agents and local assets in the field.
- More released e-mails show that, contrary to Clinton’s assertions, the State Department did tell her to start using the official e-mail system.
- Robert Gates, Obama’s former Defense Secretary, said that “the odds are pretty high” that her home server was accessed by one or more hostile foreign governments, such as China, Iran and Russia
- Former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey opined in The Wall Street Journal that it is “nearly impossible to draw any conclusion other than that she knew enough to support a [criminal] conviction at the least for mishandling classified information.”
Perhaps most damning of all, the Clinton camp’s response to all of this is that it is just a Republican conspiracy, with the Democratic inspector general complicit in the plot. This is the default Clinton and Co. excuse when facts, logic, a civic responsibility are against them. At this point, only the hard-core corrupted among her acolytes can find this anything but desperate. The episode, even missing some key information, shows that Hillary was reckless, negligent, ignorant of technology and dishonest about what occurred. She also admits to destroying evidence. Maybe those e-mails were purely personal, and maybe they were emails containing classified information that Clinton could afford the FBI to know about. Clinton has based her argument to lead on her competence, and this was stunningly incompetent by any objective assessment.
2. Here, however, is the best part. Ann Althouse, the moderate to liberal blogging law professor, scored a masterpiece reacting to the New York Times’ story, headlined “’90s Scandals Threaten to Erode Hillary Clinton’s Strength With Women.,” nailing both Hillary’s hypocrisy and the disgraceful complicity of the left-leaning news media in allowing it. She writes in part:
Why headline that now? …Does the NYT want Bernie Sanders? I doubt it. But I’m sure they want the Democratic nominee to win the election. Bernie’s heating up so strongly, Clinton’s weakness as a candidate is becoming more obvious, and the NYT is certainly privy to far more oppo-research material on Hillary than I know. Just yesterday, it ran the story “Hillary Clinton Email Said to Include Material Exceeding ‘Top Secret.'” The FBI investigation looms. What else is coming? Is it not too late to bring Biden back out?
I suspect there’s utter panic behind the scenes as Trump and Cruz dominate the GOP race. It would be one thing to let Hillary do her best, maybe fall short, and let nice Mr. Bush sit in the Oval Office for 4 years while the Democratic Party rebuilds itself. But Trump/Cruz won’t be docile seat warmers. It’s a dire emergency.
And so, at long last, what Hillary did to women matters. Women aren’t Hillary’s natural constituency, we’re her victims.Now that the stories…The stories…… are resurfacing…
You submerged them! You submerged them for partisan political ends and you’re participating in dragging them back up because of — I can’t help presuming — partisan political ends….Of course, Clinton herself worked to submerge the story — the story not just of what Bill did sexually but of how Bill’s people, including Hillary, discredited the women. This has gone on for more than 20 years, 20 years of distorting the development of women’s equality in the workplace.
The professor quotes a young blogging feminist who has just recently discovered, led by Donald Trump’s unmannerly reminders, that Bill “sexually harassed people and she worked to cover it up, ” and who now says of the Clintons. “A lot of girls in my age group are huge feminists, and we don’t react well to that.” Then she quotes Jennifer Weiner, “a best-selling novelist and feminist,” as saying, that Trump’s attacks make Mrs. Clinton look less like “a strong, self-actualized feminist leader who women can proudly get behind,” and more “like a craven opportunist, and an apologist for a predator.”
“Mr. Trump’s attacks! Why would it take a Trump attack to make you see Hillary that way? He can only make her look that way because the factual material is there. But you were looking away, conveniently. That looking away that you did on your own I call anti-feminism. If you read far enough into the article, you’ll get to a quote from Camille Paglia: “It’s not about Bill Clinton’s peccadilloes… It’s about Hillary Clinton’s behavior towards her husband’s accusers for all those years.” Exactly.”
And there you have it, ladies and gents, our three current front-runners for the Presidency, at this crucial time in our history and that of the world, when a competently led United States is literally a matter of survival.
Please add to the disgrace of their own obvious untrustworthiness and lack of fitness to lead, these:
…The two major parties, who have a duty to present to the American people qualified, admirable and honorable candidates for the office, and have failed that duty spectacularly…
…The news media, which has allowed its bias and incompetence to render it impotent and useless to educate and inform the public sufficiently so that candiadtes this dreadful never reach the point of achieving power, and…
…Most of all, the American public, whose lack of civic literacy, powers of analysis and knowledge allow charlatans, demagogues, scoundrels and fools to win their support without even hiding their nature particularly well.