Posts Tagged ‘President’

I have not voted for one of the major two party candidates for President since ’92. Back then it was Bill Clinton (D), who got my vote. For many reasons I chose to not make what I considered a mistake a second time. From 1992 till now I have not voted for either of the two Party’s candidates for the Big Chair.

This year’s election cycle is much different from most, this year’s candidates are very, very different from most, and the things the next President will be responsible for handling are of such consequence that I will be making the hard choice. I must ignore my reservations about Hillary Clinton AND my absolute, fundamental disagreements with her social ideas, her economic policies and, indeed her ‘approach’ – mostly via her surrogates in the Liberal Water Carrier media – for presenting the case against her opponent, one Donald J. Trump.

country-893231_960_720

 

Yes, Hillary Clinton IS a liar, perhaps a compulsive one. Yes, Hillary Clinton’s email/server fiasco WAS and IS criminal. Yes, Hillary Clinton’s record as Secretary Of State was abysmal. Yes, Hillary Clinton’s likely appointees to the Supreme Court fill me with trepidation and dread. Finally, yes, Hillary Clinton’s fundamental hypocrisy vis her economics (Goldman Sachs speeches, anyone?) and her clear dis-ingenuousness over  her alleged support for the Middle Class, the poor, and ‘Social Justice’ makes my skin crawl.

This and yet…we have one Donald J. Trump.

There is no contest, not when the primary job of the President is to serve as Commander-In-Chief of our military, to enter the US into Treaties, and to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”.

There is no contest.  I will ignore my disagreements with her on policy, my fear of her likely SCOTUS appointments, and my reservations about her character, BECAUSE we have one Donald J. Trump.

Before I give my reasons for voting FOR Hillary Clinton, I shall make my case for why I am NOT voting for Donald Trump. I will deal with all the main arguments made in support of him by way of a series of questions his supporters SHOULD grapple with.

On the issue of the Supreme Court: Trump has explicitly stated his support & admiration for judges who are, objectively, Liberal. What evidence exists that he will NOT nominate a Liberal – or several?  On this, it is a wash, as Mrs. Clinton will all but certainly nominate only liberals.

On the issue of immigration and on refugees: Trump has ‘modified’ (and then had to ‘clarify’ those ‘modifications’) his positions on refugees AND on immigration policies, often within a matter of days between changes. At times even within the same speech. What evidence exists to indicate he will support policy that is positive vis national security & economy and what evidence exists that one can make use of to know which of the many versions he has proposed that he will eventually support? On this, it is a wash. His policies MAY be different than hers,  though we have no idea what they are today and no way of knowing what they will be tomorrow, but the ones he HAS come out for thus far are nearly universally panned by experts on National Security and covert intelligence as being counter productive to our overall interests vis Radical Islam. The have been panned also by pro free market economic experts as counter productive to our interests vis jobs and growth.

Trump has been all over the board vis tax policy. What evidence exists that one can make use of to know what policy he will eventually support? Trump has showed a penchant and admiration for Big Government authority and a contempt for free market capitalism (via his own crony capitalism) his entire career. What evidence exists by which one can know that he will do ANYTHING positive in relation to the private sector to boost employment, help employers raise wages or to deal with our broken Tax Code? Why would he? He has benefited from said brokenness  and from the crony capitalism it creates his entire career.

The primary arguments folks make for Trump, his ‘expertise’ on economics and his “strength” in dealing with our adversaries, are smoke and mirrors. The man is not only no ‘expert’, the things he supports – on the days when he does – will have the opposite of the stated intended effect. He knows it, too.

He cannot be as ‘smart’ as he himself alleges if he does not know it. I believe he knows, and I believe that he does not care.

But I do not vote AGAINST a candidate, I vote FOR one. I shall be voting for Hillary Clinton. Let me tell you why.

Radical Islam.

As I previously stated, the primary job of the President is to serve as the Commander-In-Chief. Unlike in 1992, when I voted for Mrs. Clinton’s husband, or in 1996, when I chose to NOT vote for him (I believe I chose wisely), and unlike from 1996 till now when I have voted for NO major party candidate, today we have the specter of an organized, fully all-in,  worldwide and murderous Radical Islam.

Mrs. Clinton, if need be, will do what Trump will not and she is guaranteed to NOT do things he certainly will, namely to ostracize more non violent Muslims whom we need if we ever intend to actually fight Radical Islam. And now that Radical Islam is everywhere, including here in the Homeland, fight it we must.

Tackling the ideology of Radical Islam and completely destroying its practitioners IS the number one job our nation faces today. All other issues are irrelevant if there is no tomorrow. There will be no tomorrow if there is no US to guarantee that it will come – that is what we do – and there will be no US if Radical Islam succeeds. Despite claims otherwise, they are indeed winning today.

War against Radical Islam. The choice of who will lead the fight is between Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump. I’d normally vote libertarian for most offices, but today that is no option. On the whole the Libertarian Party refuses to recognize the reality of the threat, so the choice is clear.

Consider this: On the issue of Radical Islam and its most successful incarnation – ISIS – Donald Trump claims he “knows more about ISIS than the {US} Generals”. I submit that this arrogant, absurd and dismissive statement alone disqualifies Donald Trump to ever give a single order from the Big Chair.

Consider this also: Though her former boss, President Barack Obama, clearly has little stomach for this fight, Mrs. Clinton has shown herself to be fairly hawkish by comparison, much to the chagrin of her supporters on the extreme Left.

Finally, there is the issue that rises above all others in relation to what we may eventually have to decide:

IF it becomes necessary to take the fight all the way with the ultimate ‘fist as argument’ approach…when and/or IF it becomes clear that no amount of reasoning and no amount of counter propaganda will prevent ever more young Muslims from being radicalized…IF it is clear that the march of Radical Islam cannot be stopped by all other tools at our disposal…..IF we must decide whether to Go Nagasaki on Riyadh, on Raqqa, or on any space where Radical Islam’s Caliphate finally settles, who is the person we want as Commander-In-Chief?

Donald J. Trump has shown a demonstrable lack of courage (indeed, a lack of basic knowledge) on the President’s number one hard choice. We may well end up needing a Harry Truman in the Oval Office. With his vacillation and his two steps on the issue of Nuclear First Strike, we have instead a Herbert Hoover.

The choice is clear: Hillary Clinton, an unknown quantity vis hard choices, or Donald Trump, a man incapable of simply stating he will make the hard choice if need be. The Donald is attempting to hold opposing positions simultaneously in his mind. His conflicting premises on this – the most important of all issues facing any President – is,  I submit, irrationality unworthy of a Commander-In-Chief and deadly in its consequence.

Risk vs. Reward.

The choice is clear.

On Tuesday, November 8th I will be pulling the lever for a Democrat (and for one of the two major parties) for the first time in nearly a quarter century.

I will do so with a clear conscience.

Choose wisely, folks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

gop drinking game

Image via Flikr and is owned by Gage Skidmore

Image via Flikr and is owned by Gage Skidmore

Donald, I wish I could look beyond your loose mouth, your impulsiveness, and your short fuse, but I can’t. They were fun, attractive, exciting and very different from what I had come to expect from politicians. Your latest comments went too far, however, old friend.  You have shown a crass inability to know that, as in business, there is an art to being a Commander-In-chief. The two arts are very, very different, though.

This is a campaign to decide who will be my next President, it is not a reality show and it is not your next ‘Deal’. Do you understand the difference? (more…)

 

Quote of the Day

NPR’s interview with the New York Times’ David Carr exposes one of the real scandals of press coverage of politics and our government. Never mind the deliberately generated faux concern of the Huffington Post with their raging about Newsweek’s supposedly sensational covers

20120918-122542.jpg

How’s bout having coverage that, oh, let’s think a bit, doesn’t sell us out?

Vanity Fair’s ‘get’ of the President – their interview which

got a lot for the agreement that [was]made.

[check out NPR’s sit down with David Carr of the NYT for the story]

ought make everyone Rage Against the Machine of politicos and government folk trading access in exchange for the media agreeing to help fine tune the politico’s message sans ‘uncomfortable’ quotes.

mister anchor, assure me
that Baghdad, is burning
your voice it is so soothing
that cunning mantra of killing
i need you, my witness
to dress this up so bloodless
to numb me, and purge me now
of thoughts of blaming you

(Rage Against the Machine – Testify) (more…)

Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life

Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I feel a bizarre sense of indebtedness to Tucker Carlson Editor-In-Chief of The Daily Caller and Fox News commentator. Thanks to Tucker’s blank out on live t.v. Hunter now feels simultaneously blessed, fearful, discouraged, and – borrowing from the sense of life of the 2008 campaign of then Presidential hopeful Barack Obama – hopeful.

Today we know that the hope of President Obama’s oratory was at best disingenuous, and yet…oh, the hope.

It certainly inspired all those Statists in our midst.

Such a bag of mixed premises and ambivalence your correspondent now lives with this fine morning. Hunter must thank Tucker for his open (though hidden from himself) acknowledgement that Ayn Rand was usually right. Thanks, Tucker. With friends like these…

Tucker was discussing the 2012 election on Fox News’ America’s Newsroom this morning.

Speaking to Martha MacCallum, Tucker and Martha came around to the oft alluded to ‘gender gap’ and ‘marriage gap’ between Conservatives and Liberals. Tucker acknowledged that said gap exists: he recognized that unmarried people and women are far more likely to vote Democrat than Republican. He admitted he was a bit unnerved by it, saying he wasn’t sure why it was so.

Thank you – and, also…thanks a whole friggin’ lot, Tucker. Thank you for handing Hunter a gift few people receive – the opportunity to watch decades of failures and evasions of a philosophical movement and a political party jump out from the screen in the guise of your blank out on live television. Thanks, Tucker, for the reminder of how right Rand was about the mess that is the Republican party. (more…)