View on the news

The two worst candidates in the world

Posted

As we Americans enter the voting booth on Nov. 8, we will not just be choosing between the lesser of evils. We will be electing either a duplicitous, deceitful, far-left liberal, or an erratic egomaniac with no real ideology other than a narcissistic obsession with securing his image as the nucleus of the world’s attention.

This absurd situation makes one ponder how out of 310 million people in the United States, these two can possibly be the best choices. So how did these despicable nominees prevail in the primaries? Furthermore, what effect will of Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton’s win have on the nation, and what kind of administration might they have?

What are these two pathetic candidates saying on the stump, and does it hold any veracity? Furthermore, it seems unlikely that either candidate can overcome the defects in their personalities, which have defined one as an impetuous adolescent-acting madman and the other as a chronic liar who could not tell the truth if her life depended on it.

As with the presidential race of 1992, the axiom “It’s the economy stupid” should be the primary focus of this year’s race. However, both campaigns seem to be stuck in the muck of mudslinging and personal assails on each other’s character without much concentration on our meager 1 percent economic growth, our 67 percent expenditure (as a portion of the national budget) on entitlements, and our astronomically growing $19 trillion national debt.

Recently, both candidates gave weak economic policy addresses that were boilerplate party speeches absent of passion or innovation. The lackluster nature of these messages along with the entire tenor of the campaigns thus far led everyone to question how we ended up with the two worst candidates in the world.

Clinton’s designs on the presidency are decades old. She holds an imperious attitude of inevitability. Simply, she should be entitled to the presidency after all her suffering as the target of the “great right wing conspiracy.” One could argue that as the former senator from New York, the former Secretary of State under Obama, and eight years as First Lady of the United States, that her pedigree demands her elevation. Despite the inherent arrogance in that logic, Clinton in league with former Democratic National Committee Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) engineered the mathematics of “superdelegates,” arranged Saturday night debates (the lowest ratings night on television) to give her opponent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) less exposure, and prevented an unbounded vote on the floor of the convention in order to ensure Hillary’s elevation. Many Democrats were discouraged from entering the race in the first place for fear they would not get DNC support down the line.

Only the courageous and maverick Sanders along with former Maryland Gov. Martin O’ Malley and quixotic candidate former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee entered despite being warned off by the Democrat hierarchy.

Chafee and O’Malley were dispatched in short order, leaving only Sanders, who arguably might have won without the well-planned impediments in his way to the nomination.

Trump’s pathway to the nomination of the GOP was built on insults and bombast. Following the comedian Don Rickles in cadence and style, the Donald berated and belittled his multiple competitors, assigning them demeaning nicknames. His unorthodox manner broadsided these practiced politicians so much so that they were stunned and simply did not know how to mount a successful counter-strategy.

Additionally, on the stump, Trump uses generalized targets of universal culpability to curry favor with audiences. He asserts that Muslims are bad cannot be trusted, and that we do not want anymore of them to enter the U.S. He asserts that Mexicans are sneaking in to the nation and stealing good Americans jobs, and that they are rapists and criminals. He claims he will build a 2,000-mile wall and make the Mexican president pay for it. He claims he will end Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act) and replace it with something great, while offering no details. He also pledges to impose a 35-percent tariff on imported goods to restore the nation’s manufacturing base, and to renegotiate all trade deals.

All these aforementioned assertions are untenable and beyond the scope of what the executive branch can do. However, the outlandish claims appealed to the visceral and non-contemplative voter, coupled with indulgent coverage in the entertainment-centered cable news departments. That is how Trump secured the nomination of the Republican Party.

Now that Trump and Clinton are the nominees, the burning question is, what would a Trump or Clinton White House look like? In the case of Trump, it is anyone’s guess. In his private family corporation, he can make unilateral decisions, and judging by his statements on the stump he thinks he can run the executive branch by dictum as well. His pathetic lack of constitutional knowledge will lead to him waking up to an unwelcome reality if elected. The only model of governing that would seem to work for the Donald’s personality would be to appoint a powerful chief of staff like Ronald Reagan’s Don Regan or George H.W. Bush’s Jim Baker. This would give him the ability to be the center of ceremonial exposure without having to possess an intense knowledge of policy. Also, he could empower a Vice President Mike Pence to become essentially an acting president much in the way Dick Cheney was in George W. Bush’s first term as president.

The danger would be if the hypersensitive and often childlike Trump would act impetuously if riled or challenged by foreign foes. But as a figurehead president, with a crack conservative Republican staff, he could possibly succeed providing he was not too intimately involved in his own presidency.

Clinton on the other hand would have trouble delegating. She assuredly believes she is the smartest person in any room. Plus her dyed-in-the-wool liberal beliefs would undoubtedly continue most of the failed policies of Barack Obama. Also, with the “First Gentleman” in the East Wing, one cannot lessen the impact of the old hound on his wife’s administration. Providing he can keep his pants on this time around, a great many of the Bill Clinton schematics on policy I am sure will become the template for Hillary.

If Hillary can adopt some humility and delegate to key people and not dismiss those who she thinks are intellectually inferior, she could be more successful.

Of course, the problem with both these candidates is, will they try to act upon what they stated on the campaign trail, or was that all bluster and hyperbole?

As Secretary of State, Hillary was a great proponent of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). She called it the “gold standard.” Also, as First Lady she said the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) “was proving its worth.” During this campaign she has railed against both agreements. Thus, what would be a Clinton administration trade policy? No one knows.

Her trite economic speech had mostly Democrat run-of-the-mill suggestions like investment in infrastructure, top 1 percent tax raises, free public college for family incomes under $125,000 in earnings, money for more police officers, money for school improvement, and greater improvement in veteran services. Other than free tuition, this economic speech was old Democrat rhetoric. Of course, there is no way to pay for any of her proposals.

Similarly, Trump’s lukewarm speech spouted age-old tax cuts as its cornerstone. This rhetoric was unimaginative and unenthusiastically delivered. Neither of these poor candidates addressed the two raging elephants in the room, our growing national debt and our growing entitlement burden.

So while Hillary is calling Donald unstable and Donald is calling Hillary crooked, little substantial discourse is being discussed. And if it where, what could we believe anyway from these two candidates who lack any earnestness? All we know is that on Nov. 8, we are going to have to connect the arrows for one or the other. Like a fixed roulette wheel or a stacked deck, with either choice you will lose!

Comments

6 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here

  • Straightnnarrow

    In a few months, CC will either flip flop on what he has written or will go to the funny farm and at this stage it looks like it will be the funny farm, which is too bad because he is a very talented writer and could offer the reader some helpful insight instead of his continual carping on the failures of these candidates.

    Tuesday, August 23, 2016 Report this

  • RISchadenfreude

    Fortunately, continued investigations into Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation and the email scandal, to name the top three, are keeping Hillary on the ropes; Trump's recent pivot, new advisors and Louisiana tour are keeping him in the news in a positive light, despite his constant negative coverage by the press and MSM who have given up any pretext of objective reporting.

    If Trump wins, at least the Dems can stop blaming G.W. Bush for everything, in spite of the fact he's been out of office for nearly eight years while Golden Boy has run the Nation into the ground through incompetence.

    It's funny that no matter who's in office, it's always the Republican's fault that things are going badly, particularly in a place like RI where the Governor is a token figurehead and the Democrat GA has been in power for over 70 years.

    Tuesday, August 23, 2016 Report this

  • JohnStark

    They are not necessarily the "best choices", but they are The Choices. It is what it is, people. Deal with it. With Trump, I don't know exactly what I'm getting, but I can be hopeful. With Clinton, I know exactly what I'm getting, and it's disastrous. Not really a tough call.

    Tuesday, August 23, 2016 Report this

  • Ken B

    The only way to avoid congressional gridlock is for Mitt Romney to enter the race as an independent. He is the only one who can work with foreign leaders, Democrats, Republicans and independents to get things done in the congress and bring some measure of peace to the world. I can't imagine any political leader who would trust Trump or Hillary to provide solutions to the problems facing the United States and the world today.

    Wednesday, August 24, 2016 Report this

  • Straightnnarrow

    CC is right half right about these candidates being the worst in the world. It will be surprising if Hellery can make it to November with the disclosures that have surfaced recently about her appointments at DOS and connection with the family criminal foundation and continual email lies.

    Mr Trump has been absolutely outstanding this week and is the best candidate we have had in 50 yearsr!!! For once, we have a real choice, but the snobs in the MSM including CC can't see that.

    Wednesday, August 24, 2016 Report this

  • TheSkipper

    Ken B are you serious? Mitt Romney couldn't beat Obama the worst president in the history of America and he sure can't beat Hillary who would make Obama the SECOND worst!

    People will not vote for Mitt Romney because he's a Mormon. Call it what you will but every person I talked to in the last election gave this as their excuse for voting against him. He is essentially unelectable.

    Mormonism is considered a cult, like Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Seventh Day Adventists, and Christian Scientists. People today don't even want a Fundamentalist Christian or anyone professing a belief in Jesus!

    Mitt Romney brings nothing to the republican race in this election. In addition to that we'd only be opening the door for the

    "Old Lying Grandma" to sit in the oval office.

    Wednesday, August 24, 2016 Report this