Published on Townhall.com
That ego plays a major role with political over-achievers comes as no surprise. After all, why run for office if you don’t think you can do the job better than anybody else? And the pinnacle of political office is no place for Mitty’s, is it?
It’s also no surprise that for the Oval’s incumbent, ego is Barack Obama’s foxhole buddy. When he campaigned for office, he promised transformational immigration legislation as his first priority, and that he could have done with control of both houses of Congress for two years. Because he felt Dems owned the Latino vote, he tossed his pledge aside and made Obamacare his cause. Knowing better than anyone else, he locked Republicans out of the room, and forced the ill-starred measure on the country.
Because Obama had already polished his persona to a high gloss, his accomplices in State Media (CNN, NBC, MSNBC, WAPO, and the NYT could teach Pravda) gave him a pass on his promises about immigration, keeping one’s plan and doctor, and the windfall savings he said would wash over every family. Neither Obama nor consummate USG bunglers—shovel-ready aficionados all—were ever held accountable for the record jobless. No realities about the Emperor’s new clothes spurred his ego to press another philosophical priority: class and race hatred.
Throughout his campaigns and two terms of his presidency, BHO has always thought and acted as if he’s known more than the people he serves, his opposing party, and yes, his generals—and when he said so, times unnumbered, his media domestics allowed him to step over yet another low bar of truth.
Hillary Clinton, ironically, has been unwittingly transparent about her King Kong self-image. Leaked emails tell the ego story. Who else could boast to Brazilian bankers of her dream for a Western Hemisphere of open borders for people and trade? Who else could tell her listeners it’s wholly acceptable to have both public and private positions on important and sensitive issues, despite the implications of hypocrisy and dishonesty? (How would she know?) Who else, then, in a public debate, would compare herself to Abraham Lincoln and his maneuverings to pass the 13th Amendment?
We know her very public positions on extreme abortion rights and partial birth abortions (has she every thought about human rights, one wonders?), and we know she clings to the open borders mantra of Obama and progressives everywhere. So what in heaven’s name are her private positions on these matters, if one concludes they’d be more extreme than public posturings? Her own squad of media accomplices has let her pass between the rock and a hard place unscathed by truth.
Then, we come to Donald J. Trump, looking more and more like this cycle’s patsy for the biggest progressive power grab yet. DJT is the only unvarnished piece of presidential timber in the race. Others and the incumbent have bracketed, dissembled, and outright lied, but with Trump you get splinters and the knots that have not been burred out. If the electorate craves true transparency, they certainly have found it in this man.
Trump’s greatest failing is not his sometimes crass behavior; it’s that despite his wealth, he has never been one of the polished establishment class. To them, he is the rube who says in front of a mic what everyone of them—and every politician—knows can only be said in front of family at a beery barbecue. Trump has been rolled and doesn’t know it yet, and the shame of it is that like a George Patton, he may be the best one-term bet this country has to bring our ancient values back in balance.
Clinton has taken to saying she’s “the only things standing between (the people) and the apocalypse.” In an odd way, she is absolutely correct. If the voters foolishly push aside the only candidate in decades who is genuine, unvarnished, though faultful, but whose motives aren’t hostage to Wall Street and a bitter brand of politically correct socialism, Hillary Rodham Clinton IS the apocalypse.
According to Clintonians, the population falls into nice little throwaway boxes: there’s the irredeemable, deplorables, the standard rednecks, the Bible-beaters, and of course, the needy Latinos. No doubt, Blacks, Muslims, and the LGBTQ crowds have had some nice descriptors applied to them, but we just haven’t heard them yet.
If trends continue, this nation will soon trade everything we hold dear—freedoms of speech and religion, gun rights, human rights for the unborn, educational freedom, security within our borders, foreign policy exceptionalism, economic self-control, a say in our national destiny—just because a few too many of us are offended by the crass behaviors of the better candidate for our times. As an aside, will Clinton do for gender equality what Obama did for race relations?
Trump is held accountable for stupid words and unproven actions from long ago, yet Clinton is not accountable for today’s outright lies and probably criminal behaviors, not to mention the very real abuse of women by her and her husband? Because we are offended by someone’s private words, we will install in the White House a pair of the most corrupt, dishonest people ever to seek our votes?
Voting for Hillary, as some conscience cowards have begun to do, will only hasten our national demise. Even if she could be impeached, we’d be stuck with Kaine. As we have seen, Kaine is, on many levels, no Abel.
To this writer—no Trump loyalist by any stretch—the choice remains clear: Vote for this flawed male, hit-man to our sensitivities to be sure, and if he fails to meet his constitutional responsibilities in taking his promised steps to right our ship of State, impeach him. If necessary, Mike Pence succeeding him would be Trump’s parting gift to us all.
Spelling out these options may be crass, but to borrow a bit from Goldwater, some vulgarity in the cause of liberty can be no vice.