Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
A Fighting Chance for Integrity
As someone who believes that excessive partisanship and Balkanization is poisoning our politics, I have tried to view Hillary Clinton as something other than the ghoul she is portrayed as in conservative circles. No accusation against her is considered too outlandish to gain assent in some precincts of the right. Vince Foster was murdered. Clinton covered up a cocaine smuggling operation in Arkansas. She assassinated Kathleen Willey’s cat.
It seems a waste of effort to conjure lurid theories about Hillary Clinton when the truth is thoroughly, totally damning. Of course all politicians shade the truth to some degree and we’re not electing a pastor and all that – but as a voter, one likes to believe that candidates are at least operating broadly within the same moral universe as the rest of us. She isn’t — and neither is Donald Trump.
As the new report from the State Department’s Inspector General hammers home, Hillary Clinton endangered US secrets and then repeatedly lied about it. “Everything I did was permitted,” she has claimed. Actually, while serving as Secretary of State, the Department sent out an advisory over her signature to all State Department employees warning them against transacting public business on private emails. Not clear if the dateline of that cable was Chappaqua, NY…
Clinton has maintained that classified material was never discussed on her bathroom server system. In March 2015, Clinton said “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email.” But the State Department itself has declined to release 22 Clinton emails because they were deemed secret. Having been trapped in a lie, Mrs. Clinton has attempted to cloud the issue by criticizing the over-classification that afflicts government departments. Maybe it does, but even matters that are not strictly top secret are sensitive when you are the Secretary of State.
This is where we enter the different moral universe. Of the more than 300 million Americans, how many would be casual to the point of reckless about national security information falling into the hands of our enemies?
I worked in the White House for Ronald Reagan and recall with special intensity the protocols that governed handling secret materials. This was before the email age. Classified documents were paper. They were kept in a safe. They did not leave the grounds. You were careful to the point of reverence about classified materials. It was a high honor to be entrusted with them.
Hillary Clinton couldn’t be bothered to trouble herself about security. Why? Who knows? Perhaps she didn’t want Freedom of Information requests to reveal that she was selling valuable American policies in return for contributions to the Clinton Foundation, as alleged in set ital Clinton Cash end ital. Perhaps she feared congressional investigators would comb through her records in search of damaging revelations that would harm her political chances (yes, the irony here is rich). Whatever the reason, she has demonstrated utter contempt for the American people by endangering national security. When caught, she stares straight into your face and lies. When old lies are exposed, she concocts new lies without shame.
Donald Trump has not yet had the opportunity to endanger American security. So far, he has merely been able to cause tremors of panic among American allies and among those Americans who blanche at the thought of such an unstable, emotionally stunted man with access to the nuclear codes. But he lies with as much or greater fluency than she. Trump deceives not just about petty matters – his polling numbers, how many books he’s sold, whether his vodka or steak brand is still in business – but about serious matters as well. Thousands of American Muslims were not celebrating in the streets on 9/11. Ford did not cancel plans for a factory in Mexico in response to Trump criticism. Trump did not oppose the Iraq War pre-invasion. We are not “losing” $500 billion a year in trade with China. Our trade deficit with China was $365 billion last year, and it’s not “losing” — we are buying products. Wisconsin’s “real” unemployment rate is not anywhere close to 20 percent.
American primary voters have left us with this excruciating choice. Both candidates fail to clear even the lowest bar of basic political/personal decency, far less offering anything approaching responsible leadership.
With such a choice looming, and with 6 in 10 voters expressing disgust with both candidates, an independent run by Mitt Romney would be a lifeline. One could praise Romney in many ways, but I give you the times: Romney is not a corrupt, despicable liar. If, in democracies, people get the government they deserve, at least let there be a fighting chance for integrity.
Published in General
I do not choose the pictures that accompany my posts.
Oh, I see! Of course you don’t; I’m a legal journalist, and I don’t get to pick the layout of my pieces.
So, it’s the editorial class who are responsible for this widespread effort at assassination by camera.
For those who don’t know my views on immigration, let me restate them. Perhaps we don’t disagree as much as you think? The great migration from the south is a problem on the way to solving itself. Birthrates are way down in Mexico and in Latin America. I am opposed to illegal immigration. We should get control of visa overstays who are 40 to 50 percent of illegals living here. If UPS can track packages, we should be able to track visa holders.
We should adopt a path to legalization for those who were brought here as children or have been here for long periods of time. This would require proving English proficiency, no criminal record (excluding the crime of coming or staying here illegally), paying a fine, and accepting legal status without citizenship. Going forward we should continue to police the borders, which has been quite effective.
We should increase the number of visas for highly educated immigrants who create jobs.
Those are my radical proposals.
“Been here for long periods of time”: Call me crazy, but I do think it’s “radical” to propose that the longer someone has been getting away with breaking the law, the more we should reward them . That’s what you’re proposing. It’s just an incentive to enter illegally. A very powerful incentive , as has been demonstrated by the great surges we saw across the border every time Omega signaled the message: if you get in, you can stay in.
“Brought here as children”: By their lawbreaking parents? And please, don’t bleat about “breaking up families”. They can all leave. That’s what I don’t get about Jeb!’s “act of love” remark. The US isn’t breaking up families, the illegal entrants are.
Visa overstays or border crashes, why do they come here? To make more money. This is not the Berlin Wall.
Romney was a terrible choice 4 years ago and would be so again. He is surely a great man. He would surely govern well and perhaps even conservatively, but he has not been the candidate we need at any point in the last 40-50 years. The election is largely a cult of personality contest, and we have to find someone who can win (or at least compete) in that arena but also meets the minimum ideological standards. Trump overwhelmingly passes in the first, but fails miserably on the second. Romney fails miserably on the first and is questionable on the second. Should we get a 3 way (or even 4 way with Bernie) race I would still be inclined to vote none of the above.
You might want to tune that statement for accuracy.
I’m for Reagan. He would be less of a stiff then Romney.
Fixed it for you.
Will those same people also riot when Trump can’t bring their jobs back? Because there is literally no way any president could do that. Technology has increased productivity so much that those jobs are gone forever.
I think most people sense this but they don’t want to deal with reality so they put their trust in a con man like Trump who simply can’t help them.
Hypatia, please read the Ricochet CofC. Mona Charen is a respected conservative pundit who is expressing her opinion. She doesn’t deserve having conspiracy enthusiasts like you call her names. Take it to Breitbart.
Here’s a nice example of how some people think Trump supporters are literally stupid.
No one thinks the job they lost will be returned. They believe that the general actions Trump is proposing will help improve our economy, increasing their chances for a new job, a better return on their investments a better use of their tax dollars and everything else.
Smart people know better than to think others are stupid and then dismiss them outright by dumbing-down their own analysis.
…and I don’t deserve to be called a conspiracy theorist. Or is that Ricochetspeak for anyone who points out facts you don’t agree with? I didn’t know verbs were forbidden.
No one? Really? Trump says he will bring the jobs back. From his website;
Do his supporters believe him? You evidently don’t. What else has he said that you don’t believe?
Your more nuanced belief of what Trump can/will do as president cannot possibly be extrapolated to the same as his millions of other supporters. Ricochet members are far more politically informed than 90% of the voters. You give them too much credit.
This is sheer bunk, believed only by Trump and people like yourselves. Classic conspiracy theory.
How would you know?
Truth is, you don’t.
You don’t even know what a conspiracy theory is! There is a difference between a conspiracy theory and a misreporting of fact.
What you mean to say, if you weren’t projecting your own conspiracy theories around, is that Hypatia is wrong. However, that is impossible for you to do because you have no way of knowing. You might also say Hypatia is lying. Again you have no way of knowing.
I have reason to believe that what she says is true. I saw footage of celebrations in the Middle East. I have walked past radical Muslims in NYC and had them stare at me with utter contempt and hatred, block the street and make me walk around them. There are Muslims in America who hate us. More than thousands. Tens of thousands at least.
So why wouldn’t these hateful radicals – the subset of all Muslims here – not celebrate? Are they qualitatively different from Muslims elsewhere merely because they are here on American soil?
Last I heard, there was at least one contemporary media account of such celebration, but Trump’s numbers were apparently greatly exaggerated.
Exactly. And this happened on the day itself, while the rest of us were still hoping maybe some kinda freak air traffic control screwup had occurred. This means 2 things: (1) they were happy about it. (2) and much worse, they knew immediately what had happened. They were anticipating it.
I am saying I remember it.
Personally.
A conspiracy theorist of one.
I have no doubt that there were a few radical Muslims in the U.S. who cheered when the towers came down and probably thousands in Muslim countries who did but that is not what Trump said. He said he saw footage of thousands of Muslims in New Jersey cheering. There is simply no proof of that. And it didn’t mysteriously “disappear” from the internet.
I will grant however that there are probably thousands of Trump supporters who “believe” they saw the footage – but then again they also believe that Trump is honest.
But Hypatia acknowledged that it was probably exaggerated in the very comment thatr you quoted. If there were ten, it’s too many.
I imagine Trump conflated what he saw with other reports. Inaccurate representation of fact yes. Of spirt? No.
Is that something TPTB at the time should have highlighted? No. Because that would incense Americans unnecessarily at a time when innocent Muslims could have been attacked.
Now that we are 15 years removed and wondering whether to import more of these people, should it be referenced? Yes.
Note:
Name-calling.Ri-i-i-ght….like [redacted] “believes” Romney could end up president.
First, I didn’t realize we constituted a class. Do I get perks? Jon, are you holding out on me!?
Second, and more seriously, pictures of candidates often exaggerate their personalities. Pictures of Rubio and Ryan tend to capture them looking young and boyish… because Rubio and Ryan look kinda young and boyish (Ryan should have kept the beard, IMHO). Pictures of Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz make them look a awkward and dorky because… Cruz and Bush look kinda awkward and dorky. Trump is extremely expressive and tends to talk at rallies, so it’s hardly surprising that the pictures often reflect that.
And in all these cases, you folks really should see the pictures we don’t use. If we wanted to make people look as bad as possible, you’d know it.
BTW, here are some reasonably unflattering pictures of non-Trump candidates that have been used on the main feed in recent months:
You really have missed the point about what the anger is about.
The problem is that the anger is kind of amorphous and cloud-like. Sure, there are lots of reasons given, but after awhile they begin to sound suspiciously like whiny leftism.
Except it’s not whiny leftism. Anger as an human emotion arises when promises are not met, when people realize they are being lied to and when people aren’t getting what they signed up for. It’s quite a normal emotion. Wives can be angry at their husbands and voters can be angry with the politicians they elected. Often the anger is justified.
What is important is why people are angry. You don’t get it. That’s okay. But anger is the symptom of something wrong, not wrong of itself.
You really have missed the point about what the anger is about.
Also, your complaint is rather amorphous and cloud-like. It sounds suspiciously like whiny GOP-Establishmentism.
Folks, it’s a long weekend. Enough with the sniping.