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
Romney will lose, again, if he ran. We are left with a bad choice, pick the lesser of two evils and work hard to change the culture the has left us with this choice. This is the long game, this election is a symptom of a culture that has a leftist educational, media and entertainment indoctrination mills. One election won’t fix it, which is why I want to defeat the democrats and work on fixing the culture from the grass roots
Absent an unlikely third choice, we have to choose between a bad man and a bad movement. The bad movement happens to be represented by a bad woman.
The left is extremely powerful and far too successful. We all know the particulars.
I will vote for the one most likely to stop Clinton, even if it’s Donald Trump.
Churchill said that if Hitler invaded Hell, he’d find something good to say about the Devil. That describes this election year.
I’m still pulling for John McCain.
Don’t give him ideas.
Mitt recently polled at 22% in a three way race with Clump, which is a pretty decent base for an undeclared candidate. If Mitt actually got in I think his numbers would approach 30%.
However, I think Bernie needs to get in as well for Romney to have a chance. I don’t see Mitt flipping any of the blue states with the possible exception of WI. But in a four way race Bernie captures several blue states and nobody gets to 270 so the decision goes to the House, which is controlled by Romney’s 2012 running mate.
Hmm, I wonder who the House would choose?
McCain and Trump are about equal on the First Amendment.
What is this word “integrity” to which you refer? Long ago, in my childhood, I believe it had some meaning…..
Romney couldn’t do it as a major party candidate, what makes you think he can do it as a third party candidate?
2 or 3 of those 6 are leftists who will not go Romney.
Please identify 5 states Romney might take. A Romney run might give Hillary a 48-state victory.
I love the logic here:
Trump = the End of the GOP, maybe America
Clinton is better than Trump, but still pretty bad, but not the end of the GOP
Run a 3rd Party Romney, who cannot win, but might stop anyone from getting to 270.
Then the House will pick Romney
The House picking Romney will do no or less damage to the GOP than Trump.
Now, I think, if that happens, the GOP will lose every Trump Primary voter forever, as it will be a clear signal that the elites don’t care what the people want.
Good luck with that.
Everything would depend upon how well he/they governed. If a President Romney and a Republican Congress were able to repeal and replace Obamacare, get the federal budget on the path to balance, and get to 4% growth, the Trump boomlet would be quickly forgotten.
Well said. But of course, the problem with elites is, since they don’t care what the people want, they don’t even consider, or factor in, the results of how people would react.
Mona doesn’t understand (yet?) how we arrived at this place.
I’d love to get Mona in a poker game. And I’m not even that good!
If I can get the 8 of clubs, I’d have a straight
Listen to Kenny Rodgers. I know he’s unlikely your cup o tea (nor mine really) but he has this song….
Mona, I’ve read your posts and empathize. It’s tragic a country as technologically and economically advanced as America has to make the choice of which arm to cut off.
Just as I talk myself into Peter Robinson’s or Dennis Prager’s view, Trump unnecessarily insults a Republican Latina Governor or says something else cringe worthy.
I have not yet made up my mind if I will vote for Trump (certainly never Hillary) but I can tell you at this: a GOPe immersion of a 3rd party candidate won’t solve our problem, but will certainly cause the loss of SCOTUS for decades.
As a rightie, I know the left arm needs to go.
With Hillary we have several decades of evidence, full knowledge of her associations and her views on important issues. With Trump we have off the cuff remarks as spun by the media and his business dealings which are strange, perhaps bordering on shady, but private business dealings covered by a variety of laws. These are simply not comparable. He may be just as bad but we do not know it, nor do we have comparable information to make a reasonable guess and neither is he a Democrat with the full backing of that stable of strange, and often totalitarian backers. Let’s try to ground ourselves in real knowable things and the risks before we subject the country to another Obama term, Supreme court appointments and continued stacking of the Justice, State and Defense Departments. I felt real grief when we lost one after another of the best candidates we’ve had in many decades and instead chose an empty headed narcissistic progressive, but he isn’t Hillary or Obama and it’s time to get over our grief.
Moanin’ Mona again. Romney had his chance, and l.o.s.t. A “lifeline”? More like a zip line, down to another defeat.
You call Trump “unstable”. On what evidence? Oh I know, it’ll just be more we’re-certainly-not-going-to-tell-you-if-you-don’t -already-know. This word doesn’t just mean “fickle”; it means dangerous, insane. Has he ever been institutionalized, charged with violent crime, even white-collar crime? It does not fit.
You call him “emotionally stunted”. Do you know him? Better than his large family does? Better even than the voters, who evidently find him quite likeable?
And please, let me tell you: I remember the Muslims cheering on 9/11. I had a friend who worked with the NYC cops, who related how they had to protect the celebrations in the mosques while their fellow police and firemen were dying in the towers. Giuliani confirmed that it happened. I also remember that the NY Times decided not to report on it. It’s been pretty much scrubbed from the net now–although, had you been willing, you’d a seen confirmation of it in old TV footage at the time Trump made this remark. You can quibble with the “thousands” number, but what he said is true. Sheeuh, it’s not that long ago! Other people besides me and Giuliani must remember it. I remember it because I have never ceased talking about it myself.
How could anybody forget a thing like that? I guess the same way they forgot about the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem’s rôle in WW II.
Romney was scared to lash out at Obama in 2012. Now that his target is an old white guy, suddenly he’s tough? And that impresses people like you? It’s pathetic.
Mona,
I think you under estimate the level of rage at the “establishment” out there. There is a huge sense that the elites in this nation are not just out of touch with ordinary Americans, but actively hostile to them. I don’t know, if in your circles, you encounter these people, but they are out there.
We can say Trump voters are “throwing a tantrum” or whatever other way to talk about them as children that we want too. That is seen as another way that their anger is being ignored, and thus that they are being ignored.
What you are proposing would cause riots. People would be burning things, because they would have been shown that their votes and voices do not matter. They will see the election as “stolen” in a way that the Democrats in 2000 never thought possible.
And that is before the Democrats even get started that a GOP controlled House appointed the President.
I do not think Romney would be able to govern after such an act, much less repeal anything. I can see the Democrats bailing out of Washington and flying to other nations to shut down Congress, and that is just for a start.
For God sake, please come out of your NewBosWash tower and pay attention to the cries of ordinary Americans who are not blessed with your ability to get a message out. Tens of millions of Americans no longer feel they have a say in America’s future. This would prove it to them.
She’s worse than you think. You may be right about him. Mitt can win nothing.
I was thinking about this earlier today, The difference in the way Clinton and Trump lies. Found this definition: Seems to describe Trump to a T.
https://www.truthaboutdeception.com/lying-and-deception/confronting-a-partner/compulsive-lying/types-of-liars.html
A Sociopath
A sociopath is typically defined as someone who lies incessantly to get their way and does so with little concern for others. A sociopath is often goal-oriented (i.e., lying is focused—it is done to get one’s way). Sociopaths have little regard or respect for the rights and feelings of others. Sociopaths are often charming and charismatic, but they use their talented social skills in manipulative and self-centered ways
While Clinton seems to lie with a calculated pre-determined plan in mind. Which is more dangerous? Which has more moral culpability?
Jonah weighs in…. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435942/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-deception-donald-trump?utm_source=NR&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=May27Goldberg
Mona it’s good to see you commenting, and to be able to agree with you wholeheartedly again… Now if we could just crack your hardheaded opinions on immigration.
I believe this is true. What’s implausible is getting that “he/they” into office.
Mitt Romney, for whom I voted in 1994, 2003 (twice), 2008 and 2012 (twice again), has proven himself incapable of election to national office. His loss in 2012 was an appalling act of political malpractice.
Stop dreaming. You have to vote for Trump, or you have to vote for Hiliary. This should be a no-brainer, especially to someone who worked in Reagan’s White House.
It’s deja vu. Here we go again, an evil, malicious Democrat who will destroy the country vs a feckless Republican who will destroy the country and render conservatism impotent. It’s the same choice we had in 2000, 2004, and 2008. It’s hard to work up much excitement for a fourth go at it.
State of denial, state of despair, state of derangement, state of Lovecraftian madness… hmm will 4 do?
Mona,
The photograph you select of Mr. Trump for your post says it all. Why bother with the pretext of the text?
“A Fighting Chance for Integrity”
An interesting choice of words. To paraphrase the Pauline Kael meme, just because everyone to whom you talked during the intermission at La Bohème thought the idea was mahvelous, the larger world will not be so accommodating.
Mitt doesn’t have the chops for any fight that is not Marquess of Queensberry. Great person, would be a solid President. Miserable, loser candidate.
Yes, and replacing the current sociopath in the White House with another one is a recipe for even more disaster. But that said, I must agree with DocJay’s assessment that “Mitt can win nothing.” There are better alternatives.
Wrong. She doesn’t have to vote for anyone. Neither do I. Neither did liberals in 2000 ‘have’ to vote for Gore or disgruntled conservatives/nativists in 1992 ‘have’ to vote for GHW Bush. Trump and the coaltion of the deranged, disaffected, dyspeptic, desparate and despicable (those would be Trumpistas who told Ben Shapiro his family should be gassed) who support him have not earned Mona’s trust or mine or that of the 60+ percent of GOP primary voters who did not vote for him. His boast that he could win without conservatives should rightly come back to smack him in the festering gob. The most interesting part of this debacle has been that the very people who claimed they had no respect for RINOs or the GOPe have given their primary votes to the most RINO and GOPe-y of the entire field. Enjoy.
In other words, if Republicans actually behaved the way the base has been begging them to act for 20 years, instead of the way they have acted – everything would be fine. But if the standard is a fantasy for which there is no evidence, why can’t we similarly fantasize that Trump would do the same thing and be a great President? And Trump would also get control of the borders (which I notice is not on your list).
I’m not sure whose side you’re on , Dustoff, but you point out something that has been going on ever since Trump announced. All the still photos we ever see look like this.
You coulda found a worse one of HillBilly, btw; compared to Trump, she just looks like a loudmouth–which, of course, was Mona’s goal.
It’s very easy to catch anyone, especially someone making a speech to a crowd, in an ugly, insane looking grimace. But usually, the media choose a more flattering picture from the montage. ( Ever seen a bad one of Omega? He’s always flashing his nuclear-disarming grin, or gazing contemplatively into the future.)
Remember the great outrage that ensued over just one picture of the very pretty Mrs. Cruz, caught in an unflattering grimace?
But it’s not workin’! These scary stills don’t stick in our minds, because Trump is always on TV live. He doesn’t hide from us. He’ll answer any question, any time.
Mona will say this is because the media unfairly give him so much coverage.
I say it’s because: he is news.