Let's all take a big deep breath, okay? It's only April - just a couple of months into the 'political season' - and I'm already tired. This has been a hellacious week for my candidate and it's not letting up.
Everything from 'humunah, humunah, humunah' from Trump and a refusal to deny from Cruz.
For Trump it was abortion and nukes. Trump tried to talk it back.
For Cruz it's the National Enquirer and allegations that he's been getting some on the side. Cruz refused to deny.
Nonetheless, as usual, Trump is leading the pack in media mentions - but that's as it always is because the man simply doesn't know when to zip his lip. He's a good guy - I'd bet my life on it - but he talks too damned much and this week has been worse than usual.
Past stuff is well-known. Offering to pay legal fees for brawl participants. That has been a never-ending story. More recently though are his tongue-stomps on abortion. He didn't just trip over his tongue - he stomped on it and it was not pretty.
However, the media double-standard is staggering.
While the MSM has been blasting Trump non-stop for speaking badly, they just ignored that Ted Cruz framed a joke that really isn't that funny. On Jimmy Kimmel's show, he suggested that he would like to back a car over Donald Trump. Now if he had said that about Hilliary or Berns or Obie-One, the MSM would have been all over it - and not in a good way. But no, because it was Trump, that's okay. No one mentioned it - it got a complete pass.
I hate double-standards. In my world, fair is fair. That means you cannot say one thing and do another. If you're going to hold Person A to a standard, Person B has to be held to that same standard. It annoys the hell out of me that the media just doesn't get that. Instead, they're out there doing what they always do - making something out of nothing to Donald Trump's detriment.
So... ahhhh. After that deep cleansing breath, let's play a game. It's the Hiring Game. I'll lay out the rules as we go. Put on your thinking cap and think about your answers - don't just answer off the cuff. Okay, ready? Here we go.
You are screening people for an important job. You started with twenty applicants and are now down to just four. All four are viable prospects. There's another, over there, behind the screen - but he's not really viable. He just refuses to leave. The others are real possibilities but each has their problems and there are no other options. You've been watching them for weeks, filtering through what they've said and done, and here's what you've learned:
Applicant One is a compulsive liar and he's mean - a bully. During the first interview phase, he sent out a mailer that shamed people, made them feel bullied if they didn't do what he wanted them to do. He lied about another potential candidate, and got away with it. He has, arguably, made a death threat about another person under consideration - and got away with that, too. Recently, you've heard rumors that he's been unfaithful to his wife - and he has not come out and denied it, even when he's been asked directly. The most he's done is call the story 'garbage'.
Applicant Two is running from a felony conviction. She mishandled confidential information, data that was so sensitive that its getting out there into the world could cost people their lives. Now she's praying that her former boss will protect her from criminal indictment, but it looks like it might be a losing battle.
Applicant Three is a self-admitted spendthrift. He just loves spending other people's money without restraint. He will take your money, even though you've hired him, and he will give it away to anyone and everyone who holds out their hand. He has no idea, after you run out of money, how he's going to keep that gravy train going - tax the rich only goes so far, after all. But that's okay. Now, this moment, is all that counts.
Applicant Four is fundamentally honest, often too honest. Instead of filtering his words, he almost always says exactly what he thinks, regardless of whether or not those words are in his best interest. Some people take offense to what he says, and then spend days whinging about it.
The media has been sniffing around his ankles, searching for any major or minor chink in his armor, but haven't found anything except the words he chooses to use. If they could find something, anything, other than what's publicly known, they would use it with glee, but so far, their searching and probing hasn't revealed anything
Good, bad or indifferent, these are the final four candidates for this important job. 1) A liar, bully and cheat; 2) a criminal; 3) a spendthrift; and 4) an unbridled tongue. Which one will you hire?
I know which one I prefer, but that's me. So let's look a little more closely at our options, shall we?
Candidate Number 1: A first term Senator. As far as we know he's no better than the last first term Senator who held this post.
That guy was purely incompetent - in over his head at every turn, doing the wrong thing every time he made a move - a visit to Cuba and attending a ballgame instead of coming back to work when one of our allies was under attack. Doing the wave with the Cuban dictator and the tango with Argentina's first lady. Making a deal with an untrustworthy opponent, and not enforcing the conditions when that opponent repeatedly violates that deal that is now being closely scrutinized by Congress.
This candidate is hoping to replace that first term Senator, but he's a first term Senator, too. He has no more real world experience than the last guy. Will he be any better?
On top of that, he's proven himself to be a liar. Lying about that other candidate's dropping from the job interview process. Lying about the other interviewees.
Last, but nowhere close to least, is that he's being accused of messing around with women not his wife. How can someone trust a guy who will toss his own wife and
children to the side in his rush to boff another Babe or two? How loyal will
he be to you and me? A stellar character, to be sure.
Candidate Number Two: Hilliary Clinton's woes are well-known. 'nuff said.
Candidate Number Three: Freebies for everyone for everything and no idea how to pay for them.
Taxing the rich won't do it - they don't have enough money for pay for all the free stuff Bernie is promising. Even if Washington took everything everyone with anything owns, it wouldn't be enough. Free medical care, free education and, I'm sure when the demand gets loud enough, free housing. No one will have to work or pay taxes because everything will be free, right?
Candidate Number Four: He's a shoot-from-the-lip specialist. He says what's on his mind, no filter and that causes problems. He's also loyal - a good quality for which he doesn't get credit.
When one of his employees did what the Secret Service should have done, he stood by his man. After all, the guy hadn't been convicted in a court of law - just in the court of public opinion. He also didn't rat out the Secret Service - which wasn't doing his job when this employee did what they should have done. That's honorable. It shows loyalty - a character trait I respect and value.
On the other hand, he does speak too openly, too often without thinking things through or considering what he should say instead of what he really believes. That's causing him problems - and it's all that gets talked about - until I have to shut off my television because I'm so sick of the distortion that I want to puke.
So of these, given that these are your only choices, which would you hire?
Okay, ready? Now answer the fundamental question: Why would you pick that individual over the others? What makes your pick more palatable or viable than any of the others?
Fair questions, right?
Even if Trump were to get into office and put forward a SCOTUS nominee, do you not suppose the Senate Judiciary Committee who has 'yea' or 'nay' power over that nomination wouldn't question the candidate long and hard on this issue? That committee is not a purely right-wing body - it is run by the party that controls the Senate but includes people of all mindsets. It is not a rubber-stamp for any presidential nominee. The likelihood that abortion will be overturned, become a criminal act, is just about 0.0000%. The American people who support or at least acknowledge the need for it won't stand for its repeal.
Personally, I am aligned with Trump on the evil nature of the act - I do not agree with punishing the women or their doctors. It's an evil necessity and while I was once a pro-abortion thinker, my attitude has changed. It has evolved. From being pro-abortion I went to the opposite end of the spectrum - no abortion for any reason. Then, I've softened and now, while I still don't like it, I understand the necessity for it.
I suggest that before you walk into the voting booth this season that you sit down and stop and think about why you're picking one candidate over another. Get past the emotional 'feel-good-ism' - I like this guy. Answer the questions: what makes him like-worthy and will he be better than the other guy?
So that's the hiring game. Not fun but important and I hope you played along thoughtfully.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
No comments:
Post a Comment