Ask the wrong questions, get the wrong answers

And so it begins.

Both parties have now produced “inevitable” presidential candidates who are corrupt, opportunistic, sexist, self-serving, anti-gun, pro-big government, as personable as rabid skunks, and (worse from the mainstream point of view) electorally weak.

The Punditocracy, both professional and amateur, feels it has no choice other than to persuade its readership to hold their collective noses and v*te for … somebody. But since there’s not a single good thing to say about the candidate of their reluctant choice, the argument usually goes: “Yes, we know you’ve said you’d rather v*te for nobody than for ______. But think again! On issue A, B, or C Candidate So-and-So is so much worse than Candidate Such-and-Such that you simply must v*te against ________. Or the sky will fall.”

In the face of national loathing for both mainstream candidates, it’s amazing that political insiders have not yet shoved forward an independent Ross Perot or John Anderson type. But here the situation stands. For now.

I am not a pundit. I don’t care if you v*te for Unindicted Co-Conspirator D or Mercurial Megalomaniac R. I don’t care if you v*te at all. As an old political junkie myself, I wake up about two mornings out of three thinking Trump would be less ghastly than Clinton II and wake up on the third morning thinking Hillary has advantages over The Donald, though by the time I’ve dosed myself with caffeine I can’t recall what those advantages might be. Oh yeah, that with those mysterious health problems she’s hiding, she’s more likely than Trump to drop dead suddenly and be replaced with someone marginally less horrible. Or with her email and corrupt fundraising history she’s more likely to be disgraced, indicted, or otherwise forced out of office early. That’s her advantage.

Not a good enough reason to v*te for her, though. Unless someone puts a gun to my head, I won’t be v*ting for anybody.

But I don’t care if you v*te or not. That’s your business. I do care if Americans ask the right questions about these party animals, about the thick mess the country is in, and about how we personally should respond to it.

‘Cause it seems vast swaths of Pundithood want you to ask the wrong questions. And when you ask the wrong questions, you never arrive at the right answers.

—–

One of those “You must v*te against ______!” pieces showed up in the TZP mailbox the other day. (A widely circulated but wildly misattributed piece of commentary.) It made a valid and important point against Hillary: the Supreme Court.

Justice Scalia’s seat is vacant. Ginsberg is 82 years old, Kennedy is 79, Breyer is 77, and Thomas is 67. …

These are 5 vacancies that will likely come up over the next 4-8 years. …

Hillary Clinton has made it clear she will use the Supreme Court to go after the 2nd Amendment. She has literally said that the Supreme Court was wrong in its Heller decision, stating that the Court should overturn and remove the individual right to keep and bear arms. Period.

Never mind that no court, no president, can ever “remove the individual right to keep and bear arms.” They can mightily interfere with the exercise of said right. So yes, the prospect of Hillary controling multiple appointments to the court is ominous.

But then the pundit goes absurdly over the top:

If Hillary Clinton wins, and gets to make these appointments, you likely will never see another Conservative victory at the Supreme Court level, for the rest of your life – – – Including your children and your grandchildren.

The rest of your life? The rest of your grandchildren’s lives? Oh, really? Let’s say you have a child this year and that child grows up and, at age 25, has a child. Then that child, your grandchild, lives 75 years. (Note: “the rest of your life, ridiculous enough, appears in the original. Someone added all those grandchildren as the piece circulated. So it’s the pundit’s editor going even farther over the top.)

We’re supposed to believe that, if Hillary is elected, the Supreme Court will remain rabidly Hillarian for the next 100 years???

“The sky is falling! The sky is falling!”

But worse than the Alice in Wonderland math and the Chicken Little claims are the things unsaid, the facts unstated, the untruths cleverly implied — the questions unasked. Such as:

What makes anyone think Donald Trump is a “conservative,” or that he would appoint “conservative” justices? Trump has supported single-payer health insurance (to the left of Hillary). Trump has been anti-gun, just like Hillary. Trump has used big government to his own ends and wants to use them now in populist (traditionally “left-wing”) causes. Trump has contributed to past Hillary Clinton campaigns. Conservative? What?

What makes anyone think that justices appointed by Trump, even if he happened to choose a few “conservative” ones, would be pro-gun or pro-liberty? This generation may have forgotten that the court headed by “conservative” Chief Justice Earl Warren produced some of the most unconstitutional, left-wing decisions in U.S. history (with Warren’s full and enthusiastic collaboration). But surely we can’t already have forgotten that current “conservative” Chief Justice John Roberts single-handedly saved Obamacare. “Liberal” justices tend to remain liberal, but “conservative” ones often do what other gov-o-crats do: v*te for big government once they’re part of it.

Ask the wrong questions — or fail to ask the right ones — and you’ll inevitably get the wrong answers.

While (correctly) damning Hillary, the viral article says not one, single, positive thing about Trump. It offers not one smidgeon of evidence that Trump would do anything better. Because there is no evidence to offer. It implies in a slippery and sideways manner that he’s a conservative (whatever that means), but actual evidence of his principles or his intentions is completely absent.

But Hillary is anti-gun! Hillary will appoint nasty Supreme Court justices!

So please don’t notice that Trump is just Hillary with even worse hair, a louder mouth, and a different variety of sexism.

The sky will fall if you v*te for Hillary! Your grandchildren will still be stuck with her 100 years from now!

Never mind the consequences of Trump. Don’t mention them. Imply that he’s a “conservative” antidote to creepy authoritarian anti-gun eternal statism and maybe in November it’ll miraculously turn out to be true.

It could happen. And pigs could fly. And Dorothy could click her heels and come safely home to Kansas. And Jesus really could appear on a tortilla. And orchids could bloom outdoors at the North Pole. And presidential candidates could tell the absolute truth, hold noble principles of freedom, and always do exactly what we hope they’ll do, just because we hope it so very, very ardently.

It could happen.

But wouldn’t we be better off if we closely examine reality and act in accordance with that?

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

18 thoughts on “Ask the wrong questions, get the wrong answers”

  1. “…it’s amazing that political insiders have not yet shoved forward an independent Ross Perot or John Anderson type. ”

    They have not because maintaining the current duopoly on power is more important than anything. I use duopoly very generously, we all know it’s a single party. And they only put up the type up that can be controlled. (some of the) People keep electing whoever it is that the power brokers want installed so why bother.

    Trump picks Christie to be his transition committee lead. That’s a relief, I thought he might start adding liberals to his team. Isn’t Trump a New York City, Limousine, Liberal? Oh wait, it’s different if they own the limo instead of hire it.

    Thank you for the article, Ms. Wolfe.

  2. So. We have Darth Trump, and Chernahillabog from which to choose. Great! Gra-a-and!

    Might I suggest two new versions of “Hail to the Chief” namely, “Darth Vader’s March”, and “Night on Bald Mountain”, respectively?

  3. And once again, Claire shows why she is the best at what she does! She has spelled out perfectly what we all have known in our hearts for a long time, and that is there is little difference between the two parties today.

    You, Claire, have pointed out a problem that I myself face. Do I vote for a third party, or do I abstain, as a form of protest? Or do I just say, to hell with it, and not vote do to boredom? Or, does it not really matter, whatever I do? Ding, ding,ding, I think we have a winner.

    1. The political calculus of “Who do I vote for?” is a very personal decision. If it helps, here’s mine.

      Trump v. Hillary is a no-win game. They are both leftist big-government anti-freedom authoritarians, and I cannot in good conscience support either of them, even against the other.

      Thus, in the primary (Oregon’s so-late-it’s-useless primary is May 17) I’ll be voting for Cruz, even though he’s suspended his campaign. Cruz will be my protest vote in the primary.

      As for the general election in November, because Oregon WILL go to whichever moonbat the Democrats put up (Oregon goes reliably blue, every election), I’ll be voting third party for the Presidency, probably for the Constitution Party. Down-ballot candidates I’ll probably vote Republican; Oregon Democrats are a particularly socialist-loving breed.

      As much as I find it morally abhorrent to vote for either Trump or Clinton II, not voting at all is, to me, just as bad if not worse. Call me an idealist, but if you give up your voice, you have no way to even attempt to influence the goings-on and you abandon yourself to whatever your neighbors decide is best for you.

      Besides which, the national GOPe will never get the message of how disappointed we are with them, unless We The Disenfranchised vote. In droves. For non-GOPe candidates. They won’t see our non-voting silence as a protest; they’ll see it as consent. I refuse to give them that.

  4. Now all we have to worry about is, if TRUMP is lying and CLINTON is telling the truth.

    https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/second-amendment-rights

    NATIONAL RIGHT TO CARRY. The right of self-defense doesn’t stop at the end of your driveway. That’s why I have a concealed carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states. A driver’s license works in every state, so it’s common sense that a concealed carry permit should work in every state. If we can do that for driving – which is a privilege, not a right – then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege.

    ================================================

    http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Gun_Control.htm

    “We’ve got to rein in what has become an almost article of faith that anybody can have a gun anywhere, anytime,” she said.

  5. You can tell a lot about a man by his enemies.

    Obama is against Trump
    The Media is against Trump
    The establishment Democrats are against Trump
    The establishment Republicans are against Trump
    The Pope is against Trump
    The UN is against Trump
    The EU is against Trump
    China is against Trump
    Mexico is against Trump
    Soros is against Trump
    Black Lives Matter is against Trump
    MoveOn.Org is against Trump
    Koch Bro’s are against Trump
    Hateful, racist, violent Liberals are against Trump

    https://www.facebook.com/tednugent/posts/10153600683237297

    1. They are probably all against Hitler too. Most are probably against Stalin.

      You’ve failed to guard against the (logical) possibility that the man might truly be scum.

  6. The only thing we have to worry about is whether Trump is telling lies and Clinton is telling the truth.

    TRUMP : NATIONAL RIGHT TO CARRY. The right of self-defense doesn’t stop at the end of your driveway. That’s why I have a concealed carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states. A driver’s license works in every state, so it’s common sense that a concealed carry permit should work in every state. If we can do that for driving – which is a privilege, not a right – then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege.
    The gun-free zones are target practice for the sickos and for the mentally ill. They look for gun-free zones. The six soldiers that were killed. Two of them were among the most highly decorated, and they weren’t allowed on a military base to have guns. And somebody walked in and shot them, killed them. If they had guns, he wouldn’t be around very long. I can tell you, there wouldn’t have been much damage. I think gun-free zones are a catastrophe. They’re a feeding frenzy for sick people.
    The way I look at it, you take Chicago, you take Baltimore, you take various other places where you have tremendous gun violence and death, right? The strictest laws in the United States– in the world– for guns happens to be Chicago where they have a lot of problems. Baltimore, a lot of the places where you have the biggest problem is where they have the strongest laws. So I don’t think it’s about laws.

    CLINTON: I have been for the Brady bill; I have been against assault weapons. I have voted not to give gun makers and sellers immunity. And I would hope that [others] would join the Democrats who are trying to close the Charleston loophole. We need to move on this consensus that exists in the country. It’s no longer enough just to say the vast majority of Americans want common sense gun safety measures including gun owners.
    “We’ve got to rein in what has become an almost article of faith that anybody can have a gun anywhere, anytime,” she said. “And I don’t believe that is in the best interest of the vast majority of people.”
    Hillary Rodham Clinton offered her support for a legislative proposal to license hand guns. The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Charles Schumer, would require anyone who wants to purchase a gun to obtain a state-issued photo gun license. “I stand in support of this common sense legislation to license everyone who wishes to purchase a gun,” Clinton said. “I also believe that every new handgun sale or transfer should be registered in a national registry, such as Chuck is proposing.”
    If you own a gun… make sure it’s locked up and stored without the ammunition. In fact, make it stored where the ammunition is stored separately. We’ve made some progress in the last several years with the Brady Bill and some of the bans on assault weapons, but we have a lot of work to do.

  7. Let’s be clear: pigs will not simply fly, pigs will win dogfights against F-16s before a major party candidate actually does something to justify your vote.

    I’m voting LP. They have no track record and at this point that’s a net positive.

  8. There is much to agree with what Brad had to say IMHO:

    Brad Thor
    Yesterday at 8:30am ·

    Dear friends:

    I have taken a stance, which I know is unpopular with some of you, and which I feel I owe it to you to fully explain.

    Throughout history, charismatic figures have appeared at critical moments in time. Some of these figures have advanced their nations. Some have set them back. Only with the benefit of hindsight is mankind able to make the final judgment.

    I have long been a fan of the saying – History doesn’t repeat, but it does rhyme. In other words, history leaves clues; lessons that we can all benefit from.

    We are stewards of our Republic and as such, our greatest responsibility is not to ourselves, or any political party, but to the next generation of Americans. We must work tirelessly to see to it that they inherit a freer, stronger, safer, more prosperous nation than was handed to us.

    To truly fulfill that obligation we must be selfless, and above all, we must be informed. We must understand the mechanics of politics, economics, and the framework that has allowed the United States to be the greatest nation in the history of the world.

    As an American, my greatest allegiance is to liberty. As long as there is liberty, no task is insurmountable, no challenge too overwhelming. As long as there is liberty, anything is possible.

    The true north of my compass has been, and always will be, liberty. I owe it to those who have come before me and those who will come after. I will act to safeguard liberty no matter what personal price I may be forced to bear.

    Liberty is my litmus test. I weigh all actions of my government and those who seek office, against it. The ledger of freedom is incorruptible; its pages open for anyone to examine, and most importantly – to learn from.

    At great personal and professional expense, I have grown more vocal over the years about the need to reduce the size of government and place in office fellow citizens guided strictly by the Founding documents.

    I have spoken on television, radio, and in front of civic organizations. I have campaigned for candidates, marched in Tea Party rallies, and was the man who drove Andrew Breitbart to Madison, Wisconsin to speak alongside him on the capitol steps in defense of Governor Scott walker.

    From taking back the United States House in 2010, to taking back the Senate in 2014, we have won battle after battle for liberty. In so doing, we have placed principled, limited government Americans in office. We knew the war wouldn’t be won overnight, but rather that it would be won over time. We have been steadfast, resolute, and successful.

    But in the opinion of some of our fellow Americans, we have not been quick enough. Rather than continue to fight, a plurality of voters in the Republican primary has decided to drop an atom bomb on Washington, D.C. That atom bomb is Donald Trump.

    And so I come to my explanation. When I apply my litmus test of liberty to Donald Trump, he fails – completely.

    In fact, he has not only failed to ever stand for liberty, he has repeatedly worked to undermine it. From supporting an assault weapons ban, the seizure of private property via eminent domain, the restructuring of libel laws, and socialized medicine (just to name a few) – throughout his entire adult life, Donald Trump has repeatedly championed the power of the state.

    Regardless of what he says now, Donald Trump has a history. That history is the clearest indication of how he would govern as president. No matter how badly Americans want to “blow up” Washington, they absolutely must consider who, and what, arises from the embers of that destruction.

    After voters drop that atom bomb, what happens next?

    Herein lies my greatest concern. What will become of liberty under a Trump administration? Will it grow? Will it recede? Will it vanish altogether?

    Our Founders realized that the normal course of history is despotism – the control of the many by the few. That is why the Founding documents sought to constrain government. They also counted on Americans to choose wisely those whom we sought to install in office. Too often we have failed in selecting the best among us.

    Donald Trump is not the best among us, nor is Hillary Clinton. They are both incredibly flawed human beings whom we should be equally ashamed of.

    Neither would advance the cause of freedom. Both would take us – not to that shining city on a hill of which President Reagan spoke – but into the murky valley below. Never have I seen America faced with having two such poor choices for president.

    With the lessons of history as my guide, I see in Donald Trump the character flaws that are the hallmarks of despotism. In Hillary Clinton, I also see multiple character flaws, but I see them as belonging not to a potential despot, but rather to a conniving, self-serving, progressive politician who believes in lining her own pockets and enlarging/increasing the state and its power.

    The two are reprehensible – but completely different. One threatens to further enlarge the state, the other, potentially (a la Napoleon), to become it.

    Growing up, a wonderful nun repeatedly told me that kindness could only be expected from the strong. When Donald Trump mocked the disability of New York Times reporter Serge Kovaleski – he showed himself to be not only weak, but also lacking in compassion.

    Trump’s position that he is a Christian, but has never asked for forgiveness – coupled with his incessant bragging – not only further shows that he is weak, but that he also lacks humility.

    Strength, compassion, and humility are necessary in any leader – but especially so in the person who would occupy the highest and most powerful office in the world. Just look at what the absence of those qualities has done over the last seven years.

    My greatest concern about Donald Trump, though, isn’t a trait he lacks, but a dangerous one he possesses – in spades. Authoritarianism.

    Confident people do not bully and demean others. That is the realm of the weak and insecure. Confident people also do not threaten others, especially not their fellow citizens.

    Donald Trump has told us to just wait and see what he does to Jeff Bezos once he gets into the White House. He has told us the American military will do whatever he tells them to do no matter what their reservations. He has promised to prevent American companies from moving outside the United States, regardless of what they believe is best for their businesses.

    In other words, Donald Trump has clearly told all of us that he will use the power of the presidency to force people to bend to his will. This is not liberty.

    In fact, Donald Trump has never even spoken about liberty. Neither has he spoken about the Constitution and the Founding documents. This is an absolute first in the history of the United States.

    Instead, Donald Trump talks about hiring the “best people” and making the “best deals.” This, though, isn’t what made America great, and it certainly isn’t what will return America to its prominence.

    The blueprint for America’s success is the ideas of the Framers – limited, Constitutional governance – an area in which Donald Trump is criminally ignorant.

    Let me be clear that I don’t want to vote for Hillary Clinton. I also don’t want to vote for Donald Trump. My preference is to write-in or vote third party. I think they are both terrible for our future.

    But between a big government progressive and a potential despot – every American must ask themselves where liberty has the greatest chance to survive over the next four years.

    As a Constitutional conservative, I take solace in, and guidance from the words of Alexander Hamilton, who in the election of 1800 said, “If we must have an enemy at the head of government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible.”

    I value all of you as friends, readers, and fellow patriots. There is much at stake for our Republic. Be informed, be selfless, and vote your conscience. I will not hold your decisions against you.

    None of us knows the future. But I ask that all of us look to the past. Only by doing so can we safeguard liberty and chart the most well-reasoned course forward.
    6.7K Likes2K Comments6.8K Shares

    Then there’s what PJ said;

    PJ O’Rourke: Well, Peter, I have a little announcement to make. Yeah, I have a little announcement to make.

    I mean, my whole purpose in life basically is to offend everyone who listens to NPR, OK? No matter what position they take on anything, like, I’m on the other side of it, you know.

    I’m votin’ for Hillary.

    I am endorsing Hillary. And all her lies and all her empty promises. I am endorsing Hillary. The second worst thing that could happen to this country. But she’s way behind in second place, you know? She’s wrong about absolutely everything — but she’s wrong within normal parameters!

    Tom Bodett: That is a ringing endorsement! …

    O’Rourke: I mean, this man just can’t be president of the US. I mean, they got this button, it’s in a briefcase, he’s gonna find it.

    And well as for me I can’t vote for either, not the Hilabeast nor the Trumpernator, the lesser of two evils is evil but I am not sure which is the lesser!

    Right now my voting will be local unless a constitutional limited small government party was to arise from the ashes of the GOP.

  9. Interesting posts, depressingly accurate.

    No answers from me, just commiseration as we watch the slide.

  10. I will be intrigued to see whether the Libertarian Party actually nominates someone with principles this time, and if they do, who it is. If there is a principled candidate from the LP I will probably vote Libertarian again, but in any case I will not vote for either of the mainslime candidates.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *