Not

By

Leonard Zwelling

         By far, the most frequent argument made for one or the other
of the two Presidential hopefuls is that he or she isn’t the other one. That’s
not a very powerful argument for anything.

The
number of interviews I have seen on TV with Republicans who tout the evils of a
Clinton Presidency as the greatest reason to vote for their guy is approaching
infinity asymptotically. And many can’t even say Trump’s name.

By
contrast, all Mrs. Clinton can seem to do is rail against Mr. Trump without
really addressing what she will do or what she has done that is so wrong like
the emails. Talk about men not being able to apologize sincerely.

         Forgive me if I am reminded of Bill Cosby’s story about his
kids in the car saying, “he’s touching me!” Is there nothing good to say about
either candidate? There must be. We could not have arrived at a place in our
history with a population of 340 million and the two left standing are such
poor candidates.

         So let’s try to be positive.

         In favor of Mr. Trump is the sense that he would shake
things up in Washington. My guess is that he would. I also doubt he would get
anything done even with a Republican House and Senate because we really don’t
know how he would turn his ideas (the Wall, no new Muslims, deporting 11
million immigrants) into real legislation that could even pass a congressional
committee. Mr. Trump might bring a business sensibility to the White House, but
if he brings the same one he brought to Atlantic City, the country may well be
bankrupt five times over before the next election. His staff work is obviously
awful as witness Melania’s plagiarized speech. And who is he going to make the
Attorney General, his son-in-law? Thus, while I try, I cannot see any positives
emanating from a Trump Presidency.

         Mrs. Clinton is not much better.

         First, she is far more hawkish than her former boss the
current POTUS and it is very likely that she would get us in a shooting war in
the Middle East within a year once she declares a no-fly zone over Syria and
shoots down a Russian plane. I am not at all sure that this would be a bad
thing, but it could be. She has been shoved to the left by Bernie and Liz and
how she pays for the free college, free health care and free everything else
that they want is beyond me without a major increase in taxes which would cut
the mild recovery off at its knees. She seems to be respected around the world,
so she might be able to heal some problems in the foreign policy area as long
as she stays out of war, which may be hard given the latest actions of ISIS.
Again, I find her much better qualified than Trump, but with equal character
flaws.

Narcissists
of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your delusions.

I
really cannot see her getting a ringing endorsement from America although she
is the more likely to win—by a hair (76% to 24% according to the NY Times).

 http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news)

         It seems like Americans will go to the polls with NOT on
their minds. I am voting for Trump—NOT! I am voting for Clinton—NOT! Hell, who
can blame them. Anyone voting for either of these two on their own merits needs
to go back and think again. It is a very sorry day when this is the best we can
do. But given 1968 (Nixon or Humphrey) or 2000 (Bush or Gore), this isn’t
exactly the first time we have had mediocre choices.

         The last time I remember two really good candidates for the
Presidency who had actually done something and were worthy was 1992 when
Clinton ran against Bush 41. Then we found out who Clinton really was and we
had buyer’s remorse again as with Nixon after 1972 and Watergate.

         The real question is why can’t both candidates be the best,
most worthy representatives of two different governing philosophies? Got me!

Leonard Zwelling