A flogger for Glenn Beck’s The Blaze, Matt Walsh, unsurprisingly makes his case against voting for Trump by reminding readers of all the names he’s called him over the last few months:
“…a conman, a tyrant, a pathological liar, a flamboyant despot, a fraudster, a big government liberal, progressive in a very poorly fitting and unconvincing conservative costume, a Planned Parenthood apologist, an unrepentant philanderer, a crook, a creep, a fascist with a spray tan, a reality TV Mussolini, a Caligula with bad hair, etc.”
While there may be accurate charges folded in among the ad homonyms, calling someone names exposes an adolescent weakness in most any argument.Wardrobe, spray tan, bad hair, have nothing to do Governance or political arguments. It feels good - but lowers Walsh to the Trump level he excoriates. Why? Trump loses on enough points so as to make his tailor,barber and cosmetologist irrelevant. Cheap shots turn a shotgun into a water pistol.
There is another fatal flaw in Walsh’s piece:
"I have found no reason to believe that Trump would be better than Hillary Clinton. They are practically the same, which is why they’ve been such close friends for so long. They are both reflexive liars. They are both clinical narcissists. They are both power hungry lunatics. They are both ruthless pragmatists who care only about increasing their own authority, not advancing any idea or ideology. They both adopt the ideology that suits them for the moment, and drop it just as quickly."
Generally, I agree – although Trump’s lack of ‘political speak” might be responsible for much of his Loose Cannon policy rhetoric. Or not. The notion that Trump planned all this out, scripted and choreographed to the last Put Down is not credible. If he did work it all in advance, he is a strategic genius, tapping into the seething rage that has raised the blood pressure of the Average Joe to uninsurable levels. And brought them to the polls.
Irrespective of the above, the factual flaw is one of Logic in Walsh’s statement:
I have found no reason to believe that Trump would be better than Hillary Clinton.
And the point is….? If “the lesser of 2 evils is still evil”, might it be worthwhile to examine the content and extent of each “evil”?
For all of Trump’s negatives that have offended Mr. Walsh and others, in a head-to-head match up with Clinton, one could correctly state:
Trump did not oversee the murderous Benghazi incident;
Trump did not violate Federal law and Oath of Office installing a “personal server”, exposing State secrets to enemies’ eyes;
Trump may not make an excellent pick to replace Justice Scalia – but Clinton will absolutely not select an uncompromising Constitutional hard-liner guaranteed. The Trump campaign is rumored to have recently referenced Judge Andrew Napolitano as “first choice”. Ys, it’s just a rumor – but not one you’ll hear from the Clinton camp.
Sure, Trump may have some soiled laundry in his baggage relating to business deals along the way. But at least he acknowledged them and in context. In the course of Business at that level, such maneuvers are done, regardless of party affiliation. Remember: it was politicians that put the legal framework in place. What is suddenly immoral about a businessman taking advantage of it? Check out the machinations of the Clinton Foundation (if you can), Whitewater, the Rose Law firm, the “bimbo eruptions” interference enabling her porch dog husband to destroy the lives of the very women she claims to serve and protect. And don’t pass up a review of the murder of Vince Foster. At least Trump’s corporate bankruptcies fell within legal parameters. The violations of law and trust committed inside the Logic Free Zone by Clinton, Inc makes Trump look like the proverbial choir boy.
At bottom, no politician is free from “evil”; it’s part of the job description. The sanctimonious blathering of conservative pundits with some unmentioned ax to grind reveals a naiveté practiced by the GOP Faithful every election cycle. Liberals know Politics is a full contact sport and play it to the hilt with no shame. Conservatives of all stripes treat Politics the way Victorians treated sex.They want a Messiah who make all the changes they want without getting their hands dirty or being ridiculed in the press. No Messiah available? Then fueled by the frustration ,anger and embarrassment of the last 50 years, being hammered by Liberals and their media and lied to by their own elected officials, they now have the Biggest Badass on the podium to get their licks in after being misled and misrepresented by a Republican “establishment” grown comfy-cozy in its flaccid state of inaction. Is this any way to govern? Hell, no – but who cares? “We’ll get our licks in and talk Kumbaya later.”
Trump may have all the warts Walsh claims but Hillary is the Democrats’ “Dorian Grey” with a track record anyone paying attention over the last 20+ years has witnessed in living, putrid color.
Since Walsh “…found no reason to believe that Trump would be better than Hillary Clinton”, apparently he found no reason to believe that Trump would be worse. But Hillary, in word, deed and resume, has proven she would be a lot worse, with 4-8 yrs of another Clinton administration populated by the worst scum in the Washington swamp.
PS – Contrary to the likely impression left above, I am not a “Trump supporter”. I have written about my personal presidential choice here.