Not long ago a Facebook friend suggested that I explain why I would not vote
for Hillary Clinton for President of the United States. I would like to take
that challenge on now.
Before I begin I should explain the two-pronged test I use to determine who I rely upon to provide services to me. Failure to meet either part of the test will disqualify a person, business, or candidate from consideration. The two-pronged test is quite simple: Character and Competence.
A person who is competent but lacks character cannot be trusted to provide what is needed to deliver a required service. Though that person may do exceptional work, that person may deliver more than what you need, do shoddy work, or deliver a product or service that is sub-standard or pocket the reward. This person cannot be trusted to give you an honest answer or honest work.
A person who can be trusted, who has good moral character may not necessarily be capable of delivering the needed service. However, this person will at least tell you if he or she can provide what is needed.
What I look for is a person who has good moral character (honest) AND who is capable. With that as a prelude, let me explain why I cannot support Hillary Clinton for President.
First of all, I dismiss much of the hyperbole we see floating around on social media and I find the reporting by the so-called network and cable "news" media inexcusable. The likes of CNN, FOX, ABC, MSNBC and so forth are no more interested in reporting facts than I am interested in attending a hula hoop exhibition. They merely take words and acts out of context and put their own spin on events and feed it to the public as fact. Then there is the fringe element that puts forth various conspiracy theories, back their theories with faulty information and reasoning, and propose doomsday scenarios. And now that we are in the post-convention phases of the campaigns with the candidates of the two major parties selected we will begin to see grainy, unflattering, and grotesque pictures of opposing candidates with even more non-contextual statements. It is only going to go downhill from here. Unfortunately, the print media is no better than the electronic media. And, please don't get me started on celebrity endorsements.
However, there is an occasional silver lining to be found in the all-out mud fest. Every now and then honest journalism creeps through and the media let the candidates speak for themselves. I relish those opportunities. What I relish even more is firsthand information.
Before I can begin to evaluate proposed policy positions of the candidates I want to know if I can trust them. I apply the Martin Luther King "content of their character" litmus test to candidates. I am still working on Donald Trump, but I have already made up my mind on Clinton.
First, there is the Benghazi Event. Whether or not she stalled or stammered in addressing security concerns is not the issue. Well, it is an issue as it deals with competence, but right now I am looking only at character. The issue with me is that she lied to the American public about what led up to the attack.
Secondly, there is the private email server. Whether or not she used a private email server or not is not the issue. Well, again it is an issue as it deals with competence, but as I already said, right now I'm looking only at character. We all heard her testify before a Congressional committee that she did not send or receive email that was marked classified at the time. And whether or not a person in her position should recognize classified material even if it is not marked again is not the issue. (Well, it is as it goes to the competence test again, but I’m not going there right now.) We all heard the FBI director say that documents marked as classified were found on her email server. The issue with me is that she lied to the American public. We also heard her say that all her emails had been turned over for review. Now we recently learned that there have been another 13,000 - 15,000 discovered emails. She lied.
Third is her conduct behind closed doors. Let me preface this with a little background information. In my law enforcement career I had the opportunity to be with several state and national political leaders. I've eaten meals with Congressman Manuel Lujan (R) and Senator Pete Domenici (R) (I always got personally signed Christmas cards from Pete). I knew Congressman/UN Ambassador Bill Richardson (D) before he was thrust onto the national and international stage. I knew New Mexico Governor Bruce King (D), he knew me by name and he initiated personal correspondence to me. I've walked and talked with foreign dignitaries and ambassadors. (I also spent the better part of a day with President Bill Clinton, but that's another story. Let’s just say that I washed my hands as quickly as I could after he left.) Always, and I mean always what I saw in these politicians in private was the same demeanor, conduct, and language that I saw in public.
I am sorry to say that Hillary Clinton is a Jekyll and Hyde when it comes to her public persona and behind the scenes behavior. I have never seen such demeaning conduct toward aides as what she does to hers. I do not use the profanity by which she addresses her Secret Service detail. I have never seen a politician look down on others the way she looks down on others in private. I have known Secret Service agents assigned to work with her and they cannot wait to get away from her. Her back room language is worse than that of a drunken sailor. She is a coarse, profane, and abrasive prima donna.
And then there was the security assistance that my criminal justice students provided when she made a visit to our campus. It is traditional for a major politician to shake hands with the locals who provide service of one type or another during a visit. At the conclusion of her visit to our campus, the volunteers lined up ready to shake hands and exchange brief pleasantries. When she got to my students she looked down at their ID cards identifying them as Criminal Justice students, and said, "Humph. Criminal Justice students. I don't need you." She then walked past all my students and literally sneered at them. Needless to say, I did not even get in line as I already knew where the meet and greet was going to go. I could not believe what I saw as students, once infatuated with her stood with their hands extended as she walked past them. Do not ask me to tell you what she called them when my students were out of earshot.
Unlike many Americans I occasionally communicate with elected officials by mail. I have done so on a few occasions with then Senator Clinton. My brief requests for support of particular bills before the Senate were always rebuffed with multiple page responses telling me why my position was wrong. Obviously the responses were written by staffers and had been written well in advance of my letters. But summary dismissal of a constituent's position seemed so irresponsible. Her responses were not even preceded with a “thank you for writing and sharing your view”.
So, there you have it. I applied the "content of character test" to Hillary Clinton and she failed. Even if her stated policies were perfect (if she had competence) for our nation I could not vote for her. I trust her as much as I trust a sunning rattlesnake.
I cannot in good conscience vote for Hillary Clinton.
(This does not mean that I will vote for Donald Trump.)
Before I begin I should explain the two-pronged test I use to determine who I rely upon to provide services to me. Failure to meet either part of the test will disqualify a person, business, or candidate from consideration. The two-pronged test is quite simple: Character and Competence.
A person who is competent but lacks character cannot be trusted to provide what is needed to deliver a required service. Though that person may do exceptional work, that person may deliver more than what you need, do shoddy work, or deliver a product or service that is sub-standard or pocket the reward. This person cannot be trusted to give you an honest answer or honest work.
A person who can be trusted, who has good moral character may not necessarily be capable of delivering the needed service. However, this person will at least tell you if he or she can provide what is needed.
What I look for is a person who has good moral character (honest) AND who is capable. With that as a prelude, let me explain why I cannot support Hillary Clinton for President.
First of all, I dismiss much of the hyperbole we see floating around on social media and I find the reporting by the so-called network and cable "news" media inexcusable. The likes of CNN, FOX, ABC, MSNBC and so forth are no more interested in reporting facts than I am interested in attending a hula hoop exhibition. They merely take words and acts out of context and put their own spin on events and feed it to the public as fact. Then there is the fringe element that puts forth various conspiracy theories, back their theories with faulty information and reasoning, and propose doomsday scenarios. And now that we are in the post-convention phases of the campaigns with the candidates of the two major parties selected we will begin to see grainy, unflattering, and grotesque pictures of opposing candidates with even more non-contextual statements. It is only going to go downhill from here. Unfortunately, the print media is no better than the electronic media. And, please don't get me started on celebrity endorsements.
However, there is an occasional silver lining to be found in the all-out mud fest. Every now and then honest journalism creeps through and the media let the candidates speak for themselves. I relish those opportunities. What I relish even more is firsthand information.
Before I can begin to evaluate proposed policy positions of the candidates I want to know if I can trust them. I apply the Martin Luther King "content of their character" litmus test to candidates. I am still working on Donald Trump, but I have already made up my mind on Clinton.
First, there is the Benghazi Event. Whether or not she stalled or stammered in addressing security concerns is not the issue. Well, it is an issue as it deals with competence, but right now I am looking only at character. The issue with me is that she lied to the American public about what led up to the attack.
Secondly, there is the private email server. Whether or not she used a private email server or not is not the issue. Well, again it is an issue as it deals with competence, but as I already said, right now I'm looking only at character. We all heard her testify before a Congressional committee that she did not send or receive email that was marked classified at the time. And whether or not a person in her position should recognize classified material even if it is not marked again is not the issue. (Well, it is as it goes to the competence test again, but I’m not going there right now.) We all heard the FBI director say that documents marked as classified were found on her email server. The issue with me is that she lied to the American public. We also heard her say that all her emails had been turned over for review. Now we recently learned that there have been another 13,000 - 15,000 discovered emails. She lied.
Third is her conduct behind closed doors. Let me preface this with a little background information. In my law enforcement career I had the opportunity to be with several state and national political leaders. I've eaten meals with Congressman Manuel Lujan (R) and Senator Pete Domenici (R) (I always got personally signed Christmas cards from Pete). I knew Congressman/UN Ambassador Bill Richardson (D) before he was thrust onto the national and international stage. I knew New Mexico Governor Bruce King (D), he knew me by name and he initiated personal correspondence to me. I've walked and talked with foreign dignitaries and ambassadors. (I also spent the better part of a day with President Bill Clinton, but that's another story. Let’s just say that I washed my hands as quickly as I could after he left.) Always, and I mean always what I saw in these politicians in private was the same demeanor, conduct, and language that I saw in public.
I am sorry to say that Hillary Clinton is a Jekyll and Hyde when it comes to her public persona and behind the scenes behavior. I have never seen such demeaning conduct toward aides as what she does to hers. I do not use the profanity by which she addresses her Secret Service detail. I have never seen a politician look down on others the way she looks down on others in private. I have known Secret Service agents assigned to work with her and they cannot wait to get away from her. Her back room language is worse than that of a drunken sailor. She is a coarse, profane, and abrasive prima donna.
And then there was the security assistance that my criminal justice students provided when she made a visit to our campus. It is traditional for a major politician to shake hands with the locals who provide service of one type or another during a visit. At the conclusion of her visit to our campus, the volunteers lined up ready to shake hands and exchange brief pleasantries. When she got to my students she looked down at their ID cards identifying them as Criminal Justice students, and said, "Humph. Criminal Justice students. I don't need you." She then walked past all my students and literally sneered at them. Needless to say, I did not even get in line as I already knew where the meet and greet was going to go. I could not believe what I saw as students, once infatuated with her stood with their hands extended as she walked past them. Do not ask me to tell you what she called them when my students were out of earshot.
Unlike many Americans I occasionally communicate with elected officials by mail. I have done so on a few occasions with then Senator Clinton. My brief requests for support of particular bills before the Senate were always rebuffed with multiple page responses telling me why my position was wrong. Obviously the responses were written by staffers and had been written well in advance of my letters. But summary dismissal of a constituent's position seemed so irresponsible. Her responses were not even preceded with a “thank you for writing and sharing your view”.
So, there you have it. I applied the "content of character test" to Hillary Clinton and she failed. Even if her stated policies were perfect (if she had competence) for our nation I could not vote for her. I trust her as much as I trust a sunning rattlesnake.
I cannot in good conscience vote for Hillary Clinton.
(This does not mean that I will vote for Donald Trump.)
No comments:
Post a Comment