Cheap Seats 2016
Words, Deeds - 08/03
By Rich Trzupek
The players have officially taken the stage and the competing plotlines are clear. The Democrat candidate wants you to base your decision on what her Republican opponent says and the way he says it. The Republican candidate wants you to base your decision on what his Democrat opponent has done. If you’re a Hillary fan, there is no convincing you that Hillary’s deeds matter far more than Donald’s words. If you’re a Trump fan, there is no convincing you that the way Hillary’s track record is inconsequential when compared to the way Donald expresses himself.
This election, like most American elections, will be decided by those of you who aren’t attached to any party or political philosophy: you few – you proud few – the independents.
I am not one of you, my dear independents. I think that’s important for you to understand if you choose to read further. I believe that what we describe today as “conservatism” when discussing political philosophies leads to the best results for the most people most of the time and, while the Republican Party does not consistently champion conservative principles, Republican candidates are far more likely to do so compared to their Democrat opponents.
You also need to understand that there is one thing, and one thing alone, that moves poll numbers during an election cycle: negative messaging attacking one’s opponent. We all say that we want campaigns to refrain from slinging mud, but the truth of the matter – and the pros in both parties understand this beyond doubt – is that you win an election by damning your opponent, not by promoting your own candidate.
Ms. Clinton says that she doesn’t think you should vote for Trump because the Donald says outrageous things. How can we entrust nuclear weaponry to a man who refuses to engage filter before engaging brain?
And, to be sure, Trump’s stubborn refusal to be politically correct when expressing himself is a large part of his appeal, as well as his biggest liability. Hearing someone speak their mind with tap-dancing around how they feel is both refreshing and frightening, more so perhaps because it’s so rare, especially among those seeking public office.
Yet, perhaps political-correctness doesn’t matter any longer. No matter how carefully a conservative frames his or her thoughts, the liberal mainstream media is going to find a way to parse, twist or otherwise distort his or her words.
For example, though I’m not a regular O’Reilly viewer when I saw screaming headlines that O’Reilly was defending slavery, I was moved to go back and find out what he actually said.
What he actually said was in support of Michelle Obama’s speech at the DNC in which she, correctly, said that the White House had been built using slave labor. O’Reilly acknowledged the truth of that statement, and as almost a throw-away, noted that the slaves building the White House were well-fed and well-treated, which was also true. No rational person could listen to O’Reilly’s entire statement and conclude that he thought slavery was a fine institution because, gosh darn it, they got their grub and didn’t get whipped too much! But, predictably, that’s exactly where the MSM went when covering the “controversy”.
Contrast Trump’s words with his opponent’s deeds. Hillary let Benghazi happen and then lied about it. Hillary used her private server to store classified government e-mails and then she lied about that. Hillary took hundreds of thousands in donations form the Wall Street heavy hitters she vilifies, then refuses to release the tapes of the speeches she made in front of them.
Hillary deleted thousands of e-mails from that private server, assuring us that none of them involved government business, yet when Trump jokingly suggests that we should ask the Russians to retrieve them, the MSM and Hillary’s posse flips out, claiming the Donald is endangering national security. But, if Hillary really took Trump’s sarcastic suggestion seriously, how could asking the Russians to retrieve deleted e-mails that she has constantly assured us are strictly personal put the United States at risk? I don’t think Americans will put in harm’s way if Putin knows dear Hillary’s yoga class schedule.
It is true that a vote for Trump is a vote for the unknown in a lot of ways, in contrast to Hillary whom is very much a known quantity. When you boil down all the rhetoric, those are pretty much the arguments for, and against, each candidate.