The Political Scene: Words vs. Action

Well, I hoped I wouldn’t be writing any more politically-oriented posts, but this comment on Facebook by my right-leaning granddaughter was more than I could stand. I so wanted to comment back, but would prefer to keep peace in the family, so you, my devoted readers, will have to take the brunt of my reaction.

Her comment was in response to a video of tRump apologizing for his recently publicized comment about women  …

I’ve never said I’m a perfect person, nor pretended to be someone that I’m not. I’ve said and done things I regret, and the words released today on this more than a decade-old video are one of them. Anyone who knows me, know these words don’t reflect who I am.

I said it, it was wrong, and I apologize.

There was more, but this, in essence, was his apology. He ended his remarks with this:

I’ve said some foolish things, but there is a big difference between words and actions. Bill Clinton has actually abused women and Hillary has bullied, attacked, shamed and intimidated his victims.

This was my granddaughter’s reaction to the video:

Like my mother has engraved in my brain, “Actions speak louder than words!” Hillary’s actions are by far worse than Trumps words!

If I had responded, I would have asked, what exactly are the “actions” that you are referring to? Are you referring to Benghazi or the emails (which seem to be the topics du jour), both of which have been discussed ad nauseam?

And then I would have asked how these “actions” compare to a man who has verbally demeaned not only women, but Mexican, blacks, Muslims, etc.

I admit there is truth behind the statement made by her mother (my daughter), but words also reveal much about the belief system and temperament of an individual.

Further, while tRump pledges to “be a better man tomorrow,” what guarantees do we have that he will change? And why must we wait until “tomorrow?”

I so wanted to ask her — do we honestly want someone to hold the highest office in the United States who verbally assaults those who do not meet his personal standards … and praises someone who instigates attacks against humanitarian efforts?

And if we’re talking about actions, do we want someone who has declared bankruptcy four times? Does this reflect good business sense, as tRump declares? And what about the numerous times he has made a statement and then claims he never said it (or “didn’t really mean it”)?

More than anything, the thing that bothers me about political campaigns is how the candidates spend their time attacking their opponent and pointing out all their “bad” features. What I want to know (and I don’t think I’m alone in this) is what the candidate is going to do to improve our nation. (And stop telling me to visit your website for details!)

I will watch the upcoming “town hall” event on Sunday but I can almost predict what will happen. It will end up being nothing more than what has been going on for the last several months … She said, He said. The American people will know nothing more than they do today about either of the candidates.

I seriously dread November 8th.

The Doctrines of Republicanism

Andrew Sullivan said this in a blog posting on The Daily Beast:

That’s how I explain the current GOP. It can only think in doctrines, because the alternative is living in a complicated, global, modern world they both do not understand and also despise. Taxes are therefore always bad. Government is never good. Foreign enemies must be pre-emptively attacked. Islam is not a religion. Climate change is an elite conspiracy to impoverish America. Terror suspects are terrorists. When Americans torture, it is not torture. When Christians murder, they are not Christians. And if you change your mind on any of these issues, you are a liberal, an apostate, and will be attacked.

The idea that a Republican could get elected as president in 2012 and we would have to live by these doctrines scares the living sh__ out of me!

Christie (O’Donnell) Want a Cracker?

Last night I watched the debate between Christine O’Donnell (R) and Chris Coons (D), candidates for the U.S. Senate in the upcoming election.

I do not live in Delaware, but with all the hullabaloo about Ms. O’Donnell, I was curious to hear what she had to say.

I could scarcely believe my ears. She rambled. She ranted. She attacked. But most of all, she parroted. Nearly everything out of her mouth was nothing but conservative rhetoric.

Fresh ideas? Innovative solutions? Hardly.

And she seemed to lack the ability to answer yes or no when asked a direct question. Instead, she rambled at length, never failing to insert the trigger words and phrases conservatives know and love. As one news source put it, “O’Donnell was sometimes at a loss for words and other times flat-out unwilling to entertain the question during the debate.”

When asked if she still believes evolution to be a myth, she begged off by saying, “What I believe is irrelevant.” Really? When it comes to the matter of whether the schools might one day be required to teach “creationism” along with evolution, her stand on the issue is very relevant.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the philosophies expressed by either candidate, Christine O’Donnell’s political inexperience was painfully evident in her parrotlike answers.