>
The Spectator
founded 2004 by ron cruger
A place for intelligent writers
A place for intelligent readers
 by Laramie Boyd
Not Our Finest Hour
2016 Spectator Ron - The Spectator All Rights Reserved
C
Your comments about this column are welcome ~ e-mail Laramie at
ecrboyd@aol.com
       Hear ye, hear ye! Listen up. Oh, excuse me. You've heard the likes of these remarks before. They are nothing new. Well, you are going to hear them again, I'm afraid. And more than once or twice I'm sure. And I've never heard them more eloquently spoken. Or written, as it were, as in the following articles.
       From the Desert Sun, Palm Springs editorials. "It's a shame that our choices for president are between a loud mouth, womanizing, egotistical braggart, and a corrupt, dishonest, lying politician." Could you look your daughters in the face if you voted for Hillary, and her sidekick Bill? Or your sons if you voted for Trump? How can one choose between this motley pair one who could set this country straight after the past 8 years of, to say the least, upheaval? An unpredictable loudmouth billionaire outsider or a dishonest incumbent politician?
       Another quote. "In the last stage of this dismal presidential campaign, both candidates are revealed as the most exaggerated and grotesque form of their stereotype. The cartoon versions of Donald and Hillary are, in fact, photorealism. The inhabitants of the Clinton world are so accustomed to corruption, they can't even see it anymore." Add hubby "Pinocchio Bill" to that equation and what do you get? And, "The residents of Trumpland are every bit as radical and revolting as advertised. America has two bad choices." Now there's an understatement.
       It's getting more obvious, to anyone who can see and hear and connect the dots, that the closer we get to voting day, the more it is showcasing some humongous problems America must deal with. How can we let the government get away with letting two dangerously incompetent and/or dishonest candidates representing the two reigning political parties, be the only choices the electorate has? Write-ins never hold sway. And a view to this situation that, 'Oh well, we've had unqualified candidates before', doesn't sell. Anyone who believes that 2016 is just another election where two parties differ in their ideology and campaign format, and that the election will decide who is best for the country, that person hasn't been wide awake recently. Neither candidate would be good for the country and this is not just another election!
       From the same article, "If our citizens continue to accept dishonesty and corruptness in our leaders, America can no longer be the great country it once was" and may never be again. Is there anyone out there in Fantasyland who does not completely get the point of that statement, and does not agree with it, or doesn't even know the issue exists?
I was wondering. Maybe, after the current election fiasco, after the ballots are counted, when it's all said and done, maybe there should be a provision that says presidential candidates can be disqualified from running for a public office, under certain conditions. Are electors forced to pick between one or more unacceptable candidates? Do any voters exist who still believe that it's time for a woman president? Or that we need someone outside of the political arena to run the country? Do we need any candidates who are not looking to improve on the condition of America, but are only trying to improve their resume or fill their retirement account. And much of the public sees that as true now. Make no mistake about it. I'll wager that a very large majority of citizens would cry out for a different slate of candidates right now, today, if there was such a scenario available to them. Maybe the process that led to the two candidates was constitutional, but it has become apparent that the process has offered up two runners who are not only totally without legitimacy, but virtually criminal.
       The choices are clear. Clinton, a "leader who seems to value loyalty over integrity, who surrounds herself with yes-persons, who seems to regard her own miniscule public contributions as permission for profiteering." Or Trump, whose small inner circle of policy makers "are every bit as radical and revolting as advertised," who seems intent on making presidential politics "so rancid, so rank, so radioactive, that only his cheering, frothing partisans will be motivated to vote." These are harsh words from Michael Gerson, and need to be heard, and understood.
In these trying times, maybe harsh solutions are not only needed, but required, even demanded. Did I hear someone say they would like to see a movement to boycott going to the polls? To stay home on election day? To launch a "peaceful demonstration to redress grievances" by refusing to choose between these two totally and undeniably incompetent candidates? Is that road too off-the-wall, too close to a knee-jerk reaction to the current no-win scenario? In WW II our Armed Forces fought and died to keep our right to vote, among other freedoms. And that right doesn't specify any required integrity characteristics a candidate must have Maybe it should have. It is a right we cherish. But now is not then. The future is now. The outcome of this presidential election will have an influence on the quality and direction of our lives and the lives of coming generations more than any other election in our history. This month, it is not possible to make an intelligent decision in the voting booth. Neither candidate is worthy of the post sought. On every poll conducted, neither candidate is viewed favorably, they are simply judged as either better or worse than the other candidate. Is a write-in choice the only viable option? How shameful that is.
       Not long ago I saw a quote by an unknown author describing a gathering storm in the Grand Canyon. "I can see the lightning play, and hear the thunder roll." A storm surely must be heading for the White House, as I can see it and hear it clearly. Can you?