Nobody for president

Nobody for president

A bizarre political year has produced two unpalatable choices.

The 2016 presidential race has been called many things, including the "Seinfeld" campaign — an election about nothing. He says she's bad; she claims he's worse.

So, too, have the candidates received interesting labels — Republican nominee Donald Trump characterized as the smart-alecky, underachieving Bart from "The Simpsons" while Democrat Hillary Clinton is the bookish, grim, tiresome Lisa.

Is "The Donald" really a suit-wearing Johnny Rotten, the punk rocker whose goal was to overturn the rock music status quo? Is Hillary Cruella De Vil in a tent dress, lying her way to the top and terrifying puppies in the process?

OK, readers probably get the point. Neither candidate for the White House generates much other than shudders. That's why our recommendation for president is neither.

The entitled Clinton was her party's inevitable nominee, even though she proved so unpopular among her fellow Democrats that the aged and cranky socialist U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders defeated her in 22 primaries. At the same time, the divisive Trump overwhelmed nearly 20 other GOP rivals with a show-biz demeanor and brash style that struck a nerve in the electorate, overturned GOP political orthodoxy and alienated many prominent Republicans.

It's not easy to opt out of a presidential contest, certainly when choosing the lesser of two evils is a duty that often goes with a trip to the voting booth. But this year's campaign features the evil of two lessers.

There's Clinton — undeniably dishonest, ideologically duplicitous, cleverly calculating, callously cold and relentlessly scheming.

Her self-destructive adventure with her infamous secret email system and server are the mere tip of a 30-year iceberg of paranoiac secrecy that has skirted the edges of the law.

At the same time, Trump is no better — bombastic, boorish, egotistical, offensive. He credits himself as a warrior in a relentless campaign against politically correctness. But, too often, he's just plain obnoxious, obsessing over trivialities with self-aggrandizing self-promotion.

A longtime Democrat, Trump now runs as a Republican. But does he believe in anything other than Donald Trump?

As for Clinton, she's a Democrat for sure, and that is what's troubling. Essentially running for President Obama's third term, she's a promoter of continuing a failed foreign policy — the Middle East was in bad shape before Obama and Clinton turned it into a full-fledged disaster. As for domestic policy, she promises higher taxes — only the rich will pay, she promises — and higher social welfare spending that will maintain and expand an Obamacare program already collapsing of its own weight.

She's now promising a debt-free education for all those who wish it, a takeoff on Sen. Sanders' call for free college. Now why should working stiffs, among others, finance free educations for those who will quickly outearn their less prosperous benefactors?

Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Is it just another casualty of our politicians' unaffordable promises made to generate votes?

However the Nov. 8 election turns out, many people who voted for the winner are going to wake up the next day with an uneasy feeling in the pits of their stomachs.

Can Republicans really take much satisfaction in a Trump presidency, when he is such a political wild card?

Can Democrats genuinely look forward to four years of a Clinton presidency marked by the stunning dishonesty that could easily have resulted in a criminal indictment for mishandling classified information on her private email systems?

Only the ideologically blind can swallow her pack of lies whole. Otherwise, she's hardly fooling anyone with her dishonest, disingenuous, disturbing answers to important questions involving her handling of top-secret national security information.

There's no reason to dispute Trump supporters' claims that a Trump presidency could hardly be worse than four years of Clinton. They cite, among other reasons, judicial appointments, regulatory reform and repeal of Obamacare as more palatable alternatives to Clinton's enthusiastic embrace of the status quo.

But Democrats are equally credible on the vagaries of Trump's personality and lack of preparation for the presidency. Do Americans want a man like that as commander-in-chief?

There's an answer in there somewhere, not a good one but something resembling a response. That's why our recommendation is for people to vote their conscience with the clear understanding that neither Trump nor Clinton may have one.

Sections (2):Editorials, Opinion

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Westsider wrote on October 02, 2016 at 11:10 am

So...4 more years of Obama then, I guess.

Local Yocal wrote on October 02, 2016 at 2:10 pm
Profile Picture

Whew. Had The News-Gazette found a way to endorse Trump, that would have been it for me reading the News-Gazette.

STM wrote on October 04, 2016 at 10:10 am

Really?  Really??? Nobody for president?

Even the Arizona Republic was able to pull its collective editorial noggin out of its backside long enough to take a stab at this endorsement.

Look NG, I get it.  There's no way you could seriously endorse the demented circus peanut with a bad comb-over.  You don't even have to endorse the qualified candidate you can't stand. You had a few third-party people (sketchy at best) to choose from.  C'mon guys, take one for the team and pick.  That's what we have to do.

Realistically we have a choice between Orange McCrazy-pants and a former senator and secretary of state.  You have a shady, self-indulgent, blabber mouth who, a few days ago, urged Americans to watch a sex tape versus a woman who is actually informed on the issues and shows a boatload of self-restraint.  

What you did, by not endorsing anyone, was the equivalent of a hissy-fit.  "I don't like anyone so I'm not gonna do it.  You people are on your own!"

As I've seen so often over the years, the News Gazette is doing a stellar job at keeping the electorate uninformed.

The Bandsaw Vigilante wrote on October 08, 2016 at 12:10 pm

One thing that reassures me about Hillary Clinton is nobody in the history of the world has ever been as investigated, re-investigated, harassed, trashed by -- successively -- neocons and teabaggers, not only the right-wing media, but the liberal media, as well (the Clintons never played ball with them) and, guys, she's still standing.

Here's the thing. Hillary might not get the $15-an-hour minimum wage. She might not get single-payer. She might not get gun-control. But you can damn sure bet Trump will get his ACA-repeal. And his immigration-ban. And his gay-marriage ban. And every other regressive, hateful, caveman thing he has planned for us.

The risk of Hillary doing nothing is far less than the risk of Trump doing anything.



C. Alcyon wrote on October 26, 2016 at 10:10 am

Admit it. You guys wanted to endorse Trump, but you just didn't have the guts.

I wouldn't use your paper to line my cats' litterboxes.