Search Box

Thursday, July 28, 2016

Who is temperamentally unfit to be President?

The Democratic line is that Trump is temperamentally unfit to be President, since he has responded to political attacks with personal insults. It's true that he's said some rash things that he would have been better off not saying.

Commenting on Carly Fiorina's looks was un-Presidential; and saying that Megan Kelly was bleeding from "her wherever" was an unfortunate choice of words. Saying that John McCain was not a war hero was simply not true.

But the central conceit of the Democrats that Trump, because he has a sharp tongue, is as likely to lob a nuclear bomb as an insult, is ludicrous. Does anyone really think that he can't tell the difference?

Contrast Trump's behavior to Hillary's. According to several accounts, Hillary would actually claw at her husband's face, punch him, and throw things at him during her tantrums. When a Secret Service man said good morning to her, she replied, "Fuck off!" This was evidently typical of her behavior toward the law enforcement assigned to guard her.

Which is more indicative of a personality temperamentally unsuited to the Presidency -- hurling insults, or hurling ashtrays?

10 comments:

Mark Caplan said...

I just borrowed from the library the book you've mentioned several times, Ron Kessler's The First Family Detail. On page 37 of the Kindle edition, I see:

At the correspondents' dinner, Obama -- code named Renegade....

Renegade is derived from renege, and originally meant Christians who renounced their faith by converting to Islam! These renegades were usually Christian captives or slaves who were taken prisoner by Muslim pirates. The slaves could sometimes improve their abysmal living conditions by converting to Islam. Was the president in on this joke?

In American English, renegade Indians were Indians who renounced Christianity and reverted to their native religion and culture.

John Craig said...

Mark --
Interesting, thanks. That's a really good question: I'd always assumed that those names were chosen by the Secret Service, but I guess if the President wanted to choose his own code name no one would tell him no.

BTW, I enjoyed your comment on Steve Sailer's blog the other day, something to the effect of "Could you please clarify....?"

arthur thurman said...

I know it seemed sacrosanct to speak ill of Mr. Cain but if you dig a little deeper on his dealings once in political office, you will see why alot of us vets didn't take offense to Mr. Trump's remarks. No links on it but the stories are out there of his actions (or inaction)

-Art

John Craig said...

Art --
I had heard that McCain's behavior in prison might not have been quite as heroic as later advertised, but I wouldn't hold that against him; we all have breaking points. As far as his role in suppressing information about the remaining POW/MIA's, that's far more serious.

But I don't think Trump was referring to either of those things when he made his comment. He was just lashing out instinctively at a guy who'd insulted him, and Trump's later explanation for his insult was that he "preferred people who didn't get caught." As far as I'm concerned, anybody who's put his life on the line for his country -- as McCain did as a Navy pilot -- is a hero, period. It was not Trump's place to be casting aspersions that way, especially since he never served.

BTW, I don't like McCain as a politician either, he's been duplicitous and a RINO and a big advocate of more immigration and more war. But, none of that means he wasn't a war hero.

Anonymous said...

the difference is trump's poor and public judgment is demonstrated every single day whereas clinton has made mistakes over a career of public service while trump has been serving himself. and your references to hillary's behavior is second hand whereas trump tweets ( a president tweeting??) his poor and spontaneous judgement hourly

John Craig said...

Anon --
In order to believe that Hillary's bad behavior in private is not true, you'd have to assume that all of those Arkansas State Troopers and Secret Service men were lying. And yes, Trump does show poor judgment with many of his off the cuff comments -- if not quite hourly -- but there's still a big qualitative difference between someone who attacks someone else physically, and someone who makes rude comments.

Also, don't kid yourself that Hillary's career of "public service" wasn't every bit as much a function of her personal ambition as Trump's was of his. A brief look at her history with the Clinton Foundation, at her cattle futures trading bribe, at her trying to take the White House China, and with her well paid speeches to Wall Street all reveal her true nature. The difference was that Trump didn't betray an electorate -- or his country -- while doing so.

Anonymous said...

was my response to your response disallowed?

is that what comment moderation means?

if so, i have a much better understanding of your blog

John Craig said...

Anon --
I never saw a response to my response. And just about the only comments disallow are spam advertisements. Send it again and I'll post it.....Not that I think you have a good understanding of anything.

Anonymous said...

it is precisely trump's off the cuff comments that clearly show what kind of human being he is. in my eyes and in the eyes of many of the leaders of the republican party , he is a reprehensible human being. and that quality has nothing to do with party.
you cannot glibly forgive his public comments by comparing it to something hillary may or may not have done in private.


i do not kid myself about hillary's ambition. you dont achieve what she has achieved without ambition. if her ambition was the motivation for a lifetime of public service that is fine with me. trump's ambition is soley to serve his ego. and he uses it to attack people every single day.

you highlight the talking points of a handful of things that hillary has done wrong in a lifetime of public service and ignore her accomplishments. the contrast between her service and trump's lack thereof is stark.

like all politicians she is loyal to her donors and trump will be too. she accepts money from wall street and regulates the street more than republicans do.

you and your party are in a tough spot. you have a non-thinking, unqualified ego-maniac running against a flawed candidate who has done a lot for america, you could not win from the middle so you have fallen into the position of nominating an extremist. historically, extremists nominated by both parties have been crushed which for the sake of the greatest country in the world, is what i hope happens to trump


John Craig said...

Anon --
BTW, if you doubt that I publish contrary opinions, I suggest you take a look at this post, on Aspergers Syndrome, which has something like 470 comments now, many of which not only disagree with me but also tell me what a horrible, evil person I am:

http://justnotsaid.blogspot.com/2011/08/aspergers-syndrome.html

(I'm not like MSNBC, which almost never allows Republicans on.)