This Editorial was written by Arthur Donart, Ph.D.
Major political parties have nominated a candidate to be our next President. Who are our choices?
Normally, one would think that a political party has a responsibility to nominate candidates for public office that are capable, honest, trustworthy individuals, who have the best interests of the people at heart. Basically, we have only two political parties at a National level. Perhaps we should examine the Presidential choices they have given us.
One National Party has given us a man who, as a youngster, was able to avoid the military draft in Vietnam, by claiming bone spurs. He was given millions by his wealthy parents to get started in business; he declared bankruptcy seven times. He founded a “university” that Courts ruled was a fraudulent affair, [which] fleeced gullible people out of tuition payments. He had to refund to their money. Perhaps this inspired him to hire an author to write a book about success–which he claimed to have written. After this, things seemed to get better for him.
He managed to get a television show where he was the star. This gave him fame and access to associate with celebrities. Then, he was nominated for President, by one of our National parties; he won the Electoral College vote. However, he lost the Popular vote by nearly five million votes.
This man’s outstanding legislative accomplishment was a tax cut for the billionaire class. During the COVID-19 plague, he approved development of a vaccine. Later, he suggested drinking bleach or taking “Ivermectin,” developed in 1975 for use in Veterinary Medicine, to kill parasites. In foreign affairs, he “fell in love” with North Korea’s dictator, Kim Jung Un. Another unique achievement was being Impeached–twice–something no President ever did. Finally, he lost reelection to a man whom he had stated could not possibly win. This might explain why he never accepted the results of that election.
Post-Presidency, this individual was convicted of rape and then repeatedly called his accuser a liar in public. To stop his slander, the Court ordered him to pay the defendant $85 million. He has been convicted of 34 felonies. In Washington, D. C. he is on trial for an insurrection at the Capital building. In Florida, he was charged with mishandling Classified Information. In Georgia, he is on trial for election interference.
This is a man that one of our political parties nominated–again–to be the candidate for President of the United States of America.
The second National Party nominated a woman, whose parents were poor immigrants. However, she completed college and earned a Law Degree. She passed the California Bar Exam, one of the toughest in the United States. She was elected to the Office of State’s Attorney and excelled. Later, she was elected to the Office of California Attorney General. Next, she was elected to the United States Senate. Then she was nominated by her party to be Vice President, a position she won and continues to hold.
As the first, female Vice President, she cast many tie-breaking votes. Among the most important was a COVID-19 Rescue Package, to rescue Average Americans from financial disaster. She broke the tied vote on the Budget, in order to fund the Government. After her boss dropped out of the Presidential contest for re-election, she was nominated by her party, to run for the office of President of the United States.
This bring us back to my question. Which of these two, National Parties has given us the more capable, honest, trustworthy individual, who has at heart, the best interests of the American people?
I remember when our choice was between Illinois Governor Adlai E. Stevenson and retired World War II Five Star General Dwight D. Eisenhower. Both were capable. Both were honest. Both were trustworthy. It didn’t really matter a whole lot which one won; the American people supported the winner. That is different from agreeing with everything the President wants. We disagree, because we do not want to see a President make what we think are mistakes. Some of our citizens wanted different choices for this upcoming, November 5th election. One party responded; one party did not.