Despite one presidential candidate’s proclamation that hope is nigh, little appears visible.
Pennsylvania votes Wednesday in what reasonable people might wish is effectively the last of a primary season in which presidential aspirants have effectively revealed their character by tearing down each other to become the last man or woman standing. That intent is much of the content of their words, ads and deeds.
Why should voters value destructive behavior? Why should voters value stridency? Why should voters value the invective that candidates (and their side men and women) throw at each other with such little concern for accuracy?
Why should voters value the plausible deniability presidential candidates erect in their campaigns when their acolytes cast aspersions on opponents, then fall blithely on their partisan swords (soon to be rewarded, if their swain wins, with an ambassadorship or a political post)?
It’s oddly amusing that the electorate seems to think that these message-testing, position-shifting aspirants for the nation’s highest elected office will be able to quickly doff the stench of their multi-month slog through self-generated, finestkind mud and just as quickly don the aura of “presidential” behavior.
Bah. Are these behaviors displayed by the survivors of the primary season those the voters wish and need to see in the White House come next January? Voters have seen in the present occupant that election-season behavior does not translate immediately or effectively into “presidential” behavior.
Present behaviors indicate future performance. If these candidates smell this badly under primary pressure, how rank will their odor be under the pressure of war versus peace?