“The Presidency is not an Entitlement”
by John Alexander Madison
August 12, 2013
At this time it would be very difficult for anyone to determine, with a great degree of accuracy, who our next President will be. However, the posturing has begun. With more than three years and eighty-eight days prior to the next Presidential Election (November 8, 2016) presidential wannabes have already descended on Iowa. Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ), Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), and U.S. Representative Ron Paul (R-KY) among others are wasting no time testing the waters there. With Iowa’s population at 3,076,186 (fully nine-tenths of 1% of the population of the United States at 313,281,717) you might ask “Why Iowa?” That’s a good question but I’ll save that topic for a future discussion.
So where are the liberals? Why are all the potential candidates from the Democrat party waiting for the next ‘chosen one’ to announce her intentions with regard to the 2016 election? They include Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA), Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Senator Kirstin Gillibrand (D-NY), Secretary of State John (pass the ketshup) Kerry (D), former Senator Howard (Screamin’) Dean (D-VT), Mayor Cory Booker (D-NJ), Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa (D-CA), Governor Andrew Cuomo (D-NY), Governor Martin O’Malley (D-MD), Deval Patrick (D-MA) and several others from the left-wing fringe.
Then there is Diane Rodham Clinton (a/k/a “Hil”, a/k/a Hillary, the former Rose Law firm associate who took a few years to find a box of records in her White House bedroom closet. Do you remember Whitewater?”) The same Hillary Clinton whose self-serving statement on January 28, 1992 was “I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas; look I’m not some Tammy Wynette standing by my man baking cookies, here.” You may remember, the left went nuts when she said that. But she actually did stand by her man, didn’t she? She probably baked him a few cookies too. In her eyes Billy Jefferson (Clinton) simply could do no wrong. That, my friends, is called political ambition/political expediency.
Many are yearning for former Secretary of State Clinton to run for President in 2016, so she can become the first woman president. She would be the first former First-Lady to become President. She would also be the second oldest person to become president and third former Secretary of State. Yes, she would be even older than William Henry Harrison when he became President. But alas, he only served thirty-two days in office. And Ms. Clinton would be the first former Girl Scout to become president.* But she wouldn’t be the first president from Illinois (her birthplace), as we’ve already have had three: Abraham Lincoln, General Ulysses S. Grant and Barack Obama who claims Illinois as his home state. I think that’s enough from Illinois for now, don’t you?
This is the same Hilary Clinton who, true to her Illinois roots, famously said when running for the U.S. Senate in New York (January 28, 1992) “I have been a N.Y. Yankee fan all of my life.” She said this in spite of growing up in Chicago and formerly showing support for the Cubs. When pressed about the switch, Clinton explained that she was enamored with the Yankees as a child and needed an American League team to support, in addition to the Cubs of the National League. Right, I believe that.
Years earlier, this same Diane Clinton noticed voter fraud against Richard Nixon on the south side of Chicago in the 1960 presidential race. After that she decided to help Republican Barry Goldwater in his campaign in 1964. During her freshman year in college, Clinton served as president of the Wellesley Young Republicans. However, after much reflection and liberal indoctrination at Wellesley it seems she determined the Chicago south side political model had much more appeal and she went to the “other side.”
Any thoughts I may have had about offering to serve as the “first U.S. President with Dutch ancestry” were quickly dashed when I realized that our 8th U.S. President Martin Van Buren met that criteria when he served from 1836-1840. It is important to note, in fairness to Ms. Clinton, that while unqualified for this office Ms. Clinton would not be the most unqualified person to serve as U.S. President. That name has already been permanently engraved in a recently dedicated marble cornerstone, on the (East) side of The White House. At the dedication, Mrs. Obama proudly stated “this is the second time in my adult lifetime I have been proud of my country.”
THE BOTTOM LINE: When selecting our next President gender does not matter. Whether the next president is from Key West (Florida) or Fairbanks (Alaska) or anywhere in between does not matter. It does not matter if the next President is from Dutch ancestry, nor if the next President is a Catholic or a Mormon. And it does not matter if the next president is an African-America. It really does not matter.
What matters and what is relevant is that the next President of the United States shares the core values of our Founding Fathers (unscripted via teleprompter); and a belief in smaller government, personal responsibility, individual freedom and a strong national defense. What matters is that the next President ends the politics of personal destruction and divisiveness which has been the hallmark of our current President and every one of his protégés.
In other words, what really matters is that the next President of the United States of America must have the most basic qualifications for that office, including honesty and integrity, and a desire for service to country above all else, including personal ambition. Wouldn’t that be refreshing!
And to answer you very own question, Ms. Clinton, “What difference does it make?” It makes a big difference. Sorry “Hil.”
NOTE: *I think Juliette Gordon Low, the Savannah, GA founder of the Girl Scouts, would have made a better presidential candidate.