Of all the commentaries that have erupted across the media following Hillary Clinton’s triumphal session with the Benghazi congressional investigators, Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Charles Krauthammer really nailed what we witnessed.
“We’re living in an age where what you say and its relation with the facts is completely irrelevant.”
Bingo! What excellent prose that is.
If it misses your understanding, I’ll translate it for you: Hillary is a serial liar and we don’t care.
Sign Up and Save
Get six months of free digital access to the Star-Telegram
As a result, the near certainty of her becoming our next president has again been established.
For sure that’s the way she sees it after such a victory in front of the country needing to know the truth about why four great Americans were murdered by terrorists in an unsecure compound in a very dangerous country.
Many of us wanted answers about why she insisted, while standing with their loved ones over the bodies of the victims, on blaming their deaths on an insipid video when she knew no video had anything at all to do with their deaths.
While her answers were typical of the Clintons’ long-standing remarkable exemption from telling the truth, she emerged from the Oct. 22 congressional hearing in celebratory fashion, high-fiving her supporters and thrusting her arms into the air in conquest as she left the hearing room.
Behind her were reams of material fully confirming her incompetence, gross negligence and utter disregard for repeatedly requested security measures that would have very likely saved the lives of those whom she was responsible for protecting.
How is it possible that her adoring and fanatical supporters have no interest whatsoever in the character qualities that we all should be looking for when selecting our president?
Thankfully there are alternatives for us. We will have another choice come November a year from now.
When looking over the electoral map, it is a very tough journey to the White House for any Republican candidate. Tough, but not impossible.
Moving a couple of key states such as Florida and Ohio into conservative hands would give hope that the dishonest, untrustworthy, scandal-plagued Mrs. Clinton could be beat.
So, who could bring that about? I don’t know the answer, but we can speculate.
Maybe it’s one of the two guys at the top of the polls.
Donald Trump is supposed to have flamed out by now, but he hasn’t.
Can he build support across the land if he is the nominee? Most say that will never happen.
What about Ben Carson?
He’s certainly an outsider without any baggage of being “like all the others,” and that’s reason enough for many to cast their ballots for him.
Or maybe a tactical move to combine the candidates from those two previously mentioned key states is a winning formula.
We have a former governor and current senator from Florida in the race.
We have the sitting governor of Ohio (with a strong record of defeating Democrats), and while not showing much strength in the polls, he might just make the kind of running mate needed to win over Ohio voters.
John Kennedy was elected president largely as a result of Lyndon Johnson delivering Texas for him in 1960.
The Kennedys didn’t even like LBJ, but they wanted the White House, so they figured out how to get it.
Are Republicans today smart enough to craft such a strategy? We’ll see.
But one thing is sure: If they don’t, we will be witness to the Clinton cabal of liberals and their fawning national media acolytes taking us further down the road to a dark destination of freedoms forever lost, with Hillary Clinton behind the wheel.
Richard Greene is a former Arlington mayor and served as an appointee of President George W. Bush as regional administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency.