Lena Dunham, one of the Left's darlings, is a Cankles supporter. This comes as no surprise, although were she a Bernie Sanders supporter, that wouldn't stretch credulity, either.
Ms. Dunham, who has no trouble lecturing society about its shortcomings, has recently declared that her chosen candidate is being subjected to more and therefore unfair scrutiny simply because she's a female candidate, and that male candidates are not being subjected to the same level of scrutiny. If that's true, that's wrong. I take issue with the notion that that's happening.
To begin, let's list what her supporters love to tell us in support of the notion that she's qualified: She's the former First Lady, a former Senator and a former Secretary of State. If titles alone made one qualified for President, Cankles would win in a landslide. For whatever lofty titles her challengers, Democrat or Republican, possess, she clearly has more notches on her political belt. Yet, it's fair to ask whether there's any substance to her involvement in those roles, first, and whether there are any scandals to which she is attached, second. I don't believe those are unfair questions.
Given the number of scandals to which she's been attached -- Whitewater, the Rose law firm, Vince Foster, a philandering husband, Benghazi, CGI, poverty, home-brew servers and emails, Monica Lewinsky, for starters -- I don't think any level of scrutiny about her involvement or her ability or lack thereof to manage them is unfair. Especially when her attempts to brush off the importance of these matters is as ham-fisted as it's been.
Donald Trump has certainly received criticism and scrutiny. So has Ted Cruz. About the only major candidate still in the running who hasn't been really challenged to the same degree is Mr. Sanders, who for me still remains an enigma more worthy of comparisons to Larry David.
The question really is an academic one, in my mind. As regular readers of this blog know by now, I loathe Cankles. Simply by virtue of the fact that I can't utter her proper name it's evident that I have no use for the woman. But if we were to ask the question about a faceless, nameless female candidate, would it be a fair question?
Much like the question Megyn Kelly asked Donald Trump about his attacks on women, I think it's a fair thing to scrutinize a candidate regardless of gender. What's more, the higher the office, the greater the scrutiny should be, within bounds. I don't believe personal, intimate details are germane to the discussion. But probing questions about fitness to lead, ability to manage and explanations for a record are legitimate.
But if we're going to say that someone because of her gender should be given a pass, or have less scrutiny, aren't we implicitly saying that that person isn't fit to lead? It's the same thing as affirmative action, where added credit is given simply for skin color. I'm of a mind that unless there's some verifiable reason to take the foot off the gas, or give someone added credit for being held back by forces outside the person's control, men and women, whites and other races, should be held to the same standards. To do otherwise suggests that somehow, the person who's being given a pass or a credit is inferior and therefore needs help.
By the same token, I don't think that a person's race or gender should subject them to more scrutiny, because the same result obtains. To ask more questions, to scrutinize more closely, suggests that we doubt that the person is capable of handling the position.
In Cankles' case, Ms. Dunham can't have it both ways: She's the best qualified candidate available, but don't ask her tough questions. I don't think she's been treated unfairly, unless by unfairly we mean she's been given a pass that other candidates don't get. And that, honestly is what's happened, although as the campaign drags on, there are signs that the MSM is in a quandary and unsure how to ask the questions that should be asked while at the same time ensuring their invitations to White House soirees should Cankles be elected.
If ever there was a female candidate that deserved greater scrutiny, it's Cankles.
With any luck, after November she'll go away and be analyzed with even greater scrutiny by history.
Then what will Ms. Dunham have to say?
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
No comments:
Post a Comment