An Open Response

Dear Open Letter Writers,

 

You know who you are.

 

You’re the ones who have been writing open letters to those campaigning for the Presidency this time around and posting them on social networking with hopes of making them go viral.  You present yourself as a non-partisan individual who doesn’t pay attention to politics on a regular basis.  The only reason you’re even bothering to speak out now is because the discourse of this year’s big event has you troubled.  The voluminous levels of muck and mire which plague this year’s campaign far outweigh anything you’ve ever seen in the electoral process.  In the course of your soliloquy, you’ve shamed one of the candidates for the things they’ve said or done.  At the same time, you neglect to offer up a defense or a rationalization for the sloppy, pungent piles of bad behavior in your own candidate’s backyard.  In the end, you announce that the candidate nominated by the party you usually vote for has not earned your vote.  You then announce your intention to abandon your party this year and vote for the other candidate, all the while disregarding your beliefs, standards, ideologies, and even your own moral code, porous as it may be.

 

You’re the ones who come by your righteous indignation in one of two ways.  I’m going to focus on the more predominant one, because the ills brought on by suffrage of the poorly informed in the last few cycles has had devastating impacts on this country.  The other avenue which brought you to this point just doesn’t make sense in the current climate, and as such will be treated as innocuous.

 

The most common stepping stool you’ve used to climb up on to your high-horse is the one constructed of the highest quality of dung sculptures ever developed for use by and for the human race.  The reason you are where you are right now is because you were told where you need to be.  You were sold a false bill of goods that the high crimes and misdemeanors of the accused were only perpetrated by the accused.  In all reality, the aforementioned offenses have also been committed by the very accuser who’s boosting your less than callipygian rump on to the horse in the first place.

 

For those of you who are relatively new to political punditry, or those who have never noticed, there’s a common move in the ideological playbook when it comes to gaining power through elections and legislation.  It’s a very simple move too.  It goes like this:

 

  1. Commit the crime.
  2. Accuse the opposition of committing the crime.
  3. Repeat as necessary.

 

I’m not going to go into a protracted diatribe bullet pointing the times this has happened.  Instead, I’m encouraging you to look it up for yourself.

 

Where do you start?

 

That’s a good question, I’m glad you asked.

 

Pick a candidate, any candidate.  Don’t let me see the Turd Sandwich or Giant Doosh you’re picking.

 

For every accusation the Giant Doosh throws at the Turd Sandwich, or the Turd Sandwich throws at the Giant Doosh, go do some research.

 

If the Giant Doosh makes claims that the Turd Sandwich once shaved a dog’s butt and taught it to walk backwards, go research if the Giant Doosh has done the same thing.  With this particular cycle, the odds are pretty favorable that you’ll find the razor and shaving cream the Giant Doosh used.

 

So before I continue with the eloquent open letter which responds to the open letters addressed to candidates and posted to social networking in hopes of going viral (this one notwithstanding), I should level set the monikers I’ve attached to the candidates.  Given your recent arrival to the political scene, it’s safe to assume that the vast display of intellectual activity in your open letters has not transcended to popular culture and trash TV.

 

The first time I noticed the TV show South Park ascribing these names to Presidential candidates was in 2004.  Twelve years later, the show’s curators are still using these terms in reference to this year’s murky pool of genetic slurry.  I see no reason to veer off the beaten path with that one, and have every intention of using the terms interchangeably.

 

That’s right, I’m not assigning one particular term to one particular candidate.  In addition, I’m not going to refer to the candidates by their name, their gender, or their political party affiliation.  I will only make reference to their general Turd Sandwichiness or their general Giant Doosihiness.  By liberating these two of such labels, you’ll see the point I’m making.  All things being equal, if you don’t know who I’m talking about when I outline their respective Turd Sandwichiness or their Giant Dooshiness, you don’t really need to be reading this dispatch of verbal brilliance, or the ballot on November 8th for that matter.  The mere fact that you vote at all is pretty gosh darned dangerous.

 

You should also understand that I’ve changed the spelling of one of the names on purpose.  I take great issue with calling people a “douche”.  Reason being is that a douche is a vessel constructed to hold and deliver a liquid designed to cleaning purposes.

 

A majority of the behavior and opinions held by either candidate fail to hold water, and they sure as heck ain’t gonna clean anything thing up upon being elected to the Presidency.  On that alone, I’ve opted to change the spelling to a more phonetic (or fəˈnedik, take your pick) one out of respect for the fact that words have meanings.

 

Ok so now I’ve addressed how you came to be all whipped up into a fall inspired, pumpkin spice flavored froth.  In addition, I’ve given you the necessary approach for validating and counter-validating the claims and accusations the Turd Sandwich and Giant Doosh are casting at each other.

 

Neither candidate is palatable.  Both of them have poll numbers with very high negatives.  That means the one we hate less will win.

 

Such is life here in America in the 21st century.

 

The common theme here is to vote for the lesser of two evils.

 

Really people?  That’s what we’re down to at this point?

 

I’m calling bullshit on that approach.  Anyone who either encourages or takes that route needs to be liberated of their voter registration card.

 

Instead, the way to vote for one of the candidates within the basket of deplorables which possesses a maximum asshole capacity of two is to consider the oath of office.  Which candidate do you feel will carry out the duties as defined by the oath one takes when becoming President?

 

Which candidate has more experience creating jobs in the private sector?

 

Irrelevant.

 

Which candidate has a wealth of experience dealing with foreign powers?

 

Doesn’t matter.

 

What steps will either of the candidate’s energy policies take to meet our energy needs, while at the same time remaining environmentally friendly and minimizing job loss for fossil power plant worker?

 

Pack that one up with your read sweater, because the answer which emits from or gets carried out by the Turd Sandwich or the Giant Doosh will not be the litmus test you need to use to put either one of these dunces in office.

 

The one and only thing you can consider at this point as you prepare to dangle a chad is whether you feel within the confines of your cavernous skull cavity that the candidate who gets your vote will do the job they’re elected to do in the manner they’re supposed to do it.

 

The very base order of operations in which the President is supposed to do their job is defined in the oath of office which is outlined in Article II, Section One, Clause 8 of the US Constitution:

 

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

 

Regardless of what you think personally of the Giant Doosh or the Turd Sandwich, you have to consider their ability to do the job.

 

Here’s a quick civics lesson.  Our government is divided and defined in the US Constitution into three branches.

 

The Legislative Branch passes the laws.

 

The Executive Branch executes / enforces the laws.

 

The Judiciary Branch interprets the laws.

 

The separation of powers among these branches exists so as to keep one branch from taking too much power on how things are run.

 

When someone takes the oath of office for the Presidency, they have a Constitutional duty to enforce the law of the land.  Every action they take has to be in the spirit of preserving, protecting, and defending the US Constitution.  They are not there to write or even rewrite the law.  They just have to execute it.

 

When you vote this year (and for the Love of God if you don’t know who you’re voting for by now, just stay the hell at home on November 8th and come back on the 9th when you know who the winner is), you need to vote for the one person you feel will do the best of their ability to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

 

How do you know which candidate will do that?  It may not be your favorite candidate.

 

Let’s look at documented track records, and stated intentions of each candidate.

 

I’ll start with the track records.

 

One candidate has 8 years of experience in the US Senate, and put in 4 years as Secretary of State.

 

Prior to that, the candidate served on a committee which was tasked with investigating and prosecuting (for lack of a better word) the crimes around Watergate.  While serving on that committee, the candidate wrote a brief which outlined why the President did not have a Constitutional right to legal counsel throughout the proceedings.  For those of you who slept through high school civics because the PE teacher who was running the class was cool and easy going, understand that the Constitution preserves the right to legal counsel among the rights of the accused.

 

During the same candidate’s time in the US Senate, the majority leader took statements made by a radio talk show host completely out of context one day and made a big issue of it.  The leader took to the Senate floor demonizing the talk show host, AKA private citizen.  The leader then wrote a letter (as Senate Leader, mind you, on official letterhead) to the talk show host’s boss encouraging censure for such a heinous act of saying such mean things that weren’t actually said in the manner in which they were interpreted.  Many Senators attached their name to that letter, thereby endorsing the government’s efforts to limit the talk show host’s freedom of speech.  Yeah, Congress isn’t supposed to be meddling with our free speech rights, but that didn’t stop two particular Senators from signing the letter.  One of those Senators is now the President, and the other one is currently running for the same office.

 

As Secretary of State, the candidate took the following oath of office:

 

“I, [Turd Sandwich or Giant Doosh], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

 

As Secretary of State, one candidate routed official State Department correspondence through a private email server.  Some of that correspondence was classified, and should not have been outside of a State Department server.  There are actually laws on the books which forbid classified documents from being in the possession of individuals outside of acceptable means of possession.  The reason for these laws is because servers can be hacked by foreign or otherwise hostile parties in an effort to steal US secrets.  Such entities represent a threat to the rule of law we enjoy under the US Constitution.  As such, making these documents available to aforementioned parties is not a behavior which is consistent with supporting and defending the US Constitution.

 

When the use of the server came to light, investigations and subpoenas ensued.  In response, digital devices belonging to the Secretary’s minions and sycophants were destroyed if they were deemed at all to have been part of the trafficking of classified information.  Emails on the server were demanded by the government, however not all communications were turned over by the candidate.  There are reports that a number of the emails were purged from the server in a very aggressive manner so that they could never be recovered.  Just to clarify, the destruction of the devices and emails constitutes destruction of evidence.

 

Several parties involved with the set-up of the server and the possession of the classified information either took the Fifth Amendment or were granted immunity deals by the FBI in return for their cooperation with the investigation.

 

The FBI characterized the use of the server as extremely careless.  It should also be noted that the FBI fell short of recommending charges against the candidate who used the server.  At the same time, the FBI has pursued criminal charges against other individuals for similar crimes.  Set your personal opinions aside on whether the candidate should have been charged criminally for such behavior.  Set aside whether hackers representing hostile parties were successful in exploiting the classified information on the private server.  The question remains on whether the candidate successfully protected and defended the US Constitution during their time in office while bypassing protocols for handling classified information.

 

The other candidate has not served in any capacity as a government official.

 

As a private citizen and a candidate for the Presidency, the other candidate has used and continues to use social media to make outlandish claims, and say some very rude things about generally everyone and everything.  There are no laws on the books which forbid people from being colossal assholes on the internet.

 

As a real estate mogul, one of the candidates reported a near billion dollar loss in 1995.  As I understand it, the loss came from real estate devaluation investors encountered as a result of legislation around tax deductibility which was passed in the 80s.  It’s been reported and suggested that the candidate may have been able to avoid paying income taxes for 10-20 years by using loopholes, processes, and procedures written into the US tax code.  Regardless of whether the payment of income taxes was avoided or not, it should be noted that no laws have been broken with regard to the candidate’s income tax situation.

 

Based on the past track records alone, consider which candidate is most likely to follow the oath of office.

 

One candidate has a documented record of failing to support and defend the US Constitution.  One candidate does not.

 

While you ponder that one, let’s discuss their stated intentions.

 

During the second debate, the candidates were asked what type of people they would appoint to the Supreme Court.

 

One candidate responded with:  “I want to appoint Supreme Court justices who understand the way the world really works, who have real-life experience, who have not just been in a big law firm and maybe clerked for a judge and then gotten on the bench, but, you know, maybe they tried some more cases, they actually understand what people are up against.”

 

The other candidate said:  “…people that will respect the Constitution of the United States.”

 

Between those two statements of intent toward the United States Supreme Court, which candidate gave a response consistent with preserving, protecting, and defending the US Constitution?

 

Oath of office gang.

 

Nothing more.

 

Nothing less.

 

Nothing else.

 

In what has got to be the ugliest… er…… aesthetically challenged election we’ve seen in quite some time, the selection of our next President doesn’t come down to the most popular, the most charismatic, the more ideological, or even the one who can drink you under the table while slipping a rufie in your Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster to help take the edge off.   Instead, it comes down to the candidates’ ability to do the job as defined by the oath of office which resides in the US Constitution.

 

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again.  Between the Turd Sandwich and the Giant Doosh, you have one candidate who not only has taken similar oaths and failed to git-r-done, but has implied that following the US Constitution is not a primary concern if elected.  You have another candidate who has not taken or broken such oaths, but has stated that the US Constitution would be the driving force in their execution of their duties in office.

 

It’s sad that the one candidate who should be kept as far away from the office of the Presidency as possible is the one that’s got the electorate by the short and curlies and stands mere weeks away from being elected and mere months away from being granted the wonderful opportunity of abusing the oath.

 

I got a new t-shirt a few months ago.  There’s a statement on the back of it which not only sums up the mantra for electing a President this year, but it also offers up wisdom on how we should carry ourselves from day to day.  For those of you reading this dispatch of verbal brilliance to the internet who don’t have the option of seeing pictures on the internet, the shirt says:

 

carter-statementCompromise where you can,

And where you can’t

Don’t.

Even if everyone

Is telling you

That something wrong

Is something right

Even if the whole world

Is telling you to move,

It is your duty

To plant yourself like a tree

Look them in the eye and say

No, You Move.

 

Don’t you just love t-shirt philosophy?

 

In all fairness, the statement comes from a movie.  At any rate, I find it to be quite poignant as it applies to this year’s election.

 

Out of all the perspective candidates we had during the primaries, we compromised on a Turd Sandwich and a Giant Doosh as the top two contenders.  We didn’t want these two to begin with, but circumstances being what they are put them in our hands.

 

Now when we demand accountability for the mishandling of classified documents, we’re told that there’s nothing to see here.

 

We’re being told that using loopholes in the US tax code is not okay by the very people who use those same loopholes.

 

We’re being told that damning evidence of a candidate’s wrong doing over a period of 20-30 years in the spotlight should only be made public in the weeks leading up to the general election, not early on in the primaries when the herd is being culled.

 

We’re being told that a campaign is well within their rights to conspire with a political party and the media to gain a nomination.

 

We’re being told that the office of Secretary of State has not been used for personal gains when the trumpets are blaring with evidence to the contrary.

 

We’re being told that everything wrong is everything right, and we just need to stand aside and accept it.

 

Honestly people, that smell stink of it.

 

There is no valid reason, no valid defense, and no valid rationalization that any of us should be prepared to cast aside what is right in favor of what is wrong.

 

So tell me this, oh great writer of the open letter.

 

Do you really want to abandon the truth?

 

Do you really want to abandon your common sense?

 

Do you really want to abandon the rule of law?

 

Do you really want to abandon your faith in this country?

 

Follow up with the threat you’ve posed in your blathering tome and that’s exactly what you’ve done.

vry2016

 

 

Randy Tharp

TharpSter is a husband to one woman, a father to two kids, a master to two dogs, an occasional cubical occupant, and unable to make up his mind on an adequate theme for this website.

Type something witty and eye catching right here: