Honesty and Trustworthy are no Longer Prerequisites for the WH

Bill Clinton proved that a person can win the WH without the public feeling he is honest or trustworthy. In 1996 Clinton won over 20% of the vote from people who thought he was untrustworthy. He also won over 25% of the vote from people who thought he was lied about the Whitewater scandal. Ross Perot as a third party candidate may have helped Clinton win reelection, but he more than likely would have won if Perot did not run.

Barack Obama still has approval ratings near 45 percent including from 20 percent of the electorate that does not feel he is honest or trustworthy. In fact, over half the country does not think Obama is honest or trustworthy. Obama scandals have failed to hurt his approval ratings (stayed above 40%). The public does not blame Obama for fast and furious, DOJ targeting, IRS targeting, and the Benghazi cover up to name a few. In fact, the public has given him a pass on these scandals because they feel he did not know about them. Hence, it is possible to be elected President even if you are ignorant. Why? Because the public feels Obama is trying to get things done – i.e. ObamaCare or moving unilaterally to solve immigration (It does not matter that the policy is bad).

A majority of the electorate did not find President Bush trustworthy, but he won reelection. Most of this stemmed over the Iraq War where he was hit hard in the press. People believed he knew Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. People went as far to accuse Bush of carrying out the 9/11 attack (Truthers). And of course a vast majority of the public did not trust Dick Cheney.

Most people view leadership as more important than character issues. Bush was seen as being strong to fight terrorism. Clinton was viewed as understanding the common man. Obama, I am not too sure what the public sees there – I honestly feel a majority of people voted for him just because he is African-American.

What does this mean? It means Hillary can win the Presidency even with a slew of scandals hanging over her head. Even if the public finds her untrustworthy and dishonest, she will get a lot of votes simply because she is a women. People like historic firsts (like Obama). People also view Hillary as a strong leader and being highly qualified for the position. Where does this view come from? The press brainwashing citizens and the overall ignorance of the electorate.

Hence, it is the job of Republicans to make the Hillary scandals about leadership failures, and not about the truth or trustworthiness. Yes, Hillary lied about Benghazi, but it was also a failure in leadership to heed to the security requests made by Ambassador Stevens. The Republicans must show that Hillary has blood on her hands and is responsible for the death of those four Americans. The Clintons received monies from questionable sources for the Clinton Foundation. But the bigger picture is if the Clintons cannot manage the foundation finances, how can they lead and manage our national budget. Yes, the Clintons lied about their income, but the point is they are not like the common American struggling to get by. And yes, Hillary was untrustworthy with her email account at the State Department, but the bigger picture is that she accomplished nothing in that post.

I view honesty and trustworthiness as important factors in being a leader. Unfortunately, the ignorant electorate does not. It is not enough to paint Clinton as a liar – most would agree and feel this way about most politicians. It is not even enough to paint Clinton as being incompetent. You have to show she’s out of touch with the public and accomplished nothing tangible in her political tenure. That is the only way to win without a smoking gun that puts her behind bars where she belongs.