Poking A Hole In Haley’s Argument

I’ve said before that Nikki Haley is probably at this point, my number two choice as the Republican presidential nominee. I believe that still today, but as I thought about her “coming out party” last week, I realized that not all is going to be gold and silver with her agenda. There are some problems.

Let’s take the mental acuity test for instance.

Now, do I feel that Haley is right in that politicians should have some sort of mental test before taking office so we don’t run into the same situation as we’ve got with Joe Biden? Should we make sure that someone’s mental capacity is strong enough to deal with what’s been described as the “toughest job in the world”? Absolutely. But there is a flaw in her argument. I didn’t see it right away. But it crept up on my like a liberal wanting to take away someone’s guns.

It has to do with the test itself.

It’s one thing to say we’re going to make sure someone is mentally competent to run for office before they are actually elected to that office. But we’re missing the liberal picture. See, when someone on the right says that, we’re all thinking that would take someone like Joe Biden out of the picture. And you could probably make the argument that a Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, or an Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, or most certainly an Ilhan Omar wouldn’t pass that test, right? Well, what if the shoe were on the other foot?

I refer to it as the “Reid Rule” after former Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid. Remember when he wanted to help Bobo Obama install a bunch of new liberal judges onto the federal bench? And he didn’t have the votes to do so. In typical liberal fashion, if you can’t win by following the rules, change the rules. So, rather than try and get 60 votes, he got a change in the rules to allow non-Supreme Court Justices and other appointees to get confirmation with only 51 votes. And he got that through Congress. The problem was that he wasn’t thinking long term. He knew he could help out Obama, but what about when Obama was out of office and someone else took over, say someone like Donald Trump? Well, then the Republicans put the shoe on the other foot and make it possible that you could confirm Supreme Court Justices with only 51 votes as well.

The same thing can happen here. Yes, it makes sense we could go after people who mentally are unfit for the job, but has anyone thought of what happens when WE don’t control the questions asked during such an examination? Who is to say that once liberals take over (as they always will), they don’t change the rule to make it that if you’re not a “democratic socialist”, you’re not mentally fit? Who’s to say that a question that reads, “Do you believe in a woman’s right to abortion on demand?” isn’t a qualifier for being mentally fit for office? You can go on and on.

This is one of those times when an idea that is proffered by a Republican candidate can be turned against them and used in a way that would be totally against what the person offering up the idea intended. And we have to be careful about that. Sorry Democrats, but you’ve lost my trust and I have started looking at things with a rather jaundiced eye.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. If we don’t start taking a much closer look at what could possibly happen with all of these ideas being floated, we’re going to find just how easily they can be manipulated into the Democrats barring the Republican party from ever getting elected. Think I’m wrong? Tell me why!

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!


8 thoughts on “Poking A Hole In Haley’s Argument

  1. I don’t think you’re wrong necessarily but you have to start somewhere and think long range. Nothing is ever perfect and if you wait for perfect you may as well forget it. Of course EACH side will try to take things to THEIR advantage so think long and hard before acting!

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Once again, we agree. Whenever a politician comes up with an idea that favors his or her party, it is sure to be contentious where the opposing party is concerned — and as you say, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Now as it happens, for years I have been arguing that a voter should at least know as much about our country’s history and its government as that good soul who has to pass a federal examination before being granted citizenship. [Although, I have often wondered if the “citizenship test” isn’t designed more for another purpose: to test mental agility rather than one’s grasp of U.S. history.]

    I am surprised that you left Fetterman off your list of gas-creating politicians. But if we did impose a test on wannabe politicians, would that not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act? According to that brainchild, even a psycho should be allowed to become a neurosurgeon. Personally, I support the notion that our representatives in Washington should be clear-headed people, but worry about its politicization. Where would such a program end up? We fixed the problem of denying women access to politics, wouldn’t we reverse those gains by denying a mental midget access to the House of Representatives — which is a house constructed expressly for mental midgets? And in any case, wouldn’t the high court rule that the only gate that matters is the will of the people?

    Again, like you, I worry about where Haley is taking us. Plato noted that what must follow democracy is tyranny. Maybe he was right. Haley no doubt thinks that only conservatives are rational. In my book, that’s a bridge too far. The only thing irrational about communism is that it’s been tried and found unworkable, but those who want to give it another try aren’t displaying a mental acuity problem — they’re just stuck on stupid. We must not bar people from expressing their ideas no matter how much we disagree with them. Now, I don’t know how John Fetterman ended up in the U.S. Senate — I only know that Pennsylvanians consume copious amounts of rhubarb.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. You’ve given me a LOT to digest this early on a Monday! OK, first off, the Supreme Court isn’t really interested in the”will of the people”. I think they are more interested in the will of the Constitution. Otherwise, the whole abortion thing wouldn’t have been taken back as a federal policy. Second, based on what I’m hearing today, I don’t think it’s wrong to say that most (not all) leftists have terrible ideas that shouldn’t be brought to bear. Cashless bail? Social justice? Reparations? I mean, I could go on and on. As far as Fetterman, you’re right, I should have included him on the list, but frankly other than the guy is mired in depression, and has had a stroke, I don’t know much about him. Nor, do I really want to. I don’t think he’s going to be long for the Senate, or the world. But that’s just my opinion.


  3. As you have well pointed out, the very first thing that would need to be done would be to make any mentally competency test a standard test that would be the same for everybody.

    To bad nobody gave Sleepy Joe or Fetterman one! But of course, mental competency is only one criteria. There needs to be some rules about hiring people just because they’re Black, Gay, Transgender or whatever!

    What ever happened to qualifications and merit?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I think we have rules about hiring different classes. Isn’t that what Affirmative Action is? And I don’t know if either Fetterman or Biden could pass ANY mental acuity test they themselves didn’t write. Whatever happened to qualifications and merit? They died out in the 1960’s.


  4. I think you can have a mental competency exam/test without asking political issue questions. You are looking for competency not political views. I have taken exams when applying for jobs before, kind of like IQ tests and the questions had nothing to do with the actual job duties/and how to perform. Test your ability to reason, to think……..common sense. Problem today is what you and I view as common sense there are many (liberals) that would have something else we would see as irrational/silly. They very much believe they are correct on everything…..even reasonably thinking things out by using simple common sense. There is a problem with such a test as Haley would like to require. Who creates that test? Who do you find that could create something fair. It would be difficult to find anyone unbiased…….and if you did someone is always going to claim they were not, or it was just not a fair test. They’d even use the race card…….and as some already are, the age card. I would say, you sneak in and pull out a mental competency exam from a shrink’s office and go with that. No political policy questions there, just questions like “Have you ever had suicidal thoughts?” “Should people found guilty of stealing be punished?” You can ask a lot of questions to find out if someone is missing some screws or are psycopaths.

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.