Art Rossetti: Trump was a bad candidate, but Clinton was far worse

We have made our choice between Lucifer and Beelzebub. Yes, I rejoiced at the loss by Hillary Clinton. I just couldn’t imagine us electing someone proven to be as bad as Richard Nixon.

At least Nixon took national security seriously. Hillary’s carelessness with the home server, deer-in-the-headlights reaction when the Benghazi embassy needed her and pay-for-play with the Clinton Foundation were all things that should have instantly disqualified her from ever holding high office (not to mention the two dozen or so previous scandals). Unfortunately, Democrats don’t care who is driving the lunch wagon as long as it’s coming. She would have had zero chance had the GOP not nominated an ill-mannered lout. Many shared his views but couldn’t stomach the idea of Donald Trump being president. A candidate with conservative views who didn’t engage in Twitter wars with ex-beauty queens would have beaten Hillary by an historic margin.

Here’s hoping Trump will slap back a power-hungry bureacracy and repeal the really stupid job-killing regulations that have taken effect in the last several years, replace Obamacare with something that works, take the shackles off the American economy and institute a foreign policy that is neither war crazy or exudes weakness like Obama’s.

This story was originally published November 14, 2016 at 4:01 PM with the headline "Art Rossetti: Trump was a bad candidate, but Clinton was far worse."