This is too good not to share:
Daniel Akerson was chairman and chief executive of General Motors from 2010 to 2014 and was vice chairman and special adviser to the board of directors for the Carlyle Group from 2014 to 2016. [Emphasis in original — it’s an editor’s note.]
I am the son of a World War II and Korean War veteran. As a young man, the men I respected most were my father and my uncles, who collectively fought in the Battle of the Atlantic and the invasions of North Africa, Sicily, D-Day, Iwo Jima and Inchon. I came of age in the service of our nation. I never had a draft card. I entered the U.S. Naval Academy before my 18th birthday and served in the Navy for five years. My older brother volunteered as well. Simply put, it was expected. We were raised in a good Catholic home and believed in God and country. My wife of 44 years and I have sought to pass these values to our kids and grandkids.
And I have always voted for Republicans for president. Not this year.
What I really like about this piece is the elegant simplicity of the writing. In less than 900 short words, he eviscerates The Orange Menace’s suitability as a potential President, on four critical grounds: leadership, competence, temperament, and moral values.
- “Trump simply lacks the competence to serve as president of the United States. His knowledge of economic policy and foreign affairs is rudimentary, at best; his views are misguided.”
- “Running the U.S. government is perhaps the most complex global chief executive job in the world. Everything one does as the leader of the free world is watched by markets, foreign governments, our competitors and our enemies. This requires a steady hand and temperament.”
- “We must exhibit the empathy that places the greater good of the nation and its people above individual self-interest.
“Unfortunately, Trump has appealed to the lowest common denominators in our society: prejudice, xenophobia and intolerance. He has mocked people with disabilities, tarred ethnic minorities, demeaned women and insulted religious leaders, including the pope.
(I have added emphasis in the above bullet points.)
So why is he voting for Hill?
By contrast, Clinton has been tested. She has demonstrated balance, calm and an even temperament. She has an unparalleled knowledge of foreign and economic policy; she has run complex organizations such as the State Department. Over the years, she has demonstrated that she can take criticism and work with even her most strident political opponents. Like other leaders, including myself, she has made mistakes. I believe she has learned from those mistakes. In my opinion, she is ready to be commander in chief on Day One. [Emphasis added.]
And there you have it — from a conservative Midwestern Republican Navy vet and former GM CEO. (And a former Chair of the Carlyle Group, to boot.)