I would not disagree with your assessment that a Hillary presidency would be a disaster for the country. However you set up a scenario based on only two choices, a man fighting Cancer and a woman none of us are comfortable with. I would respond to that by saying we have other choices. Fred is not the nominee at this time and there are others running for the Rep. nomination who are highly qualified to do the job who, to the best of knowledge, do not have the health issues surrounding Fred. If Fred was to become the choice of the party I would support him and hope he had a long and successful administration. I would also hope he would pick an outstanding person to run with him for VP. Personally though I do worry about his health and the stress of the job he is seeking, as I would anyone else who was running while battling a known illness like Cancer (for the record I have the same doubts about Rudy and John).
As for your treatise on the emotional instabilty of women, I wouldn’t touch that with a ten foot pole and Lech Stanzynski a ten foot Pole says he wouldn’t touch it either (a little non-PC humor there).
Okay, CYA time, here.
FOR THE RECORD: I made NO insinuation that women are “emotionally unstable.”
What I DID do is point out the fact that, owing to brain physiology, women are inherently more likely to be emotionally influenced in their decision-making than men, and gave a brief explanation in layman’s terms.
This should NOT be construed as a slam in any degree, because, in many (often life-or-death) circumstances, it’s actually a very beneficial trait, and is a key element of what we have, for years, called “women’s intuition.”
As well, I noted that some women are very effective in putting their emotional inputs “on hold,” and making decisions on a “facts only” basis. The most effective among them consciously run the decision-making process both with AND without the emotional input, and compare the results in a sort of “The facts say THIS, and I feel like THAT” scenario. If feelings reinforce facts, confidence in a good decision is quite high. If not, further review or additional facts may be requisite.
Guys actually do the same thing, but our brain physiology requires that we have to intentionally poll our emotional inputs — do a “gut check” — to do it. And that’s the terminology we commonly use, “What’s your gut-level on this decision?”
Bottom line is that for men, emotional inputs have to be actively queried, whereas, for women, they are “always on”. Whether an individual man or woman is emotionally stable, or not, is an entirely different issue.
>>>>>
As for the health of Fred...
I guess I look at it this way:
If Fred thinks his health is good enough for a serious bid for the Presidency, then I’ll respect his assessment enough to focus on his positions on the issues. God knows he’s taken long enough to actually decide to throw his hat into the ring; I’ve gotta believe that a comeplete consideration of his health was part of that calculus. So, I’m comfortable letting fred Thompson be the one with primary concern for the health of Fred Thompson.
That being the case, while I’ll certainly keep his health in the back of my mind, I’m not going to use it as a basis upon which to relegate Thompson to second-tier status as a candidate; I’ll pit him toe-to-toe with everyone else in the Primaries, and see how he stacks up. Whether I agree with his positions, or not, I’m not going to wrap up a review of them only to turn around and say, “Yeah, well, and then there’s his health...”
I’d call that “taking your eye off the ball”; the precursor to striking out.