Mr. Blunt and Cranky has hired a fair few people over the years, and as anyone who has done that job knows, there are red flags that we look for when evaluating potential employees and/or co-workers.  Some of these flags wave with great vigor in response to evasiveness, a lack of honesty, or a refusal to provide information that is required by law. Interviewees displaying these traits almost never get the job, for obvious reasons.

For some reason, though, politicos usually get a pass on this. Where refusing to answer questions that are relevant to job performance would get one summarily rejected in real life, candidates do it routinely. They do so in two ways – deflection (“let’s talk about something else”), and refusal (“I won’t tell you. Neener.”).  Not that this behavior is anything new – but why is it stupid?

It is stupid because if there is anything we should all know by now, there are no secrets – only things that can be hidden for a period of time. Everything comes out eventually (like Obama’s pot smoking, or Romney’s Swiss bank account), and politicos look even worse when their evasions, omissions, and falsehoods are exposed – just ask John Edwards if you don’t believe it. Between the Internet, FOIA, and the large number of “news” sources that are available these days, the shelf life of a secret keeps getting shorter.

Since it is easier to catch a lying politico in the act, this blogger has added a new criterion to his “vote against” list: the quantity of lies they tell. Those candidates telling the most lies get marks against them as he ponders his choices.

And if we all did that, it might get the attention of these power-hungry, idiotic poltroons.  Since we’re not literally allowed to set liars’ pants on fire, it is worth a try.

Mr. B & C