Washington Post Editorial Board Formally Calls Out Republicans as Bigots
Donn Marten
December 17, 2015
Now in full blown tantrum mode, the establishment lickspittles at the Washington Post Editorial Board are in open rebellion against the GOP over Donald Trump’s continuing domination of the polls. With the final Republican party debate for 2015 now in the books and Trump showing no signs of slippage, the big shift of the establishment over to actually backing Queen Hillary as a viable alternative may be about to begin. The big donors and the special interests are mortified over Trump’s rise – mainly because their money is useless against another billionaire who can’t be bought – and like big Jeb! donor Mike Fernandez would sooner see the Clinton restoration become reality than have a “bigot” somehow manage to win the presidency.
What they all really fear though is the ascent of an outsider who in addition to pulling a large chunk of the Republican base actually has crossover appeal with an electorate that is as mad as hell and isn’t going to take it anymore. So now we have the flurry of Nazi and Hitler comparisons as well as official smearing of an entire party – with a few notable exceptions – by one of the country’s most prominent newspapers.
The WAPO jeremiad is entitled “For Republicans, bigotry is the new normal” from which I excerpt:
The Republican Party, once small government’s champion, is now the party that breeds presidential contenders who would monitor schools and mosques, shut down parts of the Internet and exclude certain immigrants for no reason beyond the faith they profess. In the GOP debate Tuesday, those ideas — along with can-you-top-this rhetorical barrages aimed at illegal immigrants and Syrian refugees — received a generally polite reception, with constitutional, legal and practical questions contemptuously dismissed as “political correctness.”
The GOP’s ideological sands are shifting with whiplash-inducing speed. Just a week after House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) denounced Mr. Trump’s call to bar entry to any Muslim immigrant, Sens. Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Ted Cruz (Tex.) both said they could “understand” the impulse behind the patently un-American idea, although each politely disagreed. As for Mr. Trump’s four other main rivals, who flanked him on the stage in Las Vegas, none bothered even to address what surely counts as one of the most incendiary proposals ever made by a candidate seeking a major party’s presidential nomination.
It could be that the candidates quail at contending with the question of banning Muslims because polls suggest that about 60 percent of GOP primary voters like the idea. (A roughly equal proportion of all Americans don’t.) However, lunacy has always had a constituency in this country — plenty of people think the moon landing was a hoax and that the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were an inside job. A litmus test for presidential candidates is whether they have the spine to speak truth to the fringe. By that standard, most of the current crop of Republican hopefuls fail.
Fear-mongering and raw xenophobia were once the hallmarks of fringe candidates. Today the fringe candidates have stormed center stage, brandishing their zeal and hyperbole and, disturbingly, dragging the mainstream along with them.
Interestingly the screed contains a clue as to what the next strategy may be in trying to nuke Trumpzilla before the voters start going to the polls – playing the “truther” card against him. Propagandists have seized on the Donald’s appearance on the Alex Jones show earlier this month to slime him with the guilt by association trick. Jones is legendary for some of his more controversial opinions – including that the September 11, 2001 attacks were an “inside job” and MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow linked him to Trump in her own Monday WAPO column “A Leading Presidential Candidate Embracing the Fringe? That’s Nuts — and New”. Granted that Trump has not come out and actually said such a thing but when looking to exploit fear for political gain the 9/11 card is the last refuge of scoundrels and nobody has exploited it better than the Bush cabal over the years. If indeed the establishment dirty tricks pros do go after Trump as a 9/11 “truther” – don’t forget that he was already labeled as a “birther” – it would be borne out of the desperation of a final attempt to avoid surrendering the party to him. It could work too but then again it also could go up like a flaming bag of dogshit just like everything else that has been used to knock Trump out of the race.
But rest assured that the Washington Post Editorial Board will continue to play a key role in the war on Trump, nobody is more threatened by the prospects of a Trump presidency than the millions of sucklers off of the government that reside in and around the Beltway. They are like blood-sucking ticks on a dog or more accurately – leeches on the backs of the American taxpayers – and their very livelihoods depend on making sure that there is never any real change.
As noted historian and Bill Clinton mentor Carroll Quigley once wrote:
“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can “throw the rascals out” at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.”
In a nutshell that sums up why Donald Trump has become an existential threat who must be destroyed. The thing to ponder though is whether the establishment would be willing to sacrifice the Republican party itself in order to stop Trump from winning the party’s nomination. The famous Vietnam war era quote that “we had to destroy the village in order to save it” could very well be applicable to the GOP in the eyes of the entrenched political elite.
http://downtrend.com/donn-marten/washington-post-editorial-formally-board-calls-out-republicans-as-bigots
