MAINSTREAM REPUBLICANS ARE BEING LED INTO THE ABYSS
…The Washington Post is calling it like it is.
Donald Trump has gone from being a
fringe candidate to an extreme candidate.
You can really
tell when someone or some group has gone way beyond what is
considered acceptable in American politics. That’s when the
editorial board of a major US newspaper bites-the-bullet and identifies themselves
as being the author of an important editorial. As an example, the New York Times put an important editorial on US gun proliferation on the Times' front page recently, and that hadn't occurred for 95 years back in 1920.
But that’s exactly
what the editorial board of the Washington
Post also did recently in their editorial about how bigoted the Republican Party Debates
have become.
Usually, a
major paper would leave it to one of their star political reporters such as
Dana Milbank, E.J. Dionne or Kathleen Parker to do the deed, and it would be located on the Op-Ed page.
But after
hearing all the fear-mongering and extremely raw xenophobia that was offered at
the Las Vegas GOP Primary debate,
the paper’s board must have felt the issue needed to be elevated to a higher
level within the publication. As they
have stated, the kinds of remarks made during the debate against all Muslims,
including murdering the families of all terrorists, this was rhetoric that was
at one time the hallmark of only fringe political candidates. Based on what was offered during the debate,
one would think that the extremism of the bigoted rhetoric that was presented
on national TV, was now an example of mainstream conservative thinking.
As was stated
at the beginning of the article, “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 only as “political correctness.”
When Donald
Trump first announced that he was running for the office of president, “The
Donald” shocked everyone with his unfiltered ravings against Hispanics,
which later grew to his plans for banning all Muslins from entering the US. He was also for murdering not only the terrorists,
but their families as well. Just as
instead of sending back the illegal Hispanics, he also wanted to send back
their children, even if they were American citizens. All totally against US law.
As the paper
has made clear, none of Trump’s fellow candidates on either side of him on the
stage had the guts to take him on in his incendiary proposal against all
Muslims.
What is
fueling all this anti-Muslim attitude is that after the attacks in Paris and
San Bernardino, Americans are rightfully afraid. In
addition, the election year polls have said that 60% of Republican primary
voters like the unrealistic “banning all
Muslims” idea. But normally, it
would be the duty of these candidates to bringing some commonsense ideas to
the situation. Not to climb on the bandwagon along with all of the outlying fringe elements.
And the "Trumpster" was the worst in the bunch. He has become the mainstream extremists pied
piper, while all the American right-wing lemmings seem to be getting in line for jumping off the cliff.
This was apparently what
caused the Post to elect such a change in their editorial approach.
They finished
the article with the following statement: “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.”
It was frightening to sit through the debate listening to all the hate speech, while not one workable solution was offered throughout the event.
Copyright G.Ater 2015
Comments
Post a Comment