On Sunday July 10, the editorial staff of The Washington Post published a commentary that makes it quite clear who they think should be the next president of the United States. And the way that did it was less of an endorsement of Hillary Clinton than an indictment of Donald Trump, and with him the members of the GOP who have decided to try to get him elected.
The editorial, which never uses the phrase “we endorse Hillary Clinton for president,” references the former secretary of state’s long record of government service:
Ms. Clinton is a knowledgeable politician who has been vetted many times over. She understands and respects the U.S. Constitution. She knows policy. She can cite accomplishments in the public interest, such as pressing through an important children’s health insurance program during her husband’s administration. As a senator, she was respected by colleagues on both sides of the aisle. She completed four years as secretary of state to generally positive reviews. She began her presidential campaign by rolling out a series of serious policy papers.
The writers acknowledge the dislike and mistrust of Clinton among a good portion of the electorate, and point out that you don’t have to like the former first lady or agree with her views. But, they say, you cannot deny that she has a long track record in government and knows how to maneuver through both national and international politics. They point out that she was well respected during her time in the Senate, by colleagues from both parties. And they observe that she started her campaign for president by releasing a series of policy papers. “She is not a dumpster candidate,” they write.
Then they highlight the Donald Trump many of us have come to revile over the past months:
Mr. Trump, by contrast, has waged a campaign based on bigotry, ignorance and resentment. He has no experience as a public servant, and his private record of bankruptcies and exploitation should be disqualifying. He regularly circulates falsehoods. He has no discernible interest in or knowledge of policy. Just in recent days, Mr. Trump tweeted out an anti-Semitic image circulating on neo-Nazi websites and attacked the media for reporting as much. He called one sitting senator a loser and threatened another while proving that he lacks even a passing familiarity with the Constitution. He praised one of the most vile dictators of the 20th century.
The commentary observes that there are many Republicans who are hoping and waiting for Trump to “pivot” and become presidential. As easy as they think that would be for Trump, who they call “a candidate with no fixed beliefs,” the Post’s editorial board says he would still be
the candidate who mocked a disabled reporter, proposed banning Muslims from entering the United States, attacked a judge based on his ethnicity, celebrated violence at his rallies, demeaned women and promised to round up and deport 11 million undocumented immigrants . He would still be the candidate who vaulted to political prominence with race-based attacks on the incumbent president and launched his campaign by calling Mexicans rapists.
And in case you still aren’t clear regarding their feelings about The Donald, they conclude the editorial by saying,
To equate the two candidates as indistinguishably unqualified products of a rigged or failed system only feeds public cynicism while blurring distinctions that should not be blurred. Ms. Clinton is a politician, long in the arena, whom you may or may not support. Mr. Trump is a danger to the republic.
Donald Trump, soon to be the Republican presidential nominee. “A danger to the republic.”
You can read the entire editorial here.
Here’s a video the Post put together of Republicans who oppose Donald Trump, and what they have had to say about the candidate of their party.
Featured image via Drew Angerer/Getty Images