Liberal media ed boards go after Trump before debate

The once upon a time newspaper of record, The New York Times, and the other rag, Washington Post, attacked Donald Trump on the day of the first presidential debate. No longer providing journalistic coverage in an unbalanced way, both bird cage liners tried to make the case that Trump should not be president, but the shrill shrieking felon should.

Trump is gaining on Clinton in the polls and the liberals are worried that she will not be coronated as she is "supposed to be."

Rather than simply endorsing the self-serving "Queen of the Scream," The Times wrote an editorial entitled, "Why He Should Not Be President." It was an essay seeking to destroy Trump's claims about his assets as a leader and called him a "man far more consumed with himself than with the nation's well-being."

Rather than seeing the Democratic party candidate as a person who put her own "convenience" ahead of national security, or perhaps used her private email server to hide shady dealings with foreign donations and the Clinton Foundation, The Times is attacking the one quality that every person seeking the office of president must possess: ego/narcissism--that is, the belief that he or she is the one person who can best run the nation.

If Clinton put the needs of the country first, there would have been no private email server and there would be four Americans still alive who had died in Benghazi.

"Voters attracted by the force of the Trump personality should pause and take note of the precise qualities he exudes as an audaciously different politician: bluster, savage mockery of those who challenge him, degrading comments about women, mendacity, crude generalizations about nations and religions."

Bluster is not necessarily a bad thing. It shows strength and I suspect if Trump were president, Iran wouldn't be flexing their muscles in the Straits of Hormuz. 

Mockery is wrong. I agree with The Times on that issue. But that's who Trump is, and while it doesn't excuse schoolyard behavior, it was the one tool in his debate arsenal that worked for him, and that was his bottom line.

Degrading comments about women? What did he say and what was in his mind and heart when he said it? Nobody can know that. But liberals have always, always, always used the gender and race cards to win elections because their policies suck. They take away individual liberties to run a business, to speak freely.

And what Trump has said about nations is better than what Obama has said about ours--we are not only exceptional, but we are more exceptional than other nations. Obama doesn't see it that way and Hillary has taken millions of dollars from countries that treat women like possessions, while pretending to be for women's rights.

Nothing Trump has said about Islam was crude because the truth about Islam is that it is generally political with a tendency toward global violence. Anyone who denies that does so at their own peril.

So the Clinton campaign are trying to stack the deck for the debate. Hillary is short and Trump is tall--she wants a stool to gain height. 

She wants Lester Holt, the moderator for NBC, to do her job of fact-checking Trump, just like she wants her husband to run the economy for her as well, if she is elected.

Hillary is scared because Donald is catching up, and tonight might put him over the top if he doesn't blow it.

Which begs the question: will Monica Lewinsky be there?

The Washington Post said in its editorial that "the stakes could not be higher," and said that Trump has "amply demonstrated his unworthiness" to be president.

It's comforting to know that leftist newspapers are now determining who is and who is not worthy of being president. There was a time when it was up to the American voters to decide that .  .  .  especially those Americans who were legal citizens and were still alive.

Journalism was on life support, but unfortunately, it succumbed to the demands of the left.

Trump spokesman Jason Miller issued a statement entitled: "The Sun Also Rose In The East This Morning," in response to the editorials of both rags:

"The news that the ultra-liberal, elitist, out-of-touch New York Times Editorial Board endorsed an ultra-liberal, elitist, out-of-touch candidate in Hillary Clinton has to be some of the least surprising news ever. The New York Times' Editorial Board is the embodiment of the rigged system Donald Trump is running against."

Trump, as I've mentioned before, was not my first choice for the GOP nomination, but now that he's the only viable choice for the GOP, he has my vote.

Not only is Hillary Clinton not fit physically, morally and ethically, she has a record of proof that she is incompetent and shows extremely poor judgment based on that record.

I hope she has a coughing spell to prove one of the above points.


Tweet