Monday Editorial Roundup

In an editorial endorsing Hillary Clinton for President, the Los Angeles Times warns of the "catastrophic" consequences of electing neo- fascist dimwit Donald "Rump" Trump, while also making a strong case for Secretary Clinton.  The full editorial is worth a read;  a few excerpts here:

American voters have a clear choice on Nov. 8. We can elect an experienced, thoughtful and deeply knowledgeable public servant or a thin-skinned demagogue who is unqualified and unsuited to be president.  

Donald J. Trump, a billionaire businessman and television personality, is the latter. He has never held elected office and has shown himself temperamentally unfit to do so. He has run a divisive, belligerent, dishonest campaign, repeatedly aligning himself with racists, strongmen and thugs while maligning or dismissing large segments of the American public. Electing Trump could be catastrophic for the nation. 

By contrast, Hillary Clinton is one of the best prepared candidates to seek the presidency in many years. As a first lady, a Democratic senator from New York and secretary of State in President Obama’s first term, she immersed herself in the details of government, which is why her positions on the issues today are infinitely better thought-out than those of her opponent.

She stands for rational, comprehensive immigration reform and an improvement rather than an abandonment of the Affordable Care Act. She supports abortion rights, wants to raise the federal minimum wage to $12 an hour, hopes to reform the sentencing laws that have overcrowded American prisons, would repair the Voting Rights Act and help students to leave college without enormous debt. Abroad she would strengthen America’s traditional alliances, continue the Obama administration’s efforts to “degrade and ultimately defeat” Islamic State and negotiate with potential adversaries such as Russia and China in a way that balances realism and the protection of American interests. Unlike Trump, Clinton accepts the prevailing science on climate change and considers the issue to be “the defining challenge of our time.”  [snip]

To be a great president, she will have to struggle to overcome her own weaknesses. But compared with Trump’s infirmities as a candidate, her failings are insignificant. It’s absurd — and perilous — to portray this election, as so many are doing, as a choice of the “lesser of two evils” or to suggest that her flaws are in any way on a level with his. [snip] 

 Every presidential race is described as “defining” and “historic.” This time, it’s true. Americans must not sit this election out, but cast their votes for Hillary Clinton over her dangerous Republican opponent, Donald Trump. 

To which we would add one more point: The Supreme Court!

The editorial also makes quick work of the "Scary Gary" Johnson and Dr.! Jill "WiFi" Stein campaigns, rightly saying that "a vote for either is merely one less vote for the only candidate who can defeat Trump."

The New York Times noted in its endorsement of Secretary Clinton that it would follow with an editorial detailing why Rump should not be elected.  Yesterday, it published those reasons.  Again, a few excerpts:

Now here stands Mr. Trump, feisty from his runaway Republican primary victories and ready for the first presidential debate, scheduled for Monday night, with Hillary Clinton. It is time for others who are still undecided, and perhaps hoping for some dramatic change in our politics and governance, to take a hard look and see Mr. Trump for who he is. They have an obligation to scrutinize his supposed virtues as a refreshing counterpolitician. Otherwise, they could face the consequences of handing the White House to a man far more consumed with himself than with the nation’s well-being. 

Here’s how Mr. Trump is selling himself and why he can’t be believed.

The editorial goes on to expose Rump's so- called "virtues" as the laughable fronts that they are: his prowess in the financial world, his straight- talking, his negotiating skills, his being an agent of change.  But the final test is character:

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. Our presidents are role models for generations of our children. Is this the example we want for them?

It's almost beyond belief that this evil demagogue is within striking distance of the Oval Office. Whether he makes it there or not will be a test of civic responsibility and citizenship that Americans will either pass or fail.  Forty- two days to go.