"It's too late baby, now, it's too late."
-- Carole King
Well, kudos, at least, to the New York Daily News for getting us to read an editorial from back east! Sure, the Wall Street Journal has a fine editorial page--one of the finest--and interesting writers, too. But usually eastern editorial pages are too solemn and dour for our tastes. As a buddy once noted, the only time somebody wants to hear the voice of God is . . . when it's God.
But word got out among the commentariat this past week that the Daily News was calling for the hometown boy to get out of the presidential race.
Bang! Zow! Finally, something interesting in the news, by the news, specifically the Daily kind. If there's something editorial writers need on frequent occasion, even more than caffeine during meetings, is some fresh gossip--er, that is, new information to ponder.
Of course, the editorial from back east was still an editorial from back east, so any humor was edited out. The Daily News' opinion on the latest from The Donald could have come from the New York Times, and if you suspect that's not a compliment, we're happy you don't misunderstand.
The Donald, as Well Informed Reader already knows, said the dumbest thing of the campaign last week, and that's saying something. He noted that "Second Amendment people" could do something about his opponent's appointing judges. You should have watched his spinners spin. Around in circles they went. Like tops. Which made some of us nauseous just watching. Supposedly the whole thing was either (1) a bad joke, or (2) a call for voters to rally for their favorite cause/politician. Why not both? One supporter of The Donald mentioned that he wasn't that articulate anyway, and the press can't expect much better. Some supporter.
The Daily News decided this finally was enough. And said so in solemn tones.
Why now, some of us wonder? Did Donald Trump not prove he wasn't presidential material back when he made fun of a disabled reporter? Or make light of America's POWs? Or imply he wouldn't help NATO allies without looking at the bills first? Or lead the birther movement? Or say that he gets his military advice from the Sunday shows? Or drag his rivals' wives into the primary campaign? Or threaten a trade war with China and promise to tear up free trade agreements?
Apparently now's the time to get serious about the 2016 presidential campaign. According to the paper's editorial: "Since the Democratic convention, Trump's offensiveness, ignorance and instability have repulsed Americans, including Republicans, in increasing numbers. Leading GOP national security experts have deemed him unfit to serve as commander-in-chief. With notable exceptions, Republican officials have stayed uneasily with Trump while disowning his words and actions. Now, he has left them no choice but to dump Trump."
And pick up who? The editorial didn't say who should replace the Republican nominee. Or how the party would go about doing that now that the conventions are over. Then again, editorialists don't have to provide good alternatives. They just come down from the mountains after the battle's been fought, and shoot the wounded. (Mencken, H.L.)
Dump Trump? Finally? Really?
No. Not now. It's too late, baby, now it's too late.
The Republican Party is stuck with this candidate. Write-in campaigns never work on a national level. There are third party alternatives, but kick The Donald off the ticket? It's never going to happen, our New York friends.
But this election is going to happen. This campaign is going to happen. Something tells us it needs to happen.
Sure, it'd be a neat trick to go back in time and explain to Republican primary voters that The Donald would be losing to The Hillary by double-digits at this point, and that she was starting to spend money in traditionally red states in hopes of a 1984-esque blow-out. But what good would time travel do? Last year, before any votes were cast or counted, the polls showed that two-thirds of the American people had a negative opinion of Donald Trump. Republican primary voters refused to do the math and nominated him anyway. And now they're stuck with . . . a candidate who turns off two-thirds of the American people.
Even if Donald Trump were to do something very un-Trump and volunteer to step aside--to lose! on purpose!--how could the party put another name on the ballot? Have another convention? Quickly? Are the hotel rooms in Cleveland still available?
That's not going to happen. The Republican Party--well, about a third of it (or less) in some states--nominated this man. Now they'll have three months to question themselves why.
We certainly appreciate the Daily News for trying. And for writing an editorial that at least said something. (Which is rare enough.) But time for this kind of thinking is . . . about four months late.
Editorial on 08/14/2016