A funny thing happened on my way through the New York Times this morning. I found Peter Wehner – undilutedly conservative Peter Wehner – on the op-ed page.
I have no doubt the letters to the editor will skewer him in a day or two – partly because the readership of the New York Times is not exactly on board with undiluted conservatism, and partly because the Times\’ letters to the editor page barely ever shows two sides of anything….and even when it does, the other side is usually a sterile, unpassionate statement, rather than the more fleshed-out comments from people The Times agrees with.*
In any case, you can click here to read Mr. Wehner\’s piece. But let me show you excerpts from just the beginning:
RIGHT now it looks very much as if the two major political parties in America are in a race to see which one can destroy itself first.
On the Republican side, Donald J. Trump not only leads but dominates the presidential race. Crude, erratic, unprincipled and unelectable, Mr. Trump, if he were to win the nomination, would do catastrophic damage to the Republican Party. But the Democratic Party, if it were to nominate Hillary Clinton, would be inviting a different kind of disaster.
Since the 2008 campaign, it\’s been pretty clear that she is, to put it mildly, not a natural political talent. Mrs. Clinton lost a nomination she was heavily favored to win. Her campaign was poorly managed, plagued by indecision, confusion and poisonous infighting…
Things haven\’t gotten any better for her since. In public Mrs. Clinton often comes across as inauthentic, charmless and brittle, and she is poor on the stump. When campaigning, one senses that for her it\’s an act of will rather than an act of joy. In these respects, she is the antithesis of her husband.
Excellent analysis.
The man can write. And knows whereof he speaks.
What a nice surprise to see it among the usual hard-left + one pseudo-conservative (David Brooks) lineup which usually occupies that page.
