NYT editorial: The G.O.P. Debate
Monday’s Republican presidential debate in New Hampshire — full of historical error, economic obfuscation, avoidance of hard truths and even outright bigotry — was a feast for connoisseurs of political dysfunction. Desperate to avoid being outflanked on the right, the seven candidates tried so hard to outdo each other in finding fault with President Obama that they seemed to forget that they are competing for the same party nomination. By evening’s end, they had melted into an indistinguishable mass of privatizing, tax-cutting opponents of Shariah law.
For the moment, the candidates are appealing to a Republican Party whose core is so contorted in fury at Mr. Obama that it barely resembles the one that nominated George W. Bush in 2000. Mr. Bush may have prosecuted the war on terror to excess, but he always reminded the country that it was not at war with Islam. This batch of Republicans has dispensed with such niceties. Herman Cain repeated his earlier statement that he would not be comfortable with a Muslim in his cabinet. Some, he explained, “are trying to kill us.”
None of the other candidates took him to task for this. Mitt Romney, a Mormon who has himself been the subject of religious slurs, at least mentioned the nation’s founding principle of religious tolerance and respect but missed an opportunity to include Muslims. Newt Gingrich tumbled over the historical cliff with the idea, announcing some kind of loyalty oath to serve in his administration, similar to that used in dealing with Nazis and Communists. At least no one brandished a list of known Muslims serving in Mr. Obama’s State Department.
Eventually, the winner of the Republican nomination will move away from the Tea Party’s anger to try to appeal to a broader electorate that has higher priorities than interfering with laws on same-sex marriage and upending Congress’s decision to welcome openly gay and lesbian soldiers. That broader electorate, eager to hear the candidates’ plans to resuscitate the economy, would be hard pressed to find a coherent pathway out of joblessness from the Republican field on Monday night.
(More here.)
For the moment, the candidates are appealing to a Republican Party whose core is so contorted in fury at Mr. Obama that it barely resembles the one that nominated George W. Bush in 2000. Mr. Bush may have prosecuted the war on terror to excess, but he always reminded the country that it was not at war with Islam. This batch of Republicans has dispensed with such niceties. Herman Cain repeated his earlier statement that he would not be comfortable with a Muslim in his cabinet. Some, he explained, “are trying to kill us.”
None of the other candidates took him to task for this. Mitt Romney, a Mormon who has himself been the subject of religious slurs, at least mentioned the nation’s founding principle of religious tolerance and respect but missed an opportunity to include Muslims. Newt Gingrich tumbled over the historical cliff with the idea, announcing some kind of loyalty oath to serve in his administration, similar to that used in dealing with Nazis and Communists. At least no one brandished a list of known Muslims serving in Mr. Obama’s State Department.
Eventually, the winner of the Republican nomination will move away from the Tea Party’s anger to try to appeal to a broader electorate that has higher priorities than interfering with laws on same-sex marriage and upending Congress’s decision to welcome openly gay and lesbian soldiers. That broader electorate, eager to hear the candidates’ plans to resuscitate the economy, would be hard pressed to find a coherent pathway out of joblessness from the Republican field on Monday night.
(More here.)
Powered by Blogger
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home