From this morning's editorial in the Intelligencer:
Just a few weeks ago, Hillary Clinton and other Democrat Party leaders were chortling with glee at what they called disarray in the Republican Party. . . .
Funny how that proverbial shoe so often switches to the other foot, isn't it?
(A suggestion to the editorial staff, I think you've worn out the "other foot" metaphor.)
The editorial continues:
Now, Clinton and other Democrats are worried about their own disarray. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders' success in his candidacy for president has startled and angered Clinton and company. Now they are concerned about party unity leading up to November.
Disarray? Like the May 3 editorial that argued that it was the Democrat's fault that Trump is the Republican nominee, this one also seems to be unconnected to reality. I have not seen where any Democratic party official, let alone the head of its congressional delegation or the standard-bearer for president in 2012, has said that they will not support the nominee. Nor has there been any threat of any third-party run from the likely loser of the Democratic primary. No, for Mike Myer and the local editorial writers, the Democrats are always worse even when they're not.
Their Republican bias aside, given this editorial and the Democrats-caused-Trump one, you have to wonder if the Intelligencer knows it's not in the reality-based community or whether it just cynically believes its readers will agree with anything it prints as long as it's anti-Democratic Party and anti-Hillary. Later in the editorial, it explains the process by which Trump became the nominee:
In truth, what preoccupied Republicans for several months was not disarray but instead, the political system working as Americans expect it should. A variety of good candidates sought the Republican nomination for president. Little by little, the field was winnowed down by the primary election process. Now, the party has a presumptive nominee, Donald Trump.
Nice spin! Were we watching the same debates? Maybe my timing was bad when I watched but instead of discussions around substantive issues I saw lots of shouting and name-calling, false bravado and insults. The editorial is right, this is not "disarray" -- that's too mild a term; I think "chaos" is a more apt term. As a citizen, I expect the process to be about policy issues and not about who has the best comebacks or the biggest hands. In the end the Republican Party chose the candidate who was the most racist, sexist and xenophobic. If this is "the political process working as Americans expect it should," we are in big trouble.