One and only one person's "political speech" triggers violence

Yesterday the Philadelphia Inquirer published an op-ed from a rump bubble-brain, Hugh Hewitt, that condescendingly (Hewitt can't not be condescending) lectured us lesser intellects to assure us that "political speech" from "both sides" is toxic but none is responsible for violence.  (Hewitt by the way is a freaking teacher in a law school, and before he became a rump bubble-brain he had spent the whole 2016 primary season telling MSNBC hosts that rump is a toxic sociopath.)  Today the Inquirer printed another "both-sides-guilty-of-inciting-violence-hate speech" op-ed by the Inqy's new Charles Krauthammer right-wing guy Marc Theissen.  I could only stomach a very quick scan, which was enough to see that his evidence included something some Dem said in 2000.  

Bull shit boll weevil.

No matter what any Democrat ever said about a political opponent, s/he wasn't a president.  And no Democratic office-holder has validated delusional conspiracy theories or argued the goodness of neo-Nazis chanting "Jews will not replace us."   

The only salient evidence in assessing the sociopath's culpability is that no president of any party -- certainly none in the last century -- has not only condoned but publicly encouraged white nationalists and anti-Semites in acting out their hatred and committing acts of violence against political opponents.  Not to mention calling the press "enemies of the people" in direct betrayal of his bible-sworn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.         

Standing in front of an idiot mob and TV cameras bellowing kudos for a Congressman for body-slamming a journalist is uniquely despicable incitement of violence by a sitting president.  

Taking a step back from calling out the bubble-brain op-ed-writing rump apologists for their pernicious moral vapidity -- I'd add hypocrisy, but in the ethically derelict Repubican world-view, hypocrisy is now celebrated as a feature, not a bug -- I reflect on what these rump-Fox-GOP talking-points media storm troopers hope to accomplish with this editorial-page campaign to bleach out the human stain of blood on the hands of a president who promotes by the brutish, insipid, intellectually bankrupt tactic of what-aboutism.  That is, since everything in the public forum right now is aimed at the election that concludes in four days, at which voters are they aiming these commentaries and what is the intent?  

I can only speculate, as I don't claim to know GOP strategists' mindsets that led them to issue the talking points to their op-ed bots.  Those strategists well know that the rump base is thrilled by his incitement of violence, so it's not about them.  They know that people like me can not be persuaded to deny the visible and audible reality of demagoguery and its inevitable -- and intended -- violent result.  

So the targets are the precious few who may be unsure about voting one way, voting the other way, or voting at all. There are several voting blocs that fit that broad definition, but my best guess is that these messages are aimed at the famous demographic of white, educated suburban women who went just often enough for rump in 2016 to help kick off our long national nightmare.  Especially those who identify with the R tribe.

These are people who are inclined to swallow the specious line that rump has revitalized a slumping economy, but they are queasy about his gangster-mode, screw-dignity-and-decency hate speech campaign against all political opponents and fact-based reporting.  And some of the more attentive suburban white women are not so fond of his degradation of everything America has ever stood for and been committed to at home and in the world.  

But still, if they can provide a flimsy op-ed fig leaf to cover the president's myriad betrayals of American democratic principles and presidential norms, they might retrieve those ambivalent registered Repubicans who just want to be able to rationalize staying loyal to the party that traditionally has so reliably stood against sucking money from their paychecks to pay for social programs that provide Cadillacs to welfare queens and now to illegal immigrants.