笨狼發牢騷
發發牢騷，解解悶，消消愁
正文
《華爾街日報》一向是右陣、保守派的大本營，如果大家不熟悉，我在右派精英的哀歎裏提到過一個概況，“它是投資權威媒體，但它的社論也影響廣泛，讀者很多，在保守資本主義陣營是砥柱。其實《華爾街日報》得從兩部分來看，新聞部和社論部。新聞部在經濟金融投資方麵的報道分析深刻，廣泛，公正，是大家必備的信息來源。它的社論部室獨立的，專欄作者有發言權，不受報紙領導影響，影響廣泛，但是及其保守，很右。如果你問起一顆子彈，打奧巴馬還是（前伊拉克獨頭）侯賽因，估計它說不出留著打奧巴馬那句話，也差不多”。
在上文裏，我說到《華爾街日報》社論作者斯蒂文斯（Bret Stephens），社論部副主編，地位高，勢力大，覺得淳樸（Donald Trump）對美國是個前所未有的威脅，如果當選，共和黨一代人都沒了，他的說法是“共和黨基礎這幫混蛋，狗屁不懂。到時克林頓（Hillary Clinton）一定痛宰淳樸，被打得沒脾氣了，那時你們這幫傻帽才會知道當時自己蠢到不得了。”
他的幾篇社評我轉載在上文和奧巴馬好總統，痛揍布隆伯格和其它淳樸新聞。
麵對《新聞周刊》Politicians Pounce on Newsweek's Report of Donald Trump's 1998 Cuba Foray惡毒中傷，淳樸反擊“古巴？聽都沒聽說過”： “no. I never did business in Cuba. There’s this guy who has very bad reputation as a reporter. You see what his record is. He wrote something about me in Cuba. No I never did anything in Cuba. I never did a deal in Cuba. I heard about it last night for the first time”。他說：“我的婚姻史詩最棒的（I have a very good marital history）”。《華爾街日報》Donald Trump Pointed to 9/11 Attacks in Asking SEC for Leniency During Fraud Probe，又一“過人（smart）之處”。
昨天又變了天，《華爾街日報》社論的另一個作者拉賓諾位子（Dorothy Rabinowitz）有發社評，支持克林頓當總統，反對淳樸。當然讀者評論翻了天，大家罵的程度，跟...（華人論壇）...有一比。
總統辯論委員會：首輪辯論淳樸麥克風確實有問題：
然而淳陣自然知道淳樸必勝，幾個變節小醜隻是螳螂擋車而已。
小胖豬風波Did Crooked Hillary help disgusting (check out sex tape and past) Alicia M become a U.S. citizen so she could use her in the debate?
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 30, 2016Using Alicia M in the debate as a paragon of virtue just shows that Crooked Hillary suffers from BAD JUDGEMENT! Hillary was set up by a con.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 30, 2016樸爺爺“JUDGEMENT”拚寫錯了，也許是他要與上不了大學的藍領看齊？不過《英國廣播公司》說得詼諧，“喜歡，英國拚法”。Wow, Crooked Hillary was duped and used by my worst Miss U. Hillary floated her as an "angel" without checking her past, which is terrible!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 30, 2016還有人敢對樸爺爺不敬？天理難容啊。邪惡希拉裏：What kind of man stays up all night to smear a woman with lies and conspiracy theories?
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) September 30, 2016紐約時報專欄作家布魯克斯（David Brooks）也這麽說，唉，一個人半夜三更孤苦伶仃，自己連一個人連舒舒心的人都找不到，滿腦子怨恨，找個婦女發泄，還想著當總統。
《華爾街日報》
Hillary-Hatred Derangement Syndrome
She alone stands between America and the reign of the most unstable, unfit president in U.S. history
She alone stands between America and the reign of the most unstable, unfit president in U.S. history
Dorothy Rabinowitz, Sept. 29, 2016
There were cheers when Donald Trump assured his Virginia audience last weekend that the wall will be built and, yes, that Mexico would pay for it. But the cheers lacked the roaring ecstasy his promise used to evoke at rallies. No one has the heart, by now, to pretend that such a wall will actually be built, but that’s all right with Mr. Trump’s dauntless fans, who can find plenty of other reasons for their faith in him. The NeverTrump forces, appalled at the prospect of a Trump presidency, are no less passionate.
The NeverHillary forces are another matter entirely—citizens well aware of the darker aspects of Donald Trump’s character but who have nonetheless concluded that they should give him their vote. They are aware of his casual disregard for truth, his self-obsession, his ignorance, his ingrained vindictiveness. Not even the first presidential debate, which saw him erupt into a snarling aside about Rosie O’Donnell, could loosen his hold on that visceral drive to inflict payback, in this case over a feud 10 years old.
The NeverHillary forces are aware, too, of his grandiosity—his announcement that he knows more about Islamic State than any of America’s generals will long be remembered—his impulse-driven character, his insatiable need for applause, the head-turning effect on him of an approving word from Vladimir Putin. The Russian leader’s compliment late last year was of the mildest kind—he referred to Mr. Trump as “talented” and “colorful”—but it was enough to make the candidate’s heart go pitter-patter with gratitude and engender instant expressions of his faith in Mr. Putin’s integrity and leadership. As Mr. Trump himself has explained, “if he says nice things about me, I’m going to say nice things about him.”
Such are the values that drive the Republican candidate’s judgment—a fact interesting to contemplate as one imagines a President Trump dealing with international conflict and rogue heads of state. Still Mr. Trump is now the choice of voters who have concluded that of the two flawed contenders running, he would be far preferable.
Yes, he may be rough around the edges, but he’s a fresh force, the argument goes, unlike the establishment war horse, Mrs. Clinton, with her history of scandal and rumors thereof, and her decades in politics. Mr. Trump is the dynamo who will blow up the old order. He’s authentic, a man with the courage of his convictions.
Mr. Trump has not, of course, shown himself notably reliable as regards the courage of his convictions. It’s by now impossible to count the number of times and ways in which he’s sidled away from his grand plans on immigration, that promise to deport everyone here illegally, not to mention his proposal to institute a total block on Muslim immigration “till we figure things out.” He’s proffered no less than three different views on abortion, one of which called for “at least some punishment” for the woman involved—quickly changed to wait, no, it should be the doctor.
Still, it was the view of Donald Trump as a fearless foe of liberal piety, that image of him as an outsider, untainted by experience in government—itself one of the more remarkable boasts of any presidential campaign in memory—that persuaded so many Americans he is the leader the country needs. As opposed, that is, to Mrs. Clinton—the educated former secretary of state, with lengthy experience in government.
Equally remarkable, even for a change election, that experience, those years of education in national security somehow rank high on the list of defects the anti-Hillary brigades find so objectionable. Here is a flaw apparently even more rankling than her email server history, the questions about Benghazi, or the Clinton Foundation: She offers nothing of Mr. Trump’s aura of free-swinging dynamism, not to mention a mind blissfully uncluttered by facts, knowledge of geopolitical realities, and the like.
Mrs. Clinton hasn’t failed to provide, on her own, cause for concern about her own proclivities and never more intolerably than in that debate Monday when she chose to ramble on, familiarly, about institutional racism, which invariably emerges in her responses on conflagration involving police action. Americans have a right to cringe at this reflexive, factually distorted, and inflammatory sermonizing. The accompanying, deep felt tribute to the police and their heroism, invariably added, can never offset the insidiousness of these messages.
Even so, such proclivities pale next to the occasion for cringing that would come with a Trump presidency. No one witnessing Mr. Trump’s primary race—his accumulation of Alt-Right cheerleaders, white supremacists and swastika devotees—could fail to notice the menacing tone and the bitterness that came with it.
Not for nothing did the Democrats bring off a triumph of a convention, alive with cheer, not to mention its two visitors whose story would lift countless American hearts. They were, of course, the Muslim couple Khizr and Ghazala Khan, whose son, Capt. Humayun Khan—brought here as a child—died in Iraq in 2004, saving his men from an explosive-rigged car.
His countrymen now go streaming to his grave at Arlington National Cemetery to leave notes and flowers. He reminded us of who we are—the nation that takes its newcomers and transforms them into Americans. After 9/11, Capt. Khan, American, could scarcely wait to serve his country. The national response to the Khans injected a sense of unity and affirmation, however brief, into an atmosphere of embittering divisiveness.
The end of the election is now in sight. Some among the anti-Hillary brigades have decided, in deference to their exquisite sensibilities, to stay at home on Election Day, rather than vote for Mrs. Clinton. But most Americans will soon make their choice. It will be either Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton—experienced, forward-looking, indomitably determined and eminently sane. Her election alone is what stands between the American nation and the reign of the most unstable, proudly uninformed, psychologically unfit president ever to enter the White House.
Ms. Rabinowitz is a member of the Journal’s editorial board.
您也許先讀讀我寫的文章再來扣帽子？“對美國政治的實質缺乏了解？不知您的了解是什麽。“闖王”個“利益集團”的鬥爭，隻是您和其他人的誤解，不過這誤解難說不是心甘情願的。
回複 '文取心' 的評論 :
“最大的利益集團是美國這個國家的本身”，您要把美國推翻？
“一士諤諤”？嗬嗬，也許淳樸先回小學去學學語法和邏輯，他說話下半句忘了上半句說什麽，不至於大家都得跟他一般吧？
就《新聞周刊》揭露淳樸古巴買賣，布魯克斯（David Brooks）的反應是“這體現了一個人隻有金錢，隻有利益，隻有自己，心裏毫無良知，毫無道德，更沒有國家”。
國家不能強健，俄國、中國、穆斯林、BLM不把這個國家撕碎了才怪。
川普正是眾亦昏昏，一士諤諤。
TRUMP 2016
嗬嗬，大家不願意想。
您在
恨現有體製腐敗？先把聯儲給我砸了，再說別的
http://blog.wenxuecity.com/myblog/66653/201609/1321439.html
已經說過了。這是我在那兒說的：
大部分人背景跟淳樸很相似，“闖”“創”出來的。不過這些人裏不使些陰招，將各種關係門路用盡，到不了今天的地步。按此說法，他們才是“體製內的人”，是最大的受益者和利益集團。淳樸也是“體製內的人”，也是最大的受益者，是利益集團的一員。
有理。
回複 'furbydvs' 的評論 :
不是說“社論部室獨立的，專欄作者有發言權，不受報紙領導影響，影響廣泛，但是及其保守，很右。如果你問起一顆子彈，打奧巴馬還是（前伊拉克獨頭）侯賽因，估計它說不出留著打奧巴馬那句話，也差不多”了嗎？
回複 'Sam大樹' 的評論 :
可真說不準欸。