—Bombthrowers: Isn’t it funny how the people being targeted for attacks are those figures in the Trump administration whose views are most out of step with the consensus, not just in the Democrat ranks, but among Republicans.
The conventional wisdom in some conservative circles is that the goal is to bring down President Trump. Sure, the left would like that. But it’s not just the left doing it.
Despite what Keith Olbermann screeches, the smarter people on both sides know that impeachment is unlikely. But their goal is to isolate Trump within his own administration by swapping out advisers and cabinet members with unconventional views for old hands with much more conventional ones.
The formula is easy. Smear or dig up some dirt.
Then you swap out National Security Advisor Mike Flynn, who was pretty clear on Islam, for H.R. McMaster, who will lecture Trump on the danger of saying “radical Islamic terrorism” because it alienates Muslims.
Force out Labor nominee Andy Puzder and you can replace him with Alex Acosta, an old hand with much safer views who isn’t likely to rattle the establishment. Either one of them.
Go after counter-terrorism expert Sebastian Gorka and you can bring in somebody who will emphasize how ISIS has hijacked a great religion.
Take out Jeff Sessions and you can replace him with somebody much friendlier to amnesty and Islamic migration.
The Dems will put up a hard fight over some nominees, even when they’re not all that conservative, if there is a special interest, e.g. the teachers’ unions, that cares. But this kind of smear campaign that we are seeing is reserved for Trump people who are outside the usual Dem-Pub consensus because they hold realistic views on Islam or illegal immigration.
Take out enough of these guys, replace them with Bush people, and you end up with a much “safer” administration.
This article first appeared at FrontPageMag.
Daniel Greenfield is a New York City writer and columnist. He is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and his articles appears at its Front Page Magazine site.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement