Friday's front-page New York Times "news analysis" reveled in the alleged difficulties posed to the Republican Party by real-estate mogul and presidential hopeful Donald Trump, under fire for controversial statements about illegal immigrants from Mexico.
A Times triumvirate of reporters held the party's feet to the fire and found an age/racial angle to boot ("aging, anxious white voters"), while urging the GOP to denounce Trump, as of yesterday. "Can't Fire Him: G.O.P. Frets Over What to Do With Trump," was reported by Michael Barbaro (pictured), Maggie Haberman, and Jonathan Martin, none of whom can be said to have the GOP's best interests at heart, as shown by their previous biased reporting. The jump headline: "Donald Trump's Strident Language Silences Many Republicans."
Republican Party leaders agonize over the prospect that Donald Trump will mount a third-party candidacy that could undermine their nominee. They fear insulting the white working-class voters who admire him. They are loath to tangle with a threat-flinging firebrand for whom there are no rules of engagement.
Since the start of Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign, a vexing question has hovered over his candidacy: Why have so many party leaders -- privately appalled by Mr. Trump’s remarks about immigrants from Mexico -- not renounced him?
It turns out, interviews show, that the mathematical delicacy of a Republican victory in 2016 -- and its dependence on aging, anxious white voters -- make it exceedingly perilous for the Republican Party to treat Mr. Trump as the pariah many of its leaders now wish he would become.