To the editor:
The Times’ editorial board castigates Republican National Convention attendees in Cleveland for the tone of their “intemperate rhetoric” in calling for accountability for Clinton’s actions, even saying they “could hurt the country by making it harder for Republicans to work with her if she is elected.”
It’s interesting that The Times never questioned Clinton’s “pugnacious partisanship” when she was asked in a Democratic presidential debate last year who she was most proud to call her enemies and her response was “probably the Republicans.”
Is The Times at all concerned that naming Republicans as her enemies might hurt the country by making it harder for her to work with them if she is elected?
How convenient for The Times to fall on the side of the Democrats.
James Willis, Oxnard
Note from KBJ: The most vile language in American politics emanates from the Left, as do the loudest denunciations of vile language. Can you say "projection"?
