Mitch McConnell forthrightly criticized Donald Trump’s outrageous behavior, both before and on January 6, blaming him for the criminal assault on the Capitol, and then voted against instituting an impeachment trial of Trump in the Senate, on the specious grounds that Trump cannot be tried by the Senate now that he is out of office. Mitch has passionately denounced “loony lies and conspiracy theories” on the right, without bothering to mention who he was talking about. And for this he was highly praised, in high circles like the Washington Post, to wit:
Mr. McConnell’s forceful statement is significant and encouraging. We hope it signals a moral repugnance with the consequences of Mr. Trump’s leadership.
Well, no doubt, the Washington Post can hope. They can hope that a man who, perhaps more than any other—other than Donald Trump himself, of course—is responsible for putting Trump in the White House, a man who refused to act on President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court prior to the 2016 presidential election, thus giving conservatives a “good reason” for supporting Trump, a man who worked closely with Trump for four long years, eagerly aiding and abetting him every step of the way, a man who said nothing for months as Trump rambled more and more viciously and absurdly about his non-existent “landslide”—the Post can “hope” that such a man can feel moral repugnance—and perhaps even act on it, if they wish. But the Post shouldn’t get its “hopes” up, you know, too high.
