Trump vs Clinton. Both are unpopular. Only one is a threat.

(DSK/AFP/Getty Images)

“This election,” a spokesman for Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) said
Thursday, “remains a dumpster fire.” Well, yes, the two major-party
candidates for president are historically unpopular. But if this
election is unusually bad, it is not because both parties chose bad
There is no equivalence between Donald Trump and Hillary
Clinton — as even responsible Republicans should be able to recognize.

Clinton is a knowledgeable politician who has been vetted many times
over. She understands and respects the U.S. Constitution. She knows
policy. She can cite accomplishments in the public interest, such as
pressing through an important children’s health insurance program during
her husband’s administration. As a senator, she was respected by
colleagues on both sides of the aisle. She completed four years as
secretary of state to generally positive reviews. She began her
presidential campaign by rolling out a series of serious policy papers.

of this means you have to like Ms. Clinton or believe she would be a
good president. You may disagree with her views; we have done so often
enough and will do so again when we think she is wrong. You may believe
she was foolish to push for the Libya intervention, arrogant to keep her
emails out of the official State Department server, greedy to take
large speaking fees as a private citizen. But measured against other
major-party candidates of recent times, Ms. Clinton is well within
established bounds of competence, knowledge, commitment and integrity.
She is not a dumpster candidate.

Mr. Trump,
by contrast, has waged a campaign based on bigotry, ignorance and
resentment. He has no experience as a public servant, and his private
record of bankruptcies and exploitation should be disqualifying. He
regularly circulates falsehoods. He has no dis­cern­ible interest in or
knowledge of policy. Just in recent days, Mr. Trump tweeted out an anti-Semitic image circulating on neo-Nazi websites and attacked the media for reporting as much. He called one sitting senator a loser and threatened another while proving that he lacks even a passing familiarity with the Constitution
He praised one of the most vile dictators of the 20th century.

Republicans with enough self-respect to be mortified by the man their
party is about to nominate continually hold out hope for some magical
transformation. Yet even if Mr. Trump flipped his agenda — not a problem
for a man with almost no fixed beliefs — he would still be the
candidate who mocked a disabled reporter, proposed banning Muslims from
entering the United States, attacked a judge based on his ethnicity,
celebrated violence at his rallies, demeaned women and promised to round
up and deport 11 million undocumented immigrants
. He would still be the candidate who vaulted to political prominence
with race-based attacks on the incumbent president and launched his
campaign by calling Mexicans rapists.

Sasse has proved to be a rare Republican official with the moral
courage to speak as honestly about Mr. Trump after he clinched the
nomination as he did before. It’s not surprising that the senator would
want to dismiss the whole campaign as a mess, and we don’t doubt that he
genuinely fears the direction in which Ms. Clinton would lead the

But to equate the two candidates as
indistinguishably unqualified products of a rigged or failed system only
feeds public cynicism while blurring distinctions that should not be
blurred. Ms. Clinton is a politician, long in the arena, whom you may or
may not support. 
Mr. Trump is a danger to the republic.
SOURCE: Washington post