《华尔街日报》一向是右阵、保守派的大本营，如果大家不熟悉，我在右派精英的哀叹里提到过一个概况，“它是投资权威媒体，但它的社论也影响广泛，读者很多，在保守资本主义阵营是砥柱。其实《华尔街日报》得从两部分来看，新闻部和社论部。新闻部在经济金融投资方面的报道分析深刻，广泛，公正，是大家必备的信息来源。它的社论部室独立的，专栏作者有发言权，不受报纸领导影响，影响广泛，但是及其保守，很右。如果你问起一颗子弹，打奥巴马还是（前伊拉克独头）侯赛因，估计它说不出留着打奥巴马那句话，也差不多”。
在上文里，我说到《华尔街日报》社论作者斯蒂文斯（Bret Stephens），社论部副主编，地位高，势力大，觉得淳朴（Donald Trump）对美国是个前所未有的威胁，如果当选，共和党一代人都没了，他的说法是“共和党基础这帮混蛋，狗屁不懂。到时克林顿（Hillary Clinton）一定痛宰淳朴，被打得没脾气了，那时你们这帮傻帽才会知道当时自己蠢到不得了。”
他的几篇社评我转载在上文和奥巴马好总统，痛揍布隆伯格和其它淳朴新闻。
面对《新闻周刊》Politicians Pounce on Newsweek's Report of Donald Trump's 1998 Cuba Foray恶毒中伤，淳朴反击“古巴？听都没听说过”： “no. I never did business in Cuba. There’s this guy who has very bad reputation as a reporter. You see what his record is. He wrote something about me in Cuba. No I never did anything in Cuba. I never did a deal in Cuba. I heard about it last night for the first time”。他说：“我的婚姻史诗最棒的（I have a very good marital history）”。《华尔街日报》Donald Trump Pointed to 9/11 Attacks in Asking SEC for Leniency During Fraud Probe，又一“过人（smart）之处”。
昨天又变了天，《华尔街日报》社论的另一个作者拉宾诺位子（Dorothy Rabinowitz）有发社评，支持克林顿当总统，反对淳朴。当然读者评论翻了天，大家骂的程度，跟...（华人论坛）...有一比。
总统辩论委员会：首轮辩论淳朴麦克风确实有问题：
然而淳阵自然知道淳朴必胜，几个变节小丑只是螳螂挡车而已。
小胖猪风波Did Crooked Hillary help disgusting (check out sex tape and past) Alicia M become a U.S. citizen so she could use her in the debate?
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 30, 2016Using Alicia M in the debate as a paragon of virtue just shows that Crooked Hillary suffers from BAD JUDGEMENT! Hillary was set up by a con.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 30, 2016朴爷爷“JUDGEMENT”拼写错了，也许是他要与上不了大学的蓝领看齐？不过《英国广播公司》说得诙谐，“喜欢，英国拼法”。Wow, Crooked Hillary was duped and used by my worst Miss U. Hillary floated her as an "angel" without checking her past, which is terrible!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 30, 2016还有人敢对朴爷爷不敬？天理难容啊。邪恶希拉里：What kind of man stays up all night to smear a woman with lies and conspiracy theories?
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) September 30, 2016纽约时报专栏作家布鲁克斯（David Brooks）也这么说，唉，一个人半夜三更孤苦伶仃，自己连一个人连舒舒心的人都找不到，满脑子怨恨，找个妇女发泄，还想着当总统。
《华尔街日报》
Hillary-Hatred Derangement Syndrome
She alone stands between America and the reign of the most unstable, unfit president in U.S. history
She alone stands between America and the reign of the most unstable, unfit president in U.S. history
Dorothy Rabinowitz, Sept. 29, 2016
There were cheers when Donald Trump assured his Virginia audience last weekend that the wall will be built and, yes, that Mexico would pay for it. But the cheers lacked the roaring ecstasy his promise used to evoke at rallies. No one has the heart, by now, to pretend that such a wall will actually be built, but that’s all right with Mr. Trump’s dauntless fans, who can find plenty of other reasons for their faith in him. The NeverTrump forces, appalled at the prospect of a Trump presidency, are no less passionate.
The NeverHillary forces are another matter entirely—citizens well aware of the darker aspects of Donald Trump’s character but who have nonetheless concluded that they should give him their vote. They are aware of his casual disregard for truth, his self-obsession, his ignorance, his ingrained vindictiveness. Not even the first presidential debate, which saw him erupt into a snarling aside about Rosie O’Donnell, could loosen his hold on that visceral drive to inflict payback, in this case over a feud 10 years old.
The NeverHillary forces are aware, too, of his grandiosity—his announcement that he knows more about Islamic State than any of America’s generals will long be remembered—his impulse-driven character, his insatiable need for applause, the head-turning effect on him of an approving word from Vladimir Putin. The Russian leader’s compliment late last year was of the mildest kind—he referred to Mr. Trump as “talented” and “colorful”—but it was enough to make the candidate’s heart go pitter-patter with gratitude and engender instant expressions of his faith in Mr. Putin’s integrity and leadership. As Mr. Trump himself has explained, “if he says nice things about me, I’m going to say nice things about him.”
Such are the values that drive the Republican candidate’s judgment—a fact interesting to contemplate as one imagines a President Trump dealing with international conflict and rogue heads of state. Still Mr. Trump is now the choice of voters who have concluded that of the two flawed contenders running, he would be far preferable.
Yes, he may be rough around the edges, but he’s a fresh force, the argument goes, unlike the establishment war horse, Mrs. Clinton, with her history of scandal and rumors thereof, and her decades in politics. Mr. Trump is the dynamo who will blow up the old order. He’s authentic, a man with the courage of his convictions.
Mr. Trump has not, of course, shown himself notably reliable as regards the courage of his convictions. It’s by now impossible to count the number of times and ways in which he’s sidled away from his grand plans on immigration, that promise to deport everyone here illegally, not to mention his proposal to institute a total block on Muslim immigration “till we figure things out.” He’s proffered no less than three different views on abortion, one of which called for “at least some punishment” for the woman involved—quickly changed to wait, no, it should be the doctor.
Still, it was the view of Donald Trump as a fearless foe of liberal piety, that image of him as an outsider, untainted by experience in government—itself one of the more remarkable boasts of any presidential campaign in memory—that persuaded so many Americans he is the leader the country needs. As opposed, that is, to Mrs. Clinton—the educated former secretary of state, with lengthy experience in government.
Equally remarkable, even for a change election, that experience, those years of education in national security somehow rank high on the list of defects the anti-Hillary brigades find so objectionable. Here is a flaw apparently even more rankling than her email server history, the questions about Benghazi, or the Clinton Foundation: She offers nothing of Mr. Trump’s aura of free-swinging dynamism, not to mention a mind blissfully uncluttered by facts, knowledge of geopolitical realities, and the like.
Mrs. Clinton hasn’t failed to provide, on her own, cause for concern about her own proclivities and never more intolerably than in that debate Monday when she chose to ramble on, familiarly, about institutional racism, which invariably emerges in her responses on conflagration involving police action. Americans have a right to cringe at this reflexive, factually distorted, and inflammatory sermonizing. The accompanying, deep felt tribute to the police and their heroism, invariably added, can never offset the insidiousness of these messages.
Even so, such proclivities pale next to the occasion for cringing that would come with a Trump presidency. No one witnessing Mr. Trump’s primary race—his accumulation of Alt-Right cheerleaders, white supremacists and swastika devotees—could fail to notice the menacing tone and the bitterness that came with it.
Not for nothing did the Democrats bring off a triumph of a convention, alive with cheer, not to mention its two visitors whose story would lift countless American hearts. They were, of course, the Muslim couple Khizr and Ghazala Khan, whose son, Capt. Humayun Khan—brought here as a child—died in Iraq in 2004, saving his men from an explosive-rigged car.
His countrymen now go streaming to his grave at Arlington National Cemetery to leave notes and flowers. He reminded us of who we are—the nation that takes its newcomers and transforms them into Americans. After 9/11, Capt. Khan, American, could scarcely wait to serve his country. The national response to the Khans injected a sense of unity and affirmation, however brief, into an atmosphere of embittering divisiveness.
The end of the election is now in sight. Some among the anti-Hillary brigades have decided, in deference to their exquisite sensibilities, to stay at home on Election Day, rather than vote for Mrs. Clinton. But most Americans will soon make their choice. It will be either Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton—experienced, forward-looking, indomitably determined and eminently sane. Her election alone is what stands between the American nation and the reign of the most unstable, proudly uninformed, psychologically unfit president ever to enter the White House.
Ms. Rabinowitz is a member of the Journal’s editorial board.
