The left's and NeverTrumps' attacks on Trump come up short

The left's ad hominem attacks on President Trump are not working.  So reports Politico's Edward-Isaac Dovere, September 13 ("Teflon Don Confounds Democrats"), based on data gathered for the Democrats "from a range of focus groups and internal polls."  

The hostile New York Times is not persuaded by the Democratic findings cited by Politico.  The lead editorial in the Times, September 16, "Morality Is Negotiable for Mr. Trump," cited the president's September 13 dinner with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi as occasion to warn, "No one should cheer Mr. Trump's latest moves as pivot toward principles. So far his main operating principle seems to be service to himself."  But the Times was not satisfied in maintaining its war on the president on its own initiative.    

The Times underlined its institutional animus for the president by noting that "the conservative Never-Trump stalwart [and ex-New York Times columnist] William Kristol had sound advice on dealing with Mr. Trump[:] ...work for good policies during Trump's presidency; never lose sight of his unfitness to be president."

How is one to comprehend Kristol's curious comment other than to conclude that good policies put into effect while Donald J. Trump is president have nothing to do with President Donald J. Trump?  Is there no limit to the bitter bile of "Never-Trump stalwarts"?

One should think Kristol might at least have the sense of Realpolitik to allow that the "unfitness to be president" charge just isn't working for those of us who continue to consider President Trump our best hope to drain that fetid swamp and thereby revitalize the founding legacy of liberty.

The left's ad hominem attacks on President Trump are not working.  So reports Politico's Edward-Isaac Dovere, September 13 ("Teflon Don Confounds Democrats"), based on data gathered for the Democrats "from a range of focus groups and internal polls."  

The hostile New York Times is not persuaded by the Democratic findings cited by Politico.  The lead editorial in the Times, September 16, "Morality Is Negotiable for Mr. Trump," cited the president's September 13 dinner with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi as occasion to warn, "No one should cheer Mr. Trump's latest moves as pivot toward principles. So far his main operating principle seems to be service to himself."  But the Times was not satisfied in maintaining its war on the president on its own initiative.    

The Times underlined its institutional animus for the president by noting that "the conservative Never-Trump stalwart [and ex-New York Times columnist] William Kristol had sound advice on dealing with Mr. Trump[:] ...work for good policies during Trump's presidency; never lose sight of his unfitness to be president."

How is one to comprehend Kristol's curious comment other than to conclude that good policies put into effect while Donald J. Trump is president have nothing to do with President Donald J. Trump?  Is there no limit to the bitter bile of "Never-Trump stalwarts"?

One should think Kristol might at least have the sense of Realpolitik to allow that the "unfitness to be president" charge just isn't working for those of us who continue to consider President Trump our best hope to drain that fetid swamp and thereby revitalize the founding legacy of liberty.