Say What?

Words matter.

If this be treason, where is your evidence?

   Every time it seems Donald Trump has finally crossed the line of civil discourse and acceptable behavior, he moves the line.
   Now it is the patently false statement that U.S. President Barack Obama is a founder of ISIS, the Middle East terrorist group, and that Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton is a co-founder.
   This is an accusation of treason, an impeachable offense for the President and a criminal offense for the candidate. If Trump has evidence, it's time to put up or shut up.
   Even when conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt offered a lifeline from the most outrageous accusation of the year, suggesting that U.S. policy "created a vacuum" that enabled the rise of the terrorist organization, the Republican nominee for the presidency replied, "No, no, I meant that he is a founder of ISIS."
   All the while, he and his supporters continue to vilify the news media, blaming journalists for causing all the negative reactions to the candidate's trash talk.
   Sure.

   He didn't really mean it, they insist. Or, what he really meant was ... Or, it was just a joke. Or, that's not really what he said.
   However, The Dark One said it at least four times in a single day, using identical phrasing each time. And it was equally false each time, since ISIS (the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) was formed before Obama took office, and before Clinton became Secretary of State.
   Nevertheless, the Darklings blame television news and print publications for reporting what the candidate says, charging that all the coverage is biased, phony, dishonest, unfair, etc.
   By their standards, the only reports worth considering are those that agree with and praise their candidate, even when there are no negative adjectives, and only accurate transcriptions of what the candidate said.
   The current defensiveness goes beyond the "what he really meant was ... " denials and explanations. In this case, Trump ignored a clarification line offered him by Hewitt, and repeated his accusation that the President and the Democratic candidate are "cofounders of ISIS."
   
   Is this reaching a new level of ludicrous stupidity, or is it a revival of the Big Lie technique? This strategy holds that if you say something loud enough, long enough, firmly enough, to enough people, some will believe you.
   Moreover, there is also the reality that there is always a hard core of True Believers who will accept anything and everything their beloved Fearless Leader says, no matter how strange, inane, outrageous, weird, false or downright stupid the allegation is.
   Meanwhile, it is the duty and responsibility of the Fourth Estate to record, report, publicize and expose any candidate's comments, claims and accusations.
   And that, by itself, is journalism's most effective strategy in helping to protect a free society.
   It may be easy to say, "Ignore him and he'll go away soon enough." But this one is not going away. In fact, he has already set himself up to be a martyr when he loses in November. "The system is rigged against me," he insists. Therefore, his loss will be proof that he was right. And this is characteristic of his lifelong behavior, that he believes himself right in all things all the time, and anyone who disagrees with him in any detail at any time, no matter how trivial the detail, is by his definition wrong.
   So on November 9, the day after election day, he can explain his loss by saying, "See? I told you so. The system is rigged."
   As for ignoring the blustering, bullying, political braggart in the hope that he will soon go away, historically that strategy has been used before, and many can recall the results in other countries.
   Meanwhile, this election campaign is too important to ignore.