"Trump is a klutz, a bully and a liar. But he's no white supremacist"

That's the headline on Paul Jenkins' column in the ADN today.   Headlines are written by editors, but he does in fact say that in his column, though not in one sentence that succinctly.

But after calling the president a liar, he excoriates Democrats for 'stretching the truth' about saying Trump is a white supremacist by parsing the president's words and the context of this post Charlottesville comments about there being good people on both sides.

I don't have all that in front of me, but even if he is right about what Trump exactly said and meant, there are still some problems:

1.  All the other actions and words of the president that support the idea that he's a white supremacist.

2.  His praise (that he's not a white supremacist) comes after acknowledging he's a 'klutz, bully, and liar."  And he also acknowledges

"He says things that unnecessarily tarnish the presidency and embarrass this country.  He runs with his filters turned off and he often is insulting, combative, denigrating to women, Muslims, and Hispanics."

The only saving grace, he tells us, is that Trump was better than the other candidate.  If he really means that, then impeachment would allow a replacement that wouldn't be Hillary Clinton.

I feel a little like Alice in Wonderland reading this.  He even quotes Goebbels

"If you tell a lie beg enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it"

But that's about the Democrats' "big lie" about calling Trump a white supremacist.  Not about all the repeated big lies he acknowledges that come from his president.

What is the point of this column?  Some possibilities:

1. It's Sunday and he owes one to the ADN and he has nothing to say.
2. It's a secret signal to say that the Republicans are morally bankrupt, without actually saying it.
3. It's fodder for the MAGA crowd, but if that's the case, why not embrace white supremacy instead of implying it's not a good thing?
4. It's there to piss off liberals, just because the ADN gives him a weekly column.  

Which raises the question:  Why doesn't the ADN have a policy that excludes personal attacks and requires regular columnists to stick to actual, rational discussions of policy?

If anyone needs to see the whole thing, it's here.