The right-wing newspaper publishes three editorials daily. The tone of two of today's essays sound like the end of the world.
Newspaper Estadao: hard to look ahead
The main editorial accuses the leader of the impeachment trial, Supreme Court minister Ricardo Lewandowski, of not being aware of article 52 of the constitution. At the same time, the editors call the senators attending the session supervised by the minister a "chusma de irresponsáveis" (rabble where everyone is irresponsible), and also refer to them as "políticos agrupados em matilhas" (politicians gathered in packs of hounds).
Why is that? Dilma was definitely removed from the office she had been invested in but did not lose her political rights. Indeed, this is akin to a mixed sentence, condemning and acquitting at the same time. According to that article 52, impeachment would automatically impose the loss of political rights for eight years, penalty suffered by Collor de Melo in 1992.
When about to vote yesterday, senators asked Lewandowski to separate the decision about the impeachment from the decision concerning the political rights. And he accepted it. On writing today, the editors mentioned opted to declare that the minister, in the final days of his regular mandate as the president of the Supreme Court, was not familiar with that article. But, of course, he might very well be aware of it.
Mr. Sanches, playing Lewandowiski's role back in Collor's case, is reported today in Folha de S.Paulo newspaper as ironically commenting that such result indicates the senators were not that convinced of Dilma's crime.
Anyway, the reaction of O Estado de S.Paulo (or Estadao) was much more intriguing. Making use, as usual, of uncommon vocabulary ('chusma' is one example), the main essay could find a slang and calls the decision to keep Dilma's political rights a "maracutaia" (trickery), besides proclaiming it "an immorality". On top, the opiniated prose pictures the future now gloomier than before!
The other essay, below the first one, on the same page of the print edition, asks in the title: "Dá para olhar para a frente?" (Is it possible to look ahead?)
In their exaggeration, the editors seem to be antecipating the failure of Temer's ruling and justifying that by the final result of the impeachment, which preserved Dilma's political rights. Strange? Quoting the editors in the second editorial:
Na hora da união, criou-se a cizânia. O presidente Michel Temer... poderá não ter condições, diante do quadro de descalabro político e moral criado na quarta-feira.., de inspirar uma aliança de partidos comprometidos com o interesse público, e não com a indecente maracutaia... E, sem essa aliança, não se vencerá sequer a primeira etapa do esforço de recuperação nacional.
In English:
In time for union, misunderstanding was created. President Michel Temer... may not enjoy the conditions, in face of the political and moral disaster created on Wednesday [referring to the decision about Dilma], to inspire an alliance of parties committed with the public interest, rather than with the indecent trickery [referring to the decision that preserved Dilma's political rights]... And, without such alliance, [Temer] will not even go through the first step in the effort for national recovery.
Hard to look ahead? No doubt. No news. Hard is to decide - among those players, the newspaper include - on the First Master of trickery,
--
