No one should be surprised at what Trump did regarding Khan, nor at the dilemma it presents for GOP members of Congress
Trump’s response to Khan was no anomaly; it was characteristic.
And I mean the word “characteristic” in a double sense: “characteristic” as in “typical,” and also as in “a fundamental and entrenched part of Trump’s character/personality.” It is part of Trump’s character that he feels he must strike back hard if insulted, and he prides himself on his lack of political correctness.
This approach has actually held Trump in very good stead his whole life, garnering lots of publicity and earning him a reputation as a man not to be messed with. In addition, it has been a plus for him in the 2016 campaign so far—can anyone imagine him having done nearly as well without it?—as long as the race was confined to the GOP primaries and a field of so many opponents.
But now we’re in the general and the rules are different. There are some lines he may not be able to cross and win this election. It’s true that he may yet survive; stranger things have most definitely happened. But this is a self-inflicted blow that could be electorally fatal, and why did he feel compelled to do it? Because it is part of his character and part of his tried-and-true modus operandi.
Yes, I think Trump has some self-control. And yes, some of his act is just that—an act. But those who expected him to turn “presidential” at this point have been and will be sadly disappointed, and their expectation for that transformation was always misplaced, in my opinion. Trump is highly unlikely to do it, in part because he doesn’t want to control this impulse and in part because in certain situations he cannot control this impulse. It’s hard to know what the balance is between these two reasons, but the effect is the same in terms of his behavior.
Interestingly, just two days before Trump’s Khan statements he mentioned the topic of fighting back when criticized, and whether he would curb some of that impulse:
Donald Trump got sound advice the other day. At a rally at Davenport, Iowa, he told the crowd that a prominent supporter had called and urged him not to sweat all the attacks at the Democratic National Convention.
“Don’t hit down,” the supporter urged, according to Trump. “You have one person to beat. It’s Hillary Rodham Clinton.”
By Trump’s account, he conceded the good sense of this, although he noted how he always prefers hitting back – “it makes me feel good.”
I have no doubt that he does prefer it in the emotional sense, and I have no doubt that his rejoinders to the Khans “made him feel good.” I also have little doubt that that his responses to the Khans ran counter to the advice given by that supporter who called him on the phone and whose advice he seemed to cite approvingly. Was he trying to curb himself and failing because it “felt good”? Or was his decision a strategic one, because he thought it would help him? I think the former, but there’s no way to know, although it was easy to predict he was not going to follow that supporter’s advice.
It was also easy to predict not only that this sort of thing would happen, but that when it did it would place the GOP members of Congress in a terrible pickle. What to do? Support their party’s nominee and they may go down with the ship. Fail to support him and they not only may lose the chance of having a president in their own party for a change, but they also would probably lose the chance to receive some favors if and when Trump were to win the presidency. They are at a crossroads right now, and decisions must be made.
Plus, Trump has made it very hard to defend him. Many members of Congress are without much integrity, but not all of them. And besides, even if you wanted to defend him and were seeking to defend him, how would you do it without looking like a bounder yourself? Maybe Trump can get away with it, but most people can’t.
Apparently the Trump campaign is aware that Trump’s embroiling himself in this battle against Kahn has much potential for serious trouble, because it has been reported that they’ve called on members of Congress to help them spread some talking points on Khan. But there were no takers:
McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential candidate and current chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, issued a lengthy statement sharply criticizing Trump’s comments.
“While our party has bestowed upon him the nomination, it is not accompanied by unfettered license to defame those who are the best among us,” said McCain, a prisoner of war for five years during the Vietnam War.
His counterpart on the House Armed Services Committee, Representative Mac Thornberry of Texas, echoed McCain, saying in a statement he was “dismayed at the attacks Khizr and Ghazala Khan have endured after they spoke about their son’s service and sacrifice.”…
In an open letter, 23 Gold Star families said Trump cheapened their sacrifice and called for an apology.
“This goes beyond politics. It is about a sense of decency,” it said. “That kind decency you mock as ‘political correctness.'”
What’s more, the incident has offered the Democrats—Hillary Clinton, Obama, and members of Congress—a precious gift, a rare and golden opportunity to proclaim their fervent support of the military and Gold Star parents. Hypocritical or no, it makes good political theater.
Some people think that this is more evidence that Trump is a stalking horse for Hillary and that he does not want to win. I’ve never subscribed to that theory and still don’t, although I understand why a person might. But I think other things drive Trump. The first is ego. He wants to win and due to boundless self-confidence he thinks he will win no matter what he does, and he also thinks that what he does is a winning formula by definition, because he does it. The second is emotion; he cannot let an insult go unanswered, and he has always tried to strike back hard and doesn’t mind sounding nasty or stupid as long as he feels he’s perceived as hitting back hard.
Trump wants to win, in my opinion. But if he loses, he’s still got the satisfaction of having stuck it to the pundits and defied everyone’s expectations, in addition to having gained millions and millions of new admirers. For him, that a win, too. He will land on his feet no matter what, and Trump will continue to be Trump no matter what.
[ADDENDUM: Legal Insurrection has a post that quotes Joe Scarborough as saying:
Now you even have Republicans that are saying, again, privately, mentally, like have you ever seen [Trump] like this before? I answered no, I haven’t. I’ve known him for a decade, I’ve never seen him act like this before. It’s unhinged, it’s not the Donald Trump that I’ve known for over a decade. I never have seen anything remotely resembling this type of behavior from a guy who I’ve known and liked and called a friend.
There’s also a commenter to the post who points out that Rush Limbaugh (who’s pretty much been a Trump supporter, especially since Trump became the frontrunner) also seemed worried and somewhat surprised about this latest behavior of Trump’s.
I maintain that—as I wrote in this post—this incident is not the least bit atypical of Trump. If it’s evidence of mental illness or being unhinged (and I don’t think it is) then Trump has been mentally ill or unhinged his entire life. Anyone who doesn’t see this incident as completely typical and completely in the mold of Trump’s decades-long previous behavior—be that observer Joe Scarborough, Rush Limbaugh, or anyone else—hasn’t been paying attention. Maybe Joe’s friendship with Trump has blinded him to the way Trump has, for most of his adult life, treated anyone Trump regards as an enemy.]
Sticks and stones.
Tatterdemaliam:
What’s next in your penetrating analysis, “nah-nah-nah nah-nah”?
Kahn will be on TV weekly. Also featured in commercials.
Some people wanted a 10-year-old schoolyard bully as a presidential candidate … and that’s what they got. He’s not going to change. He’s going to keep stomping in fresh piles of PR dogsh!t daily, because that’s what he does and he doesn’t care. His backers think that makes him cool.
Yeah, I’ll still vote for Trump because Hillary is pure evil and the only chance of beating her is voting for Trump, but as I said weeks, or even months, ago, at a time when the Democrat candidates were weak and totally beatable, why did they have to foist the worst possible candidate on us?
The opposition has set the narrative. Gold Star parents can attack a candidate and he/she cannot defend himself.
In the case of Pat Smith, (who is not exactly a Gold Star mother, but its near equivalent) Hillary dissed her on the Chris Wallace show and the MSM attacked her unmercifully.
Trump is not allowed to defend himself as Hillary has done. That is the narrative and conventional wisdom as set forth by the MSM and progressives. Admittedly his defense was clumsy and easily criticized and spun.
There are two issues involved. The right for grieving parents of a son who gave his life in service to the country – in this case the Kahns and both Pat Smith and Charles Woods. All of these grieving parents deserve to be respected.
The second issue is that when they enter the political arena and use the memory of their children as a political talking point, that changes the game. The progressives fired back. “Pat Smith should be beaten to death” and other aggressive statements. What an ugly attack. The reaction from the MSM – crickets. The second anyone criticizes the Kahns, it creates a firestorm. We’re used to the MSM double standard, it has been there since the days of Ronald Reagan or even before. What’s so disgusting to me is the weakness of GOP office holders and candidates who are so quick to accept the double standard because they fear the MSM.
Trump is not a smooth, double-talking politician who knows how to use the right words to put down his opponents or to let surrogates do the job. It is his appeal to many, but also his cross to bear.
This campaign is like no other in modern times. It is not right versus left. Both unpopular candidates cannot attract voters from their normal constituencies. Hillary is not liked by the far left Bernie supporters and Trump is disliked by staunch conservatives. Whoever wins will probably not get over 50% of the vote. The Libertarian and Green Parties may play a bigger spoiler role than usual.
Outside events may well decide who gets elected. If terror attacks and economic stagnation continue, it favors Trump. If Obama and Hillary can keep the lid on and make it seem that the Obama policies are working, it favors Hillary. There is little calm reason within the electorate, they are driven mostly by emotion. Who can keep me safe and provide a decent economic future? These are questions raised by feelings of insecurity and they run deep these days.
The whole campaign fills me with a sense of disgust. Disgust that we have become so much like a banana republic. It also fills me with dread. A dread of how badly things can go if Hillary is elected and the unknowns of what might occur under a Trump administration. I want to blot it out and ignore it, but it is like watching a slow motion train wreck. I can’t take my eyes off of it.
J.J.:
Boy, do I identify with that last paragraph of yours.
However, Trump definitely could have figured out a way to defend himself without making himself look bad. It just isn’t his way, though. But he chose probably the worst way to try to do it. There were alternatives, however, to the defense he chose and no defense at all.
Neo:
“Hypocritical or no, it makes good political theater.”
It exemplifies that the Trump and Clinton campaigns use the same playbook of spin and sale without honor.
Neo:
“What’s more, the incident has offered the Democrats–Hillary Clinton, Obama, and members of Congress–a precious gift, a rare and golden opportunity to proclaim their fervent support of the military and Gold Star parents.”
This is the point that galls me most with this episode. Trump’s tack and embrace of Russian Left/alt-Right propaganda about the Iraq intervention have released the Democrats from the reckoning they deserve for their betrayal of American leadership of the free world that manifested with OIF and their callous waste of the essential sacrifices of American heroes like CPT Khan.
It’s obscene that the very people who soiled CPT Khan’s mission in Iraq and wasted his sacrifice in the OIF peace operations can exploit his gold-star parents for political gain. Trump enables that.
Eric:
Agreed. The bitter ironies abound.
But history is full of them.
The only thing that Trump could do that would surprise me is if he suddenly started acting like a reasonable man.
Another thing that really gets to me about this is that Trump missed a great chance to knock down the whole CAIR-type islamophobe BS. If he had said that it is the duty of the president to protect all Americans and that there are plenty of people out there who would kill them too, either because they decided to shoot up a restaurant or because they decided to target them as infidels. He could have said that Muslims come and came to the US for reasons–perhaps it was to escape tyrannical regimes in their home countries or to try to build a better life under our rule of law government. The worst thing these people can do is fall into the victim way of thinking that harms and holds back so many American citizens.
We cannot let into this country hundreds or thousands of people who want to kill Americans. We cannot let in people who will radicalize young men who may go going through quite normal rebellious phases. We don’t know yet exactly how to identify all these people, but if we work together we can certainly learn to do a better job.
Joe Scarborough just wants to generate controversy. And ratings.
JJ:
“The opposition has set the narrative. Gold Star parents can attack a candidate and he/she cannot defend himself.”
I disagree. As Neo said, there were defenses available to Trump.
In fact, were Trump and the GOP different than they are, they could have turned the episode around to deploy the focus and energy the Democrats invested in the Khans’ story to reframe the political discourse on the Iraq intervention and on that re-laid foundation, critically spotlight Clinton’s damning record of sacrificing the vital national security mission with Iraq for her self-interest.
See the prescription in my comments to AMartel under Neo’s previous post:
http://neoneocon.com/2016/08/01/trump-and-the-gold-star-khans/#comment-1488787
http://neoneocon.com/2016/08/01/trump-and-the-gold-star-khans/#comment-1490625
The GOP and Trump’s problem in countering Khan’s surrogate attack is not chiefly the “MSM double standard” nor “Gold Star parents can attack a candidate and he/she cannot defend himself”, but rather the GOP and Trump are prevented from the proper remedy by their own respective choices to run away from re-litigating the demonstrably false narrative of OIF for the public and adopting Russian Left/alt-Right propaganda of OIF.
The harm from the GOP’s activism-aversion induced failure to set the record straight on the why of OIF at the premise level of the political discourse continues to redound and compound in myriad ways.
J.J. has the right of it.
The GOP leadership could do a much better job. They disavowed Trump’s clumsiness. But failed to point out the political overtones and hypocrisy of Khan’s political attack on Trump at the DNC convention. They’ve failed to point out the media’s hypocrisy in it’s double standard of democrat ‘Gold-Standard’ parents VS republican ‘gold-standard’ parents…
They could take issue with Khan’s assertion that, “terrorism has nothing to do with Islam!”
Instead, the entire GOP leadership condemned Trump and is utterly silent on the democrat machinations.
No other conclusion is more probable; they favor Hillary Clinton for President.
Geoffrey Britain:
Lots of other conclusions are consistent with the same facts.
Just because you see it one particular way doesn’t make it so, nor does it make that the most probable conclusion. And stating it’s the most probable conclusion is not the least bit persuasive, either.
My conclusions are quite different, and they make perfect sense and are at least as probable and in my opinion even more probable: the Republican members of Congress are trying to save their own skins and keep from going down with what they see as the quickly-sinking Trump ship, plus they also think what Trump did was both stupid and wrong in the human sense. There are plenty of reasons to condemn Trump without wanting Hillary to win.
For example, I condemn Trump and I must definitely do not want Hillary to win or favor her as president, I can assure you of that.
By the way, have you seen every statement of every member of the GOP on this? I doubt it. So you probably don’t know what they all said, and whether some of them may have mentioned the idea that terrorism does indeed have something to do with Islam. But I (for example) think terrorism most definitely has something to do with Islam and have written many times to that effect, and yet did not mention it once again in connection with Trump and Kahn because it was not the major issue in the incident. The omission of the question of Islam’s relationship to terrorism is not the sole or even major issue here, because Trump chose not to make it the sole or major issue—he chose to attack on other much more controversial grounds. If he had attacked on that one issue I would have supported him, and I think most of the GOP would have done so as well. Plenty of GOP members have been fairly strong on that issue (see, just as one of many many examples, this).
neo,
I pointed to the GOP leadership, which for the public, means Ryan, McConnell, McCain, etc.
All of them made short statements disavowing Trump’s comments and in support of the Khans. Nothing more. That silence in the face of the obvious politicizing of the Khan’s loss is highly revealing.
Of course their motivation is first personal protection and secondarily the welfare of the party. ‘Welfare of the party’ being continuance of the status quo.
I base my assertion that the GOPe leadership prefers Hillary’s election to Trump’s upon their behavior, which has varied from at best tepid support to effectively siding with the dems, as is the case in this latest imbroglio.
As I have made explicit, I am in agreement with your POV both as to how badly Trump has responded and as to his psychological motivations. But that is separate from the GOP leadership’s lack of support for their party’s nominee.
I have yet to see any evidence that the GOPe is doing anything to assist Trump. So if he wins, it will be despite their utter lack of support. I refuse to pretend otherwise absent evidence that disproves that perception.
PS.
I have yet to see any of the elected party leadership state that ISLAM itself is the source of Islamic ‘radicalism’. Yet to see any of the GOP leadership state that Islamic terrorism and Islam itself are inherently connected.
I’d bet that they all know that, they simply refuse to publicly say it because they assume it to be politically damaging. And their fear of personal political repercussions is placing this country in the gravest of dangers. They are literally placing this nation’s survival at risk to protect their careers. And, that exact same dynamic also applies to their impotence in fighting the Left.
Neo:
“somewhat surprised about this latest behavior of Trump’s”
Count me as “somewhat surprised” – maybe – because I view Trump as foremost a salesman.
However, I also suspect and toeing believe that at least in broad strokes, Trump is selling – as Yancey Ward commented under your previous post – just principally to different audiences with different messaging his team assesses and strategizes to be key for his campaign.
It’s an activist game, which is groundbreaking for the GOP in the current era and difficult for activism-averse conservatives to gauge.
What would one do if one’s advisors said: “We have analyzed exactly how the Democrats beat Romney. He had to choose to take on the media (over Benghazi) or let it go. He chose to let it go.” We never got to see how the media would have crucified him (although we get a sample of it by how Trump has been treated by them). So Trump sees the issue clearly. He must be able to withstand the media crucifixion until the excesses of the media become obvious to all (and thus remove their power) in order to beat them plus Hillary. How will the media characterize his challenge? They will level every weapon at their command. Only a madman would take them on. Or someone who is committed to not let them beat him. Unfortunately, there is no middle ground if one wishes to beat them. They only had to risk exposure by taking it up to level seven with Romney. Trump has no choice but to take them to level 10 so that their bias will become so obvious they lose their power to elect a Democrat. The media thinks that they can elect even a Hillary Clinton. Trump has no choice – he must go all out to have a chance to expose the media. Some people still read and believe the NYT.
As for the train wreck analogy, that is how I have felt for the last eight years. And now I’m done. The train wrecked and is now smoldering rubble. I have no interest in this sad farce of an election. As Jay Cost at TWS said, “I’m all out of effs to give”. It is actually somewhat liberating to not watch Fox or listen to the radio. What ever happens will happen, it is out of our control. The Republican party deserves Trump and I doubt they will be too sad to be in the minority. Obama’s third term will solidly cement gov’t control over much of our lives for eternity. The Republican party is perfectly fine with that, if they weren’t they would not have tried to crush the tea party. If you need or think you want any firearms or ammo – stock up now.
notherbob2,
There are clever, hard hitting ways of goading the msm and hrc. OTOH, there are stupid, shoot yourself in the foot ways of gaining the attention of the msm. Trump chose the latter. Its his nature to spout off without any consideration of how he will be perceived. Djt has a deep seated need to bully and abuse. He believes (not thinks) this works on everyone. While it may work on his in crowd it leaves billions thinking he is a boisterous buffoon.
The founders warned us about this in Article XII of the Constitution. 😉
“Anyone who doesn’t see this incident as completely typical and completely in the mold of Trump’s decades-long previous behavior–be that observer Joe Scarborough, Rush Limbaugh, or anyone else–hasn’t been paying attention” – Neo
They were so enamored with his “billionaireness” and celebrity (and all that brings with it by association) that anything that runs counter to their image of him is easily dismissed.
After all, most of these people we are referring to didn’t have to live with, nor work closely with trump – their relationship was casual and fun.
Neo: “the Republican members of Congress are trying to save their own skins and keep from going down with what they see as the quickly-sinking Trump ship, plus they also think what Trump did was both stupid and wrong in the human sense.”
I agree that they are desperately trying to save themselves from the MSM because they are afraid of the MSM. So afraid they are unwilling to point out the double standard or take it on or defend Trump.
Here’s an example of what the MSM did to Pat Smith, a mother grieving over the death of her son, who died in service to the State Department. A death akin to a military death in combat.
“MSNBC said her “gross accusation” against Clinton “ruined” the night. A GQ writer tweeted: “I don’t care how many children Pat Smith lost I would like to beat her to death.” He has since deleted the tweet. Still others, like Salon and the Guardian, claimed the GOP was “exploiting” her pain to score points.”
Hillary Clinton called Pat Smith a liar on the Chris Wallace show on Sunday. Did Donald Trump call Kizr Khan a liar? Has any MSM outlet attacked Kizr Khan? The double standard is just breathtaking and our weak tea GOP politicians are too afraid of the MSM to point that out.
“…..as Jim Geraghty at National Review pointed out, this accusation of exploitation (and the harsh words directed at Smith) only come from the media when Republicans are involved. Geraghty mentioned how Democrats and the media weren’t lodging similar claims when Cindy Sheehan traveled to President George W. Bush’s home in Texas to protest the war, nor when Mitt Romney was blamed for causing cancer.
These attacks also don’t come from the Left or the media when the grieving parents are calling for gun control or for cops to be arrested (things media often endorse).”
I agree that Trump is inept at political maneuvering, but he is not morally or ethically wrong to disagree with Kizr Khan on immigration policies. It is the nature of politics. Why can Hillary call Pat Smith a liar and Trump cannot disagree with Khan? They’re not even equivalent disagreements, yet Trump is crucified and Hillary gets a complete pass. It is one of the big factors that is driving this country farther and farther left.
Breitbart is reporting that Khan has almost endless ties to the Clinton machine going back decades.
Khan’s money spinner is getting VERY wealthy Muslims into the USA — for a price.
All of this activity was apparent right off his own Web page.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/01/just-joking-media-apoplectic-khizr-khan-attack-donald-trump-goes-flames/
Here is his — now deleted — Web page.
Note “EB-5” immigration… which is a SCANDAL.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160802121411/http://www.kmkhanlaw.com/
EB-5 de facto means that any Muslim can buy his way into the USA… if he’s got state sponsorship — like the IRGC al Quds force.
Khan is a full on ISLAMIST.
He engages in Lawfare… immigration, style.
He’s also plugged into the Saudi regime — same as Huma Abedin and Hillary Rodam, her lover.
Shariah demands death for any Arab Muslim woman that marries a non-Arab, let alone a non-Muslim.
There is only one possible exemption for this stricture: jihad.
Huma Abedin Weiner(D) DID in fact, get permission from her imam before she hooked up with Anthony, her beard.
&&&&&&
The exact same sequence occurred with Mrs. Samah Alrayyes Norquist.(R)
She’s on jihad — and is the point gal that conned G.W. Bush that he needed a confab with CAIR reps — and that, “Islam is a religion of peace.” She’s a full-on Islamist, too. She is such a devout Muslim that she would not bear Grover any children — as a matter of religious principle, of course.
Huma’s connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamist organs run off in EVERY direction.
Even as she’s Hillary’s lover — going back eighteen-years — at least. It’s a rare day when they are not in each other’s company. They are the Siamese twins of the jet-set.
ONLY her service in the global jihad keeps her in good stead — alive — not a target for assassination.
My liberal friends, including the subset of libtards among them, have actually laughed at my discomfort.
As Cornhead correctly observed in another thread here at neoneocon.com,
I have little hope, alas, that those emails will see the light of day, and even if they do, I expect that at least 90% of Dems will remain in full-throated support of Hillary. Heck, my libtard friends deny that Hillary ever lied about Benghazi and they are completely unaware of any scent of corruption involving the Clinton Foundation.
There are 57 days from now until the first debate. If, STARTING RIGHT NOW, Trump can successfully appear as a rational adult, speaking in full paragraphs anticipating potential criticisms (remember Palin was criticized for telling Tea Party folks to party like its 1773 – if only she included the reference to the Sons of Liberty for the intentionally dumb media), and actually show the type empathy that most Americans reflexly express, then maybe Republicans might have a chance.
Geoffrey Britain:
I already gave you a link in which Paul Ryan criticizes Obama for leaving the term “radical Islam” out of documents on Orlando. What do you suppose that’s about, if not the connection between Islam and terrorism? Here’s another statement by Ryan.
Perhaps you want some statement that is exactly geared to your specifications. Perhaps you want these politicians to condemn Islam as a whole in its entirety, but of course that’s not going to happen, nor should it. But they have definitely put the “Islam” in terrorism, and I don’t see much difference from what they’ve said and what Trump has said, the only difference being his ban on Muslims—but that was not because he thought all Muslims were terrorists, just because he didn’t think they could be screened properly.
Here’s a statement by Rubio when he was still a candidate. Cruz held a special hearing on Islamic terrorism, and the focus of the hearing was efforts by the White House to “purge references to ‘Islamic terrorism’ and radicalism from public documents,” as well as the dire consequences of that purge. These were Senate hearing spearheaded by Republicans and held only about a month ago. Have you forgotten them? Or perhaps they don’t meet your exact specifications?
J.J.:
They may indeed be afraid of the MSM, but that’s not the main reason they don’t defend Trump on this. As I said, “the Republican members of Congress are trying to save their own skins and keep from going down with what they see as the quickly-sinking Trump ship, plus they also think what Trump did was both stupid and wrong in the human sense.”
They want to distance themselves from actions of Trump’s that are toxic.
Also, are you sure no one has pointed out that double standard? I don’t think there’s any way to defend what Trump did, but in an earlier post I most definitely pointed out the double standard on this topic. I have no idea whether any Republicans have also pointed it out. Have you done a search? I often find that people claim that the GOP hasn’t done something or other that some of them have in fact done.
It’s certainly been pointed out by news outlets. I have no idea whether some Republicans have mentioned it, too. But I don’t think the Kahns would have been a big deal had Trump not responded the way he did and given his enemies perfect ammunition against him.
Ira:
Strangely enough, many of my liberal friends have been sympathetic to my pain. Perhaps they feel they can afford to be magnanimous. But since some of them are very very afraid that Trump might win, I think they sympathize because they actually feel my pain, as Bill Clinton would say.
blert:
Even if true, those things are totally irrelevant to what Trump did. He didn’t attack Kahn on those grounds. Kahn could be the secret head of al Qaeda itself and it wouldn’t matter to what Trump said, especially including that horse manure about his own sacrifices. That is just stupid garbage on the face of it. Plus, criticizing the mother for not speaking was absurd and another completely unforced error.
If he had said that despite their enormous sacrifice and their son’s heroism, they have a bias based on Kahn’s webpage and connections, then that would be a different kettle of fish. But that’s not what Trump said, and it’s therefore irrelevant to the current flap over what Trump said.
Most people do not read Breitbart and, true or not (and I for one don’t trust Breitbart as a site about anything Trump-related), those allegations will not get out to most people.
All the signs about Trump were there, just like they were about Obama. People believe what they want to, no matter how absurd.
CG – I prefer Clinton over Trump, for the sake of both the party and the country. So if the GOP leaders feel the same way, I can’t fault them.
GB – I don’t know why I typed CG, but that last comment of mine was a response to you.
Trump was right to ignore some traditional advice.
But not all. Pick your fights carefully is one he would do well to follow late in the campaign.
Nick,
I’m not being facetious, tell us why you prefer a Lenin over a Caesar.
neo,
Can one talk comprehensively about Nazism without mentioning Hitler? So too with “Islamic radicalism” or “radical Islam” or “jihadist terrorists”. Those terms have at best limited utility, if Islam itself is not clearly identified as their source. An enemy cannot be defeated, if identifying it is forbidden or denied.
Yes, Rubio, Ryan and Cruz have hit the administration on their avoidance of those terms. Which would have lasting value, if they were willing to get to the heart of terrorism. But since they apparently are unwilling to do so, it leaves the Left able to categorize it, as a minor argument over semantics.
Geoffrey Britain:
As I thought, you have specifications for exactly what you want people to say, and no one (including Trump) has said it.
Maybe it’s because your demands are unreasonable.
“Islamic terrorism” has to do with Islam. It is an extreme form of Islam that not all Muslims ascribe to by any means. But some do, and many support it, and yes, it has a lot to do with the Koran and can be justified by things in it. I think that was very clear from what those GOP candidates said, and the Cruz hearings, and I require nothing more of them on that score.
Trump just got a YUGE endorsement. Drudge is reporting that French Pres. Holland says that Trump makes him sick.
Holland currently enjoys a 90% disapproval rating.
Geoffrey Britain:
That’s like Robert Reich’s endorsement of Ted Cruz last January.
GB,
You are grinding metal ala Ripley in Aliens. Ease off. You have made your argument on djt versus hrc. We get it. Some of us grudgingly admit that in very special circumstances we will vote for the donald. But it remains “a choice of cancer or polio”. Both can be fatal.
Nick:
Watch out for Caesar-Lite he’s only half the tyrant of Madame Mao.
It is not a ‘specification’ to maintain that you cannot speak of Nazism without mentioning Hitler.
Islamic radicalism is NOT an “interpretation” of Islam. It is NOT an extreme form of Islam.
Radical Islam is simply strict obediance to Allah’s specific imperatives and Allah’s specific dictates. That is why it has kept cropping up for 1400 years and that is why it will never permanently go away because it comprises Islam’s ‘roots’.
The only way to ‘interpret’ otherwise is to implicitly disobey the obligations Allah has commanded of all Muslims.
That the majority of Muslims fail to obey those commands no more changes them, than does breaking one of the Ten Commandments change that command.
Nor does a failure to recognize that our representatives are burying their head in the sand, lessen their failure in the least. But it does lessen the pressure that they pull their heads out of where the sun don’t shine.
The practical result of that failure is 9/11, the San Bernardino attack, the Pulse Nightclub attack and the many more attacks that time will bring us.
I am only
demandinginsisting upon speaking the blunt truth because ultimately, it is the least harmful path forward and our children’s children deserve no less.parker,
OK, thanks for the constructive advise.
neo,
Outstanding, I’d missed that post.
In an alternate universe, Ted Cruz was elected Pres. and the GOP supported him. Would that I lived in that universe.
Geoffrey Britain:
Would that we lived in that universe.
I have been sad about it ever since I saw the writing on the wall, which was probably some time back in March.
I saw that it might happen (Trump’s nomination despite his terrible failings as a candidate and as a human being) even back when I wrote this one, though, which was on August 8. About a year ago, when Trump had only been in the race a little while. I get to say “I saw who and what he was already back then, and was calling the right on why they didn’t support Cruz.” But what good does that do me?
I think Trump’s nomination is a tragedy. And that tragedy is playing out right now. I hope I am wrong though. I really really do.
Thank you Parker for the polite response. Although I studied Constitutional Law under [blatant name drop] [Supreme Court Judge] Professor Anthony Kennedy [grade B] I don’t recall your reference. ConLaw references will not determine this election.
Folks who try to play the game by the rules you suggest cannot stand up to today’s media. Eventually the advisors are boxed in and all of the candidate’s verbal posturing falls to a Big Lie propagated by the media just before the election and you are exonerated later when it doesn’t matter. Say, Romney and Russia for example. Study why General George Patton (another “terrible person”) was our best combat leader in WWII. The Panzer tanks Patton beat were far better than the tanks Patton led. The media can be wrong a hundred times if they can credibly sell the big lie at the right time. Trump must play in their arena. Perhaps his strategy will work. We know that yours won’t.
Trump is no Patton. Patton didn’t do to well at Metz, but he eventually learned, and beat them anyway.
Patton was no Eisenhower, and Trump is not the caliber of either.
Trump not only is no Patton, he never served in the military, and likened going to a military high school to serving in the military, and compared dealing with the possibility of STDs from all the women he slept with as being like fighting in Vietnam.
It’s just a guess, but I don’t think Patton the warrior would have been impressed.
Nor was Patton the sort of person to have become a good president.
Neo:
I refrained from going into Trump’s conduct during the Vietnam War, and you are correct about Patton and the Presidency; even McArthur didn’t pass that muster.
But here is another article that some may disregard out of hand regarding Islam and national security, after the quote
“While Giuliani was almost uncontrollably waving his arms and screaming into the microphone last night, I saw a bloodlust in the eyes of the delegates. Each and every time he said the word “Muslim” the eyes of these largely white and middle-aged delegates burned a little hotter, their cheers taking on a primeval quality.”
http://warontherocks.com/2016/07/the-real-reasons-the-gop-convention-in-cleveland-should-unsettle-you/
My point was that Patton was an example of someone who used unorthodox methods (which were roundly criticized by orthodox generals at the time) to defeat an enemy who had the obvious advantage. Guess I didn’t make a clear argument. If I follow your reasoning, if Trump is like Patton he is a loser and besides, he isn’t like Patton and that makes him a loser too. The question is: is he like Hillary?
notherbob2,
Wow, not sure which of the ‘points’ you made make it easy to offer a sussinct response, So, I will let it flyby as I have no desire to insult, and see logical discourse as impossible.
notherbob2:
I guess you didn’t follow my argument, because nowhere did I say Patton was a loser. He was an excellent general, from my understanding of what people said about him (even those who didn’t like him).
He would not have been elected president, but that didn’t make him a loser, it made him unsuited for the electoral politics and for the job itself.
The only ways in which Trump is like Patton are his non-PC speech and his bluster.
“It’s just a guess, but I don’t think Patton the warrior would have been impressed. “ – Neo
We have modern day warrior leaders who are, indeed, not impressed. One example…
NYC Police Chief Bill Bratton (the scion of the left /jk) was on CBS this morning and commented that he has no idea why folks are taken in by trump, given how unprepared he seems to be for the job, and the idea of trump as president scares him (to paraphrase).
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/nypd-chief-bill-bratton-on-why-donald-trump-scares-him-resignation/
I think Trump’s nomination is a tragedy. And that tragedy is playing out right now. I hope I am wrong though. I really really do.
It is what America deserves, as a nation once graced by God’s protection.
Civilizations rise and fall. Not even Roman Emperors could delay the inevitable forever, no matter how talented or ruthless they were.
I see neo has been fighting the good fight here for the 2016 election. I appreciate the room she allows for the NeverTrump position though she has reached a different conclusion for herself.
My problem with the Binary Choice argument is that is, well, too binary. Everything is flattened out into either defeating Hillary or not. Thus the act of not voting for Trump becomes by omission enabling Hillary. Nothing else matters. Hillary becomes the absolute evil who must be stopped no matter what the cost.
How far does the argument go? If I omit sending money to Trump, am I therefore enabling Hillary? Are there any bounds to how much money I am obliged to donate? Am I required to unconditionally support Trump in all my blog comments until November because Hillary/Binary Choice?
I get the impression today’s Binary Trumpers could argue just as easily that I must vote for Charles Manson, if he had somehow been pardoned and become a yuge and wealthy reality TV star, then used that as a platform to run successfully in the 2016 primaries.
Are there any limits to how defective and degraded Hillary’s opponent would have to be — as long as one believed he would select better SC Justices — before the Binary Choice argument would no longer apply?
@huxley – well said.
It is a profound loss to actively make a really bad choice in pursuit of stopping another really bad choice.
If folks are willing to compromise themselves now – when we still have free will and are not at the point of a gun – where is the end?
That “logic” spirals upon itself to oblivion.
People are giving short shrift of the downside of that choice, and are locking themselves into that choice – nobody else is – when another exists.
They are Morton’s Forking themselves, looking every bit like Buridan’s A$$.
Wars don’t have binary conclusions, unless you win or lose already.
If folks are willing to compromise themselves now — when we still have free will and are not at the point of a gun — where is the end?
The Republic is already ended, people should give their condolences and pray for the loss already. It is the inability to accept that loss, that makes the parting in this season and the next, so difficult.
People, like the Tea Party, were attempting to “reform” that which the Left has already killed. Unless they can resurrect the dead or bring virtue back to humans in humanity, it is an impossible divine miracle of a task.
As for the Alt Right, they are much like Democrats who voted Andrew Jackson. They lack Jackson’s virtues, but have all of his vices. The 1830+ Southern Baptists and slave lord supporters, eventually fell into evil and iniquity, away from the light of Christianity 1st AD. They are very good at conquering territory and submitting the weak under a “Christian nation”, but as for suffering abuse without blood letting, Southerners weren’t exactly Christ like when they started CW1 and paid for the mob lynching of abolitionist speakers. The ones that were, tended to be like Lee and various other people the Southern slave barons made outcasts later on. Lee didn’t go along with the slave lords, due to differences on slavery of humans. But the slave lords, instead of accepting criticism and advice on reforming their system, they made it out Them and Us, eventually leading to a war.
The Left may be responsible for the war of good and evil on this continent. But the Alt Right will be responsible for taking arms against evil, and potentially becoming the very evil they fight, just in a different stripe.
Kahn does not get a free pass. His son died 12 years ago and had nothing to do with Trump. His son was killed by Islamists enemies of ours and Trump is trying to keep them out off this country. Kahn is a shill for the Democrats who are selective in their support of the Military and Gold Star families. He is the one who has not read the Constitution! I am sorry so many people can’t see the truth. Trump did not attack his son. He responded to unfair and false criticism. The PC snowflakes have gone off the rail.
David:
No one here is suggesting a “free pass” for Kahn. I made that crystal clear here.
Nor is anyone here saying Trump “attacked” Kahn’s son.
And I explained how deficient Trump is in understanding the Constitution, here (including in the comments section to that post).
“I’m not being facetious, tell us why you prefer a Lenin over a Caesar.”
GB, sorry for not replying sooner. Clinton and Trump aren’t Lenin or Caesar; they’re just two awful people who shouldn’t be president. My vote is almost entirely meaningless, but whatever value it has, it’s going to Gary Johnson (who, weirdly enough, is a big-government libertarian). That being said, here are three unrelated reasons I would support Clinton over Trump:
1) I’m an old-school three-legged conservative. I think that Trump would be slightly better than Clinton on social issues, about the same on fiscal issues, and substantially worse of matters of foreign policy – specifically on trade and terrorism. Yeah, the Benghazi lady. I know. He’d be worse.
2) The country can survive a lousy president, but it can’t survive the disappearance of its conservative party without real consequences. If Trump wins, the GOP is over as a conservative party. If November sees Trump lose by +200 EV’s, as I suspect, the Republican Party is going to snap back to normal so fast we’ll need air bags.
3) All other things being equal, a terrible predictable president is better than a terrible erratic president.
If November sees Trump lose by +200 EV’s, as I suspect, the Republican Party is going to snap back to normal so fast we’ll need air bags.
No, the GOP E has already been pretty much demolished. They still have money and funding, but the people’s loyalty and obedience to their Absolute Moral authority, has eroded. Which will erode more, if Trum loses.
I wasn’t talking about the GOP “e”. I was talking about the GOP as the conservative party.
“If November sees Trump lose by +200 EV’s, as I suspect, the Republican Party is going to snap back to normal so fast we’ll need air bags.” – Nick
Possibly. Not sure that kind of repudiation is enough.
Many in the GOP endorsed trump, that alone is enough to brand the GOP for a long, long time.
Those officials (and possibly thought leaders, pundits, etc.) have to go too – or be marginalized.
Don’t see that happening now that there is clearly a contingent who had a taste of power and who don’t abide by conservative principles. A “marketplace” for those “ideas” has been born, and some will take advantage of that, just as they have with backing trump.
My Grand Theory About Populism and Elitism (valid through 2015):
No party can be completely elitist, or it would get 2% of the vote. The Republican Party is populist on social policy (Christian roots) and elitist on economic policy (low taxes). The Democratic Party is populist on economic policy (benefits) and elitist on social policy (non-traditionalist). This situation creates several different tensions. Neither party has created a home for national populism, which in terms of policy is English-only, anti-immigration, protectionist, and isolationist.
Does my grand theory still hold? It’s interesting that Trump’s nationalism hasn’t really emphasized English-only, which I always expected to be a key plank in this other type of populism. That type of populism has been historically perceived as white, working class, and unionized.
More thoughts later.