“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” Mr. Trump said, as the crowd began to boo. He quickly added: “Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”
The Left, of course, is screaming bloody murder that with that statement, Mr. Trump was inciting violence. Listening to the radio, I heard several people for whom this was conclusive evidence that he was suggesting, in code, that someone take Cankles out. For them, there was no possible way that the remark could be construed as referring to the NRA's noted powerful lobby in Washington.
Nope, the Donald was putting a hit out on Cankles.
As a somewhat disinterested viewer, I don't believe that even if Cankles got into the White House (again) she'd be able to curtail the rights of gunowners, like me. At best, Congress may make it more difficult to get guns, or make the vetting process more expansive which, given the mass shootings we've experienced over the last ten years, isn't a bad thing provided that the thrust of the new regulations is at mental health. I've commented on the quagmire that that would be, so I won't go into that issue any further. But I don't think that Cankles or Congress would ever be able to require the surrender of lawfully obtained firearms.
Equally, I don't believe that Mr. Trump was advocating violence. If anything, he might have been suggesting that within the community of supporters of the Second Amendment, there might be a wingnut who would take a shot at her. It is equally plausible, however, that he was referring to the NRA's formidable lobbying group, which even the Left fears and about which it complains ad nauseum.
Mr. Trump, for his part, has tried to put distance between himself and the Left's interpretation of his comment. It's not like we'll ever know for sure, so arguing about it is really quite senseless. At best, it was a risky and possibly dangerous comment to make. Typically, Mr. Trump's off-the-cuff comments are the ones that get him in the most trouble.
What's interesting, though, is the hue and cry coming from the Cankles camp. It's to be expected, of course, that she would try to take advantage of her opponent's misstep. What's more perplexing, however, is that Cankles herself walked down a very similar path eight years ago.
My wife Karen -- the savant of all things political -- reminded me of a comment Cankles made during the 2008 primaries when asked whether she was going to end her campaign in the face of Mr. Obama's obvious impending victory.
From the New York Times article:
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton defended staying in the Democratic nominating contest on Friday by pointing out that her husband had not wrapped up the nomination until June 1992, adding, “We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”
Here, again, was another off-the-cuff comment that got someone in trouble. She was taken to task a little, from what I can tell, although there was this odd part from Bobby Kennedy's namesake:
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, defended her remarks in a telephone interview on Friday evening.
“I’ve heard her make that argument before,” Mr. Kennedy said, speaking on his cellphone as he drove to the family compound in Hyannis Port, Mass. “It sounds like she was invoking a familiar historical circumstance in support of her argument for continuing her campaign.”
Now, I suppose that party affiliation is stronger than blood, at least in the Democratic Party, but if I were the son, I wouldn't have been so gracious. Still, like Mr. Trump's comment, there is room for interpretation of Cankles' comment. And that's why I would think that someone who blazed the very trail down which her opponent trod yesterday would know better than to utter this:
"Words matter, my friends, and if you are running to be president or you are president of the United States, words can have tremendous consequences," Clinton said at an event in Iowa this afternoon.
"Yesterday we witnessed the latest in a long line of casual comments from Donald Trump that crossed the line," she said.
Perhaps. But didn't she cross the line at least as badly in 2008, especially when referring to a contest involving the first viable black candidate?
Again, I'm not defending Mr. Trump's rhetoric. I'd hoped he'd have tightened up his speaking by now, but he hasn't. Instead, it's just safer to keep the seat belt on, because it's going to be a bumpy ride until the end of the year.
But Cankles is true to form: Flip flop as needed, disavow doing anything wrong and point the finger at someone for doing something similar to what she's done.
The more things change, the more Cankles stays the same.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
No comments:
Post a Comment