In a state that is home to the world’s largest naval base and one of the nation’s largest veteran populations, military voters and their families hold sway in Virginia politics. Trump’s unusual foray into a fight with a grieving military family prompted repudiation from military groups. Both the Veterans of Foreign Wars and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called out Trump on Monday.
But Trump’s Virginia campaign chairman, Corey A. Stewart, who is also seeking the GOP gubernatorial nomination, said Trump’s words were misconstrued by Democrats exploiting the family for political gain.
“The Democrats have really, in a very disgraceful way, tried to put this poor grieving family in the middle of a nasty political situation,” said Stewart, chairman of the Prince William Board of County Supervisors.Like Gillespie, another Virginia GOP gubernatorial candidate, U.S. Rep. Rob Wittman, praised Khan but did not directly criticize Trump in response to questions from The Washington Post.
“Our military men and women and their families answer a calling that is higher than politics, and we must honor that by condemning attempts to politicize and especially to criticize sacrifices military families make,” Wittman said in a statement.
At some point, Stewart, Gillespie and Wittman are going to have to find their respective moral compasses and simply denounce Donald Trump’s behavior toward the Khan family.
No Corey, no one misconstrued anything. We all heard what he said with our own two ears. When criticized, Trump failed to take the opportunity to walk back his hatefulness. Instead, he doubled down and made things worse.
Don’t blame Democrats. That just sounds stupid. Democrats and Republicans alike find Trump’s behavior simply unacceptable under any circumstances.
I call on all Virginia Republicans to denounce this narcissistic megalomaniac and insist that he start behaving like a civilized adult rather than someone totally lacking adult social skills. Responsible leaders think before they speak. If they insult someone, they fix it. Trump is unwilling to assume responsibility for his boorish behavior.
You will be held accountable. This issue will not go away.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
—Edmund Burke
I was going to write a detailed comment, but this op/ed summed it up best: shame on both parties for engaging in “bloody shirt” politics.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/errol-louis-khizr-khan-risk-bloody-shirt-politics-article-1.2734577
I don’t necessarily disagree with anything that was said in the opinion piece. I think the striking difference is, the Khans were addressing the open hostility towards Muslims. Trump had a chance to redeem himself and he did not.
I suppose it all boils down to what people find acceptable and what they don’t. That and making fun of the handicapped man just went off the charts in my world and Trump anything any of his opponents, Dem or Republican might have done.
As I have said, if Donald Trump were pro reproductive rights and no other candidate was, I would vote for the other candidate. That is just how much he offends me and how dangerous I feel he is.
I left off, if I were in charge, I probably would not ask gold star parents to get involved in politics but….there might be exceptions. It seems to be the standard.
Throw in the trash that was said about John McCain and I think most people get the big picture. That was another unforgivable Trumpism. I might not like John McCain’s politics but I think he is an honorable man and a war hero. (unlike Trump)
@MoonHowler
That’s the risk of bloody-shirt politics. Let’s not forget the some of the delegates booed and heckled Khan as well, expressing their opposition to war and the military.
We’ve really become a boorish society. Our politics are just a reflection of that. Calling out one party, and not the other for similarly boorish behavior, doesn’t do anything to address the issue.
I mean, when I look at some of the things what went on at that convention, the booing of the invocation, the booing of Khan at the mention of his son, the booing of the Dallas Sheriff for a moment of silence for assassinated officers, burning flags (although the accidental near self-immolation of a couple of the protesters was interesting), etc. etc. really challenges any sense of commonality I might have with some of my “fellow Americans”… and then I realize that this is what whomever is leading these movements intends. Be it some earthly or supernatural power (depending on your views on good and evil) a divided society is a weak society.
I am not going to single out either party, or either campaign. Both are guilty of this boorish behavior…and we accept it. Worse, our outrage is colored by our ideology, as in “whose ox is being gored”.
I will single out Trump. No, it isn’t an entire party. Many decent Republicans have absolutely denounced his him and repudiated his behavior.
I also disliked the booing I heard during the invocation, at the Khans, and the Dallas Sheriff. They were pigs. I dislike a lot of things the Bernies from California did also.
I disliked the booing of the Gold Star mom at the Pence rally. But those are isolated acts of stupidity and boorish behavior.
Trump is the non-gift that just keeps giving and Corey, Gillespie and Wittmann need to distance themselves from him. He is toxic and his stench will never wash off of them.
There are degrees. I think we both dislike the same behaviors. They were rude, crude and socially unacceptable.
Then there is Trump who could possibly be the leader of the most powerful country in the world. He is NOT a leader by any stretch. I don’t even want to put any of the other rude, obnoxious behaviors in the mix. Right now, Trump is so out of bounds it really needs to be addressed, not compared to anyone or anything else.
I have been thinking about this issue. My heart goes out to the Khans and the Smiths. It is one thing to have Vets or their parents at a convention to express their support for a candidate. It is quite another for them to denounce the opposing candidate. At that point, they have crossed the line into partisan politics.
I would prefer that gold-star families be left alone. But when such a family chooses to air its grief publicly (bloody-shirt politics), to include denunciation of the other candidate, then the courtesy of not speaking against them goes away. A candidate should be able to defend himself (or herself), even if the political attack is from parents who have lost someone in battle.
Again, the difference is not that the Khans were criticizing Trump for anything to do directly with the war. They were criticizing his stance on Muslims.
Let’s say the Khans’ son had been killed rescuing people from the World Trade Center or other 9-11 related incidents. Would Trump still get carte blanche to eviscerate them? Where does it end? He also didn’t just attack “them.” He singled out the young man’s mother and basically ridiculed her and her religion.
You can’t make this go away. You really have to look at core values and basic human decency on this one.
What did Hillary say back to Mrs. Smith? I don’t think anything. Do you have to give up your first amendment rights if you are a vet, parents of a vet or a god star parent? I don’t think so. Who made that rule.
Kelly, what Trump did was totally repugnant. He needs to quickly grow some leadership skill and some think skin or bow out of the game.
All politics are partisan, aren’t they?
That’s important when you note that Clinton did not respond to Mrs. Smith. She showed leadership and restraint. Other families of Benghazi victims recalled events differently and everyone moved on.
On the other hand, Trump reacted badly toward the Khans. As Mr. Khan correctly observed, when you get into politics you have to expect to be criticized.
Why does Trump think he gets to criticize others but they can’t criticize him?
By the way, I have reports from my hometown that this has become an issue in the 5th Congressional District because it includes Charlottesville, where the Khans live. This family has sacrificed enough already.
@MoonHowler
@Robin Hood
Trump never expects or bows to criticism. When you are always right then you never have to apologize.
It appears that Mr. Khan’s lawfirm specialized in Muslim immigration. Not saying he doesn’t have a right to speak in disagreement with Trump’s proposal to limit immigration from nations with links to terror (as opposed to the press narrative that he wants to ban muslims), it would indicate that Mr. Khan’s might have a financial motivation in publicly opposing Trump.
I would say Mr. Khan’s specialization in immigration actually gives him more credibility in commenting on the situation. Do you ever give it a rest?
@Steve Thomas
@Watching
Perhaps it gives him credibility in your eyes. To me, it makes him disingenuous, and even more so, since he saw fit to delete his website detailing his specialization in this regard.
In my America, we are still free to hold and express differing opinions…so I won’t give it a rest.
Maybe he valued the privacy of his firm. There seems to be a lot of speculation. Not sure that people who represent others are automatically suspicious. Everyone has to earn a living.
There is little difference between never giving it a rest and living in a toxic emotional state where you think everyone and everybody is either self-centered and self-serving or out to screw you. In my experience most people are 80% good, 10% stupid and 10% scared. Disingenuous? Maybe he’s hoping all the exposure will get him more business and he did it for the money. Krooked Khan, you can coin the phrase. Or maybe, just maybe, the man lost a son who he loved very much and he is heartbroken and disgusted with people like Trump. Perhaps its time to give it a rest.
@Steve Thomas
@Watching
Watching…you could take your own advice, you know, since the threat of terror doesn’t fit into your 80/10/10 rule.
But believe it or not, I do agree with you on some level, but not for the same reasons.
I think we are past the point, here on this blog, where anything anyone argues will change another’s mind. Trump? I’ve said it before: He wasn’t my first choice. When it eventually came down to him or Cruz, I chose Cruz. Now that it is down to Trump or Hillary, I can’t vote for Hillary. I can vote against Hillary…and I will.
Trump is a crude, undisciplined candidate. Hillary is a cold, calculating candidate, and in my opinion, a corrupt candidate, who should be in the custody of a US Marshall detail, rather than under the protection of a Secret Service detail.
But I’m not going to change Moon’s or Scout’s or your mind. I can’t convince you that Hillary is an un-indicted criminal.
So I will take a break, and quit wasting my time, and leave you to your happy little 80/10/10 world.
Steve, there is a third party out there as well as a 4th party.
You will never convince me that a vote for Trump is anything but national suicide. Your standard for criminal seems to be tied to party. Splinters and planks?
@MoonHowler
Moon,
My standard for criminality is based on the law. I can read the law, look at what Hillary did, what she said, etc., and determine that she broke the law. Whether or not she had “intent” or engaged in “conspiracy” is another thing altogether. The law says you cannot conduct official business on a private server, and she cannot claim it was “incidental”. The law says that you cannot store or transmit classified material on a non-classified system, and she cannot claim that she didn’t know it was classified, as the law is clear in this regard too.
She broke these laws. The laws carry a criminal penalty. Both the FBI director and the IG concluded this much.
Has nothing to do with what party she belongs to. The law says what it says, and means what it means, right down to the definition of “is”…as her husband found out when he perjured himself.
But if you don’t think she’s a criminal, I suppose you would think it OK for a woman to date OJ Simpson and let Casey Anthony babysit her kids.
No, I don’t think she is criminal and I also don’t think it is ok to date OJ nor let Casey Anthony babysit nor let George Zimmerman on your neighborhood watch.
Insulting me won’t change my feelings. I am just extremely surprised that you would even consider Trump.
@Steve Thomas
Steve – After reading about,watching and listening to Trump, I believe that he is your un-indicted criminal. What is the over/under on how many days in office it will take for him to violate the Constitution? He states plainly that he will on many issues.
@Steve Thomas
Steve: I’m no Hillary fan. I will always blame the Republican Party for putting me in a position where I might have to vote for her, but I’ll try to avoid it. Right now, my choices are Libertarian or write-in. The flaw in the former is that they are naive of the point of recklessness about the international situation.
Trump is the most facially incompetent, attitudinally unqualified, information deprived candidate we have ever had from either party, at least in my lifetime (which dates from the late 1940s). For all Mrs. Clinton’s faults, he is orders of magnitude more likely to tank the country economically and militarily than she is (assuming he intends to do any of the things he says he will).
We have somebody here besides Trump who doesn’t know when or how to stop. Your prejudice is showing.
@Steve Thomas
@Steve Thomas
I’m not sure what Mr. Kahn does today, Steve, but the law firm he has been associated with for much of his time in this area is one of the largest in the world and it “specializes” in virtually everything. I think you ought to put away the notion that he is motivated by financial gain from “Muslim immigration.” That’s a nasty insinuation and is without basis in fact.
I think his motivation is clear enough from his presentation at the DNC. Mindless hostility toward any of our many religious or ethnic strands in this country undermines our security, debases the sacrifice of all of our relatives and ancestors who gave their lives for the country, and prevents us from achieving future greatness consistent with American ideals. It’s about that simple.
I hope I never get that jaded, suspicious, or attached to any political party that I defend someone like Trump by trashing others.
@MoonHowler
I hope the heads of our fellow countrymen remain attached to their bodies, and that they can continue to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, and our interests and security are held higher than those who feel they have a right to come here, just because they want to.
Call me paranoid, but first prove to me that attacks by Muslim extremists are not increasing, and Europe is not in a terrible state as a direct result of doing what the Democrat party wants to not only continue, but to accelerate, here.
You can’t. News for you: if it’s actually happening, it ain’t paranoia or conspiracy. Let’s slow this thing down, get a system in place, and let only those without ties to Jihad into the country.
Hillary won’t, and when the next San Bernadino or Chattanooga, Boston, or Ft. Hood happens, she can blow the dust off of her tired old script, and blame the NRA.
You can ignore reality. You cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. Yet, THIS is exactly what the Left would have us do…
@Steve Thomas
I thought this thread was about the Khans, their presentation at the DNC, and Mr. Trump’s crude, anti-American reaction to that. You seem to have wandered off, Steve.
@Scout
Nice lawyer trick, there Counselor. Khan took issue with Trump’s proposal to temporarily suspend visas and other loose immigration programs from certain countries, due to the lack of a mechanism to sufficiently vet those seeking to enter the country. He used his religion and his son’s death as a means to challenge by exception. You seem to have accepted his argument. I have not, and on the contrary, see the logic in Trumps proposal, for the reasons cited: If Khan can say “Look at us. We represent the ideal, I can just as easily argue that Tashfeen Malik, the Tsarnaev brothers, etc. proved to be insufficiently vetted threats. Heck, we can’t even sufficiently determine US-born threats, like Nadal Hassan and Omar Mateen, who were both on the FBI’s watchlist at one point and we are supposed to have faith in our ability to vet those originating from countries with compromised record-keeping systems?
Khan would have us do exactly that. He makes his living doing exactly that. I haven’t wandered. I’ve decided that the messenger is much less important than the message, but the motives are germane.
It’s time for me to take my leave from this discussion, for reasons previously stated.
Prove to me that more insane idiots aren’t blowing people away with legally purchased guns on a more regular basis. You can’t because it is happening.
This isn’t a binary problem. If someone is going to kill me or mine, I am not horribly concerned over whether it is a Christian terrorist or Muslim terrorist. Dead is dead.
I would say that the non-muslim kill rate in the past 10 years is way ahead of the muslim kill rate. I denounce both, just for the record.
@Watching
@Scout
“That’s a nasty insinuation and is without basis in fact.”
https://web.archive.org/web/20160802121411/http://www.kmkhanlaw.com/
Please note he advertises a specialty in E2 and EB5 Visas.
From the Washington Examiner:
The EB-5 program has been caught up in multiple scandals and critics are pressing Congress to kill it.”
The program has been described in congressional testimony as “US Citizenship for sale” or “pay to play”, and even a “ponzi scheme”
My assertion that his motivations for opposing Trump’s immigration proposal might be more mercenary, are only bolstered by the fact that he chose to delete his website. Fortunately, there was a cached version of it. Maybe he should have wiped it, like with a cloth or something.”
It’s more than an insinuation at this point…and I am making it. Nasty? Your opinion. I have even less sympathy for his loss, since IMHO he weaved this into his argument against Trump’s (constitutional) immigration policy, even though it was hardly germane to his argument, ie. My son died serving his country. He was a muslim. Trump wants to halt immigration from Muslim countries. If Trump’s policies had been enacted, my son wouldn’t have had the opportunity to sacrifice himself for his country.
What he failed to say is Trump wants to temporarily suspend immigration from certain parts of the world, until we can sufficiently vet those seeking to enter, so we avoid another San Bernadino, or don’t experience the violence that has gripped Germany, France, and other European Union countries that have foolishly thrown open their doors, and are now paying not only a price in increased crime, but in blood as well.
Listen, you and folks like “Watching” are free to follow the European example, cluck your tongues and call those who happen to agree that the current policy is dangerous to our security “paranoid xenophobes”, and that’s your right, but at least acknowledge the fact that a small portion of those coming here aren’t interested in taking our jobs…they want our heads.
Mr. Khan correctly pointed out that there are many Muslim patriots like his son, who would die to protect our country, and our way of life. There are Muslims in the Israeli Army willing to do the same thing for their country. But there are those who want nothing more to kill infidels. They will use guns to shoot up an office party, or attack an armed forces recruiting center. They will use a knife to hack off the head of a co-worker, or use products purchased in the “Home Furnishings” section of you local department store to kill and maim a crowd of spectators. They will use an axe to hack a pregnant woman to death. How long will it be until someone drives a truck into a crowd here?
How many fatal attacks have happened in the US in the last 8 years, done in the name of the “Religion of Peace”? Do you even know? Do you care?
It’s just easier to argue for “more gun control”, to infringe on the inalienable rights of US Citizens, than it is to infringe on some perceived right to immigrate to the US, no questions asked.
I can understand Mr. Khan’s opposition to Trump’s policies based on the fact that he immigrated here, assimilated, and became successful, while practicing his Muslim faith, and his son was a patriot, a hero, and a practicing Muslim. Mr. Khan has a monetary interest in opposing Trump’s policy. That is a fact. He did not disclose this, and has taken steps to hid this. I am suspicious of his motives. You are free to believe otherwise.
You actually don’t know that. That is a huge supposition as to his motives.
I know what Trump said. I know what Trump said publicly. He hasn’t shut up long enough to present an actual plan. Your “interpretation” of what he meant doesn’t cut it to the millions (perhaps billions) of people around the world who heard his muslim band. I live right here and have never heard a cogent explanation of what “he really meant.” He changes with the wind.
No one here is suggesting that terrorism is not a threat. Of course it is. I am one of those weird people who doesn’t have to have a Muslim plotting my demise to think it’s terrorism. Sandy Hook, Charleston, Orlando, Va Tech, all resulted in death to multiple people. What difference does it make? Dead is dead.
@Steve Thomas
The absolute, essential element of defending this country against radical terrorists who invoke Islam as their excuse is a proud, patriotic, engaged Muslim-American community, Steve. The evil of people like Trump (and Cruz, for that matter) is that they tear at that fabric, give credibility to ISIS recruiting memes, alienate resident Muslims, whether citizens or visitors, and corrode the ties that bind that particular community to the rest of us precisely at the time we need greater integration and assimilation. My opposition to Trump’s anti-Muslim rhetoric (other than its sheer stupidity and mean-spiritedness) is because I see no way that it does not help our enemies and decrease our abilities to combat groups like ISIS, as well as mentally disturbed individuals (probably the greater danger) who self-radicalize off of ISIS and other extremist propaganda.
As for your allegation that Mr. Khan’s statement was motivated by pecuniary gain in that his wealth increases as more Muslim immigrants arrive, I’ll look at it. I haven’t seen the materials you’re referring to. But it seems highly unlikely. He was with Hogan Lovells for a long time. No way that he wasn’t making a fairly good income there, and there’s no way that it fluctuated with the number of immigrants coming into this country. I don’t know what he does these days. But even if he gains monetarily through an immigration law practice (which was not his practice at HL), that doesn’t detract from the core substance of what he said last week: That Trump’s statements about Muslims are a direct threat to the welfare of our country, are insulting to the many Muslim citizens we already have here, and that they ignore the kind of sacrifice that the Khan’s have made through the loss of their son.
Bringing in this kind of extranea is a deflection tactic by the Trump campaign. It further diminishes him as a candidate, and further increases the security risks to our country.
@Scout
“proud, patriotic, engaged Muslim-American community, ”
I’m still waiting for this community to actively and energetically oppose terrorism, sharia, imams that preach hate and Islamist propaganda.
Adding tens of thousands of “Syrian” refugees that just happen to come from all across the globe…. tens of thousands that are primarily young men……
is not going to empower the “moderate” civilized Muslim community. Khan was out of line. He has financial and political ties to corrupt immigration policies and the Clintons. Trump was ALSO out of line, allowing his mouth to defeat him once again. Even I could have turned that around
We are NOT going to get a outraged Muslim community that supports fighting the fundamentalist Islamists. See the Muslim support for CAIR,
Trump needs to shut the hell up.
I think your comments about Mr. Khan are unfounded.
@Cargosquid
There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. How many attacks have we seen on US soil in the last 5 years? Your use of the term moderate “civilized” Muslims is an affront to most of them. It’s that sideways crap that just sort of sneaks in that somehow infers the rest are “uncivilized”. Mr. Khan did not get up there and speak as an immigration lawyer, he got up there as a grieving parent. Can you even seem to glimpse what that means? I agree our immigration policy needs reformed. We are too slow to let in people to bolster our own work force that is aging and becoming less educated. We need engineers and we need service workers. Thank goodness we have immigrants doing jobs Americans refuse to do like in agriculture. Why is everything always “corrupt” to people like you? What happened to you as a child? It’s like shouting at the wind that all you can see is evil and corruption all around you. Let me guess, you listen to Fox News?
I had to stop watching Fox News because I found myself feeling exactly like you described. I think it has turned people and marriages rancid.
I am far more worried about some crazed homegrown lunatic blowing me away than I am some muslim doing me in. Statistics bear out my fear.
@Cargosquid
I’ve heard a lot of prominent Muslims denounce terrorism, including Mr. Khan, Cargo. CAIR is not ISIS. CAIR is to the American Muslim community what the Anti-Defamation League is to the American Jewish community and the NAACP is to the African-American community.
Agree that Trump needs to shut up. He took a manageable situation and made it far worse. This is his recurring problem. Even if they get him under control, he has already, out of his own mouth, using his own words and thoughts, established that he cannot be President. This puts most of the voting population in a very difficult position, given Mrs. Clinton’s obvious flaws. The Republican Party offered up the only major candidate she can defeat. Jeb Bush, John Kasich, several others, would be ten points ahead now.
@Steve Thomas
That’s a pretty big jump in logic. Perhaps his website (particularly if he’s part of a firm) was inundated with phone calls and emails from the multitude of loonies out there. I almost bought the house of a lawyer who had inserted himself in a well-known case involving the art world. He got so many threats that he bought a huge dog and moved. But not before getting canned for all the negative publicity heaped on his firm.
Funny you should mention that. I have a friend who worked for a firm back in the 90’s. He got involved with some of my issues. Some liberal do-gooder made certain his law firm got the ‘publicity.’ That young lawyer was canned faster than you can say Jack Robinson. All the crazies were calling and that firm didn’t want the attention. Business talks. You know what walks.
I don’t blame him for scrubbing it. Just listening to the blow back here tells me what was going on in the outside world.
Charlottesville is my home town. I will check with my homies about how Mr. Khan is viewed. My homies are hardly a bastion of liberal thinking.
Mr Trump and Mr Stewart must learn to honor and respect our nation’s gold star families. Their sacrifices allow us to enjoy the freedoms all of us have.
Absolutely, Starry.
The good news is that things are falling apart quickly for Trump and the Trumpsters. There are less than 100 days left until the election. The Donald, using his brilliant strategic skills, spent 5% of that time picking a fight with a Gold Star Family. Trumpsters, forget about your blind loyalty to The Donald for a minute, and ask yourself, how does that fight win The Donald any votes? Of course, Trump has painted himself in a corner. He’d lose all his White Nationalist voters if he let a Muslim stand up to him like that.
But in fairness, The Donald has been on the attack elsewhere since the Democratic convention. He’s attacked Ted Cruz, John McCain, Paul Ryan…pretty much everybody except Clinton.
RealClearPolitics shows Trump’s support dropping line a rock while Clinton is getting a bounce from the convention. Speaking of bounces, Gallup shows Trump is in fact breaking new ground in politics. Trump was the first candidate ever to get a negative bounce from his convention. Yup, Trump was more popular before people got to see him up close and personal.
All of this is wonderful, except that now The Donald is starting to talk about how the election is going to be rigged as his excuse for not winning. He is setting the stage for acts of violence by his White Nationalist supporters, who he has whipped into a frenzy.
We need to start looking beyond just the election and start forcing Trump supporters to go on record that they will accept the will of the American people and not take up arms when Trump loses. For the couple of Trumpsters here, what say you? Will you pledge to respect the results of the election and accept President Clinton (45) if she wins?
Well, that was a scathing post. It’s akin to what I have been hearing all morning on TV.
It’s getting even more scary. Trump is unfit. I question his mental state.
I wasn’t trying to be too harsh, but it’s Trump. So I’ll balance it out by praising the Republicans in the #NeverTrump movement. They do not bear the same. They resisted.
It’s hard for people who have been in a political party for most of their lives to wake up and realize that their party has been hijacked. Many people aren’t able to accept it and reconcile it with “Trump is the nominee, and I support the nominee”
So those Republicans that recognize that this election is about more than Clinton v. Trump, and have the courage to oppose a dangerous demagogue deserve praise for sticking to their genuinely conservative principles. May their numbers continue to grow.
Be as harsh as you want. I have no problem if you excoriate Trump. I think he is unhinged and unfit for dog catcher, much less president. As much as I loathe and detest Ted Cruz, I don’t think he is unfit. (just undesirable–there is a huge difference)
I have been in both parties. Now I am in no party.
I totally agree with you, btw. I also hope more will follow Meg Wittman’s lead.
Let me ask a question or two, and I throw this out in spirit of discussion. It seems a good rhetorical tactic to praise “stick to your principles” in your enemies (who then fracture in disagreement) while urging compromise and “get behind the leader” in your own camp. So at what point would you advocate Democrats vote their conscience instead of packing it in for a flawed but electable candidate? The “Anyone but X” narrative resonates because of Trump, but is there any GOP candidate that makes you think “I’d rather see him/her elected than compromise my principles”?
@TCWinPWC
Are you asking me? I don’t belong to a party. I declared long ago who I was supporting because of issues that are important to me. Perhaps all candidates are flawed. I think that is politics.
I think Trump is an outlier in all elections in my lifetime (and I am not a young person). I think his problems go beyond flawed and I fear for our country.
His behaviors on a daily basis make him unfit. We aren’t talking about a gaffe here or a mistake there. We are talking about daily and unrelenting mistake after mistake after mistake.
There is no consistent policy. The man would rather wage war on Gold Star parents, babies, judges, reporters, etc than address the content of any issue. I am going to go out on a real limb here and say is is far more ignorant than Sarah Palin.
I’m just wondering what could Hillary do that would cause Democrats to oppose her?
Her demonstrated unfitness is there for all to see.
She calls a Gold Star family liars. She endangered national security repeatedly. She dishonestly destroyed evidence. She lied and continues to lie to our very faces. Her incompetence is exceeded only by Obama’s in foreign relations…and that’s only because she’s not President.
I’m opposing the GOP Candidate for various reasons. Personally, I cannot vote for him. He’s so bad, that I consider him to be a ringer, working for the Clintons.
So….why are so many people supporting Clinton in the face of her demonstrable unfitness?
@Cargosquid
She has not demonstrated her unfitness to me.
I am pleased that you aren’t voting for Trump. Other than that, I think you have to vote your conscience. There are other folks out there.
@MoonHowler
“She has not demonstrated her unfitness to me.”
And that fact saddens and confuses me because I know that you are a woman of principle.
Yes I am, or at least I strive to be. I remember the day the Benghazi incident happened. You crawled all over her the first day, before the facts were in.
Do you seriously think she wanted her friend to die?
There have been multiple “Benghazi investigations.” To date, no one has found wrong doing. I would give it a rest.
What Gold Star families did she call a liar?
@MoonHowler
She is saying that the family of one of those killed in Benghazi is lying.
I haven’t heard her call anyone a liar. I expect she probably has more facts than a family member. I think she disagrees with their assessment. That is different than calling someone a liar.
@Cargosquid
Cargo,
Let us not forget, were it not for the way Hillary handled the “Arab Spring” there’s a better-than-even chance we wouldn’t be discussing Trumps immigration policy.
What has me scratching my head, is the soft-headed response here, that merely parrots what the Left has been spouting all along: We aren’t at war with Radical Islamists….We won’t solve anything by calling it “terrorism”, and Trump’s proposal of suspended refugee re-settlement and restricted visas won’t solve the problem…if we were willing to admit there is a problem.
Obviously, the Middle East (to include Turkey) and North Africa have become less stable under Obama, and most of this shift occurred while Hillary was busy working on her illegal…er…”ill-advised” email server. One can argue that Bush’s invasion of Iraq started the ball rolling, but Iraq was pretty stable when he left office, both valid points of view. What happened after he left office though…
First there was the “Apology Tour”. Who can forget Obama’s “People of Earth….Citizens of the World….we haven’t always lived up to our own ideals…but that changes now”? Next it was the unilateral withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Then it was supporting the overthrow of several pro-US strongmen, who had done a pretty good job of keeping their radicals in check: Egypt, Pakistan, Libya….and a failed attempt to remove Assad in Syria. All checks on ISIS and AQ. The Muslim Brotherhood was supported by this Admin as well, and came to power in Egypt and Turkey (a member of NATO).
All of this tumult provided a perfect breeding ground for radical islamist groups. It also generated a huge refugee crisis, not to mention, there has been a marked increase in successful attacks by home-grown and foreign-born radicals on US soil, during the same period, and attacks are happening with frightening frequency.
Who was in charge of our foreign policy during this time? Trump?
If it weren’t for the feckless formulation and handling of US foreign policy by HRC, would Trump feel the need to offer a solution to the problem his opponent created? Why would anyone in their right mind trust her to manage the mess she helped to create, especially since she’s running on a platform of “status quo/more of the same”? Can’t really blame Bush. Dangerous to blame the current admin, since she was secstate. How can she offer solutions when to do so, she must first admit there is a problem. How can she admit there’s a problem, without owning up to her contribution to creating the problem?
Ooooo! Ooooo! I know! Blame a video? Nope, tried and failed. Blame the NRA? Eh…maybe, but the public has gotten wise to this. How about blaming Trump? Yeah…Yeah….that’s the ticket!
@Steve Thomas
WELL SAID!
Our republic is based on a two-party system. A vote for anyone other than Hillary or Trump is basically the same as not voting.
Trump certainly seems to be on a self-destructive path. He has said some horrible things.
Hillary was careless with national security information, received money from foreign governments with a vested interest in her decisions as SecState, and ignored the plight of her employees under life-threatening attack.
Words matter, but deeds matter more. The things that Hillary has DONE outweigh the things that Trump has SAID.
Those are all the things we have hashed over about Clinton. You are talking about her like she WAS commander in chief. She wasn’t. I find her blameless in Benghazi as do most people I know. Did you blame George Bush for all those embassy attacks? Reagan? Clinton?
I simply do not see her as any more draconian than other folks in our political past.
I do not thing that things you perceive that she has done as anywhere near the magnitude of what Trump has said. At what point is saying not doing?
@MoonHowler
I think those that hold her blameless fail to understand how the National Security apparatus works. The SecState has enormous power if she chooses to use it. The final decision rests with the president, but there is no evidence that she made any recommendations to the POTUS.
I know what I heard on my own blog as it was all going on. Minds were made up. I call it the fog of war.
@MoonHowler
The recent House report revealed that there was a US remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) over the area during the battle, which means that there was live video feed. It would have shown in real time exactly what was happening in the battle.
The situational awareness provided by RPAs is incredible, especially when compared to what we had historically in our nation’s battles.
As a result, blaming Hillary’s inaction on the “fog of war” does not fly.
Was she sitting in the General’s chair? Is an RPA a drone?
@MoonHowler
She was responsible for the security of the annex. It was her duty to get the President to authorize that security. If he did not do so…then she should say so. SOMEONE told them not to go. No one lazes a target for air support unless they know that said air support is either on site or coming. The administration knew what was going on and did NOTHING. And have done nothing. And then they lied about it, repeatedly.
He said/she said. That SOMEONE was not Clinton.
I wish the same concern had been shown all along about cutting back funding for security.
@MoonHowler
So words matter more than deeds?
We are indeed doomed.
That is not what I said. You are spinning.
@kelly_3406
Our country is not “based on a two-party system”, Kelly. Things just kind of evolved that way in the early 19th Century. There’s nothing about political parties in the Constitution. A few of the once-influential parties have died off or mutated into something else. We may be at a time when this is happening again. As a Republican of long standing, I view Trump as a kind of virus or bacillus that got inside a host with an already badly compromised immune system. He is simply laying wasted to the Republican Party.
@Scout
I did not say that the two-party system is part of the Constitution. But our government and elections have indeed evolved to be based on the two-party system.
Judicial review is not in the Constitution either. But an important check on executive authority (and the constitutionality of legislation) is now based on judicial review.
I wonder if there’s a way to keep the discussion on topic. Half of the comments I’m seeing appear to be digressions.
@Robin Hood
The topic is “WHERE IS THE VIRGINIA REPUBLICAN MORAL COMPASS?”
Maybe you’d like to define the parameters of this discussion, and what constitutes a “digression”?
Speaking of lawyer’s tricks, you just fell for one. By describing a violation you can get a defensive response from the perpetrator. Police and security professionals use it too.
The burden of proof is not mine. It’s yours and your attempts to redirect it speak volumes to the trained observer.
So how does slamming Clinton or Khan address the moral compass of Virginia Republicans except to show that it may be damaged or inoperative?
@Steve Thomas
Patriotism, support for the military, family values, anti-Russian, loyalty to party, strong religious ties, belief in wealth generating value of free enterprise and trade…..
All of these traditional Republican anchors have been uprooted and discarded by Trump and his supporters. Hillary is the most conservative candidate running in the sense of not wanting to rock the boat, make incremental and measured changes. Trump is leading a band of radicals with pitchforks ready to burn down the village, because of Benghazi! They have moved so far left they have jumped over the Democrats and are now next to Socialist Sanders. After kicking out conservatives such as Ryan, Romney,Cruz, Bush etc. is the new Republican party going to merge with occupy wall street types and become the new left-of-center party?
WTF is wrong with these people. Have they so little to lose they don’t mind forcing the country to commit suicide and fall into economic depression by supporting Trump?
I am glad investors have decided that the risk of Trump winning is infinitely small. Still, I have already sold the stock needed to pay for the next year of tuition payments just in case the markets get jittery.
I was thinking about it today….selling stock. Then I decided I was thinking like Glenn Beck.
This is supposed to be “a place for civil debate . . . for grown ups.” What I’m seeing here is that some participants are like the Hindenburg, full of volatile gas and ready to explode. There are other blogs for that.