There are times when a person must admit that he was just plain wrong, apologize, and move on. Most of us learn this when our age is in single digits. Does Donald Trump know it at just shy of 70?
We have the test case before us. His attack on Judge Gonzalo Curiel is hands-down the stupidest thing he has said to date. "Indefensible" hardly does it justice. Paul Gigot has this editorial in the WSJ.
We have the test case before us. His attack on Judge Gonzalo Curiel is hands-down the stupidest thing he has said to date. "Indefensible" hardly does it justice. Paul Gigot has this editorial in the WSJ.
Donald Trump keeps giving his political opponents ammunition, most recently with his continuing attacks on Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who is presiding over lawsuits against Trump University. But it's important to distinguish between what is merely obnoxious and the truly odious in his remarks.
* * *What elevates Mr. Trump's remarks to the reprehensible is his equation of ethnicity with bias. That truly is an attack on the independence of the judiciary because it means that a judge can be disqualified from a case merely for his personal background, rather than for any material conflict of interest.* * *Apart from his racist implications, Mr. Trump is also indulging in the left's habit of attributing the motivations of everyone and everything to race, class, gender and sexual orientation. Claiming that a person's judgment is determined by his objective circumstances is a Marxist trope. Isn't Mr. Trump supposed to be running against such thinking?
The hopeful news is that Mr. Trump's attack on Judge Curiel's ethnicity has been widely denounced, notably by senior Republicans including House Speaker Paul Ryan and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Unlike many of our outraged progressives, they are politically consistent. As for Mr. Trump, he should let his lawyers argue his civil case, apologize to the judge, and start talking about the economy.
With wrongness established beyond any doubt, this is a test of whether Mr. Trump is able to admit when he is wrong.
Inability to admit you were wrong is a serious character defect in anyone, but it is especially dangerous in a President. Many of us who were coming around to casting a "better than the alternative" vote might have to re-reconsider if Mr. Trump does indeed lack this ability.
Thanks for posting this, Kent, and for confirming again my belief in your insights and honesty. I am starting to think seriously that Gary Johnson may be the only truly moral pick for those of us truly committed to the rule of law --- and that is saying something given that he was recently CEO of a company in the business of violating the CSA. Yikes....
P.S. There is a new media report that The Donald is trying to triple down on his attacks on the judge. Not encouraging.
If Mr. Trump insists on making toxic, racist-sounding and remarkably stupid comments, I suggest he do it on his private email server.
Oh............wait......................
Mentally unfit vs. Morally unfit.
This will be the first time in my life that I won't vote for anyone for the POTUS.
Pitiful situation.
This pretty much sums it up for me:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/06/06/today_s_trump_apocalypse_watch.html
Why not Gary Johnson, folks? I am not sure if he would be a great Prez, but I really struggle to feel comfortable voting for the other options. And if responsible folks on both sides of the aisle really want to send a message about the failings of both parties....
Trump's comments are over-the-top, but so what? First of all, the idea that judges, like any other government official, should be immune from unfair or harsh criticism is nonsense on stilts. The judiciary, in modern times, is arrogant and high-handed. Second of all, how much different, other than stridency, are Trump's comments from Sonia Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comments. Third of all, given the fact that the person who nominated the judge in question specifically linked sensitivity to the interests of minorities as a reason, is it any wonder that litigants who aren't minority will question the even-handedness of minority judges selected by this guy? On the third point, it seems to me that you cannot have it both ways--you can't get the vapors over people wondering aloud if a judge's ethnicity plays a role in the decisions if the ethnicity of litigants is supposed to matter (at least in certain cases).
I also find it surpassing strange that liberals who get the vapors over Trump's comments don't give a rat's ass about the race-norming of school discipline, which constitutes unvarnished racism against children (as in the real kind, not a 17 year old cold-blooded murderer). I get that's a tu quoque argument, but for Pete's sake, when people like notablogger have more concern for kids, I'll worry what they have to say about Trump's repellent comments.
Why not Gary Johnson?
First, and conclusively, because there is no chance he will win.
Presidential elections are not about self-expression. They're about deciding who will be President.
It's going to be Trump or Hillary. I don't have to like it, but I don't make the world.
P.S. In a world offering better candidates, I still wouldn't vote for a deliberate and frequent breaker of federal law to be head of the branch that enforces federal law.
I agree, Bill, that "Presidential elections are not about self-expression." But I also think a vote is a moral statement that expresses who you believe to be the best among the available candidates for President. I respect your opinion that you would not support "a deliberate and frequent breaker of federal law to be head of the branch that enforces federal law," and thus maybe I am urging you write in Ted Cruz or whomever else you can morally justify supporting. But I do not respect voting for someone whom you cannot morally support just because he or she bothers you less than the other viable alternative.
Does not outspoken anti-illegal alien Trump not have valid argument of bias and possibly conflict of interest?
1. "The San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association (SDLRLA), the group which Trump University lawsuit Judge Gonzalo Curiel is a member of, considers various pro-illegal immigrant organizations as part of its “community.” http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/06/
-+SDLRLA links with "Reality Changers," which provides scholarships to illegal immigrants. Judge Curiel himself was on a selection committee that gave a scholarship to an illegal alien.
SDLRLA links with "MALDEF" which is suing several colleges for denying admission to illegal aliens.
2. The SDLRLA is also an affiliate of the Hispanic National Bar Association.
The group’s president has previously accused Trump of “bigotry.”
The former president of this group, Rafael Santiago, was on the board of the
National Council of La Raza.
-+La Raza’s president has previously accused Trump of “bigotry.”
-+La Raza is so extreme that they have called President Obama “deporter-in-chief.”
-+Cesar Chavez stated: "Some people don't look at it as racism, but when you say 'La Raza,' you are saying an anti-gringo thing, and it won't stop there."
~Adamakis
Adamakis,
Indeed, if Trump had made Judge Curiel's membership in La Raza the focus of his attack, he would have been on much better ground.
That is part of what is so disturbing about this episode. Trump says that as President he will surround himself with the best people. What if he does that but then doesn't listen to them?
Painfully obviously, if he is getting good advice in this matter he is not listening to it.
I have been following Trump's antics since my time in New York in the 70s and 80s, and continuing to the present day.
IMO, Trump listens to one person and only one person: Himself. That is a HUGE character flaw that, by itself, disqualifies him from being the POTUS. It doesn't matter if he will surround himself with the most brilliant and astute cabinet and advisors in the country if he won't listen to their sage advice. In fact, I doubt anyone of any caliber will accept Trump's invitation to be his VP. Would you want to be working in that top-down environment?
Indeed, IMO, Trump has a personality defect that is almost identical to that possessed by some of the most notorious tyranical dictators the world has ever known: I know what is right and wrong; I know what to do; I don't need your advice; I just need you to carry out my commands.
As for voting for Johnson as a "moral statement" (as Doug suggests). Yes, that vote may show a repudiation of Trump and Hillary. But if you don't believe in Johnson's policies (which I don't), then you are being amoral by voting for him.
I will, unfortuantely, sit this one out.
You are right, Paul, that it is wrong to vote for someone whose policies you do not believe in. But in a world with limited choices, I think you often have to vote for the one whose policies and temperament and approach to governing are closest to those you prefer. I am still trying to figure out who that will be this time around, but I am at least willing to give Johnson and his less-government philosophy a good look.
Write in the name of who you honestly believe would be the best POTUS. That way you can walk away feeling good about your vote, despite knowing that your selection (like Johnson) has zero chance of winning.