The past few days have seen examples of both How To Be Presidential, and How Not To Be Presidential:
Let's start with How Not To:
"Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism, I don't want congrats, I want toughness & vigilance. We must be smart!" - Donald Trump on Twitter, 12:43 PM - 12 Jun 2016
"While I greatly appreciate everybody congratulating me for being right on radical Islamic terrorism, I don't want congratulations, I want toughness and vigilance. We must finally be smart!" - Donald Trump on **24**, Sunday afternoon.
Way to go, Drumpf! Pat yourself on the back after 49 people were killed and dozens injured!
On Monday, he gave a speech where he reiterated and reinforced his plan to ban Muslims from immigrating to the US. The tone of the speech scared many in the news media:
"I think this is the most horrifying speech Trump has ever given, which is a high bar" - Josh Barro, Business Insider
More:
http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/06/13/media-horrified-trump-s-speech-orlando-anti-lgbt-terror-attack/210905Trump also insinuated that President Obama, when he didn't refer to the Orlando slaughter as "radical Islamic terrorism...
“We’re led by a man who is a very—look, we’re led by a man that either is, is not tough, not smart, or he’s got something else in mind,” Trump told Fox & Friends by phone Monday morning. “And the something else in mind—you know, people cannot believe it. People cannot—they cannot believe that President Obama is acting the ways he acts and can’t even mention the words ‘radical islamic terrorism.’ There’s something going on. It’s inconceivable.”
Later in the morning, Trump made similar suggestions to the Today show, telling the NBC morning show: "There are a lot of people that think maybe he doesn't want to get it. A lot of people think maybe he doesn't want to know about it. I happen to think he just doesn't know what he's doing. But there are many people that think he doesn't want to get it."
The Washington Post, among others, slammed him for the inference that President Obama was somehow behind the killings. Their headline: "Donald Trump seems to connect President Obama to Orlando shooting." As anyone can tell from Trump's comments, he strongly hints that Obama supports the terrorists.
Trump's response, as posted on his **24** page:
"Based on the incredibly inaccurate coverage and reporting of the record setting Trump campaign, we are hereby revoking the press credentials of the phony and dishonest Washington Post."
This isn't the first time he's banned the press - but it's certainly the biggest organization. And many in the press are fighting back:
"There's a much larger point here and I don't -- I kind of hesitate when I thought about saying it, but this is fascism at its best. We've gone down the path of whether or not Donald Trump had said things that are racist or not racist. We've gone down the path of whether or not he said things that are offensive or not offensive, but this is fascism at its worst, to be completely honest with you. Banning The Washington Post, that's absurd. Just thinking about the fact that press -- and professing your love for freedom, but not your love for the freedom of the press. That's what happens when you get needled and get thin-skinned. Donald Trump even blocked me on Twitter. This is somebody running for president of the United States, and I just think that we need someone in this country who's built to lead, and the last thing Donald Trump is built for is leadership." - Bakari Sellers, CNN
And speaking of being "built to lead", here's an example of How To Be Presidential:
"And let me make a final point. For a while now, the main contribution of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have made in the fight against ISIL is to criticize this administration and me for not using the phrase radical Islam. That's the key, they tell us. We can't beat ISIL unless we call them radical Islamists. What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to trying to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction...."
"So there's no magic to the phrase radical Islam. It's a political talking point. It's not a strategy. And the reason I am careful about how I describe this threat has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with actually defeating extremism. Groups like ISIL and al-Qaeda want to make this war a war between Islam and America or between Islam and the west. They want to claim that they are the true leaders of over a billion Muslims around the world who reject their crazy notions. They want us to validate them by implying that they speak for those billion plus people. That they speak for Islam. That's their propaganda. That's how they recruit. And if we fall into the trap of painting all Muslims with a broad brush and imply that we are at war with an entire religion, then we are doing the terrorists' work for them."
- President Barack Obama, 6-14-16.
By the way, Trump ought to know that his rhetoric really is getting him appearances in terrorist recruitment videos:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/02/middleeast/al-shabaab-video-trump/Oh, and we might finally get some action on gun control this time. When Bill O'Reilly comes out in favor of it, well....
"Now, the right wing responsibility. There is too much gun crime in the USA, and high powered weaponry is too easy to get. That's the fact. So let's deal with it. We all have the right to bear arms, but we don't have the right to buy and maintain mortars. Even if you feel threatened by gangsters or a New World Order. No bazookas, no Sherman tanks, no hand grenades. That's because the Second Amendment clearly states the government has a right to regulate militias, made up of individuals. They have that right in the name of public safety.
"Therefore, Congress should debate what kind of weapons should be available for public sale. And the states, the individual states should decide what kind of carry laws are good for their own people. New laws are definitely needed in the age of terrorism and mass murder. The FBI and other federal agencies need the power to stop suspected terrorists or other evil doers from buying weapons.
"That law needs to be very precise. Also, gun dealers all across America should be required to report the sale of certain kinds of guns, heavy weapons, directly to the FBI. Not handguns, not talking about that, but other weapons that would be defined by Congress. That is a sane approach, and would make it a lot tougher for the Omar Mateens of the world to get the weaponry to kill, although as Talking Points has stated many, many times, no society will ever stop all gun crimes, especially in a country which has hundreds of millions of guns already in circulation."
The O'Reilly Factor, 6/14