Rhetoric Is A Weapon Used By Both Political Parties

The midterm elections are all about Donald Trump. The president is crisscrossing the country each day using his clout to bolster the candidacies of fellow Republicans. Local elections will be greatly affected by national issues and a sitting president more so than any other time in history.

In the past, midterm elections were disastrous for the parties in power. Since all representatives must run every two years, they are the most vulnerable. Senators rotate, and only one-third of them are up for reelection every two years.

Earlier projections by pollsters had Democrats gaining enough seats in the Senate to assume power. Not any longer. Republicans, in fact, may add to their slim majority next week. The inordinate number of incumbent Democrat senators running in states carried by Trump in 2016 will take a toll. Exacerbating Democrat efforts are key national issues such as the Kavanaugh confirmation, the caravan of illegal immigrants approaching our southern border and the favorable performance of most economic indicators.

The House could be a different story, although polls are showing that Republicans have make a strong rally in the past few weeks in spite of huge advertisement expenditures by Democrat supporters (of note Michael Bloomberg). The Trump barrage directed at fake news, illegal immigration, Democratic responsibility for social problems and a dearth of new ideas by Democrats to improve the country has bolstered prospects for conservatives.

Alternatively Democrats are grasping at the only viable issue available to them, the tweets, speeches and personality of President Trump. The media, cable news and a plethora of commentary by actors, athletes and left-wing instigators are supporting this effort wholeheartedly. But will it have the desired effective?

The problem with the Democratic strategy is that character assassination will not offset the pathetic track record of the previous president, and all of his minions who are trying to convince voters that the years before Trump were memorable. Trump has been effectively cleaning up the mess made by his predecessor, including burdensome regulations, out of control illegal immigration, poor economic conditions, unemployment, high taxes and low consumer confidence.

Character assassination also is not a strategy that can distract voter attention from real accomplishments under extremely stressful conditions. These include the confirmation of two conservative Supreme Court justices, promising negotiations with North Korea, standing up to Russian and Chinese aggression, elimination of inane and unfair trade practices, reengagement with Israel, formation of a productive partnership with Saudi Arabia in the battle against Iranian terror, the abrogation of the Iran nuclear arrangement (along with imposition of new sanctions), etc.

Trump offers all this and a warning that his efforts will be for naught if Democrats retake the House.

But, the most risky Democratic ploy is their politicization of the latest terrorist incidents. The bombing plot directed at liberal leaning individuals and the slaughter of Jewish worshipers in Pittsburgh has had a dramatic effect on America. As usual authorities are searching for the reasons for these maniacal assaults and threats to our security.

Stooping to the lowest level, Democrats are trying to convince America that the president’s rhetoric encourages violent behavior. It should be noted that rhetoric is protected by free speech unless specific acts of violence follow it.

In the past our country has come together to fight against such actions against our homeland without partisanship. No more. Democrats are trying to sell a direct link from Trump’s fiery approach to governing, to terrorism, bridging the all-important chasm between words and physical harm to others.

The most outrageous gap in Democrat reasoning is that both political parties are equally guilty of unbridled rhetoric. Trump’s are well documented. Democrats think they can incite violence without any repercussions. There have been a number of these situations in the news in recent months that involve Hillary Clinton, Rep. Pelosi, Rep. Waters and former Attorney General Eric Holder. Liar, traitor, misogynist, Nazi, fascist and so many other explosive characterizations are in play in liberal commentary. Do they incite violence?

A crazy person with a long record of aberrant behavior built bombs. He’s not a member of good standing in the Republican Party, even if his “bomb-mobile” was plastered with stickers supporting Trump. He’s a demented homicidal maniac.

The shooter in the Jewish synagogue is a rabid anti-Semite. How can anyone say Trump is not supportive of Jews in America and around the world? He’s done business with the Jewish community for years. His daughter converted to Judaism and his grandchildren are Jewish.

Will all this subterfuge enable Democrats to be victorious in the midterm elections? I hope not, they don’t deserve to be in control of our country.

 

Trump Rhetoric Is Not The Inspiration Of The Bomber

In virtually every attack against our homeland, Americans, led by the president, Congress and local officials, have united to focus on the threat to our society and way of life.

After 9/11 the nationalistic spirit in our country could not have been greater. All our politicians were concerned with nothing other than the security of America. This enabled the country to deal with a horrible tragedy and the subsequent clean up. If there were any recriminations or assignment of blame, they were set aside until the threat was eliminated.

In stunningly inappropriate comments to the tried and true tradition of putting American security first, two leading Democrats politicized the bombing attacks that took place yesterday even before all the bombs were discovered.

Attempting to make a political statement before the impending elections, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) directly attributed the series of bombing attacks to President Trump. They said the actions of the bomber(s) to harm left-leaning individuals were a result of presidential rhetoric. The comments were made after Trump had dramatically and sincerely implored Americans to come together to fight this new threat, and before first responders had commented on the attacks.

Donald Trump is aggressive and sometimes plays the hard-ass role to an extreme to stir his base. This is most prevalent while speaking to large crowds. Americans, for the most part, want their leaders to be tough on national security and in response to those who would do us harm.

Sometimes the rhetoric of our leaders goes too far, especially when it’s critical of political opponents. But it’s entirely inappropriate for anyone to say that the president’s rhetoric was the inspiration of a crazy individual to mail bombs to others he disagrees with.

The hypocrisy of the statements made by Schumer and Pelosi is obvious because liberal politicians sometimes use the same rhetoric to inspire their followers. Joe Biden has indicated that he would like to meet Trump mano y mano. Maxine Waters (D-CA) has encouraged liberals to accost conservatives in public places. Even Eric Holder, former Attorney General, said Trump opponents need to kick back physically against misguided conservatives.

In politics, as the pressure increases, so does the passion. The country is divided and Americans are taking sides. People want to “fight” for what they believe in. This is a good thing and protected by the Constitution until it leads to violence.

The moral of this essay is that Democrat leaders have gone too far by politicizing a national threat, ignoring long-term tradition. This has happened because the elections are a few days away. The political battles are in full force and candidates are flooding voters with political spin and exaggerations. They should not use a national crisis, where criminals are building bombs to terrorize us, to make political gains. Isn’t anything more important than the relative power of Republicans and Democrats?

Trump has his fair share of faults. One thing he is not is an advocate of physical violence between political opponents and between Americans. The bravado and aggression he sports is something he does with his mouth, not with his fists.