July 6, 2016

"My father-in-law is not an anti-Semite. It’s that simple, really. Donald Trump is not anti-Semitic and he’s not a racist."

Writes Jared Kushner.
Despite the best efforts of his political opponents and a large swath of the media to hold Donald Trump accountable for the utterances of even the most fringe of his supporters—a standard to which no other candidate is ever held—the worst that his detractors can fairly say about him is that he has been careless in retweeting imagery that can be interpreted as offensive....

In my opinion, accusations like “racist” and “anti-Semite” are being thrown around with a carelessness that risks rendering these words meaningless.
Careless is a key word these days. Comey said Hillary was "extremely careless in... handling of very sensitive, highly classified information," and here's Kushner conceding that Trump may have been careless and those accusing him of anti-Semitism are careless. Hillary was careless — extremely careless — with something vastly important. But these other carelessnesses.... Well, we might say Trump's retweeting shows him behaving in a trivial fashion where carelessness doesn't matter, but the man is tasked to prove to us that he can be trusted. We're going to have to trust everything in the world to him if he's President, so he ought to take pains to prove his trustworthiness, not expect us to apply social media standards and say it doesn't matter. As for those who call the use of that star anti-Semitic, these people are atrocious hacks. They disgust me beyond words. And I appreciate Kushner's testimonial to his wife's father, despite its limited value. Family supports family. But Kushner is some special family:
I am the grandson of Holocaust survivors. On December 7, 1941—Pearl Harbor Day—the Nazis surrounded the ghetto of Novogroduk, and sorted the residents into two lines: those selected to die were put on the right; those who would live were put on the left. My grandmother’s sister, Esther, raced into a building to hide. A boy who had seen her running dragged her out and she was one of about 5100 Jews to be killed during this first slaughter of the Jews in Novogrudok. On the night before Rosh Hashana 1943, the 250 Jews who remained of the town’s 20,000 plotted an escape through a tunnel they had painstakingly dug beneath the fence. The searchlights were disabled and the Jews removed nails from the metal roof so that it would rattle in the wind and hopefully mask the sounds of the escaping prisoners.

My grandmother and her sister didn’t want to leave their father behind. They went to the back of the line to be near him. When the first Jews emerged from the tunnel, the Nazis were waiting for them and began shooting. My grandmother’s brother Chanon, for whom my father is named, was killed along with about 50 others. My grandmother made it to the woods, where she joined the Bielski Brigade of partisan resistance fighters. There she met my grandfather, who had escaped from a labor camp called Voritz. He had lived in a hole in the woods—a literal hole that he had dug—for three years, foraging for food, staying out of sight and sleeping in that hole for the duration of the brutal Russian winter.

I go into these details, which I have never discussed, because it’s important to me that people understand where I’m coming from when I report that I know the difference between actual, dangerous intolerance versus these labels that get tossed around in an effort to score political points....
Ah! I will stop my copying now. Please, read the whole thing.

104 comments:

YoungHegelian said...

Does anyone really think that for all those years in the public eye in NYC Trump carefully hid his antisemitism & his racism & now they pop out for all to see? If so, what does that say about the perceptiveness of those supposedly oh-so-sophisticated New Yorkers in his very wide social orbit? I guess it means they're nowhere near as bright as they think they are, which leads the rest of us to doubt the rest of their perceptions of the world.

Now, maybe one can think that Trump doesn't believe the "racist things" he's said, but that he's saying them to politically "rile up the yahoos". Now, that's more likely, but the divide between "riling up the yahoos" & "bringing out the vote" is indeed a fuzzy one. The Democrats, too, have their own style of riling up the yahoos when it suits their purposes (e.g. VP Biden telling a black audience in the 2012 election about the Republicans "They're gonna put y'all back in chains!").

Sebastian said...

"We're going to have to trust everything in the world to him if he's President, so he ought to take pains to prove his trustworthiness" Yes, in the sense that any GOPer has to "prove" anything libs and MSM require. But, no. O showed a Prog only needs to be trusted to do the Prog thing, country be damned. Hill's nomination, and O's support, show that "trustworthiness" of the quaint UW lawproffy kind is irrelevant. As AA herself proved by voting for O in '08.

@YH: "Does anyone really think that for all those years in the public eye in NYC Trump carefully hid his antisemitism & his racism & now they pop out for all to see?" I take your point, of course, but race-baiting agitprop doesn't depend on what anyone "really thinks."

coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AprilApple said...

ABC news radio just insisted that Trump might be anti-Semitic. You know- because that's news compared to Hillary's corruption.

Thanks, hack press.

AprilApple said...

The press are desperate to smear Trump with anything they can find.

n.n said...

Trump has demonstrated he values diversity, not the class diversity (e.g. racism, sexism) of Clinton et al. The attempts to paint him as a class diversity advocate have failed.

Mike said...

I don't think Trump is a racist or anti-semite (or anti-Muslim for that matter). I just think he thinks *we* are.

David said...

"As for those who call the use of that star anti-Semitic, these people are atrocious hacks. They disgust me beyond words."

Schumer, Reid, Paul Ryan, Hillary Clinton herself and many lesser hacks. Also Washington Post, NYT etc etc etc.

Mostly Democrats. And hacks in a sense but this is the central strategy of the Democratic party. Paint to opposition as bigoted and hateful. They have been calling Trump a Nazi for months.

Unknown said...

Yes, he's only pandering to his base.

Achilles said...

Note that they never say how Trump is racist, just that he is. Or his supporters are. They stopped defending La Raza. They stopped defending BLM. Just assertions those guys over there are racist.

But he used a 6 pointed star!

Chuck said...

Of course Donald Trump is not a serious anti-Semite. As a card-carrying Trump hater, even I would never go there. We Trump haters aren't careless in our disdain. We were the Republicans who never bought into any of the Birther nonsense. (Like with, uh, Donald Trump.) And we were embarrassed, by mere association, with that cadre of people who more or less vaguely associated with the Republican side of things, and who did maintain the "Birther" nonsense.

So yeah; you won't see me making any hysterical claims about Trump being an anti-Semite.

What I do say -- as Althouse already has -- is that Trump's star of David was dumb. It was an unforced error. It was... careless.

Like Trump's statement quoted in the book "Trumped!" (and later confessed by Trump as something he "probably said"): "Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are little short guys that wear yarmulkes every day."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/8-of-the-sleaziest-things-donald-trump-has-said-20150616?page=2

This is just Trump being stupid Trump. Not racist Trump. Not anti-Semitic Trump. Stupid Trump.

narciso said...

ah rolling stone, the touchstone of modern journalism, well that hasn't been true in a long time, you could ask george hw bush who was accused of drug trafficking, then general mccrystal, whose apocryphal statements couldn't be identified in a pentagon review,

YoungHegelian said...

I will return to my second paragraph above, about "riling up the yahoos".

Trump as of yet has no ground game, since he is a party outsider. The Trump campaign is perforce a top-down operation. Whatever message that needs to go out to the faithful has to come out of the mouth of Trump himself.

No so with Hillary & the Democrats. She is the ultimate insider, with the whole Democratic Party machine behind her. As such, she has thousands of intermediaries who placed in the various "yahoo" communities to spread her good word for her. Her racial appeals thus always hide behind a veil of plausible deniability.

Trust me, I have lived staring into the angry face of DC area politics for 37 years. Everything that liberals say they hate about Republican politics is on full display -- the mingling of church & state, naked appeals to racial & ethnic solidarity, open corruption. It's just happens to be that the electorate is black & thus a backbone of the Democratic Party, so the media glosses over it until something egregious happens like the mayor gets caught with a filled crack pipe with a woman not his wife.

And, DC has fairly benign race relations, as opposed to e.g. Chicago or Philadelphia, where that New Black Panther Party member (& Democratic ward official) stood there at a polling place with a club. The Obama Justice Dept -- they did nothing even though they had a summary judgement against the guy since he didn't show up to court.

So, yeah, that Trump, he's just so racist, hee-hee.

Chuck said...

Don't try to pawn this off on Rolling Stone.

Rolling Stone didn't report the infamous quote. The original quote was in the 1991 book, "Trumped!" Not Rolling Stone. "Trumped!" was written by John O'Donnell, the former CEO of Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino. And then in a Playboy interview on the record, Trump said, "The stuff O'Donnell wrote about me I probably true."

So, narciso, what exactly are you claiming that was mis-reported? If you think I have gotten one word of this wrong, I want you to tell me what it was.

traditionalguy said...

There is a long history in America of Secret Societies such as Free Masonry, its Mormonism off shoot, and the post reconstruction KKK vigilante force that included big hatred of Catholics and Jews more than it hated uppity black freed men.

Trump's family is second generation New Hebrides Scotland and tolerant Dutch raised in NYC where such cults were not taken seriously.

But the Dems know that history well, because itt was them doing it. The Dems know the deep things of Satan that are at the heart of that cult history.

Trump needs to set Gingrich loose to lecture the country about its history of Religious bigotry and actual racism. He could easily show Trump is not involved. Newt was a Pennsylvania Yankee whose parents being Army raised him at Columbus Georgia's Ft Benning Infantry and Airborne training Base. As a result he dealt with the Georgia culture for 40 years and he understands it well.

eric said...

Trump played this all wrong.

1st he deletes it and redoes it with a circle instead of a star.

Then he comes back and says he never should have deleted it or changed it.

At some point you just need to shut up about it. He compounded his first mistake with his second mistake. Stop digging.

He is right, of course. Nothing wrong with what he tweeted, but let it go.

narciso said...

you know the particulars don't matter to the narrative, goldwater on the phoenix city council and as senator was very pro african american, but he had concerns about the civil rights bill that were ultimately born out, the easiest thing, as spencer ackerman of the journolist, admitted accuse someone of racism, and they can't refute it, or they won't be allowed to.

eric said...

Blogger AprilApple said...
The press are desperate to smear Trump with anything they can find.


Not just the press, but the #NeverTrump press. They are frantic right now because we are approaching the convention and they really want to replace Trump. NRO and HotAir are writing articles screaming at their top of their longs, "You asked for this Republicans! I'm going to say I told you so!" etc, etc.

Once the convention is over, I hope this calms down and they finally give up.

Honestly though, I think some of them are just delusional.

eric said...

Blogger Chuck said...
Don't try to pawn this off on Rolling Stone.


Case in point. I expect Chuck to get increasingly hysterical (Is that possible?) up until the convention.

Birches said...

Wow. That deserves a Mic drop.

narciso said...

I think I read this paranoid rant by hasbeen writer lucian truscott 1V, in the village voice, nearly six months ago, material perhaps only suitable for salon,

Left Bank of the Charles said...

I don't see how the side calling the other side crooked can complain much about the other side calling them racist.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Isn't the complaint, really, that the other side is doing a much better job?

n.n said...

The class diversity factions of the Democrats, international left-wing, and similar interests are projecting too hard. They have destroyed the narrative they carefully spun over nearly half a century and any [unearned] credibility they may have once enjoyed.

It's telling that the response to Obama's promise to implement redistributive change earned a less hostile response from the establishment of both parties than a promise for reform of the status quo that progressed under his administration.

Chuck said...

Fuck you, eric.

Again, what part of the Trump "little short guys that wear yarmulkes" story is untrue? That's all I care about. Not what you like or don't like.

I didn't get hysterical. I just cut and pasted the quote. And supplied a link.

readering said...

When he found out his chosen image had actually been drafted by a white supremacist, he should have said, yikes--my bad. No, instead he doubled down in a lunatic rant. Talk about giving a guy enough rope....

readering said...

As for Kushner, shame on him using his cushy Harvard education and millions to finance a well-written exploitation of his ancestors' horror to try to cover for the boor he happened to marry into.

virgil xenophon said...

All the really "smart" commentators have been taking Trump to task tonight (last night) for dwelling "overlong" on the "star of David" thing and "distracting from Hillarys problems. How typical of the left. They get their solid licks in (about four days of a constant barrage as I count it) and then, when conservatives get out from under and find a friendly venue to reply decide it's "old news" that's not relevant any more and time to "move on."

Arik said...

The issues is not if Trump is an anti-Semite but is campaign targeting its key constituent anti-Semitic "stormfront alt right supporters. Any Jew who is not in denial knows that the original poster intended to link Clinton to anti-Semitic meme. I am not impressed with Kushners defense of his in law based on his own parents. Even during the Holcaust the Nazi's were able to find Kapo's like Jared to do their dirty work. I really do not care what Trump's actually opinions of Jews are. If it quacks like a duck walks like a duck and looks like a duck it probably is a duck.

Jon Ericson said...

Tsk, Tsk, Please restrain yourself with the "fuck yous", Lifelong Republican cHuckelberry.
You are kind of amusing when you recite the "Talking Points Memo" lines though.

Jon Ericson said...

Hysteria:
a psychological disorder
(not now regarded as a single definite condition)
whose symptoms include conversion of psychological stress into
-physical symptoms (somatization),
-selective amnesia,
-shallow volatile emotions,
-and overdramatic or attention-seeking behavior.
The term has a controversial history as it was formerly regarded as a disease specific to women.
Chuck = Chucklene? :shrug:

Achilles said...

"I really do not care what Trump's actually opinions of Jews are."

Of course you don't care what actually is. The truth means nothing to a Hillary supporter. The narrative you make up, the lies you tell, are all that matter.

Disgusting people.

rcocean said...

People need to mock these kind of absurd accusations not take them seriously and write long rebuttals.

rcocean said...

The "NeverTrumpers" are really "AlwaysHillary"

Saint Croix said...

It's a beautiful editorial. It obviously is very personal. He's revealing something about himself and his own family history. And Donald Trump is a part of that family now, his father-in-law.

I appreciate Kushner's testimonial to his wife's father, despite its limited value. Family supports family. But Kushner is some special family:

Here's a good article for people who want some background on Jared Kushner.

Do you remember how Donald Trump loved Citizen Kane? When I read Kushner's biography ("A decade ago he bought the New York Observer, at the time a money-losing but influential newspaper") I was like, "holy shit, it's Citizen Kane!"

Anyway, his newspaper is impressing the hell out of me. He printed An Open Letter To Jared Kushner. So his commitment to free speech is fantastic. That's an attack on Kushner, and his wife, and his father-in-law. It's a brutal attack. And he printed it. And then he responded.

Beautiful. I am very impressed by Kushner. and his newspaper. I was impressed with his newspaper first. I had no idea who Kushner was, or the family relation between Donald Trump and the Observer. I had read several interesting things in the Observer. It reminded me of The Federalist, or National Review or The New Republic back in the day, or Althouse. Just smart stuff that I want to read.

The open letter is highly emotional. Dana Schwartz is looking at all the money in the attack ad, and the star, and she sees classic anti-Semitic imagery. And his response is very cool and intelligent. But it's also very respectful of her emotions. And it's her emotions that has caused him to open up and talk about some awful things that happened to his family.

I am impressed by Jared Kushner.

Saint Croix said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rhhardin said...

Political correctness setting the standards of carelessness is just more political correctness.

The holocaust turned politically correct years ago, by the way. It's a way to get pretend seriousness.

Brando said...

Much as I'd hate to quibble with your Trump-cheerleading, Kushner's letter is sort of beside the point. The letter he was responding to (from one of his writers) was not accusing Trump of being personally anti-Semitic but rather complaining that Trump was not actively disavowing the very real anti-Semites among his supporters (case in point--David Duke, who still supports Trump, approved of the "star" ad and thought it was a Jewish star). The issue is why Trump isn't forcefully condemning such support. Kushner says "you can't blame someone for what their fringe supporters are" which is true, but we do at least expect the politician to speak out against such fringes when they inject themselves into the campaign. Trump has been tied to so much of that this year that he has more incentive than anyone to emphatically disavow such fringes. Otherwise, people will draw this conclusion.

As for the Sanders comparison--if Sanders was not condemning violent behavior by his own supporters, then he would deserve similar scorn. You can't control who supports you, but you can at least publicly make clear what you think of them. It is especially necessary when you're being tarred by your opponents for those same things--sure, they'll say what they'll say, but why feed the beast? As a Scott Adams fan I'd think you of all people would agree that once a narrative is accepted about you, it's almost impossible to shake off.

Trump's team was careless with the ad, and any time you borrow a tweet or graphic from any group with "white genocide" or something like that in their name, it'd be a good idea to comb through it carefully to make sure nothing in it will tie you to them. It's July, and there's not much time left to change the narrative.

Saint Croix said...

I am also a big fan of Ken Kurson, who is also Jewish and is the editor-in-chief of the Observer.

More here.

The editor of the Observer, Ken Kurson, told POLITICO that he signed off on the open letter, and that he did not discuss it with Kushner beforehand.

That doesn't diminish my respect for Kushner. He hired Kurson!

"I respect Ken. He’s been really great and open-minded, and I’m really happy I could have written it here," she (Schwartz) said.

Maybe you ought to give some credit to the authority who hired your boss?

Humperdink said...

Chuck, who self identifies as a hater ("as a card-carrying Trump hater"), labels someone a racist.

Just guessing he/she doesn't get the irony with that statement.

Rusty said...

Everything you say about Trump may be true.
But.
Hillary.

Big Mike said...

@Brando, fair 'nuff. How about Hillary Clinton shows the way by disavowing the h8rs like BLM and the BDS folks? Wouldn't it be gr8 if she would disavow the American flag burners and Mexican flag wavers protesting Trump rallies? If she's going to run on the slogan "stronger together" shouldn't she be denouncing the violence perpetrated on Trump supporters peaceably attending his rallies?

iowan2 said...

I am a news junkie. A political junkie. I am paying attention.

People like me are a very small % of the voting population. This is not on my radar. It is neither good nor bad. It has nothing to do with Jews. Its a tweet. A six pointed star. The perpetually aggreived are always searching for something. They will always find it.

Of course I'm a little tired of pointing out that Obama is being shut down by the judiciary for making his own law and usurping the power of congress. Then being shouted down as a racist.

AJ Lynch said...

Racist is just about the worst thing you can be called today. That is why the Dems use that weapon year after year.

I too think Trump sh0uld have left this issue die but, because being unfairly called a racist is so horrible, he just can't stop defending himself from the charge. His character has been maligned and he is fighting back.

tim in vermont said...

This is what we are talking about! Bill is already reviewing applications for interns. Photo required.

robother said...

So, Hillary is (merely) careless in setting up a private insecure server to send and receive top secret information, and Trump is (supposedly) careless in tweeting an image with a 6 pointed star. The false equivalency seems obvious, but any Republican like Paul Ryan who accepts and amplifies it is validating the equivalence in the eyes of voters.

Quayle said...

"The letter he was responding to (from one of his writers) was not accusing Trump of being personally anti-Semitic but rather complaining that Trump was not actively disavowing the very real anti-Semites among his supporters (case in point--David Duke, who still supports Trump, approved of the "star" ad and thought it was a Jewish star). The issue is why Trump isn't forcefully condemning such support. "

This kind of thinking has all the appearance of public morality, and none of the substance.

Why should any politician disavow any voter? The politician is and believes what he or she is and believes. Each voter is different.

If I knew that my positions were better than others, and truly were positions rooted in concern for the common good, I'd encourage any and all to vote for me, even those whose beliefs I though were not for the common good.

Or should we say to David Duke, "You shouldn't be allowed to vote for anyone that has more moral positions than you. You can only vote for someone that is equally as vile or worse than you."

That doesn't make sense.

That's like saying that Hillary is not ever allowed to speak the truth because she has a long and proven habit of telling lies.

Don't we want Hillary to tell the truth more and more often, not less?

Don't we want anti-Semites and racists to vote for a less anti-Semitic or less racist candidate?

So why, then, should a candidate condemn and drive away any voter?

Big Mike said...

At any rate, anti-Semites and racists don't take on entrenched powers and fight to open their golf courses to Jews and Blacks. Kushner was writing in response to the anguished article written by Dana Schwartz, one of his employees. I for one would like to know what Ms. Schwartz has done in her life to combat anti-Semitism, other than whine of course. Has she stood up to the BDS crowd? Has she picketed in front country clubs that don't admit Jewish members?

Dana claims that "Trump is fueling hate." Nope. She is.

Bruce Hayden said...

It is all that they have. How does the Hillary campaign counter "Crooked Hillary" and the FBI director essentially saying that she should be indicted for her mishandling of classified material, but can't find a DoJ prosecutor to do so (likely because they are all Hillary supporters)? By the old Dem standby - calling your opponent racist, sexist, antisemitic, anti-Muslim, homophobic, etc. This fake firestorm about Trump very closely corresponds to the time that the FBI stuff was in the news. It's all bogus and manufactured. Trump is none of those. Probably the most worrisome to the Dems right now is that Trump has a long history of being able to work with Jews. He grew up working with them, and can speak their language. They don't have that many votes, but do have a lot of money to spend on politics. Moreover, he reminds them that Obama has never been a friend of either Jews nor Israel, which seems typical of a Muslim raised Black (both of which seem to be the most anti-Jewish groups around). So, the Hillary people picked now to unlad their ammo, and to show us what the rest of the campaign is going to be like - which is likely to be all her many surrogates yelling these things at Trump until some of it sticks through repetition.

Big Mike said...

@Althouse, you wrote "We're going to have to trust everything in the world to him if he's President, so he ought to take pains to prove his trustworthiness ..."

What I fear is that you are headed for the same blunder you committed in 2008, when you nit-picked John McCain before settling on Barack Obama as the candidate you would vote for. I saw no evidence at that time -- and have seen none since -- that you applied the same level of scrutiny to Obama. If you had, perhaps you'd have cast your ballot for the flawed man with integrity instead of the very flawed man without it.

I don't see that any of the four candidates this year is extraordinarily trustworthy, so the question should really be is Trump more trustworthy than Hillary Clinton. And that is a very low bar to pass.

Bruce Hayden said...

If everyone were being honest here (impossible, of course, for Crooked Hillary and her campaign), she would be called upon to disavow many of her own supporters as antisemitic. Some of the worst antisemitism in recent yeas has come out of the Black community, and esp its leadership, who are all members in good standing of the inner cable running the Dem party. She should be condemning Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc for their antisemitism, and separating herself from them. But, of course, won't, with blacks being riled up to give her the same sort of voting edge they gave Obama. Remember that rank hypocrisy any time you hear a Dem or Hillary supporter demand that Trump or any other Republcan disavow their most extreme supporters.

Brando said...

"@Brando, fair 'nuff. How about Hillary Clinton shows the way by disavowing the h8rs like BLM and the BDS folks? Wouldn't it be gr8 if she would disavow the American flag burners and Mexican flag wavers protesting Trump rallies? If she's going to run on the slogan "stronger together" shouldn't she be denouncing the violence perpetrated on Trump supporters peaceably attending his rallies?"

Absolutely--nothing I wrote gives Hillary a pass. The fact that Democratic nominees haven't roundly disavowed Al Sharpton (who is genuinely bigoted against whites, Asians and Jews, among others) is shameful. Democrats seem okay with racism so long as it comes from non-white sources.

"Why should any politician disavow any voter? The politician is and believes what he or she is and believes. Each voter is different."

That's a fair question, but the answer is that if a certain supporter is backing you and that support sends a certain message to other potential voters, how you react to them is crucial. If, for example, you're running for president against FDR in 1940 and Hitler sympathizers in the U.S. publicly say they hopes you win, and you stay mum, people will think "hey maybe Hitlerites see something in this guy". It puts you on the spot to say where you stand.

You want everyone's support, of course, but where you have incompatable factions (say, pro-business and pro-union voters, or racists and non-racists) they're going to want to know which side you stand on, and if you believe one side is wrong (say, if they're pro-union and you're not) or worse, odious (as is the case with the racists), you have to make it clear or people will assume that maybe those racists were right about you.

One clever way to handle this was when Reagan was confronted about the John Birch Society backing him. He simply responded "their endorsement of me does not mean I endorse them". It's a way of saying "you can back me for any reason you choose, but this is what I stand for and I don't support those values".

I know a lot of people would say "well, they're going to call Trump a bigot anyway, so what's the point?" but remember, this isn't about the far left or permanent Trump critics--this is about the persuadable middle who decide elections. Those are the people who will actually pay attention, and call out an unfair attack when they see it. Why give your critics extra fuel and close off more voters? Are we so sure of a landslide this fall that such carelessness is justified?

Brando said...

"She should be condemning Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc for their antisemitism, and separating herself from them. But, of course, won't, with blacks being riled up to give her the same sort of voting edge they gave Obama. Remember that rank hypocrisy any time you hear a Dem or Hillary supporter demand that Trump or any other Republcan disavow their most extreme supporters."

It'd be nice if the minute this whole "star" thing came up, Trump went on TV and said "this is the time for disavowals" and roundly disavowed David Duke and his ilk, then called on Hillary to immediately disavow Al Sharpton and his ilk, and Jesse Jackson, and cited several instances of bigotry from them.

Why does he not do this?

MadisonMan said...

The letter he was responding to (from one of his writers) was not accusing Trump of being personally anti-Semitic but rather complaining that Trump was not actively disavowing the very real anti-Semites among his supporters (case in point--David Duke, who still supports Trump, approved of the "star" ad and thought it was a Jewish star).

I have seen a similar tactic regarding Althouse and her commentariat, specifically her refusal to condemn or delete people who say outrageous things.

Must one actively disavow everything they find personally objectionable? I think not. How about people think the best of others until proven otherwise? Free Speech is a wonderful and messy thing.

Brando said...

"Must one actively disavow everything they find personally objectionable? I think not. How about people think the best of others until proven otherwise? Free Speech is a wonderful and messy thing."

Obviously you can't go disavowing everything all the time, but when you're confronted with it you'll be judged by your reaction.

If I have a friend who went and committed a terror attack, I'm not obliged to go on Facebook and say I disavow what my friend did. But if someone asks me what I think about it, and I don't respond, I shouldn't be surprised if people think I don't condemn what he did.

Fabi said...

Real hysterical Republican Chuck built to quite the unhinged crescendo before Trump reached the delegate threshold earlier this year. We're seeing similar behavior in regard to the convention. It's very amusing.

Hagar said...

The one person I know for sure to be a Jew knows a lot more Jewish jokes than I do - and tells them.

dda6ga dda6ga said...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1034303/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_20

Defiance (2008)


Story about the Bielski Brigade actors include Daniel Craig and Lev Scheiber

paminwi said...

Left Bank of the Charles said: "I don't see how the side calling the other side crooked can complain much about the other side calling them racist."
Really? Being called crooked is as bad as being called a racist? Not even close. Though lefties never get called racist so maybe they really are clueless.

I have been a NeverTrump person for quite a while. But, the media has now turned its' ugliness on Trump since they got him nominated and it is a sight to behold and sometimes worthy of true, out loud laughter with how desperate they are.

You know how cable news uses "countdown clocks" for every stupid thing? I want a "COUNT UP" clock for how many days it has been since Hillary has a press conference. Now THAT would show the true Hillary. Why won't the media do that? Because it would show how weak and ineffective they are at putting their gal on the hot seat.

cubanbob said...

Arik said...
The issues is not if Trump is an anti-Semite but is campaign targeting its key constituent anti-Semitic "stormfront alt right supporters. Any Jew who is not in denial knows that the original poster intended to link Clinton to anti-Semitic meme. I am not impressed with Kushners defense of his in law based on his own parents. Even during the Holcaust the Nazi's were able to find Kapo's like Jared to do their dirty work. I really do not care what Trump's actually opinions of Jews are. If it quacks like a duck walks like a duck and looks like a duck it probably is a duck.

7/7/16, 1:09 AM"

Look at who has bought Hillary and get back to us. And look at the virulent anti-Semitic progressives who none of them will be voting for Trump. Speaking of Kapo's there are none worse than the lefty self-hating Jews.

Chuck said...

Humperdinck:

You imbecile. Read again what I wrote about Trump. I didn't accuse him of being a racist. I presumed that Trump was NOT a racist. Or an anti-Semite. The problem, I suggested, with Trump is that he is stupid. Careless and undisciplined with his now-infamous Twitter account.

Can you not read and understand?

The deeper we get into Clinton scandals, the greater is the tragedy that the putative Republican nominee is Trump.

dda6ga dda6ga said...

"Even during the Holcaust the Nazi's were able to find Kapo's like Jared to do their dirty work."

Do you include informers like Soros in this statement?

Darrell said...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3678222/Trump-continues-defend-star-David-Twitter-attack-Hillary-finds-Disney-Frozen-coloring-book-shape.html


Apparently Disney is anti-semitic, too.

Gusty Winds said...

When I think of liberals, especially campus liberals, or European Liberals and their sympathy toward Israel boycotts and Palestinian terrorist attacks, I immediately think of people who LOVE the Star of David.

Funny how with all the unity lighting of the Eiffel Tower over the last year to show support for people/countries attacked by ISIS (Belgium, Turkey, Rainbow Flag for Orlando) the Star of David from the Israeli Flag never seems to make the cut.

But Prince did. He made the tower.

Darrell said...

Trump did disavow David Duke and the KKK on CNN multiple times, the day before they gave him a dodgy earpiece (where after asking them to repeat) he stated that he didn't know whoever they were talking about and saying let's move on. David Dukes later said that he wasn't a Trump supporter.

The DNC "hack" showed they planned to use the same strategy against Kasich or Cruz if they were the nominee.

Richard said...

How ironic that the biggest supporters of anti-Semitism in the US, left-wing democrats, are suddenly shedding crocodile tears about anti-Semitism. If they really cared they would not actively support the BDS movement. Also how can an ad attacking Hillary Clinton be viewed as anti-Semitic? Did Hillary Clinton convert to Judaism? What would be the purpose of using anti-Semitic imagery against a non-Jew?

I guess nobody is upset that the democrats chose anti-Semites to write their platform.

"Three of the Sanders backers on the committee - Cornel West, a philosopher and social activist; James Zogby, the president of the Arab American Institute, and Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to Congress - are known in part for their criticisms of Israel.

West is a prominent BDS backer and Zogby has spoken forcefully against attempts to marginalize the movement. Ellison has called for greater consideration of Palestinian rights, but also has close ties to his home state Jewish community and says Israel’s security must be taken into account.

The standout appointment is West, a fiery speaker who has called the Gaza Strip “the ‘hood on steroids” and, in 2014, wrote that the crimes of Hamas “pale in the face of the US supported Israeli slaughters of innocent civilians.”

http://www.jpost.com/US-Elections/Sanders-picks-critics-of-Israel-BDS-backer-to-write-Democratic-platform-454820

Unknown said...

1. Arik, so George Soros is ten thousand times worse than Trump, right? His fortune's foundations are one step from being built on the gold from Jewish teeth.

2. Arik, so Hillary!, who has called us 'kikes' and 'Fucking Jew Bastards,' ranks where with you?

3. Arik, never mind what anybody says, what do they do?

What has Trump DONE to Jews, except hire them, do business with them, give them his daughters. Oh and blockbust Palm Beach so Jews could join the clubs and buy homes there?

What has Hillary!, or the last administration in which she served, done to Jews, except evil? Name it.

I am a Jew. I don't see it as you do. I have no iota of the self-hatred syndrome that, for instance, leads Jews to give away pieces of Israel like pieces of paper, or bend over backwards to be 'fair' to the Muslims who are only divided whether to kill us quickly or to torture us. So no, I do not agree.

Frankly the Reagan quote re: the Birchers should have ended the viability of such questions. If you can get people not on your side to vote for you, this is great juju. Viz., the blacks voting for the Democrats, whose policies have the effect of erasing them.

Bay Area Guy said...

The Left recognized that they could more easily win political debates, not on substance, but by calling their opponents racist, or sexist, or bigoted, or homophobic.

A lot of middle-of-the-road types voted for Obama to deflect the toxic charge of being called a racist. "Hey, I can't be a racist, I voted for Obama" was a meme that permeated many minds and generated many Dem votes

This has lead to a huge uptick in crime, such as 50% increase in murder rates in Chicago. The Ferguson Effect is real. Lurking in the minds of Cops, "Should I arrest this trouble-maker who happens to be black and get accused of being a racist (internal investigation, ostracization, bad PR, death threats from BLM, lawsuits and loss of pension) or simply look the other way?

I read some article of German women getting raped by Muslim immigrants, who refuse to identify them as Muslims for fear of being seen as racist.

Kushner's is a powerful piece designed to thwart, preempt and/or blunt the generalized racist smear against Trump the Left uses to accrue political power. Well done, Kushner, I say.

Unknown said...

4. Arik, who sent you?

Gusty Winds said...

Darrell said...
Trump did disavow David Duke and the KKK on CNN multiple times,

Nobody gives a rats ass what David Duke thinks.

But every four years, the Dems and the liberal media will drag this moron out of mothballs and play guilt by six degrees of association.

Democrats do not care about the well being of African-Americans or their families. They want their votes. That's it. It is necessary to keep the boogie man alive.

Does anybody Hillary to disavow Farrakhan? Or how about the Orlando shooter. He was a Hillary supporter.

Unknown said...

5. Re 1. Either Trump or Kushner, v. Soros.

Michael McClain said...

The DemCong are particularly skilled at racial and ethnic slander.

Unknown said...

6. Arik: Speaking of self-hating Jews: Bernard Sanders.

AF said...

"As for those who call the use of that star anti-Semitic, these people are atrocious hacks. They disgust me beyond words."

If you were to put words to it, I think it would be because Trump is doing what you do -- intentionally encourage, stir up, and benefit from the support of vile racists and bigots without explicitly agreeing with them -- and it really bothers you on a visceral level that anyone would call that behavior bigoted in its own right. It cuts too close to home and makes you very angry.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

I wonder if the Islamic State has thanked Obama, Clinton et al for sodomizing and aborting Gaddafi (Stevens etc.), and releasing his arsenal to commit mass abortion and torture throughout the Middle East in the vacuum left by Obama's premature evacuation. In Egypt, too, if not for the quick action of her military to remove the Democrat-backed far left takeover.

Has Clinton rejected class diversity schemes (e.g. racism, sexism)?

Has Clinton apologized to the women her husband sodomized and harassed with her conscientious backing? The female chauvinists really exposed their hand and destroyed their credibility as political operatives.

The atheist Jews need to stop projecting their anti-Semitism. The leverage earned through their self-description as "Jews" without Judaism is waning. Progressive Jew is an oxymoron.

The Left has a Pro-Choice problem that is not limited to abortion rites and Planned Parenthood.

Char Char Binks said...

But he's a gentile who used a six-pointed star that looks ALMOST like the Star of David. You can't prove it WASN'T racist.

Hagar said...

The Daily Mail has a post today up about a sex offender with a mugshot including a six-sided star with the legend "Multnomah County - Sheriff" around what must be the county seal.

Char Char Binks said...

"raditionalguy said...
There is a long history in America of Secret Societies such as Free Masonry, its Mormonism off shoot, and the post reconstruction KKK vigilante force that included big hatred of Catholics and Jews more than it hated uppity black freed men."

That is all kinds of wrong. Freemasonry is not an American phenomenon; it has it's origins in Europe, and it exists worldwide. Mormonism has some masonic roots, but so do many other otherwise unrelated groups. And Freemasonry was never antisemitic, anti-Catholic, or racist. In fact, the Masons were among the few mostly-white Protestant groups in recent centuries that allowed Jewish, Catholic, and non-white, including black, members. There's a lot of anti-Masonic sentiment among Catholics, and many other groups and individuals, but that doesn't mean that Freemasonry is anti-Catholic.

The connections between the KKK and Masons are tenuous, and allegations seem to be mostly made by conspiracy theorists who try to smear one or the other group, or both, by association, either for anti-Klan or anti-Masonic purposes, or both.

Brando said...

And yet, Trump has continued to keep this issue in the news when he would have done better by getting lost on a deserted island for the past week, while Hillary is uniting most Americans in outrage against her. Does anyone doubt that if she were running against a plain vanilla cookie cutter candidate she would be even close to the margin of error against him, let alone leading him in the polls?

I was told Trump would be "hitting her back twice as hard" but if this is an example of that, maybe we should have given "low energy Jeb" a shot...some "low energy" might be nice at a time when the Democrat is vastly unpopular and flailing.

dreams said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
dreams said...

Our greatest problem is we don't have a free and unbias press which results in the Dems being effectively unaccountable, e.g. Hillary Clinton.

Terry said...

I am not a Trump supporter. I am a conservative. trump is not a conservative. I will not vote for Trump. It's an easy decision for me to make; my state is solid blue. It went for Obama over Romney by a 2:1 margin. My national vote is largely just a civic duty.
But I think Hillary is as bad as Trump. Even worse than Trump. Worse than Obama. She wants to strip the Bill of Rights of the first, second, and fifth amendments, and if elected, she will is certain to appoint supreme court justices who will back her in this.
What is more, I believe the media attacks on Trump are unfair. He is being called on things that he would not be called on if there was a D after his name. Guilt by association, for example, is a tactic the MSM uses on Republicans, but not Democrats.
So what do I do? I was thinking of kicking $20 to the Trump campaign every time I think that he is being attacked unfairly, but I hate to give him money, and I will have his fundraisers calling my cell phone and asking for more $. I wish that there was some kind of exchange where I could trade a non-contribution to the Hillary campaign with non-contribution to the Trump campaign, but no such system exists.

mockturtle said...

I don't think Trump REALLY wants to be president but I think he does want to make America great again. And we can't really do that with the establishment candidates. So what's a billionaire patriot to do??

Brando said...

"So what do I do? I was thinking of kicking $20 to the Trump campaign every time I think that he is being attacked unfairly, but I hate to give him money, and I will have his fundraisers calling my cell phone and asking for more $. I wish that there was some kind of exchange where I could trade a non-contribution to the Hillary campaign with non-contribution to the Trump campaign, but no such system exists. "

I'd consider supporting any third party candidate who suits you. No need to assume the only choices are what the two parties are disgustingly putting up.

As for the non-contribution trades, maybe some online exchange with personal verification could be created? Some pledge that no one will send a dime to either of the crooks (particularly since it looks like all Trump will do with your donation is funnel it back into his own businesses--hey, he did say he wanted to make money off this race, he needs more suckers!).

If I were a fundraiser/political operative sort, I'd be forming a Super PAC that put out ads attacking both Trump and Hillary, with the ultimate message "pick someone else!". Send the parties the message that a large percentage of voters are motivated enough to vote, but will not choose one of their picks this year.

Brando said...

"I don't think Trump REALLY wants to be president but I think he does want to make America great again. And we can't really do that with the establishment candidates. So what's a billionaire patriot to do??"

I don't think Trump even wants to make America great, unless we define "great" as a place where he can continue to con more people and remain unaccountable. Not a lot different from what Hillary wants to do with America. They have a lot in common.

Lydia said...

How about Hillary Clinton shows the way by disavowing the h8rs like BLM and the BDS folks?

Hillary Clinton: ‘Make countering BDS a priority’

Rhythm and Balls said...

Interesting thread. Sorry I missed it. Also sorry I don't apparently have Java installed correctly to check out what the Trump supporters have been sending to Kushner's employee.

But, it seems the Crankhouses here have made it about: Hillary, check out YOUR ant-semites on the LEFT! Totally worse than the actual Nazis on our own right!

Sorry, but I'm not buying that one. Hatred of Israel is rankly ignorant, unfortunate and wrong-headed. But really nothing quite the same as "Hitler was right, Jews control the world, they need to be exterminated. Again." Miles away.

J. Farmer said...

Just when you think the outrage machine couldn't get anymore absurd. Jews have dominion over entire geographic shapes?

Terry said...

check out YOUR ant-semites on the LEFT! Totally worse than the actual Nazis on our own right!
The national socialists? What did they try to conserve? Were they strong believers in property rights? Equality before the law? 'We need a strong government to protect the rights of white people' is not a conservative position. If you want to hear a powerful critique of capitalism from the workers' POV, talk to a national socialist, not a conservative or a Republican.

Terry said...

From the anti-Iraq War speech that launched Obama's national political career in 2002:

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99591469
One of the common tropes of anti-Semites, reborn again during the Iraq Wars with the attacks on 'neocons', is that Jews in government start wars to enrich themselves, and the children of gentiles are the kids who fight and die.

J. Farmer said...

@Terry:

How can you criticize Wolfowitz and Perle, both of whom were spectacularly wrong about the Iraq War, without being anti-Semitic? The relationship between neoconservatism and the Jewish intellectual right is well attested. Neocons went for Clinton in '92 because they largely loathed Bush, Sr., who was seen as overly deferential to the Saudis and insufficiently supportive of Israel. They did not like Bush, Sr.'s conservative, cautious, realist approach. Clinton's promise of military adventurism in the Balkans and pushing NATO closer towards Russia's border in the post-Soviet era were both supported by the neocon wing of the Republican foreign party establishment. There's never been much meaningful difference between a so called neocon foreign policy and liberal internationalism. I cannot think of a single US military intervention of the last 25 years that Hillary Clinton has opposed.

Terry said...

"How can you criticize Wolfowitz and Perle, both of whom were spectacularly wrong about the Iraq War, without being anti-Semitic?"
By calling them out by their job titles, and not their obviously Jewish names.
Obama was a Chicago pol. He knew exactly what he was doing.

J. Farmer said...

@Terry:

"By calling them out by their job titles, and not their obviously Jewish names."

Oh, come on. Mentioning Perle and Wolfowitz by name is automatically a dog whistle to anti-semitic sentiments? I assume it's permissible to refer to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as "Rumsfeld" instead of "the Secretary of Defense." Perle and Wolfowitz have been major figures in the relevant areas, and both had been strong advocates for the war. Both had also made wildly wrongheaded predictions. Perle imagined a post-Kosovo type situation where there would be some statue or other memorial to George W. Bush in Baghdad. Wolfowitz seriously underestimated the cost of occupation, which he expected to be a rather minimal affair with only a small footprint on the ground. It's also worth remembering that Perle and Wolfowitz had been part of a small coterie who would have preferred overthrowing Hussein during the first Gulf War. Dick Cheney correctly predicted that such a move could likely result in the collapse of Iraq and was on the side of the President in seeking the narrower goal of expelling Hussein from Kuwait. In other words, it's perfectly legitimate to invoke both individuals in critiquing the arguments for the war. Have Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice not been routine targets for criticism (by name!) despite their gentile status?

Unknown said...

Farmer, no one expects you to get it, or to admit it if you do. The next friendly thing you have to say about Jews or Israel will be the first. Pity there aren't some convenient libertine open gays to scapegoat, that might help you get it.

Unknown said...

And no one cares or has ever cared about Rice. Cheney and Bush are the usual couplet for general whipping of the Administration. Perle and Wolfowitz are always the names associated with the war, as if they were alone.

J. Farmer said...

@Unknown:

"The next friendly thing you have to say about Jews or Israel will be the first."

Nothing I am saying has anything to do with "Jews or Israel."

"Pity there aren't some convenient libertine open gays to scapegoat, that might help you get it."

Scapegoat? Perle and Wolfowitz were both involved in the Defense Department at the time and had both been vocal advocates and supporters for the Iraq War for several years. But I get it, their influence in taking us to war can't be criticized because to invoke their names is a dog whistle to anti-semitism. You'll have to teach me that mind reading trick one of these days.

"Perle and Wolfowitz are always the names associated with the war, as if they were alone."

Any evidence for this statement beyond your own paranoia?

Nichevo said...

Dude, everyone knows what you are. Relax, there is no sanction for it, except to be known for what you are. You have company, to be sure. That kind is welcome here.

But to chip in on the point at hand. Wolfowitz probably had a mini-stroke when Bush replaced Garner with Bremer and Bremer sent the Iraqi Army home. If you want someone to blame, blame Bremer, the cowboy-booted cretin. Go dig into that pile and let us know what you find.

J. Farmer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J. Farmer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J. Farmer said...

@Nichevo:

"Dude, everyone knows what you are."

What am I?

"If you want someone to blame, blame Bremer, the cowboy-booted cretin. Go dig into that pile and let us know what you find."

No, I blame George W. Bush and the Senators who voted for the authorization to use military force. The Iraq War was a calamitous disaster, and its outcome was widely predicted by those on the antiwar side, particularly the conservative antiwar side. Hell, Dick Cheney himself had predicted it almost a decade earlier. Disbanding the army may, in and of itself, have been a tactical mistake, but it's minuscule within the larger strategic disaster of initiating the war to begin with. Iraq is a state without a coherent nation. The only means to hold it together is an authoritarian police state.

Nichevo said...

If you don't know, why should I twll you? But I will. You're a sophomoric young punk in love with the smell of his own farts which he has confused with incense.

GWB deserves blame, if you like, for neglecting the hard-nosed politicking to support his initiatives, but as far as I'm concerned, if "they" have to be ruled by authoritarian strongmen, you may as well just wipe "them" out. Neither was agreeable to a fundamentally decent man like Bush, so he tried something else. It might have failed without the various betrayals, but it needed to be tried. Now we can watch them blow each other up with a clear conscience.

J. Farmer said...

@Nichevo:

"You're a sophomoric young punk in love with the smell of his own farts which he has confused with incense."

Granting that I'm all of those things, which argument or point did I make was incorrect?

"Neither was agreeable to a fundamentally decent man like Bush, so he tried something else."

But the Salafist Saudis and their chauvinist regime was agreeable? Our entire security arrangement with the al Saud regime is that they keep a lid on popular dissent. Their support for radical salafism is, I presume, a tolerable price for that arrangement. Mass murder in Darfur was obviously agreeable to Bush (and most of the rest of the wold).

If the argument for the Iraq was disagreeability to Bush's decency, then I think it's safe to say the few remaining die hard supporters for that catastrophe have truly reached a dead end.

sonicfrog said...

"""Despite the best efforts of his political opponents and a large swath of the media to hold Donald Trump accountable for the utterances of even the most fringe of his supporters—a standard to which no other candidate is ever held"""

Wait... Wasn't it the Trump campaign that Ted Cruz because of some comments posted about Trumps wife by a "fringe supporter" of Ted Cruz?

PS. Hey Ann, sorry I haven't been around. Life, and all that you know.