By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Governor Whitmer expressed deep disappointment over President Trump’s consideration of pardoning Adam Fox and Barry Croft Jr., who were convicted of plotting to kidnap her. The men were sentenced to lengthy prison terms for their plot, fueled by anger over COVID-19 restrictions, despite claims of entrapment being rejected by the court. Trump’s comments dismissing the convictions as a “railroad job” and his potential pardon are viewed as undermining efforts to condemn political violence. Whitmer plans to convey her concerns directly to the White House.
Read the original article here
Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s response to Donald Trump’s consideration of pardons for the men who plotted to kidnap her has sparked considerable debate. She expressed feeling “very disappointed,” a reaction that many find insufficient given the gravity of the situation. The planned kidnapping was a serious attempt to inflict violence upon her, a clear threat against her safety and the democratic process.
The governor’s measured response stands in stark contrast to the outrage many believe is warranted. Many observers point out that a Republican governor facing a similar threat would likely react with much stronger condemnation and demands for justice. The perception of a subdued reaction has led to accusations of weakness and a failure to fully confront the threat.
The question of whether Whitmer should be “mad” as opposed to “disappointed” highlights a deeper political divide. Some argue that her measured response reflects a calculated political strategy, prioritizing civility and avoiding escalation. Others view it as a sign of weakness, a failure to leverage the situation to galvanize support and challenge the perceived impunity of those who would use violence to achieve political aims.
The choice of words – “very disappointed” – has itself become a point of contention. The adverb “very” seems to downplay the seriousness of the situation, leading to a sense that the gravity of the attempted kidnapping is being underestimated. This perceived lack of forceful condemnation leaves some feeling she has failed to adequately represent the anger and fear many feel on her behalf.
Many believe that Whitmer’s actions are counterproductive to the Democratic party’s overall strategy. The perception of softness and an unwillingness to engage in fiery rhetoric is seen as detrimental in a highly polarized political landscape. The reaction underscores a broader concern that Democrats are consistently outmaneuvered by Republicans who employ aggressive tactics and often eschew civility.
The potential pardons themselves are viewed as highly controversial and a dangerous precedent. The possibility that those who planned such a violent act against a sitting governor might face no federal consequences sends a chilling message about the rule of law and the safety of elected officials. This fuels the sense of injustice and underscores the feeling that the reaction from Whitmer has been insufficient to address the issue effectively.
There are also questions about the potential political motivations behind Whitmer’s reaction. Some speculate that she might be trying to avoid further conflict with the former president, hoping to avoid further escalating the political tensions and the risks to her own safety. Others suggest that her actions are part of a larger strategy aimed at maintaining a moderate image and appealing to a broader electorate.
The incident highlights a broader debate about the effectiveness of different political strategies. While some argue that Whitmer’s approach of measured response is a better way to avoid further polarization, others believe that a stronger response is necessary to deter future acts of political violence. This contrast in approaches reveals deeper divisions within the political landscape.
The incident serves as a case study in the complexities of political communication and the challenges of navigating a highly polarized political environment. The intensity of the reaction to Whitmer’s measured response underlines the deep anxieties and divisions within American society. Whether her response reflects a savvy political strategy or a lack of sufficient outrage, it has undeniably become a focal point in the ongoing national political conversation.
Ultimately, Whitmer’s expressed disappointment in the face of potential pardons for those who plotted her kidnapping has become a lightning rod for a wider discussion about political strategy, the appropriate response to political violence, and the very nature of political leadership in the current climate. The long-term consequences of both the attempted kidnapping and the response to it remain to be seen.