By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following a mass shooting in Minnesota that killed former House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, President Trump refused to call Governor Tim Walz, citing his disapproval of the governor. Trump’s spokesperson confirmed the president’s refusal, stating that he considered Walz “whacked out” and unworthy of a call. This action contrasts sharply with former President Biden’s immediate call to Walz expressing condolences. The President’s decision is particularly notable given the Trump administration’s publicly stated commitment to combating politically motivated violence, yet no federal terrorism charges have been filed against the suspect.
Read the original article here
Trump’s alleged private trash-talking of Governor Walz in the wake of the Minnesota assassinations is, frankly, unsurprising. It fits a pattern of behavior we’ve witnessed repeatedly throughout his public life. The idea that he’s doing this *privately* is almost comical, given his penchant for airing grievances, both large and small, on social media and through public pronouncements. While there’s a degree of speculation involved regarding the exact nature of his private comments, the overall sentiment is hardly a secret.
The very notion that such private criticisms even exist highlights the disturbing disconnect between Trump’s public persona and the reality of his actions. It’s as if he believes that by keeping some vitriol behind closed doors, the impact somehow lessens. Yet, the very act of directing personal attacks towards a governor during a time of crisis speaks volumes about his character and priorities.
This isn’t just about political disagreements; it’s about exhibiting a profound lack of empathy and decency. The tragic events in Minnesota demand a measured response, a focus on healing and understanding. Instead, we see, or at least hear whispers of, more of the same divisive rhetoric that has characterized his political career.
It’s tempting to analyze the motivations behind these comments. Perhaps Trump feels threatened by Walz, particularly given Walz’s opposition to Trump’s political agenda. Perhaps Trump is trying to deflect criticism, or perhaps the assassinations have simply created another opportunity to attack a political opponent. Whatever the reason, the effect remains the same: it fuels further division and undermines efforts towards unity and reconciliation.
The fact that the alleged assassin was a self-proclaimed MAGA supporter adds another layer of complexity to the situation. While no direct link between Trump’s rhetoric and the perpetrator’s actions has been definitively established, the climate of political polarization Trump has cultivated provides a fertile ground for such acts of violence. This isn’t a matter of assigning direct blame; it’s about recognizing the potential consequences of inflammatory language and unchecked incitement.
Moreover, Trump’s supposed private attacks on Walz reveal a certain level of fear. The criticisms may stem from a recognition that Walz offers a potent counter-narrative to Trump’s brand of politics. Walz’s ability to call out Trump’s hypocrisy and flaws clearly unsettles the former president, motivating this alleged behind-the-scenes criticism. It suggests a vulnerability that Trump rarely acknowledges publicly.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this whole situation is the predictable response from Trump’s supporters. Any criticism of Trump, no matter how justified, is met with fierce loyalty and defense. This unwavering support, coupled with the potential for violence, creates a deeply concerning dynamic within the American political landscape.
Ultimately, Trump’s supposed private attacks on Walz are symptomatic of a broader problem. They underscore the urgent need for respectful dialogue, empathy, and a rejection of the kind of inflammatory rhetoric that has become so pervasive in our political discourse. The gravity of the situation demands that we move beyond partisan bickering and focus on the fundamental issues at stake: healing a fractured nation and preventing future tragedies. Whether his words are spoken publicly or privately, the underlying tone of disrespect, lack of empathy, and blatant disregard for the suffering of others, speaks volumes about the character of the individual involved.
The entire affair serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of unchecked political rhetoric and the necessity of fostering a more civil and constructive public conversation. It is a reminder that our words have consequences, and that leaders, especially, should be held accountable for the tone they set and the messages they convey, whether publicly or behind closed doors.