By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The publication is dedicated to delivering factual journalism and holding power accountable, a mission supported by reader membership. Reader support has been crucial in building and sustaining the newsroom, especially during challenging periods. As the publication moves forward, they are seeking renewed membership to further strengthen their ability to provide impactful reporting. The article expresses gratitude to readers for their past support and encourages them to continue contributing to their mission.
Read the original article here
NYT’s Maggie Haberman says Trump is ‘struggling’ with messaging around Charlie Kirk’s death, and it appears that’s hitting the nail on the head. The initial reaction, or perhaps the lack thereof, seems to have exposed a deeper issue at play.
The comments make it pretty clear: Trump’s message was anything but confused. It was perfectly on brand – focused on himself, his projects (like that new ballroom), and ultimately, how he could turn this situation into a benefit for himself. The fact that some of the comments highlight the lack of unity and the emphasis on “smashing the left” is a familiar refrain from his playbook. So, is he struggling? Maybe not to convey a message, but more likely to navigate a situation where the focus wasn’t immediately and solely on him.
The underlying sentiment appears to be that Trump is consistently self-absorbed. He’s more concerned with his own image and projects than with expressing any genuine emotion or unity in the face of tragedy. This isn’t necessarily a new revelation, but the fact that this is highlighted during a moment when a more presidential response might have been expected is telling.
This whole episode also brings up the complexities within the MAGA movement itself. This situation seems difficult for the former president because he must reckon with the fact that one MAGA member may have been killed by another. Several of the comments highlight this tension, the challenge of navigating the internal divisions, and how to respond when the “enemy” isn’t who you expect.
It’s hard to ignore the implication that Trump’s response, or lack thereof, is directly linked to his own base. He’s careful not to alienate the more extreme elements, even when it means avoiding a clear condemnation of violence or a show of empathy. This leads to the question of how to message in a situation where acknowledging the loss of someone within the movement might be seen as a betrayal.
There’s a general feeling that Trump missed an opportunity to unite the country, or even to present a more nuanced position. Instead, the focus remains on his own interests, with any potential for genuine human connection or empathy noticeably absent. The ballroom, the self-promotion – they seem to overshadow the actual event.
The Epstein files, a topic that frequently surfaces in these discussions, are clearly seen as a potential complicating factor. The comments imply that Trump might have wanted to use Kirk’s death as a distraction, but he seems to have missed that opportunity. This is linked to the underlying issue of what Trump values most – the situation may have presented an opportunity to pivot, but Trump chose to keep the focus on himself.
Furthermore, the comments point to a potential for embarrassment or annoyance that someone else is dominating the news cycle. This ego-driven need for constant attention seemingly drives his actions, often at the expense of genuine human connection or strategic advantage. This is also not a new revelation, just one more data point for the record.
The overall feeling expressed is one of disappointment, a sentiment that Trump’s response was predictable and self-serving. The struggle isn’t with the message itself, as the message is clear – it’s with being expected to show compassion or care, something he appears unwilling or unable to do. His consistent downplaying of serious issues and his focus on himself above all else is a familiar pattern, and one that apparently leaves many observers less than impressed.