By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Trump stated he would have ordered flags lowered in honor of assassinated Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman if requested by the governor. This response followed criticism regarding the White House’s tribute to slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk, which included ordering flags at half-staff. While questioned about the lack of similar action for Hortman, Trump dismissed the Minnesota governor, citing a lack of knowledge. Trump maintains that the radical left is responsible for significant political violence, though he has not acknowledged recent violent acts targeting Democrats.
Read the original article here
Trump says he would have lowered flag for assassinated Minnesota Democrat if he had been asked, and that statement immediately sets off alarm bells. It’s the kind of response that feels calculated, carefully worded to deflect any potential criticism. The core issue is this: a public official, a state legislator, was murdered, a tragedy that demands a solemn response, a response dictated by empathy and protocol. Instead, we get a hypothetical. He’s implying that a symbolic gesture of respect, lowering the flag to half-staff, was contingent on someone, anyone, asking him.
This begs the question: shouldn’t the decision to honor a fallen public servant, particularly in such a violent manner, be automatic, regardless of whether a request was made? It’s hard not to see this as a failure of leadership, a lack of understanding, or perhaps a deliberate evasion of the responsibility that comes with the office. A genuine leader, a president with integrity, would have likely acted without needing a prompt. They would have acknowledged the gravity of the situation and acted accordingly, making a clear and decisive move.
The comments point to a deeper issue: a perceived lack of principle, a reliance on transactional interactions rather than values. This is a pattern that many have observed and criticized. The claim that he would have acted if asked appears to contradict his past behavior. The man raised the flags during the mourning period of a former president. He clearly had the power to make a decision.
The idea that he wouldn’t reach out to the governor, calling the governor a “whack job” and a “mess” while also claiming that offering condolences would be a “waste of time,” further complicates the picture. This paints a picture of someone who is not only hesitant to take initiative but also seemingly unwilling to engage with those he views as political opponents. It seems difficult to accept that the flag issue was overlooked.
The fact that he didn’t even know who the assassinated legislator was, as noted by those commenting, doesn’t help either. This highlights a potential lack of engagement with the issue, or perhaps, a detachment from the realities of the situation. It raises questions about his awareness of current events and the seriousness of the situation. If he didn’t know the victim’s name, how could he make an informed decision on the appropriate course of action?
The comments underscore the importance of this issue. The question is not whether someone asked, but whether he acted in accordance with the expectations of the office and the basic decency that the situation called for. The fact that he has to be “asked” is indicative of a lack of moral grounding.
This isn’t just about a flag. It’s about a bigger picture. The conversation touches on how he has handled other similar situations. There are references to his interactions with other politicians. They remind us that the flag incident should be viewed in a larger context. This is about more than just a single situation; it’s about a consistent pattern of behavior.
These comments are not simply attacks; they represent an observation of behavior. The comments are about the responsibilities that come with the office of president. They’re a call for accountability and a reminder that leadership requires more than just the trappings of power. It requires empathy, judgment, and a willingness to do the right thing, even when it’s not easy.
It is also evident that the comments reflect the frustration with the perceived lack of action and principle. People expect their leaders to demonstrate a certain level of decorum, especially in the face of tragedy. The fact that he seemed to be waiting to be asked, instead of taking the initiative, is seen as a failure.
The phrase “I would have lowered the flag if asked,” reveals a troubling mindset. It suggests that his actions are driven by a need for validation or a desire to avoid taking responsibility, rather than a genuine concern for the victim or a commitment to the values of the office. It’s a statement that, in the end, does more to reveal his character than to defend it.