Ugh. Yecchh. Blechh!
When I read that “People” headline, I genuinely thought that President Trump had deliberately decided to attack the Kennedy family in the aftermath of the tragic death of Caroline Kennedy’s daughter, Tatiana Schlossberg. That would have been insane, of course, but after Trump’s Rob Reiner outburst, I was ready to believe the worst. Clearly, “People” wanted readers to believe the worst, to give Trump-Haters more fuel to inflame them and Trump supporters reason to switch sides.
[Notice of correction: Because of the “People” headline, I didn’t realize that Trump personally had made no derogatory comments about the Kennedy family, and just reposted the comments of others. I apologize for that error, and have revised the post accordingly.]
It is crystal clear, even from the Truth Social posts quoted in the article, that the President’s re-posting of anti-Kennedy social media invective had nothing to do with Tatiana Schlossberg whatsoever. Yesterday the news was full of talk about artists and audiences boycotting the Kennedy Center because it now had Trump’s name on it, and Trump, predictably, was striking back, using the social media posts of others to do so.
“Trump did not directly mention Tatiana’s death in his social media deluge following her death,” “People” wrote. Yeah, he also didn’t mention Portugal’s exploration of the New World, classic episodes of “What’s My Line?” or Barry Bonds’ chances of making the Hall of Fame. That sentence is a scummy example of “poisoning the well.” Would Trump have re-posted the exact same stuff if Tatiana hadn’t died? Absolutely. So why is the magazine implying that the events are related?
Why? Because the Axis news media, even borderline fluff-purveyors like “People,” are shameless, ruthless, and committed to exploiting every opportunity to damage Trump and his Presidency. Because there are no depths to which they won’t sink. Because they know there are enough intellectually lazy, biased anti-Trump fanatics out there that such gutter-level tactics will work. (From a fiery lake in Hell, Harry Reid cackles maniacally.)
Sure, the President foolishly hands his enemies too many sticks to beat him with. Yes, he shouldn’t send out 95% of the social media offal he does, because it’s unprofessional, unpresidential, and self-destructive. Absolutely, he sets himself up for slimings like this one. No, he doesn’t deserve any sympathy.
Nevertheless, Trump was not thinking about Caroline’s daughter or the fact that she was JFK’s granddaughter. The repostings outburst was not a repeat of the recent Rob Reiner fiasco, and if I were dumb enough to subscribe to “People,” I would cancel my subscription for this.
The President really has to start paying attention to his popularity. It is admirable that he has the courage to do what is needed despite polls and popular opposition. A President still can’t be effective if he burns away his popular support recklessly. Trump knows the news media wants to destroy him and is allied with his worst enemies. Walking into traps like the latest Kennedy family tragedy is irresponsible.
___________________
Pointer: JutGory
Ethics Alarms 
There must be a separate, additional ring in Hell for headline writers. What irredeemable hacks.
I don’t see any need to defend Trump’s social media posts, this one especially. Criticizing a media article does not imply a need to simultaneously defend Trump, not even sort of.
As you say, Trump was not thinking about Tatiana Schlossberg being Caroline’s daughter or JFK’s granddaughter, and that is exactly the reason his post is not defensible. While Presidents cannot be guided in their official duties by empathy, they nevertheless are expected to have at least have a smidgen of that quality if they proclaim themselves to be President of all the people. Having that would require that he hold off on his hateful post, at least until some time after the funeral. His inability to wait, to immediately strike back, in a lame attempt to defend the stupid name change, not only invites the Streisand effect, but also is a case of ‘The Gentleman (using that term advisedly) doeth protest too much”.
It is inconceivable that he was not aware of Schlossberg’s death nor of her relationship to the Kennedy family. Or, maybe it is conceivable – the WSJ has an in-depth article about Trump’s mental and physical decline (softened by referring to it as “signs of aging”). So, if he were to apologize properly and claim a mental lapse, then, perhaps, he could be forgiven this time. I’m not holding my breath nor my opinion waiting for that to happen.
The “Trump is declining” narrative is pure partisan/Trump-hate crap, and I’m surprised you would reference it. He’s nearly 80 and obviously shows signs of aging. He’s no more incoherent than he ever was and his energy is astounding. Reagan showed more signs of aging from his prime than Trump has, and since we had four years of seeing what a really declining POTUS was like, this theme is unfair and contrived. The people who resort to this think its crazy to deport illegal immigrants and not to ban guns.
I think it is quite possible, even likely, that Trump didn’t know Caroline’s daughter had died, and didn’t connect the death to the Kennedys. The death was a family tragedy, but has no implications politically or economically for the nation as a whole.
If in fact Trump was unaware and did not make the connection, that would be a sign of mental decline, except in someone so into himself that he is unaware of things that don’t affect him personally. Either could well be the case here.
I am trying to find words written by Trump himself. Reposting comments from supporters is not the same as him attacking the family. If someone could point me to Trump’s actual invectives against the Kennedy family my following evaluation may be quite different.
The issue was the name change and the Democrat’s being incensed over it. All the screen shots (from the link provided) were of others commenting on the issue. I find the excuse that one cannot defend a decision using public comment simply because a tragedy befell a a relation to JFK’s family. I do not see Schlossberg remaining quiet on the naming issue so is it fair to allow attacks on one decision and then using an unrelated tragedy to prevent any counter points on the issue at hand.
I also found that the statement that the vote was not unanimous by an ex-officio member not relevant because unanimity in a vote is not required and ex-officio members in non-profits generally have no vote in board decisions and are there because they can add historical information. I have no idea if this representative from Ohio was on the board as an ex-officio as a result of her being an elected Congressional representative or if she had voting rights. Given her elected status, resistance to anything Trump makes her points less useful.
My frame of reference in my evaluation is that trying to use a tragedy as a shield from any negative response to public policy issue is like using human shields to avoid any consequences from those you have attacked in war.
I was deceived by the headline and assumed that Trump has authored some of the anti-Kennedy criticism himself. I only figured that out that he hadn’t after reading your comment. The post has been corrected accordingly. Thanks, Chris.
Gratuitously re-posting these kinds of comments has to be showing agreement and support, there being no other rationale. It’s as if he wrote them himself. Or perhaps an autopen did it.
I think that’s fair, HJ.
Again you miss the point. The Kennedy clan objected to the name change and others defended it. Trump just reposted what some were thinking. The Kennedy had its own surrogates independently voicing opposition to the change. Those were covered extensively in the MSM. The MSM never published those in no names who supported the change. Trump publishing others in aggregate just seems to level the media playing field and those that object to him doing that I believe just don’t like losing the media advantage.
Personally, I believe that social media is fracturing our country which is why I won’t play the games in them. But if you attack someone using social media and will get MSM attention because of your name to drum up support for your position then you cannot really complain when the person attacked uses other posts who would not otherwise get the platform because they are unknowns. This is why I don’t think Trump punches down when defends himself when attacked by those with celebrity status.
To say that the Kennedy are insulated from a response because tragedy in the family that just occurred is no different than using human shields in my book. Tatiana was suffering with the disease during the Kennedy attacks on the name change and their focus was on the name change not Tatiana.