For John, BLUF: Mrs Clinton is a leader in the Democratic Party, but isn't leading us in the proper direction. Nothing to see here; just move along.
From Daily Caller, by Mr Justin Caruso, Senior Media Reporter, 29 June 2018.
This is how it starts out:
Failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton rejected calls of civility in a recent interview, calling for “strength and resolve” to resist President Trump.Speaking of "uncivil", I think using the phrase "Failed presidential candidate" is pretty uncivil. Not as uncivil as inviting the President's Press Secretary to leave the Red Hen, but still, at some level, uncivil. "Losing" would be better. On the other hand, "Failed" is closer to the truth.
The Guardian reports that when asked about some on the left becoming “uncivil” recently, she responded:
“‘Oh, give me a break,’ she erupts, eyes widening into indignation. ‘Give me a break! What is more uncivil and cruel than taking children away? It should be met with resolve and strength. And if some of that comes across as a little uncivil, well, children’s lives are at stake; their futures are at stake. That is that ridiculous concept of bothsideism.'”Clinton also mocked people who call for civility in political discourse, imitating, “Well, you know, somebody made an insulting, profane remark about President Trump, and he separated 2,300 children from their families, that’s both sides, and we should stop being uncivil — oh, and, by the way, he should stop separating children.”
That said, being uncivil can reach a plateau, or dissipate, or get more harsh. The interesting question, the important question, is what happens if it gets more harsh. Are there any limits? When does rhetoric turn to violence? And once violence begins, how far does it go? Frankly, violence seems to lead to civil war, does it not?
Hat tip to the InstaPundit.
Regards — Cliff