Issues & Insights
ABC News screenshot

Democrats Call Trump A Murdering White Supremacist, Debate ‘Moderators’ Yawn

From the first minute of last night’s truly intolerable Democratic debate, a candidate for the world’s most powerful office started things rolling downhill with a startling assertion about last month’s horrific shootings in El Paso:

“Twenty-two people were killed, dozens more grievously injured by a man … inspired to kill by our president.” (Emphasis added)

Later in the same debate, a sitting U.S. senator from the nation’s largest state added the following over-the-top observation about these vile murders:

“People asked me … ‘do you think Trump is responsible for what happened?’ And I said, ‘Well, look, I mean, obviously, he didn’t pull the trigger. But he’s certainly been tweeting out the ammunition.’”

Let that sink in for a moment. On a debate stage on a major broadcast network, the sitting president of the United States was point-blank accused of responsibility for the vicious slaughter of 22 innocents.

Yet that wasn’t even the most slanderous charge leveled against the chief executive, not by a long shot. The “winner” in that category also emanated from the addled brain of the White House wannabe initially referenced above:

“But we will also call out the fact that we have a white supremacist in the White House, and he poses a mortal threat to people of color all across this country.”

In other words, our president, per Robert Francis O’Rourke and Webster’s dictionary, is “a person who believes that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races.” And endangers their existence.

Now, debates over the last two cycles have occasioned some fairly gnarly incidents — including a previous all-time low when candidate Donald Trump himself assured America of the ampleness of his manhood.

But these latest calumnies are so far out of the realm of acceptable political discourse that they represent a new level of debasement of the electoral process.

There was a time when some adult on the stage would have protested — in the manner of the time-outs called last night when internecine attacks got a little too heated — that these animadversions had crossed a line. Instead, the progenitor of those defamations earned shout-outs by no fewer than five of his fellows for his shameless politicization of the unthinkable tragedy in El Paso, on top of similar blood libels of the president.

Yet as shameless as the candidates’ collective deportment, the real blame must be laid at the feet of the completely immoderate moderators at the half-cattle calls, half oratorical free-for-alls now passing for debates.

Speaking of harking back to an earlier era: Can one imagine such men as Cronkite, Huntley, Brinkley, Reynolds or Reasoner — for all their liberal leanings — simply moving on to the next contrived question following an assertion that the head of the state of the Land of the Free was a racist?

Certainly, a real journalist would have stopped the proceedings and said, “Mr. O’Rourke, did I hear you correctly? Did you just suggest that the president believes that whites are superior to nonwhites and that nonwhites should be under subjugation?” Just as a disbelieving Max Frankel called time and doubled back on President Gerald Ford’s far less offensive brain fart in a 1976 debate that “there is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe.”

Today, that role has been abandoned in favor of panelists’ serving as activists spurring candidates to new heights of “can-you-top-this” excess.

The premier examples at last night’s affair were Linsey Davis and Jorge Ramos, who neatly fulfilled the stereotypic functions assigned them as moderators of color: to stir up further controversy and racial division.

Every single Davis question went to questions of race, including suggestions that Trump has worsened the racial divide, that the justice system is inherently racist, and that nonwhite schools remain deliberately segregated and therefore underfunded. Each Ramos query related to the inherent racism in the president’s immigration policies.

Their questions evoked the intended rhetorical pyrotechnics, which went beyond the indictments of the commander in chief to up the ante on the Democrats’ damnation of the entire country as thinly veiled Simon Legrees.

O’Rourke again: “Racism in America is endemic. It is foundational.”

Corey Booker: “Systemic racism … is eroding our nation from health care to the criminal justice system,” not to mention “environmental injustice in communities of color.”

Pastor Pete Buttigieg one-upped the “systemic racism” charge in referring to “the generational theft of the descendants of slaves” that “puts us in two countries.”

In fact, it’s arguable that Buttigieg boasted the second-lowest moment of the night with his own “deplorables” misstep by jumping feet-first into Ramos’ leading interrogative:

Ramos: “Do you think that people who support President Trump and his immigration policies are racist?”

Buttigieg: “Anyone who supports this is supporting racism.”

Hillary Clinton — call your office.

Better yet: Where is Joseph Nye Welch when we need him? Have these Democrats, at long last, have left no sense of decorum? And is there no moderator left who truly believes in moderating to call them to account?

Note to Readers: Issues & Insights is a new site launched by the seasoned journalists behind the legendary IBD Editorials page. Our mission is to use our decades of experience to provide timely, fact-based reporting and deeply informed analysis on the news of the day.

We’re doing this on a voluntary basis because we think our approach to commentary is sorely lacking both in today’s mainstream media and on the internet. If you like what you see, feel free to click the Tip Jar over on the right sidebar. And be sure to tell your friends!

We Could Use Your Help

Issues & Insights was founded by seasoned journalists of the IBD Editorials page. Our mission is to provide timely, fact-based reporting and deeply informed analysis on the news of the day -- without fear or favor.

We’re doing this on a voluntary basis because we believe in a free press, and because we aren't afraid to tell the truth, even if it means being targeted by the left. Revenue from ads on the site help, but your support will truly make a difference in keeping our mission going. If you like what you see, feel free to visit our Donations Page by clicking here. And be sure to tell your friends!

You can also subscribe to I&I: It's free!

Just enter your email address below to get started.


Bob Maistros

Bob Maistros, a messaging and communications strategist and crisis specialist, is of counsel with Strategic Action Public Affairs, and was chief writer for the Reagan-Bush ’84 campaign, three U.S. Senators, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He can be reached at


  • The press is in the tank for the Democrats. The democrats could say the most outrageous things about Republicans and the moderates will just sit there. In one moment the Dems condemn Trump for stirring hate, yet the Dems are often insinuating violence against Republicans, and no one says anything about it. Shameful and dangerous!

  • With all of Trump’s racist behavior, it’s good to have people call him out.
    It’s funny that the writer doesn’t even deny his behavior. he just spouts fake outrage.

  • to paraphrase the nancyboy mayor from southbend, anyone who votes democrat supports racism. there are no more racist people in this country then those who shout racism at every turn.

  • They yawn because half of the American public know it for a fact.

    Charlottesville, Puerto Rice, children in detention camps, and on and on and on.
    Perhaps you might be more concerned in finding out why so many Americans feel this way about Trump and why almost as many could care less.

    That is the issue upon which the republic may founder.

    • 1. Charlottesville, a conflict over historical memory which got out of control when violent counter-protesters sought to infringe on the free speech of supporters – a “no-win” Solomon-like dilemma for the President to navigate in real-time in full public view. There were/are “good people” on both sides of the debate as DJT observed before condemning “white supremacists”. Next:

      2. The racial component to the PR catastrophe exists only in the minds of those that choose to see it that way, in other words the race-obsessed.

      3. Protecting our borders from foreign trespassers is again only a racial concern when someone seeks out a racial element, highlights it and disregards all the real and meaningful components. In other words again the race-obsessed haters using it as a tool to tear someone down. Just like real racists do.

      Not persuaded.

    • Profoundly dumb. You simply pick up the memes advanced by the left and the leftish media who have adopted all of those memes and the entire vocabulary, you spit them out again, and expect them to stand as some sort of evidence, as if a thing can be true just because it’s stated that way.

      The point isn’t why “so many Americans feel that way about Trump.” Saturation marketing works. It’s no mystery. The point is whether it’s factually true, or whether there is any real evidence. It isn’t, and there’s not.

  • So tired and empty! DemocRats have nothing but hate. Nothing. Notice they never mention Chicago, where more people are killed than any 10 mass shootings. 387 dead since January, a DemocRat Paradise!

    • Democrats want to make things better in Chicago. You just want to blame Chicago and use it as a distraction.

  • When I was in management for a large corporation, I was coached by HR to evaluate my employees based solely on their observed behavior, what they did and said, not on my personal assessment of their character. All I hear is the accusation that Trump is a racist, instead of quoting a remark or tweet of his and labeling that as racist with cogent rationale. For example, the “Muslim ban” was actually a temporary ban on the entire population of several known terrorist countries as identified by the Obama administration. The liberal pundits and media calling it a Muslim ban of course makes it sound racist. The comment in Charlottesville is a classic case of releasing an edited portion of the story, making Trump sound entirely racist when in fact he was referring to both sides of those who were protesting for and against the Confederate statues. He soundly denounced the clan, etc. in his follow up remarks left on the editor’s floor of history. I have yet to hear Trump or any conservative or anyone I have been in contact with over my six decades in here on this planet speak or act in a racist manner. If Beto had said instead, “Racist in the Democratic Party (and the media) is endemic.” I would agree 100%. The proof is present 24/7 from my television.

  • Remind me again how our diversity is our strength. The entire democratic field is racist. They feed off the hatred they stir up . They pit the people they believe they can easily manipulate , who they have named “the people of color ” against those who resist their totalitarian aims, who they call “white people “. They despise both .

  • Why would any of these losers want to live in, let alone head such a horrible, racist country?

    • I love my country. I don’t love the racism. So I want to make it less racist. One thing will be to get rid of the racism at the top.

  • By noon today they’ll be talking about how “uncivil the national conversation is,” or something.

    This is university culture writ large — the mode in which every word-construct can be as “true” as any other, if it can be articulated at all. In fact, as support, you can continue to offer memes that have been proved false over and over (like the “Trump said neo-Nazis at Charlottesville were fine people” lie). All that matters is that it’s internally consistent, like a sophomore-level lit-crit paper.

  • All good points here, but the other non-mentioned is that whereas we used to understand and accept a certain degree of party pandering in the primary election process, these types of hyperbolic statements together with the actual policy proposals are so extreme and one-sided, it appears the very of Presidential politics has shifted.

    Not one of the current Dem candidates for President appears to be running for the President of all American citizens. The divorce between the two parties and their voters is so complete, the Dem candidates are uniformly playing only to their own base.

    I’m old enough to remember quite a few prior primary seasons. Candidates always pandered, but there used to be a lot of armchair analysis following debates about the craft and cleverness involved in carefully pitched statements during a primary debate and how much room a candidate was giving him/her self for “moving to the center” in the general election season.

    It’s striking how all of the Dem candidates’ statements are as subtle as a hammer blow. There is no walking back these statements. There is no wiggle room to fall back on in the general election. Sign of the times, I guess, but it leaves Dem candidates with only two choices: (1) adopt a jarring way-back in the general election on issue X, or (2) maintain these stances in the general.

    In times past, Option #2 was unthinkable. The American electorate would never have elected a Presidential candidate with such extreme policy positions or extreme rhetoric. But today? Who knows. Looking at the rhetoric (and actions — IRS Scandal, Kavanaugh, surveillance of GOP Presidential Candidate, “Direct Action” of activists, Antifa, etc., etc.) of the Dem candidates, Dem media figures, Dem interest groups and Dem voters, I can’t help but conclude that there are no longer any lines to cross. It’s a complete breakdown of all civility and reason.

    • It’s funny how you call all of the Democrats extreme, but seem blind to the extremism of the current administration.

  • “And is there no moderator left who truly believes in moderating to call them to account?” Of course not, at least not for these staged events. It’s all part of their narrative – just ask the New York Times.

  • Don’t forget the shooter in El Paso specifically said it wasn’t related to the President. The shooter in Ohio was a Dem supporter (notice how those presidential candidates manage to hide that), as was the Gabby Giffords shooter and the night club killer during Zero’s reign, and the other shooters this year. The Democrat oppressors can only hope and pray for something bad to happen – to the economy, to all races other than white folks, to criminal aliens in the country illegally – they can only preach hate and fear – that’s how they intend to overcome the positives of this administration and the benefits the Trump economy is providing as they seek power to control every aspect of your life.

About Issues & Insights

Issues & Insights is run by the seasoned journalists behind the legendary IBD Editorials page. Our goal is to bring our decades of combined journalism experience to help readers understand the top issues of the day. We’re doing this on a voluntary basis, because we believe the nation needs the kind of cogent, rational, data-driven, fact-based commentary that we can provide. 

We Could Use Your Help

Help us fight for honesty in journalism and against the tyranny of the left. Issues & Insights is published by the editors of what once was Investor's Business Daily's award-winning opinion pages. If you like what you see, leave a donation by clicking on donate button above. You can also set up regular donations if you like. Ad revenue helps, but your support will truly make a difference. (Please note that we are not set up as a charitable organization, so donations aren't tax deductible.) Thank you!