While discussing President Trump's recent tweets about the gun debate on New Day Thursday morning, CNN political analyst Joshua Green suggested that the tweets serve as proof that the President is "flailing" and "doesn't know what he's doing."
During a “listening session” with families of the victims of last week's Parkland School shooting, President Trump suggested that arming teachers might make schools safer; as they would no longer be soft targets. The media and the left ran with this, doing their best to paint it as a crackpot idea.
It probably came as quite a surprise to the hosts of New Day when the President fired off a tweet in the middle of the broadcast saying “I never said ‘give teachers guns’ like was stated on Fake News @CNN & @NBC. What I said was to look at the possibility of giving ‘concealed guns to gun adept teachers with military or special training experience - only the best.” Less than an hour later, President Trump tweeted again, “If a potential ‘sicko shooter’ knows that a school has a large number of very weapons talented teachers (and others) who will be instantly shooting, the sicko will NEVER attack that school. Cowards won’t go there...problem solved. Must be offensive, defense alone won’t work!” The New Day hosts welcomed Joshua Green, David Chailan, and Jonathan Martin to discuss the President’s suggestions and tweets.
According to Green, Trump is “trying to lead but kind of flailing in his ability to really come up with a policy that works.” He used the term “flailing” later in the segment, saying “when you see him attack the news and the media like he is in these tweets, that’s usually a sign that he’s flailing and he doesn’t really know what to do.” He also added that the American people should look to Congress for leadership on the gun issue because “Trump doesn’t seem to know what he’s doing.”
Cuomo then asked President Trump to “avoid the instinct to double down and get defensive”, adding “this is not a time to play to these kinds of divisions.” Maybe the media should practice what they preach. Journalists, without question, exploited the tragedy in Parkland to “play to the divisions” surrounding the gun debate. Cuomo said that a meaningful debate will mean “not resorting to this side’s bad, we’re good, this is stupid, this is smart, this is right, this is wrong.” Once again, the left could also benefit from that advice; as they have done everything they can to demonize the Republicans and the NRA in the wake of the latest mass shooting.
In a stunning twist of irony, Martin seemed to complain that the President is “trying to portray the image of responsiveness, of doing something” and later said, “he’s just trying to throw stuff out.” That’s exactly what the left is doing! They are just throwing out ideas, such as banning assault weapons, so they can say that they’re suggesting something without considering whether or not their proposals will actually work. The assault weapons ban obviously did not work, as the Columbine High School mass shooting took place in April 1999, five years after the passage of the Federal assault weapons ban. An assault weapons ban will not necessarily lead to widespread peace and tranquility.
More than a week after the Parkland shooting, two things remain perfectly clear. The media will not drop the gun control debate anytime soon and they will continue to mock President Trump for his use of Twitter as a way to communicate with the American people.
CNN New Day
CHRIS CUOMO: You are right and we’re seeing it in real time because Alisyn, he’s tweeting again. “If a potential ‘sicko shooter’ knows that a school has a large number of very weapons talented teachers (and others) who will be instantly shooting, the sicko will NEVER attack that school. Cowards won’t go there...problem solved. Must be offensive, defensive alone won’t work! J. Mart, we have had armed guards in schools before where there were shootings. And obviously, the shootings still occurred. But there is a, there’s style here. Right? This is, this is Trump getting criticized and now doubling down on a position...
JONATHAN MARTIN: It is that, yeah.
CUOMO: ...But there is a lot to this idea of having better security in schools could make a difference, make the schools hard targets. Where are Democrats with their level of acceptance of that idea?
MARTIN: I think the Democrats, if there were some efforts to add funding for additional security folks at school would probably be all for that. They’re not going to be for giving side pieces to teachers teaching algebra, I don’t think. That’s beyond the pale. But look, we’re sitting here responding to a President who is responding to TV coverage, that’s, it’s quite circular. But I guess this is the world that we’re in. Look, I think the fact is, he is trying to portray the image of responsiveness, of doing something. But his instinct is not thought out based on policy papers, based on conversations with, with experts at a think tank. He’s just trying to throw stuff out and I would remind you guys that he has a track record after there are all these terrible moments of instinctually turning to the idea of more weapons. After the, the Pulse nightclub shooting in 2016 in Orlando, he floated the idea of, of adding weapons there to, you know, the security guards at such nightclubs. And even the NRA at that point said, no, that’s not really where we’re at. So look, he’s responding to stuff. He is just floating ideas and often it is grounded in a more sort of pro-gun stance. But I think we have to be careful in not assuming that this is where he’s actually going to land on the issue. As we know, he tweets about all manner of things. He floats changing libel laws probably once a month. It doesn’t happen. So I think we have to see what actual bill gets to his desk. And I think that’s going to be important is, what kind of cover will he give to his party on Capitol Hill in terms of what, what kind of bill they can move to get on his desk.
ALISYN: Yeah. Hey, Josh, you now, listen, being here at the ground zero in Parkland of school shootings right now, what I hear from the people here and the teachers and the students is that they’re, they’re open, okay, these students are too young to already be indoctrinated with some position. They’re open to suggestion if it worked. So prove to them that that’s effective. Show them the data that arming teachers would be effective, and I think they might be open to it. But at the moment, it’s just sort of this notion that that might help. And what they hear from their teachers is that that’s not why they got into teaching. That the teachers themselves don’t feel equipped to take on a crazed armed gunman. Last night at the town hall, one of the teachers from here talked about that. Listen to this.
ASHLEY KURTH, STONEMAN DOUGLAS HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER: Am I supposed to get extra training now to serve and protect on top of educate these children? Am I supposed to have a kevlar vest, am I supposed to strap it to my leg or put it in my desk?
CAMEROTA: I mean, Josh, some teachers might be willing to do that. But obviously, we would have to know if that actually works.
JOSH GREEN: Well, we would. And one thing I think you have to understand here is that this is pretty clearly the NRA position; more guns, not less guns. And I think Trump pivots there instinctively when he’s trying to lead but kind of flailing in his inability to really come up with a policy that works. I think one of the problems you saw in his little tweet storm this morning was that, you know, arming guards and having that be a deterrent doesn’t quite make sense when you think about the fact that a lot of these shooters are either mentally ill or suicidal. I don’t think there’s any reason to think they’d be deterred by the fact that some people on campus might have guns. They’re there to kill and in some cases, wind up being killed themselves. We’ve seen that happen in numerous school shootings. I think the more encouraging sign came in the CNN town hall last night in Marco Rubio’s willingness to embrace new positions, bans on high capacity magazine clips, raising the age limit to buy rifles. If that signifies a real change in the current of the Republican debate over guns and gun control, I think that could be meaningful and produce something finally that might be a fundamental change. But if that’s going to happen, it sure seems like, based on the last 48 hours, that that leadership is going to have to come from the Congress and not the White House because Trump doesn’t seem to know what he’s doing. And the other thing, when you see him attack the news and the media like he is in these tweets, that’s usually a sign that he’s flailing and he doesn’t really know what to do. So I wouldn’t look there for, for leadership on this issue necessarily.
CUOMO: Let’s try to do it a little different. David, there’s no question the President is monitoring, and this is a tricky situation, Mr. President. If you can avoid the instinct to double down and get defensive. This is not a time to play to these kinds of divisions. You have a chance to make a difference here. You came out and said you want to make a difference. You have lawmakers who have unique emotional momentum around them. This is a chance that something can get done if things are done differently. And David, that’s going to mean not resorting to this side’s bad, we’re good, this is stupid, this is smart, this is right, this is wrong. It has to be done differently if anything is going to change.
DAVID CHAILAN: Well, that is certainly true because it has been proven to be an intractable problem in many ways thus far. But I, but, what the tweets indicate to me is that what Jonathan was saying is what kind of political cover will the President apply to his party on this issue? Well, this morning, it indicates he may not be all that interested in doing that. He retreated to a corner to fortify a position he was in, to sort of, it seems to me, prepare for a battle over this rather than actually reaching across to start finding solutions and giving political cover to many of his fellow Republicans. This indicates to me the idea that something’s going to get done may be not as near as perhaps Marco Rubio’s movement last night suggested to some.