White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt pulled quite a pivot at Monday’s briefing to reporters.
Leavitt hailed Charlie Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk, for “one of the greatest acts of grace this world has ever seen” in forgiving her husband’s assassin at his memorial. But then Leavitt quickly turned to assailing Democrats for their alleged lack of grace.
“This past Friday, 58 House Democrats voted no and 38 voted present on a resolution that simply stated: ‘condemning in the strongest possible terms the assassination of Charles James Kirk and all forms of political violence,’” she said. “There were no strings attached to this vote.”
Republicans have increasingly highlighted the vote to attack Democrats. They’ve often compared it to a June resolution condemning the assassination of Democratic Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman that passed 424-0.
“The entire House unanimously supported to … condemn the assassination and honor the life” of Hortman, Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma told CNN’s Dana Bash on Sunday. “That same resolution with the name changed said Charlie Kirk. What happened?”
But the issue is a lot more complicated than that.
In fact, the resolution was not “the same” as the one condemning Hortman’s assassination, particularly in the level of acclaim it included for Kirk, whose politics Democrats found more than just moderately disagreeable.
The resolution labeled Kirk a “courageous American patriot.” It said he lived his faith with “courage” and “compassion.” It called him a “fierce defender of the American founding.” It said he was “always seeking to elevate truth.” It said he conducted himself “with honor, courage, and respect for his fellow Americans.” It hailed his “steadfast dedication to the Constitution” and to “civil discourse.”
These are not sentiments that Democrats generally agreed applied to Kirk in recent years; quite the opposite, in fact. While condemning the assassination, they have long objected vociferously to Kirk’s brand of politics and his comments about Black and transgender people, among many other subjects.
But they had to vote either to affirm those laurels or against condemning Kirk’s assassination in the terms that were set forward.
About half of Democrats decided they couldn’t support that.
Notably, the level of praise for Kirk in the resolution is a marked contrast to other recent resolutions condemning political violence.
Perhaps the best comparison is to a Senate resolution passed earlier last week that didn’t include such extensive praise of Kirk. It merely described him as a “devoted husband, father, and Christian” and said he “frequently engaged college students of all political backgrounds in open debates and discussion, encouraging civil discourse on college campuses.”
This measure passed by unanimous consent — meaning that unlike in the House, no Democrats objected.
Despite Mullin’s claim that the Hortman resolution was “the same” as the House Kirk resolution except for the name attached, it did not praise her nearly as much. It at one point called Hortman a “formidable public servant” with “deep devotion, compassion, and strength.” It also cited her “tireless efforts to serve the people of Minnesota.” But that was the extent.
The House Kirk resolution is an even bigger contrast to a resolution the Senate passed by unanimous consent in 2015 after a White supremacist massacre at a Black church in Charleston, South Carolina. The massacre claimed the life of a Democratic state senator, the Rev. Clementa Pinckney, and eight others.
The 2015 resolution did not include specific praise of Pinckney or the other victims.
Ditto a 1972 resolution on the attempted assassination of George Wallace that was signed into law.
The Senate also took care not to politicize such resolutions after the assassination attempt against President Donald Trump in Pennsylvania last year.
The initial resolution on the attack was a very straightforward condemnation and was actually co-sponsored by 90 of 100 senators, including the vast majority of Democrats.
Another resolution on the one-year anniversary this summer made a point to also highlight attacks on Democratic politicians that occurred in the intervening period — not just the Hortman assassination, but also the arson attack at Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s residence.
Both passed by unanimous consent.
Democrats have assailed House Republicans for what they have cast as needlessly politicizing the Kirk resolution.
“My deep regret that Mr. Kirk was killed and my respect for his First Amendment right to express himself freely does not make him someone that should be elevated as a role model for the American public,” Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi said.
Thompson added: “This resolution is intentionally written to be divisive, and I must oppose it.”
Whether the resolution is ultimately something Democrats should have voted for anyway is for people to make their own decisions about. But it’s clear House Republicans were putting Democrats in a tough spot by making it unlike other recent resolutions in similar circumstances. (The fact that there was no real dissension over the Senate’s version demonstrates that.)
It’s not uncommon for majorities to pull such a move with symbolic resolutions; it’s part of the benefit of being in control and being able to massage the language of the things you’re voting on.
But usually that’s not the case with such high-profile tragedies, when there’s been a premium on bringing people together for a show of unity.
That an assassination would now devolve into such politicking is truly a sign of our political time.
For more CNN news and newsletters create an account at CNN.com
