While the president condemned the violence and hate, he softened his criticism by blaming "all sides" for the violence. This may have been technically accurate. But by not specifically condemning white supremacists and most importantly, their rancid ideology, the president played into the hands of his critics who are now condemning his statement as "insufficient."

My colleague Rick Moran is highly critical of President Trump for equally condemning those who came to Charlottesville, VA seeking violence on behalf of their version of justice in racial issues:

Those critics were going to slam the president no matter what he said or did. Former Governor Mike Huckabee put it well this morning on Fox and Friends: “If President Trump helicoptered down to Charlottesville, went into the jail and shot the lethal driver, critics would say he used the wrong caliber gun.” (I quote form memory and may paraphrase a little.)

I am sorry, but maintaining that a President of the United States must shape his actions according to what the media and his critics (but I repeat myself) might say is an abject surrender. This is the standard operating procedure of Republicans pre-Trump, and it has brought us to our current mess. Rick admits that the substance of Trump’s reaction matters less than the form. He must jump through the hoops that are being held up for him by the media:

Trump has condemned white supremacists in the past and said he "disavows" them. So why isn't that enough? As long as the racists continue to identify themselves with Trump and brag about electing him, he is vulnerable to the charge of being insufficiently vigorous in denouncing them.

Certainly, in the eyes of the mainstream media, Rick is correct. They have been attempting to portray Trump as a Nazi, which is so deranged that anyone making the comparison is clearly a nut. Nazis do not marry off their favorite daughter to an orthodox Jew, watch her convert, and produce Jewish grandchildren.

The media campaign to require Trump to blame one side more than the other is an attempt to enforce two pillars of the orthodoxy of American victimology:

In any conflict, the position taken by any African-American group or “leader” (even Black Lives Matter – “ pigs in a blanket – fry ‘em like bacon ” -- whose banners were visible yesterday in Charlottesville) is by definition morally superior to their critics. Words that any member of a victim class object to are sufficient provocation to violence, because words are themselves violence.

I detest anyone who identifies as a Nazi, but even they are protected by the First Amendment, so long as they do not incite violence. It is sad that this disclaimer is even necessary. When they are violent, lock ‘em up.

But I do not confer any kind of moral standing on the likes of Black Lives Matter, or anyone else who went to Charlottesville seeking to attack the demonstrators.

I hope and expect the president will have more to say, and while condemning Nazis, remain even-handed. I condemn everyone that seeks to oppress others on the basis of race, no matter which race is being demoinized.